En-WP:Press Release / An Open Letter to ArbCom

From Creolista!
Revision as of 02:58, 25 June 2017 by WikiSysop (talk | contribs) (→‎Categories created)
Jump to: navigation, search

Subject: Astroturfing and censorship

Introduction

This page will contain an Open Letter to the Arbitration Committee, a link to which will be sent at the same time as links will be sent to tech journalists at the major news outlets covering Wikipedia and the WMF public relations department. All of this text is governed by a CC/BY license in the spirit of transparency.


Sagecandor opened their account on Nov 17, 2016, a little over a week after the US presidential election. They edited English Wikipedia intensely until the 22nd of December, 2016 and during these first 30 days on Wikipedia they demonstrating a remarkable mastery of some of the more complicated processes, syntax, procedures, rules and power centers on Wikipedia. (In fact already many people both on and off wiki had identified them as a faux new account. During this time, they began work in particular on the entry "fake news webpage" (a page that the WMF's Victor Grigias was interested in at the time too and which the September 2016 Minassian media audit suggested should be a priority for the WMF). They largely disappeared immediately after getting me banned on December 19th, 2016 (in principle because I asked him why he was promoting "And you are lynching Negroes" for Good Article status, but in reality because they knew I'd sensed they were not the meek new editor they were claiming to be). They then returned in February 2017 primarily (I believe) to test the idea that Wikipedia entries about books are not easily deleted. They took another break until May, then they got back into "battlefield editing" for a while before mass editing three bibliographies: i) books by or about Donald Trump and ii) books by Malcolm Nance and iii) books about Russian spying. 19 book reviews averaging over 20K each.

I have been indefinitely banned from en.wiki for notifying Sagecandor that evidence of astroturfing was publicly available to the press, and that it might be more helpful to Wikipedia as a project that they focus on community-identified vital pages, rather than "becoming wiki-voice" on a certain number of DNC talking points: Donald Trump & US-Russian relations.

If I were to cherry pick one edit from all I've seen from Sagecandor to paint that account as really WP:NOTHERE, it could be this rhetorical redirect they created from "Sources and Methods to "Clandestine Human Intelligence" ( § ). Or I could also find an example of bullying, if asked, there is a lot of data on The Sagecandor Incident, only some of which is reproduced here.

At 14:30 I congratulated them on their many book review reviews at "Bibliography of Donald Trump"; eight minutes later at 14:38 they plopped down 11K of an amazingly intricate complaint and began calling up the troops to have me banned from Wikipedia for daring to question their "sources and methods". I was indefinitely banned less than 20 hours later, and the substance of the complaint (astroturfing) was not addressed even once. This is how things are done on English Wikipedia. Paint any criticism as a personal attack...

To understand how the cabal works, it is important to compare the expert witnesses who answered the call to come defend "Snooganssnoogans"—who got caught mass-POV editing in late May (see case below)—with those who came to help Sagecandor attack me in June to avoid addressing the substance of the talk page comment (letting Wikipedia readers know on whose authority most of these book entries to the encyclopedia were written). Many of these "jurors" / "expert witnesses" are the same, including the following subset of some larger groupings:

Journalists or Wikipedians wishing to study this further would probably do well to look into the "editors" subforum at Wikipedia Review, where there are several perspectives on these folks and their protectors. Some threads of particular interest: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Sagecandor. My own thread there is post-banning. Anyone wishing to look into my own en.wiki editing history is welcome to, I won't take you to Arbitration Enforcement if you do. ^^

  • Bullrangifer
  • Neutrality
  • Objective 3000
  • TimothyJosephWood
  • Volunteer Marek

Archived info

Evidence of Astroturfing

Major Themes

The major themes that Sagecandor works on have varied over time. Just after the election the focus was on fake news and on the Russian interference in the US election story. Since returning while it's true they've also been involved in the Whopper dispute, they've remained focused on the issues that originally interested them (Seth Rich, Pizzagate, etc.):

But have moved on to other issues, such as...

