Difference between revisions of "Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Law"
(New page: Okay, so piecing this together, Keegan saw that an anon had outed Law as The undertow on Law's talk page. The talk-page history shows that two edits were oversighted on August 16, the pag...) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
Okay, so piecing this together, Keegan saw that an anon had outed Law as The undertow on Law's talk page. The talk-page history shows that two edits were oversighted on August 16, the page protected, and the anon blocked. The implication is that someone used oversight to hide that Law had violated an ArbCom ban and had gained adminship by lying to the community. And that other admins blocked the whistleblower and protected the page against further revelations. | Okay, so piecing this together, Keegan saw that an anon had outed Law as The undertow on Law's talk page. The talk-page history shows that two edits were oversighted on August 16, the page protected, and the anon blocked. The implication is that someone used oversight to hide that Law had violated an ArbCom ban and had gained adminship by lying to the community. And that other admins blocked the whistleblower and protected the page against further revelations. | ||
If the above is anywhere near correct, this isn't something anyone should be covering up. I appreciate your point about the atmosphere of heads rolling, Thatcher, but this is not a good situation. I'm thinking in particular that these admins and the oversighter wouldn't have helped someone violate an ArbCom ban unless they believed the ArbCom was okay with it. What's puzzling me is what was special about The undertow that this would happen. Is it just that he was friendly with people on IRC, or am I missing something? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | If the above is anywhere near correct, this isn't something anyone should be covering up. I appreciate your point about the atmosphere of heads rolling, Thatcher, but this is not a good situation. I'm thinking in particular that these admins and the oversighter wouldn't have helped someone violate an ArbCom ban unless they believed the ArbCom was okay with it. What's puzzling me is what was special about The undertow that this would happen. Is it just that he was friendly with people on IRC, or am I missing something? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 6: | Line 5: | ||
At least three administrators knew that Law == Undertow, but still either actively helped Law to become an administrator again, or, such as in arbitrator Casliber's case, held their tongue and just didn't say anything even though they had misgivings. For more info | At least three administrators knew that Law == Undertow, but still either actively helped Law to become an administrator again, or, such as in arbitrator Casliber's case, held their tongue and just didn't say anything even though they had misgivings. For more info | ||
| − | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Law | + | *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Law Law's Request for administration] |
| − | http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=317613116#Community_ban_discussion_regarding_The_undertow | + | *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=317613116#Community_ban_discussion_regarding_The_undertow Community ban regarding the undertow] |
| − | + | *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=317612544#Administrators_aiding_a_sock_puppet_at_RFA Administrators aiding a sock puppet] | |
| − | http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=317612544#Administrators_aiding_a_sock_puppet_at_RFA | ||
Revision as of 09:00, 3 October 2009
Okay, so piecing this together, Keegan saw that an anon had outed Law as The undertow on Law's talk page. The talk-page history shows that two edits were oversighted on August 16, the page protected, and the anon blocked. The implication is that someone used oversight to hide that Law had violated an ArbCom ban and had gained adminship by lying to the community. And that other admins blocked the whistleblower and protected the page against further revelations. If the above is anywhere near correct, this isn't something anyone should be covering up. I appreciate your point about the atmosphere of heads rolling, Thatcher, but this is not a good situation. I'm thinking in particular that these admins and the oversighter wouldn't have helped someone violate an ArbCom ban unless they believed the ArbCom was okay with it. What's puzzling me is what was special about The undertow that this would happen. Is it just that he was friendly with people on IRC, or am I missing something? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
At least three administrators knew that Law == Undertow, but still either actively helped Law to become an administrator again, or, such as in arbitrator Casliber's case, held their tongue and just didn't say anything even though they had misgivings. For more info
