Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: tarantino

Whenever I stop by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard user page, I always get sidetracked and start daydreaming about what it would be like to live with a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Redcountess and a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arkady_Rose.

Then I start wondering about a married man and his girlfriend both being directors of the same http://wikimedia.org.uk/legal. I guess there's nothing wrong with that, as long is it is all out in the open.

Is there?

Posted by: Somey

"Wife" and "girlfriend" are such bourgeious words, though... Dave prefers the much more bohemian term, "concubines."

As for Arkady Rose being a co-director of Wikimedia UK, well... someone has to do it, and as long as she continues to live under the same roof, I figure Dave should be able to keep his unfounded sockpuppetry accusations against her down to a fairly reasonable level.

I'm not saying he will, of course...

Posted by: Piperdown

I just wonder why it's often the ones closest to the Wikipedia Inner Sanctum who are the worst spammers on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryung_doll&diff=prev&oldid=105848595


It doesn't get any spammier than that article, or that link.


Then, there's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electricity_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=16330496

Kinda reminds me of Baudy's Clown redirect.

What's that saying about stone throwers living in glass houses?

Posted by: Castle Rock

LoL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Veesicle just sacrificed his year old account to place http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:David_Gerard&diff=prev&oldid=171656188 tag on David Gerard's user page. JzG swoops in for the kill saying http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Veesicle&diff=171657871&oldid=171657621, but Veesicle just laughs and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Veesicle&oldid=171658627.

Posted by: Piperdown

Excellent. I'd like to buy Veesicle a virtual pint.

And someone get just some guy a valium.

Posted by: WordBomb

The extreme irony of the situation is that I happen to be the editor with the concern. Given that fact, what Veesicle did was 100% accurate. I hereby demand that his account be returned to him.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

I was schocked to learn that Wikipedia had a rule about Abject Stupidity, but sure enough, there it is — WP:Abject Stupidity.

But, as I ½-expected, it's not so much a Rule against Abject Stupidity as a Template for promoting it.

Jonny

Posted by: Piperdown

I guess one can't take the Wikibible literally, Brother Bomb.

1) Follow the rules
2) Except when you want to IAR
3) Don't sockpuppet abusively
4) Unless you're SlimVirgin or Mantanmoreland or .....[feel free to add more untouchable hypocrites here]
5) always provide sources for your edits
6) Unless you own the joint, then it's Bonzai time, buddy!
7) Don't personally attack anyone on WP
8) Unless it's Daniel Brandt, Judson Bagley, Patrick Byrne, Mark Devlin, Professor Black, Greg Kohs, Jon Awbrey, etc etc.

Posted by: WordBomb

I hereby give a gift to some aspiring comedy writer seeking his/her big break: take one look at this image, captured at Gerard's betrothal, and then spend 15 minutes (max) crafting the obvious sitcom pilot episode begging to be released from it:

From left to right: Hanna (Matron of Honour), Liz, David, Arkady (Best Man)

Yes, this one writes itself.

Suggested working titles:
Trauma Club (a play on the obvious fact that they resemble a high school drama club)
Like a Goth to a Flamer
Fairleather Friends
The New Immorality
Bye, Curious!
The Glossy Aussie and his Swinging Posse
I could go on but that would be unfair to the rest of you.

One serious question: how much (in €) did Gerard pay for that Ken Doll-quality hair transplant job?

Posted by: Piperdown

careful, word, they're going to call you "odious" again.

"An editor on Gary's PC, but not Gary, suspects that Wordbomb is a beaneater who goes sans beano" might be your new wiki epitaph if you're not nice.

I'd always wondered what happened to the teenagers I used to go see Rocky Horror with, when I was young enough to be an WP Admin.

Posted by: Selina

DG has to be the most tasteless goth i've ever seen (not his outfit but friends), ick.
his wife looks like a retarded wale and girlfriend like a wrinkled nazi librarian.

he just looks silly but is still the least scary in the pic which is saying something when you've seen the famous "mime" photo o-o

i know, offtopic, but I just had to comment..

Posted by: Jonny Cache

And we know that you mean all of that in the nicest possible way …

Retarded Wale — ka-zing!

Jonny

Posted by: Somey

I'm sure Liz and Arkady are very nice, extremely bright people... who just happen to have questionable taste in men. More importantly, I'd imagine their use of multiple WP accounts is relatively under control at this point.

Posted by: Proabivouac

Give the lady a break, will you, she's ill and can't even leave the house. That may be the reason for the strange social arrangement. We don't know; not our business. I realize you're the site owner, but I'd personally feel better about participating here if we weren't opportunistically lashing out at innocent uninvolved people.