(more below, for the moment let's not get ahead of the story)

Proof of Concept

To test whether it was easy to delete book review reviews or not, in February 2017, Sagecandor nominated a couple of books for deletion.
In Wikipedia jargon, he "initiated an AfD" (Article for Deletion) for the following books:

One account present in both deletion discussions was Captain Raju, who appears to work in that area of Wikipedia.

Book Reviews / Did you know (DYK) / Good Article (GA)

These book reviews were authored from 2 Jun to 22 Jun 2017. For new ones, you can look at their contributions, though they seem to have taken a break now that their astro-turfing has been identified. A fellow critic estimated that each book review might take around 4 hours, and assuming that they have a reasonable system of vacuuming up references and converting them to Wiki-syntax automatically, I would be ready to believe that (though it is much, much faster than my own rate of production).

So, 19 book reviews x 4 hours each (min.) = 76 hours of work from 2 June to 23 June. Most likely the work was actually done after the test of concept in late February. Given the 7-10 hour editing days in May and June, with major texts being plopped down in a matter minutes, it would be very difficult to believe only a single person was involved with the account. More logical, given the consistent prolix style (from what I've read), is that the articles were mostly written between March and June after it had been established that book entries were tough to delete.

  1. Disinformation: 2 June 2017 | history | 16K | 27K | (DYK nomination), self-nominated it for GA (awaiting review)
  2. The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: 3 June 2017 | history | 18K | 18K
  3. Dezinformatsia: 3 June 2017 | history | 21K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (review pending)
  4. The Case for Impeachment: 5 June 2017 | history | 28K | 31K | Sage nominated this entry for GA, which it failed.
  5. The Plot to Hack America: 7 June 2017 | history | 26K | 31K | Sage nominated this entry for GA (review not yet undertaken), discussed below (see Malcolm Nance, below)
  6. Defeating ISIS: 8 June 2017 | history | 25K | 24K | AFD nomination, failed/withdrawn from GA, discussed below (see Malcolm Nance, below)
  7. Final Report of the Task Force on Combating Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel: 10 Jun 2017 | history | 28K | 29K |
  8. The Terrorists of Iraq: 9 June 2017 | history | 21K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
  9. An End to al-Qaeda: 9 June 2017 | history | 20K | 20K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
  10. Terrorist Recognition Handbook: 10 June 2017| history | 22K | 22K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
  11. Trump: The Kremlin Connection: 11 June 2017 | history | 20K | 20K
  12. Think Big and Kick Ass: 13 June 2017 | history | 38K | 38K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
  13. Why You Want to be Rich: 14 June 2017 | history | 20K | 22K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
  14. Midas Touch: 15 June 2017 | history | 23K | 24K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
  15. Insane Clown President: 16 June 2017 | history | 30K | 30K | DYK nomination
  16. Time to Get Tough: 17 June 2017 | history | 31K | 30K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review)
  17. Trump Tower: A Novel: 20 June 2017 | history | 18K | 21K | DYK nomination, indefinite full move protect request
  18. Trump 101: 22 June 2017 | history | 23K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), DYK nomination
  19. Trump Revealed: 23 June 2017 | history | 42K | 41K | DYK + GA nomination

Total new book review text (as revised): 468K (counts only reviews themselves, this does not include talk pages, GA self-nominations, GA QPQ, DYK, DYK QPQ, noticeboards, talk pages of those who challenge their edits, author pages, book review outlets, book publishers, RS/N, etc.)

Categories created

Because it is quite time-consuming to list all the categories, I've focused on just a very few of those that they've created this month (these were created in the space of a few minutes). There is little point searching for all of the categories they created... I did notice these in particular, though...

