Law blocked as an alternate account of the_undertow, Who knew? Options

[TheySeeMeTrollin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312524681

Interesting. I have to say that I didn't see this coming, but hindsight being what it is, it makes sense.

[trenton]

Who would have thunk it? He was so mature and drama free..... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[LaraLove]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312524681

Interesting. I have to say that I didn't see this coming, but hindsight being what it is, it makes sense.

Anyone who was paying attention should have known. There were many, many obvious connections.

Oh, and to answer your question (in case it wasn't evident), I knew.

[MZMcBride]

Not exactly an open secret, though if anyone had bothered looking hard enough, it wasn't particularly difficult to figure it out.

The particulars of this outing are nasty, though. On IRC on Tuesday night, Ironholds (T-C-L-K-R-D) asked Law (T-C-L-K-R-D) to move a particular article. Law wouldn't oblige, so Daniel (T-C-L-K-R-D) stepped in. The three of them bickered for a while (reading the logs, it was embarrassing behavior for all three). Eventually Ironholds figured out that Law was the_undertow (T-C-L-K-R-D) and sent IRC logs to the Arbitration Committee.

I'm not sure about other parts of the world, but 'round here we call that kind of thing being a rat.

[LaraLove]

Eventually Ironholds figured out that Law was the_undertow (T-C-L-K-R-D) and sent IRC logs to the Arbitration Committee.

He found out weeks ago.

[Law]

Eventually Ironholds figured out that Law was the_undertow (T-C-L-K-R-D) and sent IRC logs to the Arbitration Committee.

He found out weeks ago.

Let's not give him too much credit. I told him weeks ago.

[Viridae]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312524681

Interesting. I have to say that I didn't see this coming, but hindsight being what it is, it makes sense.

Anyone who was paying attention should have known. There were many, many obvious connections.

Oh, and to answer your question (in case it wasn't evident), I knew.

I never pay attention. Except with KE/John254 I guess.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Who would have thunk it? He was so mature and drama free..... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

They had to let him go ... he was the guy that deleted Richard Gere and the gerbil.

You cannot let someone like that loose on the Pee-dia to spoil the fun for the rest of us.

Nomination

Final (101/23/4); Originally scheduled to end 22:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Law – Ladies and gents, I'd like to present Law for consideration for adminship. Since joining in September 2008, he's racked up over five thousand edits, nearly half of which are in the mainspace. He's a proficient vandal fighter, always making sure to leave warnings, and has over 60 reports to AIV.

Law is most frequently seen at DYK, verifying hooks and making sure that entered articles are up to every standard. He himself has six DYKs, all from articles that he created and wrote by himself, as well as several articles that he's saved from being deleted or otherwise improved.

Furthermore, he is skilled at taking high quality pictures, and has contributed a good number to our articles, the latest of which can be seen at chocolate-covered bacon. He has expressed a very strong interest in helping the DYK process run more smoothly, continuing his work there and helping to update the template on time.

Finally, Law has a fantastic temperament and sense of humor, with experienced and new users alike. This is a highly trustworthy user, who would undoubtedly be a positive force with the mop. GlassCobra 08:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Cla68]

Who's the Undertow? I don't mean who he is in real life, I mean, why is he notable enough to be mentioned here?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Silverman]

Oh, and to answer your question (in case it wasn't evident), I knew.

And you managed to keep it a secret?

[Abd]

It's becoming increasingly painful to look at Wikipedia. It's like discovering this link to videos of children being tortured. Law's offense was block evasion. Not disruptive block evasion, not "sock puppetry" in the original meaning, but simply coming back some months after being banned, before the expiration of the ban. He's being punished. For trying to help the project.

Law, my condolences. Editing Wikipedia is like riding in a broken car with no seat belt. It might get you there. And it might not. And in the end, it breaks down and will leave you stranded, with no mercy. If content were being built, permanently, it might be worth the effort and the risk. As the matter stands, whatever is built is evanescent. Contrary to early wikitheory, content does go downhill.

I've been reading certain physics articles. They are good, well-written, and highly informative. And they won't stay that way, because they are unsourced and on controversial topics, or sourced to conference proceedings. Sooner or later, they will come to the attention of the mob, and they will be dismantled. And no, I have no axe to grind with these articles, they don't support my favorite unpopular theories....

