AC2020: MfD - Revision history

Sashi at 11:23, 2 August 2020

2020-08-02T11:23:28Z

Sashi at 11:23, 2 August 2020

2020-08-02T11:23:00Z

Sashi at 11:22, 2 August 2020

2020-08-02T11:22:19Z

Sashi at 11:21, 2 August 2020

2020-08-02T11:21:13Z

Sashi at 11:20, 2 August 2020

2020-08-02T11:20:45Z

Sashi at 11:18, 2 August 2020

2020-08-02T11:18:28Z

Sashi at 11:17, 2 August 2020

2020-08-02T11:17:28Z

Sashi: Created page with "I noticed that the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SashiRolls/AC2020:_Oppose_CBan_at_AN Mob recently voted] to remove evidence from the m..."

2020-08-02T11:16:08Z

Created page with "I noticed that the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SashiRolls/AC2020:_Oppose_CBan_at_AN Mob recently voted] to remove evidence from the m..."

New page

I noticed that the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SashiRolls/AC2020:_Oppose_CBan_at_AN Mob recently voted] to remove evidence from the most recently declined case (the one that SmallBones is fretting over at the moment for his unwritten Arbitration Report).

The idea seems to be to break the links in my recent case, in order to make sure no future journalists or historians will be able to find the evidence easily. Unfortunately, this strategy of deleting evidence is the path of most drama. I have screenshots showing that the MfD did indeed have the typical Streisand Effect on Wikipedia in the short term. More people looked at the evidence presented because of the "Miscellany for deletion" discussion than because of the ArbCom case. In the long term though, it did get rid of the compromising evidence successfully.

BMK started that MfD & Trypto commented, then BMK started a discussion on the ArbCom noticeboard where Trypto also commented. One of WPO's commissioned arbies [size=68](the broxy one) said (as I understand it). We are not the People's Court." (ed. more of a police review board)

<blockquote>ArbCom didn't say anything more or less other than that the case wasn't within their jurisdiction. No writ of certiorari so to speak.

WaltCip: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=970132350#Smokey_Joe_is_attempting_to_re-litigate_the_SashiRolls_case source]</blockquote>

So, SmallBones fidgets as policy gets changed over at the flash-banning [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#RfC:_Increase_minimum_length_for_site_ban_discussions RfC].

I didn't break Wikipedia as Dr.JJ suggested, but I ''might'' have dented the Signpost a little on my way out. ^_^

You might find that page interesting too, Lightbreather link disappears [i]very[/i] soon: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Arbitration_report §]. I guess the SignPost is meant to be an in-flight magazine, it doesn't want to alarm the wiki-wiki go-fast runners and riders with too much sneezing.

[[Category:AC2020]]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 <blockquote>ArbCom didn't say anything more or less other than that the case wasn't within their jurisdiction. No writ of certiorari so to speak.
-<br /><br />
+<br />
-&mdash; ''WaltCip'' ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=970132350#Smokey_Joe_is_attempting_to_re-litigate_the_SashiRolls_case source])</blockquote>
+&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&mdash; ''WaltCip'' ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=970132350#Smokey_Joe_is_attempting_to_re-litigate_the_SashiRolls_case source])</blockquote>
 So, SmallBones fidgets as policy gets changed over at the flash-banning [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#RfC:_Increase_minimum_length_for_site_ban_discussions RfC].

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 <blockquote>ArbCom didn't say anything more or less other than that the case wasn't within their jurisdiction. No writ of certiorari so to speak.
 <br /><br />
-&mdash; ''WaltCip'' ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=970132350#Smokey_Joe_is_attempting_to_re-litigate_the_SashiRolls_case source]</blockquote)>
+&mdash; ''WaltCip'' ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=970132350#Smokey_Joe_is_attempting_to_re-litigate_the_SashiRolls_case source])</blockquote>
 So, SmallBones fidgets as policy gets changed over at the flash-banning [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#RfC:_Increase_minimum_length_for_site_ban_discussions RfC].

