Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Loosmark

Loosmark

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Use third-level headers for new sections. Example: === Heading title ===. Unsure about the election process? Please review the election rules. Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions? Please notify an election volunteer.	Be civil No personal attacks Refrain from canvassing and harassment Discuss the election, or ask questions here

Eastern European editing restrictions

In connection with WP:DIGWUREN and editing in Eastern European topics, Loosmark has had two 6 month topic bans, 1 six month revert restriction, one two month interaction ban and other logged warnings. He was blocked on October 1, 2010 for two weeks and his six month topic ban reset from then. A record like this on a topic which often comes before ArbCom regrettably makes Loosmark an unsuitable candidate for ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

User is a friend and apologist of the EEML users, and most likely would have been involved himself had it not been discovered until later. I note with dismay that he was unblocked in September by Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a long term friend and associate of the tag team group of which Loosmark is part. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Darwinek for previous abuse by this user. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I am neither a friend nor an apologist of the EEML users. It is true however that I opposed how the ArbCom handled the EEML cases both in terms of how private emails was used as evidence plus how the case dragged for an incredible 3 or 4 months. That's not to say that the EEML users have not made their mistakes and done things which they should have not done. Anyway since in minds of some people that makes me an associate or a friend of the EEML users, if elected, I will recuse on anything concerning the EEML.

Regarding Darwinek: I am not a part of any "tag team group", I don't know Darwinek and I have never contacted Darwinek in any shape or form. He has not "unblocked" me as you inaccurately state above but rather he reduced my block length from 1 week to 1 day. Why, you have to ask him. I guess he thought the so called "harassment of an admin", for which I was blocked by Sarek of Vulcan is worth a day block rather than a week block.  Dr. Loosmark  18:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Your assertions are false, and you know them to be so. But, fine; stick with that line. See how many people believe you when a casual google search of your user name and that of key EEML users reveals multiple threads proving my point; and of course any search through the archive itself will clarify your relationship with the EEML.

Incidentally, if I were to guess Darwinek's "reasons" ... most likely he was emailed and asked to do so either by you or another EEML user; or if not, did so off his own back to gain favour/help a buddy. Almost certainly had nothing to do with admining; he's only performed one block/unblock in the last half year, and that just happened to be a tag team buddy. What are the odds? Just my "theorising" though. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No, no, I don't know them to be false, I know them to be true. And you know that as well. The EEML case was the most examined case in the history of the ArbCom. The Arbs (and the whole armada of anti-EEML users) examined every aspect of the case inside out, including reading the emails. I was never even as much as mentioned by any of the Arbs. I had nothing to do with the EEML. These are the facts.

And I have already stated that I will recuse myself from anything regarding the EEML. If you think that Darwinek or whoever else have done anything wrong please report on the appropriate boards. (And again my block was shortened, I wasn't unblocked).  Dr. Loosmark  23:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have more respect for you Loosmark if you admitted your connections and sympathies, and moved on. You share national sympathies with these users and have been caught up. So what? It's a cultural thing and that's what happens ... people would understand and let you move on. Instead, you're trying to mislead people and treat them like fools. In this format there will just be too many eyes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a month for sock puppetry

Loosmark has been blocked for one month by Avraham for sock puppetry. AGK 21:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This has since been extended to an indef block and there's a discussion on whether a community ban should be applied at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban discussion: Loosmark and sockpuppeting Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• That ban was extended to one year [1] for violating an Arbcom enforcement case, ironically enough. I rather suspect, if there was any doubt before, that that puts paid to his candidacy.  Ravenswing  15:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)