So now they are trying to ban your original account. Punishment. The usual sadists, who seem to love to kick editors when they are down.

[A Horse With No Name]

To paraphrase Claude Rains in "Casablanca" -- I am shocked...shocked!...to find that banned editors masquerading under alternate accounts and gaining adminship is going on here! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Eventually Ironholds figured out that Law was the_undertow (T-C-L-K-R-D) and sent IRC logs to the Arbitration Committee.

He found out weeks ago.

Let's not give him too much credit. I told him weeks ago.

Not the best strategy, was it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

I'm not sure about other parts of the world, but 'round here we call that kind of thing being a rat.

I just received a text message from the union representing the rats of the UK and the Commonwealth -- and they take umbrage with having their species associated with Ironholds. (And, really, can you blame them?) They have respectfully requested that you withdraw this comment and use another animal analogy. (Confidentially, I hear that the hyenas don't have a union, so any slurs against them will go unanswered.) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

Who's the Undertow? I don't mean who he is in real life, I mean, why is he notable enough to be mentioned here?

Former admin, good wikifriend of Lara's, resigned adminship under a cloud after unilaterally unblocking Moulton, was involved in a kerfuffle with Swatjester some time ago when Swatjester made an issue of the Undertow being a self-declared white pride-ist. Created an article on Dan Rosenthal (Swatjester's real name), and was subsequently blocked for nine months for "Off-wiki threats and harassment". Progressive BLP views or not, not a guy I particularly want as an administrator.

[A Horse With No Name]

Also worth noting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI...ng_The_undertow

Once again, the "community" (all 10 of them) is back to tsk-tsk the situation. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[One]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312524681

Interesting. I have to say that I didn't see this coming, but hindsight being what it is, it makes sense.

Anyone who was paying attention should have known. There were many, many obvious connections.

Oh, and to answer your question (in case it wasn't evident), I knew.

Fascinating. Yet you continued to rail against the injustice of his block.

Undertow also requested an unblock on his now-deleted talk page in February when he had been editing for like 7 months. He wanted permission to participate in OS/CU elections, which he did anyway. Actually, Law asked to be unblocked to vote on Feb 8, but he had already voted on February 7.

You gave him a message about Chet on that page in May.

This post has been edited by One:

[everyking]

Laughable. No one cares whether the account was improving the encyclopedia--upholding the ban for political reasons is all that matters. Personally I was only marginally aware of The Undertow's existence (mainly because I remember him unblocking Moulton, which was something I supported) and the Law account didn't even register as a blip on my radar screen. All I care about is whether the encyclopedia is being improved, and as far as I can tell Law was being a constructive editor, and the community must have agreed with me, since it backed his RfA.

[carbuncle]

I'm sure Law/The Undertow isn't the only person to have passed RFA twice, but what's the known record for one individual?

[Tarc]

Probably regretting that unretirement now to take care of CoM, eh?

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[Friday]

Who's the Undertow? I don't mean who he is in real life, I mean, why is he notable enough to be mentioned here?

Former admin, good wikifriend of Lara's, resigned adminship under a cloud after unilaterally unblocking Moulton, was involved in a kerfuffle with Swatjester some time ago when Swatjester made an issue of the Undertow being a self-declared white pride-ist. Created an article on Dan Rosenthal (Swatjester's real name), and was subsequently blocked for nine months for "Off-wiki threats and harassment". Progressive BLP views or not, not a guy I particularly want as an administrator.

Hmm.. I don't remember ever knowing of this editor under either name.

But if the above is true.. it's good riddance, right? Normally I don't consider real-life issues in connection with Wikipedia. But if someone is one of those white-pride types, this indicates an underlying mental defect. I would not trust that such an individual could be impartial, or use good judgement.

[LaraLove]

Oh, and to answer your question (in case it wasn't evident), I knew.

And you managed to keep it a secret?

Me? Yes. I kept it a secret. Someone else obviously did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312524681

Interesting. I have to say that I didn't see this coming, but hindsight being what it is, it makes sense.

Anyone who was paying attention should have known. There were many, many obvious connections.

Oh, and to answer your question (in case it wasn't evident), I knew.

