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

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.

Archived info

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.

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.

But 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). Both also testified against me without providing any evidence in December. 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.<p> <p>No comment was made 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 (clear evidence of astro-turfing), and because the vast majority of the commenters either are clearly 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)

As is clear from the above, my second comment introduces further evidence not mentioned at the show trial: 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.