  • Music critical of Donald Trump (history)
  • Works critical of Donald Trump (history)
  • Films critical of Donald Trump (history)
  • Books critical of Donald Trump (history)
  • Parodies of Donald Trump (history)
Miscellaneous pages
  • Memorandum of Conversation: 17 May 2017 | history | 1K | 4K
  • Great America Committee: 19 May 2017 | history | 11K | 11K
  • 2016 Trump Campaign Leaks: 30 May 2017 | history [ 36K | redirected | AFD nomination (for redirected article), content originally from another en.wiki page Sagecandor has worked extensively on.
  • TrumpiLeaks (website): 7 June 2017 | history | 19K | 19K
  • Roy Godson: 3 June 2017 | history | 3K | 6K
  • Clint Watts: 3 June 2017 | history | 6K | 31K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review)
  • Michael R. Caputo: 8 June 2017 | history | 18K | 18K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review)
  • rewrote the Wikipedia entry for the New York Journal of Books (post rewrite), quintupling its size (original) because it was the only entity that had reviewed The Plot to Hack America.
  • rewrote Malcolm Nance (contribs)
Link-spamming Sage's book reviews to political opponents' BLP pages

One example I noticed because I follow Tulsi Gabbard's page. Captain Raju added the link to Sagecandor's book review review to eight pages using the same method.

Behavior

I am aware that I am not the only person that Sagecandor has attacked and others have told me that they are willing to share their stories. I am not in contact with all of the people I have seen bullied or misrepresented by Sagecandor along the way. But I do know of at least five current or former Wikipedians journalists (or Arbitrators) could contact for comment.

an "Outsider" gets TP-Gagged


excerpted from my talk page at en.wiki (source)



I do not see how informing ArbCom of some of the facts about this pretty clearcut case of astroturfing is "intimidation", it would seem (again) that it could be more correctly referred to as notifiying them that they have a PR headache down the road because the Community continues to protect its various cabals rather than address the obvious COI problems.1

It took a while for the first account I pointed out to ArbCom to get sanctioned by the community for Mass POV editing (see link below to TParis v. Snooganssnoogans). I suppose I could be patient and wait for you to be faced with an overwhelming communinty based call to address this problem, but I think I'd prefer to have the public informed / warned (yet again) of the terrible COI between the English Wikipedia and the Democratic establishment.

[...]

[I]t's unfortunate you did not remember the advice of TRM: behind every account there is a human being. Talk more, block less, etc. This is why, in diff 3 when I provide the list of SC's 18 recent book review reviews, I congratulate them for their output, even if I know that it is dangerous to the encylopedia to have so much weight provided by one account and the RW person (or people) who are making use of that role account.

You are welcome for the scholarship added to your François Rabelais entry. I am sorry to learn that you have taken this action to pander to (vocal parts of) the community who value the current DNC fear-the-Russians-and-fear-Trump agenda more than actual encyclopedic content. SashiRolls (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)



  • As you are blocked for an indefinite period of time, your talk page should be used if you seen to appeal or modify your block. It isn't for soapboxing, casting aspersions or making vague and unsubstantiated claims about others. You can email Arb any information regarding what you consider to be OUTing and that information will be held in the strictest confidence. You may use this page to file your appeal, asking someone else to copy/paste it to the proper venue. If you use your page for anything that remotely breaches policy, you will have your talk page access removed, and WP:UTRS (or Arb) will be your only avenues to appeal your sanctions. I'm not going to debate the finer points of your block (which I stayed uninvolved in) or my comments herein as they speak for themselves, and instead just tell you that you have received fair warning. You know me well enough to know I don't warn twice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)



Hi Dennis, thanks for your comment. I'm not sure exactly what you meant by "seen" in your sentence above (I assume it is a typo for "want"?) your talk page should be used if you seen to appeal or modify your block.

If so, yes I do want to appeal or modify my block, so it seems to me a justifiable use of my talk page based on what you said above. In doing so it would be wise to point out the obvious: the so-called "community" calling for my indef block also testified for leniency in the mass-POV editing case TParis v. Snooganssnoogans (20-24 May), to wit: Sagecandor, Neutrality, Bullrangifer, Volunteer Marek, TimothyJosephWood and Objective3000. Tryptofish & Neutrality were also both involved in arguing for the inclusion of a copyright violation of a piece placed in an IAC paper (Chelsea Clinton on the BoD). The piece was written by a DNC-associated author and the copyvio was added to the BLP page of a political opponent within 24 hours of its appearance. (Jill Stein BLP) (as was pointed out in evidence provided in the case). Tryptofish testified against me without providing any evidence in December and Neutrality's August 8th comment on my talk page was adduced against me as "evidence" in 2016 & again in 2017. Dennis Brown and Goldenring were involved in both the Snoog's case and Sage's case, but this seems to be primarily a consequence of their function as administrators who work the AE board. Goldenring has not had sufficient time to look into the merits of the case and seems unaware of the remarkable consistency of the group who come to defend DNC-friendly editors and to prosecute encyclopedia-friendly editors.