Fascinating. Yet you continued to rail against the injustice of his block.

Undertow also requested an unblock on his now-deleted talk page in February when he had been editing for like 7 months. He wanted permission to participate in OS/CU elections, which he did anyway. Actually, Law asked to be unblocked to vote on Feb 8, but he had already voted on February 7.

You gave him a message about Chet on that page in May.

Why do you say "Yet" as if this somehow contradicts something I said? He wanted to vote for his friends with the accounts under which they knew him. AS PER USUAL, Luke, you assume bad faith on people. So typical. Sit down.

Probably regretting that unretirement now to take care of CoM, eh?

Had nothing to do with that. Nothing at all.

[CharlotteWebb]

I'm sure Law/The Undertow isn't the only person to have passed RFA twice, but what's the known record for one individual?

Do you mean on en.wikipedia only or on all projects?

[Moulton]

He went up against FeloniousMonk long before ArbCom took on the case leading to FM's downfall. He did this knowing full well the IDCab and their allies were still well entrenched in power. Since then, he has gone back to college to earn a degree that will enable him to pursue a meaningful professional career.

[Sarcasticidealist]

But if the above is true.. it's good riddance, right? Normally I don't consider real-life issues in connection with Wikipedia. But if someone is one of those white-pride types, this indicates an underlying mental defect. I would not trust that such an individual could be impartial, or use good judgement.

In his defense, he took care to draw distinctions between the "white pride" that he felt and the "white supremacy" that he rejected. I believe - and he can correct me if I'm wrong - that he was one of those people who equates white pride to black pride or gay pride or what have you ("There's nothing racist about taking pride in who you are!"). Either way, I don't really want him as an admin, but there's no reason to believe that he's an Aryan Nation supporter or any such thing.

[Apathetic]

So did anyone put the popcorn on yet?

I predict this latest drama-fest will rage for several days at minimum.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[A Horse With No Name]

But if the above is true.. it's good riddance, right? Normally I don't consider real-life issues in connection with Wikipedia. But if someone is one of those white-pride types, this indicates an underlying mental defect. I would not trust that such an individual could be impartial, or use good judgement.

In his defense, he took care to draw distinctions between the "white pride" that he felt and the "white supremacy" that he rejected.

That is a wonderful defense. Pray tell, who were your previous courtroom clients: Jesus Christ and Joan of Arc? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

That is a wonderful defense.

Well, it's his, not mine. I think that i. "white pride" and "white supremacy" are, as generally applied, synonymous, and ii. the notion that there is any historical, sociological, or other reason for white people to take pride in being white is idiotic. But since I'm the one who brought white pride into this thread, I thought I should at least make an effort to accurately describe his views on the subject.

[A Horse With No Name]

I would not trust that such an individual could be impartial, or use good judgement.

Oh, come on, chubby, you wouldn't trust anyone. But in all seriousness, I am unaware of Law making racist remarks on WP or WR. If anything, I am aware that he has exercised uncommonly good judgment in both web sites -- and I am genuinely sorry to see people ignoring his many positive contributions. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

That is a wonderful defense.

the notion that there is any historical, sociological, or other reason for white people to take pride in being white is idiotic.

At the same time, however, an argument could be made that there is no need for "black pride," "gay pride" or any "XXX pride" in a 21st century society where the political, economic, academic and cultural elite represent the full spectrum of racial, religious and ethnic experiences. Why express "pride" in a society that doesn't put any degree of shame on one's race, religion, heritage or sexuality?

None of this has to do with Law, of course, but I can't figure out any way to insert bosom jokes into this conversation. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[LaraLove]

Nice to see Luke take his typical jab. Such an ass. Then archive so no one can respond. Nice Horatio Caine move there, buddy.

That is a wonderful defense.

Well, it's his, not mine. I think that i. "white pride" and "white supremacy" are, as generally applied, synonymous, and ii. the notion that there is any historical, sociological, or other reason for white people to take pride in being white is idiotic. But since I'm the one who brought white pride into this thread, I thought I should at least make an effort to accurately describe his views on the subject.

Why don't you go retrieve WR posts or WP diffs rather than inaccurately recall what he said?

