QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:02pm)
Ahh, sorry, misunderstanding there - I have the #wikipedia-en log (I was in the chan at the time) - the log I was sent is the /query conversation betweeen Law/Undertow and IH. That's what I'm talking about, and the source of the various threats in both directions.
Ah, okay. I don't have those. Ironholds was the first to tell me what was going on, then I spoke to Chip. Neither sent me logs of the pm and I didn't ask for them.
QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:34pm)
All of this drama over something that happens
every single, freakin' day on Wikipedia is just ridiculous and (pardon my French) full of crap. If I were an administrator, I would have banned probably everyone who's doing the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the whole Law incident. Everyone's out for blood when it does no one any good and will cause more pain and suffering down the road.
The first and foremost goal of Wikipedia should be to the encyclopedia and the readers. I do not care if User:Fluffykittens or whoever is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet/handpuppet/whatever of User:StickyFingers or whoever. I do not care and I do not understand why anyone else should care. As long as the information is correct, accurate, readable, and (to some degree) entertaining, who cares who wrote it?
Has Law caused harm to the encyclopedia? Has Law misused his tools? Has Law driven away good-faith contributors? Has he alienated the readers? Besides coming back under a new account (an event that happens
every single day on Wikipedia), what has the man done? Has he recommitted the "sins" that banned him? Or has he moved on? Could someone point with evidence what terrible crime he has done to warrant all of this drama and the suffering of his friends and colleagues?
The people hounding him, Casliber, Lara, etc., are no different than that inspector who kept chasing Jean Valjean in
Les Miserables. All the meta noticeboards should just redirect to WP:GLADIATORPIT and we can all stop pretending to be professional, mature people trying to build an encyclopedia. Heck, it would be better if Wikipedia would just start all over and actually get professional, mature people willing to collaborate to build an encyclopedia.
"Come on, Arbcom! Finish off Law and your former colleague, Casliber! We've got more in the queue!"
Exactly!
QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:52pm)
Wiki-culture is no longer centered around the production of articles at all. Hardly anyone is interested in the question of whether someone does good or bad (or no) article work; editors are deemed expendable, even though an unimaginable amount of work remains to be done and the rate of work seems to be declining. Now wiki-culture is nothing but political manipulations aimed at obtaining power and getting one's enemies sanctioned or banned.
<snip>
This is very true. No one is considering my contributions in this mess of attacks. The hypocrisy is beyond laughable. It is more than clear that this is a political matter and has nothing to do with protecting the project. There is no evidence that anything I did in support of Chip caused damage to the project. I didn't support him in everything because I didn't agree with everything he did. But where I felt he should be defended or supported, I did. Some alphabet soup be damned.
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Done.
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:30pm)
Funny how the Arbcom team isn't exactly rushing into this one. Brad deserves a Horsey kiss (or at least a knish from the Carnegie Deli - his choice) for being quick on draw -- if only to withdraw. But where is everyone else? I bet they're over at Hulu watching "I Dream of Jeannie" reruns. (Not a bad idea, come to think of it -- really, who wouldn't want Barbara Eden circa 1968 versus Protonk circa 2009?). (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Oh, as an update -- after I posted this, Fayassal chimed in. I am not quite certain what he said -- he seems to be using a lot of words to go in circles and come to absolutely no conclusion whatsoever. Either that or he is reprinting a portion of the libretto of "Four Saints in Three Acts." (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)
Emails are flying. Investigation goes on. Waiting to see what other names come out during this mess where two are singled out. The two that were honest from the start of the questioning.