Gerard blocks Giano for sockpuppetry, invokes good/bad hand accounts policy - wrongly Options

[Peter Damian]

I can't be bothered to comment. It's all here, after Gerard blocked Giano for the De Burgh sock. Giano claims it was an open secret, Gerard and Thatcher claim not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on#David_Gerard

I think Wikipedia should seriously consider if David Gerard's continuing use of the administrator tools is something we really want. SirFozzie (talk)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 19th November 2008, 9:10am

[maggot3]

Already a thread about it, just for your information

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21205&hl=

A bit hidden though.

[Peter Damian]

Already a thread about it, just for your information

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21205&hl=

A bit hidden though.

Thanks. Of course, the David Gerard forum.

Moderator's note: each new thread about this topic is being merged into that thread. HK

[Giano]

None of these joke account sockpuppets should be allowed, and they certainly should not be allowed to run for ArbCom. Just before I found about about this incident, I was thinking about asking some tough questions on "Catherine's" questions page about the disruptive nature of the candidacy. On the other hand, this idea that it was a "good hand/bad hand" situation or that it was deceptive sockpuppetry is simply ludicrous, as there was clearly no malice or deception involved in it. Gerard just saw it as an opportunity to take Giano down a notch, to pursue the grudge, and his conduct (in this as well as many, many other instances) certainly warrants desysopping.

I'm jolly glad you didn't ask any questions, Everyking - I've always quite respected you. The very funny thing is no-one seems to have noticed that she threw most of the questions out of the window, there was no way in hell she could posible have got onto the Arbcom or was serious candidate. I really thought everyone knew who she was, after the questions she asked on MBisanz's page even he must have known, it is inconceivable. As for the candidate statement.....Never mind the poor old thing is dead now - we shall not see her like again because parodying and satyring the Arbcom and state of Wikipedia is no longer allowed. Perhaps it never was. I doubt Gerard was allowed to do this without some form of permission from somewhere, but it will always be a secret who gave the go ahead.

Giano

[Doc glasgow]

David Gerard was obviously trolling, but he's also in the clear in terms of abuse.


Q1:Did he abuse checkuser?

A: He CU'd a publicly undisclosed sock that was running for arbcom. Whilst his motives are strongly smelly here, there's no way he'd be sectioned sanctioned for that. He had "probably cause". The socking was obvious, and technically there's no way to dispute the contention Giano was either gaming or being disruptive. (I don't actually think he doing either - but Gerard's contention here is easily defensible enough to get him off the hook).

Q2: Did he breach the privacy policy?

A: No. No IP or personal information was disclosed. Linking to pseudonym accounts breaches nothing.

Q3: Did he misuse his admin blocking powers?

A:Probably the easiest charge to sustain, but also the least serious. Blocking was unnecessary, he could have removed the arbcom candidature with "checkuser confirms undeclared sock of established user". He could have e-mailed Giano and asked him to declare the sock (however, Giano had already blown off Thatcher's communique - so that was maybe pointless). Indef blocking a disruptive sock is standard policy, and although I don't see too much disruption the case can be made. So we are left with the 24 hour block of Giano - pointless really, and obviously for dramatic effect - but we've been here before.

Verdict: no sanctionable abuse, but he does get a "troll of the year" nomination. However the competition for the actual award will be tough.

[Giano]

David Gerard was obviously trolling, but he's also in the clear in terms of abuse.


Q1:Did he abuse checkuser?

A: He CU'd a publicly undisclosed sock that was running for arbcom. Whilst his motives are strongly smelly here, there's no way he'd be sectioned sanctioned for that. He had "probably cause". The socking was obvious, and technically there's no way to dispute the contention Giano was either gaming or being disruptive. (I don't actually think he doing either - but Gerard's contention here is easily defensible enough to get him off the hook).

Q2: Did he breach the privacy policy?

A: No. No IP or personal information was disclosed. Linking to pseudonym accounts breaches nothing.

Q3: Did he misuse his admin blocking powers?

A:Probably the easiest charge to sustain, but also the least serious. Blocking was unnecessary, he could have removed the arbcom candidature with "checkuser confirms undeclared sock of established user". He could have e-mailed Giano and asked him to declare the sock (however, Giano had already blown off Thatcher's communique - so that was maybe pointless). Indef blocking a disruptive sock is standard policy, and although I don't see too much disruption the case can be made. So we are left with the 24 hour block of Giano - pointless really, and obviously for dramatic effect - but we've been here before.

Verdict: no sanctionable abuse, but he does get a "troll of the year" nomination. However the competition for the actual award will be tough.