[Sarcasticidealist]

At the same time, however, an argument could be made that there is no need for "black pride," "gay pride" or any "XXX pride" in a 21st century society where the political, economic, academic and cultural elite represent the full spectrum of racial, religious and ethnic experiences.

An argument could be made. I think it's wrong. Black pride, gay pride, etc. have their origins in the systematic denigration of blackness, homosexuality, etc. If people were constantly telling me, explicitly and otherwise, that my being white meant that I wasn't as good as non-whites, I might want to band together with other whites to celebrate whiteness in response. But that doesn't happen to any appreciable extent, and even where it does happen it's almost always a case of the disadvantaged denigrating the advantaged; in such circumstances, collective pride is a much less reasonable response than it is when the advantaged are denigrating the disadvantaged.

Ideally there'd be no need for any collective prides, and we could all be judged on our worth as individuals. As a heterosexual white male, I feel that I already am so-judged. I think that's much less true of visible minorities, LGBT types, women, etc.

Also, tits.

[trenton]

Ummm.. this is the guy who became an admin on MMORPG anti-vandalism edits. The guy who blocked Peter Damaian for exposing the plagiarist admin. The guy who "retired", but came back to "unfuck" the "Kegel_exercise" article (which he never did). All in a couple of months....

On the positive side, maybe he and his "white pride" buddy LaraLove will have some more free time to form some sort of "klan" to discuss their views...

[Random832]

Fascinating. Yet you continued to rail against the injustice of his block.

Precisely how does knowing a block is being evaded prevent one from sincerely holding the opinion that the block is unjust?

[A Horse With No Name]

As a heterosexual white male, I feel that I already am so-judged.

And a fine looking one, too! I'm surprised that you have so much time for WP and WR -- I kind of imagine you leading a Matt Helm-style life.

Also, tits.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[One]

Nice to see Luke take his typical jab. Such an ass. Then archive so no one can respond. Nice Horatio Caine move there, buddy.

I'm assuming bad faith?

I am convinced he was not trying to double vote, and someone suggested closing that discussion, which I thought a good idea, so I did.

[LaraLove]

Ummm.. this is the guy who became an admin on MMORPG anti-vandalism edits. The guy who blocked Peter Damaian for exposing the plagiarist admin. The guy who "retired", but came back to "unfuck" the "Kegel_exercise" article (which he never did). All in a couple of months....

On the positive side, maybe he and his "white pride" buddy LaraLove will have some more free time to form some sort of "klan" to discuss their views...

Ya, ya. WHITE PAR! o/

Nice to see Luke take his typical jab. Such an ass. Then archive so no one can respond. Nice Horatio Caine move there, buddy.

I'm assuming bad faith?

I am convinced he was not trying to double vote, and someone suggested closing that discussion, which I thought a good idea, so I did.

After you called him a liar and a, what, untrustworthy character or something like that. Poke and jab, poke and jab. Oh, and walk. The pun, the sunglasses, the stage right.

[One]

I wanted to minimize that point by putting under a hat, but yes, he lied to me. I don't think it's a good strategy to dwell on it. He's explained it and we've moved on.

[GlassBeadGame]

But if the above is true.. it's good riddance, right? Normally I don't consider real-life issues in connection with Wikipedia. But if someone is one of those white-pride types, this indicates an underlying mental defect. I would not trust that such an individual could be impartial, or use good judgement.

In his defense, he took care to draw distinctions between the "white pride" that he felt and the "white supremacy" that he rejected. I believe - and he can correct me if I'm wrong - that he was one of those people who equates white pride to black pride or gay pride or what have you ("There's nothing racist about taking pride in who you are!"). Either way, I don't really want him as an admin, but there's no reason to believe that he's an Aryan Nation supporter or any such thing.

The problem is that undertow's history includes active participation in StormFront. He initially came to this site as indicating he had put this racism behind him. He was embraced and gained acceptance on the basis of transcending his previous views. I was among those who extended this acceptance. Undertow subsequently revisits his views and makes hair splitting distinctions between being a racialist/racist and white supremacists/white prider.

It is important to provide young people who become involved in racist extremism (if no physical harm or terrorism was done) some path of return to decent civil society. But their securing that acceptance requires a rigorous remaking, not half measures and self-justifications.