Posted by: Selina

site owner has nothing to do with anything dont worry you can say what you want about me i dont care I will just argue right back

its not really so much opportunism its nothing to do with the fact that they are associated with david gerard, i just saw a picture of scary people so gave my honest opinion, I don't like lying about people to avoid offence

hell dgerard is probably one of the least insane admins there from what i can remember

Posted by: tarantino

I have to agree. The main reason I brought the arrangement up was for comment on the impropriety of 2 out of three directors of Wikimedia UK are also partners in a slightly unorthodox relationship. I see now there is only three directors because 2 very recently resigned citing work pressures.

Posted by: tarantino

Instructions can be found at http://wikimedia.org.uk/volunteer.

It's probably a coincidence that Arkady became a director and CFO in August and James Forrester and Andrew Walker resigned in October and September, respectively.

Posted by: Robster

I have no doubt you'd whip them into shape.

Posted by: The Joy

Moderator: Remove above post per WR:BADJOKES.

Posted by: the fieryangel

I always assume that it's a good thing that people like this get together and form couples...I mean, that way, they are not making two other people unhappy. The fact that they are a threesome makes it even more people-friendly....

Posted by: guy

I have no doubt that David Gerard would love to get to know Taxwoman, even if another director might not approve. However, will he argue that Taxwoman hasn't edited for the last few months?

Posted by: KamrynMatika

Lol I just checked up on this, and the guy was unblocked by Viridae, then reblocked by JoshuaZ for 24 hours, inspiring a thread on ANI, and then just a little while after the block expired Jpgordon flew by to block him for 'abusive sockpuppetry'. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Veesicle

One of the interesting things about these checkuser blocks we see so frequently is that all too often they don't reveal which accounts the socks are assumed to be - "Just trust me! I'm a checkuser!". I wonder how many of these people are actually sockpuppeting, and how many have been taken down by a checkuser who's bored.

Posted by: Poetlister

Posted by: Chris Croy

I'm going to have to dissent; Arkady may not be my definition of perfection, but I certainly wouldn't call her ugly. Your hatred of Wikipedia has, to a very real degree, blinded you.

Posted by: the fieryangel

My comment was not about the general beauty of any of the parties (I personally find them all equally unattractive, but there's no accounting for taste, is there?) but was more towards "those who favor "open" relationships" are better off living together than with those who are not". In any case, threesomes generally end badly, with almost always one point of the triangle ending up being left out of the other two sides.

In this case, I would hope that the two ladies would do the sensible thing and leave him to go live together in peace...

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

That's the female response. Most men wonder how he did it and either find him a genius or are envious.

Not that it makes sense, mind you, given the man in question, but that's a man's point of view.

I don't like that they criticized the woman's figure. She never did (to my knowledge) anything to deserve that.

Posted by: Selina

but I don't hate wikipedia, i have never ever said I hate wikipedia o_O I also dont hate david gerard like I said...

read my posts after that, I was just being honest...

Posted by: jorge

Umm I believe the reason that David has a girlfriend and a wife are for illness reasons not any super studness on Mr Gerard's part.

Posted by: Yehudi

Yes, his wife\'s too ill to object, or something.

Posted by: Error59

Haaahaaaahahahaha

Posted by: the fieryangel

Is it really?

That's very interesting.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

No offense intended. If you think David Gerard is a hottie , and deserves a throng of subservient females to do his bidding, then okfinewhateveryouwant. (disclaimer:this post was a joke, and in no way was intended to imply insult to your senses or sensibilities or taste in men)

Posted by: the fieryangel

What I was saying is that it's interesting that saying that the two women should go off together was the female response and that saying that it's admirable that he should be able to keep two women was the male response.

I'm curious why this would be so (and this is not meant to provoke an argument: I really am curious about such things), especially given Mr. Gerard's own very complex sexual persona in all of this.

I don't really see a sexual aspect in either response. As a matter of fact, I believe that some women (including maybe some women here) might be inclined to take the "Good for him!" approach and some men (including perhaps some men here) who might be opposed to this for moral, personal, or life experience reasons and might have the so-called "feminine" response.

In any case, we'll never know, since nobody can definitely know what sex anyone is here...I've been rather startled myself several times here when it's been made clear by a casual response that the "lady" with whom I supposed that I was speaking was actually a "gentleman" and vice versa....

It seems to me that the main drama-generator here is indeed Mr. Gerald, at least from what I've seen of him. The two ladies might have a much more peaceful co-existence without him....

Posted by: Moulton

If there is a gender bias, it might be that males tend to be marginally more competitive in their relationships, whereas females tend to be marginally more cooperative in theirs.

If the sociology of Bonobos can be taken as a guide, the cooperating females can collectively dominate and confound the competitive males.

Posted by: the fieryangel

You've got that right! Having seen first-hand what happens when you set up households where one man has several wives (in parts of Africa...and also in Europe when they immigrate), the man very quickly loses the upper hand and ends up spending most of his time outside of the house, which is the only place where he can get a little peace and quiet. So, anybody's who's dreaming about this, you can stop right now. It doesn't work the way you think it does.