I just don't like the thought of David Gerard knowing my name and address - he might want an invitation to tea or something. What would my wife think, if DG turned up on the doorstep? Saying: "Hello, I'm David a friend of Giano's?" All very worrying.

Giano

[Doc glasgow]

I just don't like the thought of David Gerard knowing my name and address - he might want an invitation to tea or something. What would my wife think, if DG turned up on the doorstep? Saying: "Hello, I'm David a friend of Giano's?" All very worrying.

Giano

Not knowing your wife, I'd best not guess. Mine would indicate that he should come back near the end of October when we have a better stock of nuts and tangerines.

Actually, he'll only have your IP address, which an old friend also has publicly logged here.

[Alex]

I just don't like the thought of David Gerard knowing my name and address - he might want an invitation to tea or something. What would my wife think, if DG turned up on the doorstep? Saying: "Hello, I'm David a friend of Giano's?" All very worrying.

Giano

Don't worry, as Doc says, IPs aren't normally going to give anything identifying away. (Example, mine only says I edit from the UK.) If you edit from work, that might be another situation, but I doubt David cares in the slightest about your real life personal details.

[Cla68]

None of these joke account sockpuppets should be allowed, and they certainly should not be allowed to run for ArbCom. Just before I found about about this incident, I was thinking about asking some tough questions on "Catherine's" questions page about the disruptive nature of the candidacy. On the other hand, this idea that it was a "good hand/bad hand" situation or that it was deceptive sockpuppetry is simply ludicrous, as there was clearly no malice or deception involved in it. Gerard just saw it as an opportunity to take Giano down a notch, to pursue the grudge, and his conduct (in this as well as many, many other instances) certainly warrants desysopping.

I'm jolly glad you didn't ask any questions, Everyking - I've always quite respected you. The very funny thing is no-one seems to have noticed that she threw most of the questions out of the window, there was no way in hell she could posible have got onto the Arbcom or was serious candidate. I really thought everyone knew who she was, after the questions she asked on MBisanz's page even he must have known, it is inconceivable. As for the candidate statement.....Never mind the poor old thing is dead now - we shall not see her like again because parodying and satyring the Arbcom and state of Wikipedia is no longer allowed. Perhaps it never was. I doubt Gerard was allowed to do this without some form of permission from somewhere, but it will always be a secret who gave the go ahead.

Giano

There are different ways to protest the mismanagement of Wikipedia. I usually just go to Jimbo's talk page and ask him straight up why he doesn't help fix the darn thing, but that obviously hasn't worked very well. Another way is to humourously mock one of the administrator election processes, like Giano was doing in this situation.

Thus, what Gerard was really doing in response, although perhaps unintentionally, was trying to discredit and suppress someone who was trying to call attention to what Giano appears to believe is a broken institution in Wikipedia. If intentional, it was goon work.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 20th November 2008, 6:09am

[Piperdown]

There's just something wrong with any organisation that values David Gerard above Charles Ainsworth.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I usually just go to Jimbo's talk page and ask him straight up why he doesn't help fix the darn thing, but that obviously hasn't worked very well.

...and behold! This debate is now raging on Jimbo's talk page! Will Beback is at his sphincter-clenching, humorless best as he attempts to present a defense of Gerard -- only to run afoul of his erstwhile Siamese twin SlimVirgin, who has a new axe to grind, namely that checkusers are bad.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

..and behold! This debate is now raging on Jimbo's talk page!

Annnd we have a block. 55 hours for calling Gerard a disgrace.

[Milton Roe]

I usually just go to Jimbo's talk page and ask him straight up why he doesn't help fix the darn thing, but that obviously hasn't worked very well.

...and behold! This debate is now raging on Jimbo's talk page! Will Beback is at his sphincter-clenching, humorless best as he attempts to present a defense of Gerard -- only to run afoul of his erstwhile Siamese twin SlimVirgin, who has a new axe to grind, namely that checkusers are bad.

By which she means of course that Lar and Thather are bad, but saying THAT would be uncivil.

Probably Giano should have said that all the goth male foul-mouthed short-tempered English en-checkusers who are NOT stewards, are a disgrace. Then, he'd have been okay.

Now, your moment of zen:

Can you say how often and when you've checkusered CdB?

According to various posts of yours, you did indeed e-mail lots of people about it, or consult them in some other way. My point about this giant fuss that it's incredibly self-important, and it's this taking of yourself so seriously that triggers the authoritarian, bureaucratic, humourless, irony-free, heavy-handed reaction. I'm reminded of the characters in Solzhenitsyn's novels.

