Difference between revisions of "Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Law"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
The reason for the block was never made public, but an ex-member of the Arbitration committee has claimed that Undertow " threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge biography on the person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy". [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=26748&view=findpost&p=197595] | The reason for the block was never made public, but an ex-member of the Arbitration committee has claimed that Undertow " threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge biography on the person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy". [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=26748&view=findpost&p=197595] | ||
| − | Shortly afterwards, Undertow rejoined Wikipedia as User Law in September 2008 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=newusers&user=Law&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=], making over five thousand edits, nearly half of which were in mainspace, | + | Shortly afterwards, Undertow rejoined Wikipedia as User Law in September 2008 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=newusers&user=Law&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=], making over five thousand edits by March 2009, nearly half of which were in mainspace, when he was proposed for adminship by 'GlassCobra'. |
User Keegan saw that an anon IP 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. | User Keegan saw that an anon IP 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. | ||
Revision as of 15:39, 3 October 2009
User Law was a Wikipedia editor and administrator who had previously been banned as editor 'The Undertow' by the powerful Arbitration committee in 2008, but who returned to become an administrator. This fact was known to at least three administrators who knew Law's identity, but actively helped Law to become an administrator again, or, as in the case of one Arbitration committee member, kept silent and said nothing even though they knew the truth. This incident caused concern among many members of the community, because of the implication that its administration was a closed circle of friends and enablers, with one law for those in the circle, and another for the outsiders.
Background
User The_Undertow began editing in August 2006 [1], mostly reverting vandalism[2]. Undertow was blocked by Raul654 on 16 June 2008 with an expiry time of 9 months "Per discussion on the arbcom mailing list" [3]
The reason for the block was never made public, but an ex-member of the Arbitration committee has claimed that Undertow " threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge biography on the person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy". [4]
Shortly afterwards, Undertow rejoined Wikipedia as User Law in September 2008 [5], making over five thousand edits by March 2009, nearly half of which were in mainspace, when he was proposed for adminship by 'GlassCobra'.
User Keegan saw that an anon IP 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.
Adminstrator connivance
"He's my best friend. Big deal. I trust him. That's why I supported him. I don't care if he broke a rule on a website. He wanted to get into new areas, I knew his intentions were good (which is more than I can say for most of the RFAs I vote in, where I assume the intentions for people I don't know are good), so I supported him. I'll always have his back no matter what, because we're friends regardless of what's going on with Wikipedia. I would never put a website before a friendship. And I would never not get his back because I'm an admin. If you don't trust me with my tools, recall me, but I won't be admonished for supporting my best friend. Lara 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)" [6]
User GlassCobra admits to knowing Law in real life. " It is quite a mystery to me why this particular instance seems to be generating such a dramastorm. " [7]
Caused concern among other members of the community, because defending friends "No matter what" implies that no matter what policy a friend breaches, the other friend will cover for them and assist them to evade repercussions. and that It is not enough to trust someone without revealing their secret. If the trust was justified, an appeal would have been successful and allowed him to regain adminship honestly, rather than purposefully assisting a friend in regaining adminship with an alternate account.