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 I noticed that the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SashiRolls/AC2020:_Oppose_CBan_at_AN Mob recently voted] to remove evidence from the most recently declined case (the one that SmallBones is fretting over at the moment for his unwritten Arbitration Report).
-The idea seems to be to break the links in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=966870810 my recent case request], in order to make sure no future journalists or historians will be able to find the evidence easily.   Unfortunately, this strategy of deleting evidence is the path of most drama.  I have screenshots showing that the MfD did indeed have the typical Streisand Effect on Wikipedia in the short term.  More people looked at the evidence presented because of the "Miscellany for deletion" discussion than because of the ArbCom case.  In the long term though, it did get rid of the compromising evidence successfully.
+The idea seems to be to break the links in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=966870810 my only case request] ever, in order to make sure no future journalists or historians will be able to find the evidence easily.   Unfortunately, this strategy of deleting evidence is the path of most drama.  I have screenshots showing that the MfD did indeed have the typical Streisand Effect on Wikipedia in the short term.  More people looked at the evidence presented because of the "Miscellany for deletion" discussion than because of the ArbCom case.  In the long term though, it did get rid of the compromising evidence successfully.
 BMK started that MfD <span style="font-size:68%;">& Trypto commented,</span> then BMK started a discussion on the ArbCom noticeboard <span style="font-size:68%;">where Trypto also commented.</span>   One of WPO's commissioned arbies <span style="font-size:68%;">(the broxy one)</span> said <span style="font-size:68%;">(as I understand it)</span>.  We are not the People's Court." <span style="font-size:85%;color:#062;">(ed. more of a police review board)</span>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 I noticed that the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SashiRolls/AC2020:_Oppose_CBan_at_AN Mob recently voted] to remove evidence from the most recently declined case (the one that SmallBones is fretting over at the moment for his unwritten Arbitration Report).
-The idea seems to be to break the links in my recent case, in order to make sure no future journalists or historians will be able to find the evidence easily.   Unfortunately, this strategy of deleting evidence is the path of most drama.  I have screenshots showing that the MfD did indeed have the typical Streisand Effect on Wikipedia in the short term.  More people looked at the evidence presented because of the "Miscellany for deletion" discussion than because of the ArbCom case.  In the long term though, it did get rid of the compromising evidence successfully.
+The idea seems to be to break the links in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=966870810 my recent case request], in order to make sure no future journalists or historians will be able to find the evidence easily.   Unfortunately, this strategy of deleting evidence is the path of most drama.  I have screenshots showing that the MfD did indeed have the typical Streisand Effect on Wikipedia in the short term.  More people looked at the evidence presented because of the "Miscellany for deletion" discussion than because of the ArbCom case.  In the long term though, it did get rid of the compromising evidence successfully.
 BMK started that MfD <span style="font-size:68%;">& Trypto commented,</span> then BMK started a discussion on the ArbCom noticeboard <span style="font-size:68%;">where Trypto also commented.</span>   One of WPO's commissioned arbies <span style="font-size:68%;">(the broxy one)</span> said <span style="font-size:68%;">(as I understand it)</span>.  We are not the People's Court." <span style="font-size:85%;color:#062;">(ed. more of a police review board)</span>

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 I didn't break Wikipedia as Dr.JJ suggested, but I ''might'' have dented the Signpost a little on my way out.   ^_^
-You might find that page interesting too, Lightbreather <span style="font-size:68%;">link disappears [i]very[/i] soon: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Arbitration_report §].</span>  I guess the SignPost is meant to be an in-flight magazine, it doesn't want to alarm the wiki-wiki go-fast runners and riders with too much sneezing.
+[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Arbitration_report §] I guess the SignPost is meant to be an in-flight magazine, it doesn't want to alarm the wiki-wiki go-fast runners and riders with too much sneezing.
 [[Category:AC2020]]