No comment was made (ndlr: by any other "expert witness" or "judge" during the AE "case") regarding the crux of the case—astro-turfing—for which significant evidence was adduced: the 18 book review reviews and the ways in which reference to them was being spread on political opponents' BLP pages (here, Gabbard).

Because the issue at hand was not dealt with at all and because the vast majority of the commenters are verifiably involved in compromising POV-motivated behavior at AE, I would urge ArbCom to throw this case out and focus on the problems associated with groups facilitating POV editing on English Wikipedia.) Thank you, members of ArbCom and of the Community, for considering this request to appeal or modify my block, which—as it is—appears to be entirely politically motivated. SashiRolls (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)



  • As you are using this talk page to continue to attack others, I have revoked your ability to edit it. If you wish to appeal against these sanctions, I think contacting ArbCom by email is the only realistic way you can do it now, as there's no way that simply repeating the same accusations over and over again is going to achieve anything here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)



Post-gagging comment: My second comment introduces further evidence not mentioned at the show trial or in my first comment: the surprising correspondence between the "jury" in TParis v. Snooganssnoogans and in Sagecandor v. SashiRolls. In fact, the admins Goldenring and Dennis Brown (admins are traditionally "judges" at AE, for lack of a better word) participated in both cases. I only participated in the latter case (as the defendant).

My revelations were in line with not only the spirit but the letter of "milieu 4" for working to expose COI (posted to the ArbCom Noticeboard Talk page]. There are other further policy justifications for this call for attention to inappropriate behavior, including the 5th pillar of WP:5P itself, which is sometimes interpreted as "ignore all rules" (see the Wikipedia essay) for the greater good of the encyclopedia. Claims that I have violated NPA (no personal attacks) by providing verifiable evidence (cf. WP:V) have some potential grounds. However, I do not know how being attacked from all quarters without evidence, I can respond without stating conclusions that reasonable uninvolved participants can draw from the evidence.

1 Conflict of Interest traditionally means working for some organization. Here it can also be interpreted as conflicting with the overriding interest of neutrality which is one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. (It is an amusing sidenote that the author of these pillars is an anonymous guy named Neutrality, who, though he formerly served on ArbCom, remains anonymous to the community) He insists that Islam (notions of zakat, jihad, etc.) had no place in his thought-process when rechristening the founding tenets of en.wiki. I suppose that's almost plausible given the little I know of "neutrality".

"Cuisine Interne" / Inside the "sausage factory"

Much of the Wikipedia "Game" as practiced these days consists of smearing your opponent without evidence at various venues.

Sagecandor's "court of choice" is Arbitration Enforcement. They have been involved in at least 17+ cases, 7 of which as a prosecutor, 10 as "expert witness" / "juror", and 0 as a defendant.

They have been brought to ANI as a defendant twice. The first time was for smearing a couple of contributors as Russian supplies at the neutral point of view noticeboard. The second time was for being (frankly) a condescending jerk to a long-time user. Both cases were quickly closed by a power administrator User:Black kite. ( 1 | 2 )

What possesses someone to go to AE at least once every five days present in the projects? What causes them to canvas administrator's with talk page messages and barnstars? QPQ...

Evidence of inconsistent sentencing in POV cases

This has been a notorious problem of long standing on Wikipedia. Many thanks to User:James Lambden for the work on this table recapitulating the major "trials" and associated sentences.

En-WP: Sentencing

Retrieved from "http://ling.creoliste.fr/index.php?title=En-WP:Press_Release_/_An_Open_Letter_to_ArbCom&oldid=4778"