Maybe the two ladies actually set this up? Anything is possible

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Women traditionally cooperate in groups in the context of teams, or groups, better than men (though men get training through sports for this). Men are more individualistic, as a rule. Women's ability to cooperate does not translate to sharing a man. On the contrary. Also, women compete via infighting and vicious psychological means. Men generally just hit and then get over it. That's a simple way of explaining a pretty complex topic.

Multi-wife marriages often have women bossing around the men, sure. Just that the women I've talked to in polygamous cultures seemed less than thrilled with the idea of sharing a husband. It is, in one country I spent time in, difficult to get a nice, pretty, educated woman to agree to be a 2nd wife. One woman (wife of a colleague) found out that her fiancee was already married at her first engagement, and expected her to be wifey no. 2. She ended it the next day, and got married to someone else two years later. Man, she was not happy about that story. Furious actually. This is kind of private, scandalous information, but I was a guest of honor at their wedding, so that's how I heard about it.

Maybe some women think it is fine. I've just never seen it, that's all (excluding people who marry for money, etc. which is another line of discussion). What I'm told is that it is more common practice for poorer women, or the very, very richest of the royals. (Where, incidentally, women have seemingly less power than educated upper middle class women).

All gender generalizations (or any generalizations) can be ripped apart anecdotally. As for alternative genders, etc. None of the gay or bi people I know fit in any box at all, so I dont even go there. Other than to say that jealousy and competition and relationship dynamics don't seem that different (to me) in non-hetero relationships.

Posted by: jorge

Set what up? David Gerard's wife developed a disabling illness after they were married. Therefore she accepted him having a girlfriend.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

I've been told by more than one African mn that he wasn't interested in more than one wife (spontaneously volunteered information), because they grew up with two mothers, and they didn't like how one mother treated the kids that weren't hers, or that it was a constant fight for Dad's attention between the moms. Also that it is very expensive.


I've seen quite a few ME homes where the mom wears a scarf and is quite the household power broker, which belies the stereotype that scarf equals subserviance. On the contrary. Still, no wife of anyone I worked with, or married woman I've worked with, in these countries was in a polygamous marriage. That's my experience. I was told that it was for poor people, and for the Gulf Royals. (more spontaneously volunteered information. I didn't ask).



Relationship are always unique creations, even non-polygamous/polyandrous ones.

Posted by: the fieryangel

Yes, you seem to get told quite a lot when you visit those kinds of places, including some things that you would never dream of asking. Your story of the woman who found out that she was wife no. 2 after the fact is fascinating. I remember reading a novella by an Algerian writer about a marriage broker who talks a man out of taking a second wife because she knews all of the family secrets. It seems that women in those culture have much more power than it would seem at first glance.



One never can tell how a relationship works unless one is on the inside of it. If it works for them, then more power to them.

If DG's wife allowed him to take on a live-in girlfriend after their marriage because of her illness, surely she had something to say about it? I would hope so, at least.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

That's because in western culture, wearing a scarf is automatically correlated with oppression. While this can be the case, wearing the hijab et al can also connotate religious modesty and conserving view of females to the privacy of the family only. It also can command great respect on the part of the menfolk. Mores for this differ by country to country, even in the ME.

I think the relative 'bossiness' of the woman in the relationship depends on the woman (and relationship) in question.



Then why is the girlfriend in the picture of DG getting married? Not that it matters, but j wondering.

Posted by: Nathan

(now that you mention it...)

DL: My other half's family are Muslim (except for said other half) and don't believe in the hijab/burqa/etc (even as Muslims, they believe these are oppressive - though that may not be the word they'd use).

So as you said, mores vary from country to country or from person to person.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Hm. Less so person to person there. People get defined by their families much in the ME, and breaking away is a billion times harder. Not the case with your other half, it sounds like, but they emigrated (I assume you live not in the ME, or other muslim intensive country). That probably gave him a leghold out of the tight social controls.

My biggest experiences are with the locals in country, so Ive seen the home country application.

Posted by: Nathan

They're from Lebanon, and they did emigrate here when the other half was quite young. The parents have the fairly conservative mindset, the kids a lot less so.

Good assumption! :-)

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Oh, the Lebanese are another former French colony, and were very modern until the war in the 1980s. Even today, they are not big into hijab, as a general rule. They are more flexible.

Posted by: the fieryangel

The Lebanese are pretty liberal, yes.

I have noticed an interesting thing about women in veils, doing grocery shopping in Europe. You see couples where the woman is veiled and the man is wearing jeans, a baseball cap and Nike shoes. In variably, in this kind of couple, when they get to the checkout to pay, it's the woman who gets out her credit card. I can't remember ever seeing the man paying when you see these couples. It would seem that the veiled woman has control over the family finances.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but it's obviously not always the man who insists on the veils The veils do seem to have some sort of power attached to them as well. It's rather interesting, really.