The Only Good Use for Zoom: Jimmy Wales, et. al, In a "Conversation" With the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees; the Eostrix Story; Other Things

 As seen here beginning at 2:00 minutes in, Jimbo Wales speaking into a laptop camera. Also Rosie Stephenson-Goodnight with elves in the background of her audio. Is there any sincerety on display? I'll let the readers figure that out. Tip of the hat to the Gender Desk blog for pointing this video out....the video itself only has 345 views and is only two days old at this point, so as Eldon Stewart, Sr. always says on 75 meters -- "Nobody Cares!"

****

According to a member of the Wikipedia Sucks board, Wikipedia user Eostrix, who was up for ArbCom, turned out to be a sockpuppet of Icewhiz....according to Beeblebrox. Comments from the Brain Trust:

Original announcement

Request for Adminship suspended

• Yikes. Thanks, ArbCom and/or CU team, for catching that in time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• That was... unexpected. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• What!? Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 01:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Unfortunate, but required. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Icewhiz nearly became an admin? Wow. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• !!! Twist of the year, for sure. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• I feel very stupid supporting him. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 01:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Don’t please, that was a real deep cover. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• I am shocked and surprised. Thanks to the people who detected this. I thought that Eostrix was a good candidate and said so at length. I am also deeply disappointed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• I realize this is fairly shocking. I can only assure you all that there is ample evidence, which we obviously cannot share as it is both private and would only provide Icewhiz with more information as to how we were able to make this determination. Our investigation was fairly involved, far beyond a usual checkuser investigation, and we did consult with some members of the CU team for second opinions before acting. This was a very determined, carefully planned attempt to fool the community, and it nearly succeeded, probably would have if it weren't for one particular committee member who doggedly pursued this for quite some time, although it obviously acquired a sense of urgency when the account ran for adminship. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox Forgive me if this is too private for public discussion, but is there a need to contact T&S? NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 01:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  The T&S team has been alerted by the Committee. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Three members of the CU team evaluated the evidence and presented their thoughts. Of these, none were willing to give it a "confirmed" ruling, and two of the three emphasized that any potential block would have to be based on behaviour. – bradv^🍁 03:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  [This attempt to fool the community] nearly succeeded, probably would have if it weren't for one particular committee member who doggedly pursued this for quite some time, although it obviously acquired a sense of urgency when the account ran for adminship. I gather from this that some sockpuppetry evidence existed before the RfA, and was discussed privately within ArbCom for quite some time without being made public at SPI or elsewhere. It is proper for ArbCom to handle issues that cannot be described publicly, but I am wondering whether there is a "dark SPI" running in the background.

I suppose there is no way to show that the handling of the Eostrix case was justified without spilling much evidence. However I can ask the following question: how many cases of sockpuppetry based on private evidence, with a level of proof similar to pre-RfA Eostrix, are currently in the hands of ArbCom or its members, and how many are there typically at any given point in time? (An approximate number will suffice if the answer is above 5 or so). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the comments that have been expressed above your message, I do not think it is realistic to expect the committee to say more than what they have chosen to say. I'm actually glad to see that the committee values privacy so highly, it prevents rumors from circulating. Once they are sure of the evidence, they act. Liz ^Read! Talk! 00:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• As a general note, I'd like to point out that there was no fault on the part of the nominators or the community. Without private evidence, there is just no way the community could have known. I very much appreciate that HJ Mitchell and GirthSummit put forth their talent as nominators. Neither the nominators or the community should beat themselves up for supporting. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

+1 on that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

+1 from me as well. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• While sad and shocking, I do have to commend ArbCom on acting as soon as they could. -- lomrjyo 🐱 ^{(✉ • 📝)} 01:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps the saddest aspect is that this incident is likely to lead to increased skepticism and heightened scrutiny at RfA, which is aleady a grueling process. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Well said. I wish I had more to offer in response, besides to point out the ongoing brainstorming portion of WP:RFA2021. --BDD (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Does this tell us that our current scrutiny perhaps focuses on the wrong things? —Kusma (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wow. This is making me feel like my crazy suspicions aren't so crazy. Which is very sad. I'd really rather just be kind of crazy. —valereee (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  And honestly, this right here is why working in SPI and the like gets downright exhausting: constantly wondering "is this new user too familiar with things? could this be (sockmaster) disguising themselves? am I just being paranoid/nuts?" GeneralNotability (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is crazy...gives me Archtransit vibes, but I'd never thought we'd nip it in the bud while the RFA was still going on! bibliomaniac15 02:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I voted support for both Archtransit and Eostrix, and now seriously doubt my judgement ... -- Euryalus (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

    I am guessing this is tongue in cheek @Euryalus. But more seriously I do not think people should be analyzing every RfA candidate through the lens of "is this person an abusive sockmaster?" That is not the way to a healthier community in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Barkeep49:Yes it is tongue in cheek. Fwiw Archtransit was in 2008 and of course Eostrix is today, so two similar cases in 13 years is not a bad record for en-WP. Hundreds of perfectly good RfA candidates have gone through over that time. So indeed, people should not let these two instances obstruct their usual approach to RfA . -- Euryalus (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is a shocker and I hadn't even cast a vote yet. I'm glad this came out before the RFA was closed successfully. I am used to reading about this kind of situation occurring 15 years ago but a sockpuppet getting this close to adminship in 2021 is a big surprise. Liz ^Read! Talk! 02:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Icewhiz was banned in June, 2020.

 

****

We need more users of goodwill and not rubber-neckers from Wikipediocracy who won't comment. No more crazies please. Link to board.

****

Other stuff?

I lied.