Also, Thatcher, please don't refer to me again in your posts, no matter how obliquely. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[Kato]

Probably Giano should have said that all the goth male foul-mouthed short-tempered English en-checkusers who are NOT stewards, are a disgrace. Then, he'd have been okay.

DG is Australian.

[The Joy]

..and behold! This debate is now raging on Jimbo's talk page!

Annnd we have a block. 55 hours for calling Gerard a disgrace.

I have this deep, dark feeling that an indefinite block/ban will be coming for Giano. This isn't like the IRC disputes of the past. Either Gerard stays or Giano stays. Both cannot co-exist on the project.

Honestly, I'm filled with seething rage with how Giano and those like him have been treated. If he is banned/blocked indefinitely for standing up to the likes of Gerard, then what remains of Wikipedia's community will be over. You Wikipedians will have civil war without end until Jimbo and his loyal stewards step in and squash the insurrection.

I don't believe I've ever witnessed an online community implode before. I think I may very soon.

Edit: And just to remind everyone of Jimbo's threat to Giano:

You are misrepresenting that conversation. I was directly referring to DTobias's remark, just above, and someone mistook that part of my remarks as referring to you. It did not. I referred to people who are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your content contributions are voluminous, high quality, and much appreciated.

That doesn't change the fact that your behavior in terms of trolling and carrying on the way you do is unacceptable. You know this. And you will either change it or be banned from Wikipedia. You have caused too much harm to justify us putting up with this kind of behavior much longer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173588881

[Kato]

On an unrelated note, I generally loathe historical accounts of individual members of the British aristocracy, and find the experience of pouring over such people demeaning, but Giano's article on Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery (T-H-L-K-D) that he's been tinkering with lately is actually a rather good read.

[Lar]

I don't believe I've ever witnessed an online community implode before. I think I may very soon.

Seen it before. Didn't like it then. Doubt I'd like it now... So I hope you're wrong.

[everyking]

..and behold! This debate is now raging on Jimbo's talk page!

Annnd we have a block. 55 hours for calling Gerard a disgrace.

This brings back memories for me. Back in 2005, Fennec announced in IRC that I was a "disgrace to Wikipedia". He was a channel op then, and later on he got to be an arbitrator (mercifully, he is now an inactive user). In light of that, it seems to me that the appropriate penalty for Giano, based on clear precedent, is to appoint him to the ArbCom and designate him as an IRC channel op.

Soon-to-be-former arbitrator James F. seems unaware that "cool down blocks" have fallen completely out of favor. His comment on WP:AE saying that "the intent [of the block] is to force a cooling-off, reflective period for Giano" was not well-received; FT2 had to step in and correct him.

This post has been edited by everyking: Sun 23rd November 2008, 5:48am

[The Joy]

I don't believe I've ever witnessed an online community implode before. I think I may very soon.

Seen it before. Didn't like it then. Doubt I'd like it now... So I hope you're wrong.

I predict more of an exodus. I did belong to a wiki community that I was really getting into when its god-king announced he had sold the wiki to Wikia without even consulting the community. Wikia even changed the license as the old license allowed some control from the people. My account is technically there, but during the move, the history was deleted so my contributions are there and not referenced (a big no-no legally). I wasn't the only one with problems and most of the core members of the project left the project with some preparing to sue the old god-king. It was very acrimonious, but the major blow was the core community voting with their feet and leaving. So I left as well. It could have been a great project until Wikia and the old god-king interfered and killed it.

I think people who really support Giano will leave if they really feel he got a bad deal. Others may leave because they know the drama machine that is Wikipedia will never end. The wiki I was on is still there with some people and a "community" but its not the same and its a pretty lame place. It may take a long time for the exodus to affect Wikipedia; however, it eventually will.

I'm not trying to gloat, Lar, and I can tell you and others sincerely believe that Wikipedia can make a difference as a free, online encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia started out with the best of intentions and idealism, but there were missed opportunities at the start and things fell apart. The wounds and problems are just too deep. You can't do anything with others without trust and cooperation... and there's really no trust left in the Wikipedia community. Too many hurt feelings and too much grief.

[Giggy]

I'm not trying to gloat, Lar, and I can tell you and others sincerely believe that Wikipedia can make a difference as a free, online encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia started out with the best of intentions and idealism, but there were missed opportunities at the start and things fell apart. The wounds and problems are just too deep. You can't do anything with others without trust and cooperation... and there's really no trust left in the Wikipedia community. Too many hurt feelings and too much grief.

Well said. I did believe WP could make a difference (perhaps I still do, I don't know), but the "quality" of much of the community there has really taken its toll.