797-3

It seems that CEO Bill Ayer may have been banned from Wikipedia. He posted a minor change on his own biography. A few days later, he voted against a candidate running to be administrator. The candidate was odd in that it was a robot computer program, not a person (the usual administrator candidate).

Some people who were for the candidate banned him.

If that's isn't heavy handed and lack of scruples, nothing is wrong and all behavior is right. Maybe some disgrunted AS flyers are in wikipedia and banned him!

http://en.wikipedia.org then search WP:RFA and look for the bot candidate.

jackal

I take inappropriate activity on Wikipedia seriously, so this immediately caught my attention. Not sure what to make of it.

Looks like User:Bill Ayer was blocked for "using an account abusively" and for perhaps being a "single-purpose account." Later, User: AS 001 was blocked for being a sock puppet of User:Bill Ayer.

The talk page comments on User:Bill Ayer are interesting. More to the point expressed there: Is this person really Bill Ayer?

EIPremier

AFAICT, he voted against a "BOT" running for admin, and gave a perfectly reasonable rationale. However, somebody decided to delete his vote on grounds that the account was created soley for the purpose of voting in the election, even though he had edited several articles, including what would appear to be his own bio. Regardless of whether it was actually the Alaska Airlines CEO behind the account, I think the actions by wikipedia moderators were uncalled for.

jackal

That's about how it looks to me. However, when Bill Ayer requested the block to be removed, it appears the rationale for denying that is because Bill Ayer is a notable figure and has not provided proof that the person behind this user is indeed Bill Ayer.

My favorite part was when one of the admins called him the CEO of "a small North American airline"...

whjensen

I noticed that too. AAG is actually the 15th largest by revenue in the world, so I thought the comment was uncalled for. Basically, if it is Bill Ayers, Bill Ayers ticked off the admins who decided to play nasty with the rules. I've read Ayers' comments as well. He is not being a saint in this - they asked for proof he is who he claims to be (a relevant request) and he has refused.

797-3

Wikipedia is a wild place. There are areas of wikipedia that are wacky. You just need to know where to look. OMNI doesn't even come close.

jackal

Well, how can we expect a Scotsman to know about AS when AS's own partner (AF) and even people on the East Coast barely know about it?

(For reference: User:Nick is from Scotland, according to his self-linked Flickr page; AF's unfamiliarity with AS is referenced on another [hysterical] thread in the AS forum by dav3d.)

FCYTravis

Sorry to drag up this old thread, but I wanted to update this. Note: I'm a Wikipedia janitor/administrator.

The "Bill Ayer" account has been established to be a sockpuppet of a long-term banned user.

The person claiming to be "Bill Ayer" there refused to provide evidence that he actually is Bill Ayer. You can understand the problems we would have if we allowed people to claim that they were notable individuals without confirmation. We have private, back-channel mechanisms for allowing people to provide such evidence - an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation from his official work address, for example, would have sufficed.

New users who sign up and then instantly begin involving themselves in Wikipolitics are generally viewed with great skepticism. Often they are sockpuppets, or fake second accounts created in order to hide one's true identity. Why would the CEO of Alaska Airlines sign up to Wikipedia just to vote in this adminship request? What interest would he have in it? The logic doesn't compute. And as was suspected, the account was a sockpuppet.

eastwest

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification, FCYTravis.

srouyuptf

In any case, the real Bill Ayer is a jerk and lousy CEO.

Human Unit 763246B

A small group of Wikipedia administrators have learned that there are secret ways to ban people based on personal whim. I don't want to let the cat out of the bag but accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is a very convenient way of banning someone you don't want around. There are certain ways to do it and make it look like it's true even if it's not.

It's all so easy and shows why FT is much more civil and less corrupt than Wikipedia.

I know of another user (not personally) who proved his identity on Wikipedia but was banned anyway on the excuse that he is not who he said he was (an administrator with no access to the documents just declared that).