[LaraLove]

I wanted to minimize that point by putting under a hat, but yes, he lied to me. I don't think it's a good strategy to dwell on it. He's explained it and we've moved on.

The desire to have Wikipedian's be rats is a sad, sad thing. Why people expect others to dime out their friends is beyond me.

[Friday]

But if the above is true.. it's good riddance, right? Normally I don't consider real-life issues in connection with Wikipedia. But if someone is one of those white-pride types, this indicates an underlying mental defect. I would not trust that such an individual could be impartial, or use good judgement.

In his defense, he took care to draw distinctions between the "white pride" that he felt and the "white supremacy" that he rejected. I believe - and he can correct me if I'm wrong - that he was one of those people who equates white pride to black pride or gay pride or what have you ("There's nothing racist about taking pride in who you are!"). Either way, I don't really want him as an admin, but there's no reason to believe that he's an Aryan Nation supporter or any such thing.

The problem is that undertow's history includes active participation in StormFront. He initially came to this site as indicating he had put this racism behind him. He was embraced and gained acceptance on the basis of transcending his previous views. I was among those who extended this acceptance. Undertow subsequently revisits his views and makes hair splitting distinctions between being a racialist/racist and white supremacists/white prider.

It is important to provide young people who become involved in racist extremism (if no physical harm or terrorism was done) some path of return to decent civil society. But their securing that acceptance requires a rigorous remaking, not half measures and self-justifications.

Returning people to decent society is wildly outside the scope of Wikipedia. They need to become decent, on their own time, _before_ coming to the wiki.

But, I'd never expect the chat room crowd to understand that we should not try to do therapy. (Edit: no implications intended of who is or is not part of the "chat room crowd".)


This post has been edited by Friday:

[One]

I wanted to minimize that point by putting under a hat, but yes, he lied to me. I don't think it's a good strategy to dwell on it. He's explained it and we've moved on.

The desire to have Wikipedian's be rats is a sad, sad thing. Why people expect others to dime out their friends is beyond me.

I would not lie to advance my friends. Maybe that's why I'm never entrusted with any of these open secrets.

[trenton]

Looks like somebody doesn't understand the difference between being an "accomplice" and a "rat". When you and your klan buddies go out for a night of fun, that's called being an accomplice, and not going would not make you a rat.

[Somey]

An argument could be made. I think it's wrong. Black pride, gay pride, etc. have their origins in the systematic denigration of blackness, homosexuality, etc. If people were constantly telling me, explicitly and otherwise, that my being white meant that I wasn't as good as non-whites, I might want to band together with other whites to celebrate whiteness in response.

A lot of this also depends on developmental factors, like where you grew up, what your parents were like, and so on. Sometimes white kids who grow up in predominantly black or hispanic neighborhoods tend to form little gangs, and you know how kids are anyway... Also, some parents are very good at manipulating their kids into believing what they believe, which isn't always liberal and egalitarian, if you know what I'm sayin'. The key thing is that at some point, the kids are supposed to get older and wiser, and realize that this sort of thing is not healthy, logical or sensible.

Also remember that racists of the past didn't have the benefit of modern sciences like immunology, epidemiology, and biological anthropology, which have since proven that "racial purity" actually puts the human race at greater risk of extinction, not less. Instead, they had crap pseudo-sciences like eugenics and phrenology, which were worse than some of the stuff they were coming up with during the Dark Ages.

Either way, you have to give people a chance to prove that they can change, as much as it might pain some of us to give them any "chances" at all.

Also, tits.

Amen to that!

[Sarcasticidealist]

When you and your klan buddies go out for a night of fun...

I find your invective tiresome.

[LaraLove]

I wanted to minimize that point by putting under a hat, but yes, he lied to me. I don't think it's a good strategy to dwell on it. He's explained it and we've moved on.

The desire to have Wikipedian's be rats is a sad, sad thing. Why people expect others to dime out their friends is beyond me.

I would not lie to advance my friends. Maybe that's why I'm never entrusted with any of these open secrets.

Advancement of your wikipolictical career is much more important. That much is obvious. You don't have to tell it.

Looks like somebody doesn't understand the difference between being an "accomplice" and a "rat". When you and your klan buddies go out for a night of fun, that's called being an accomplice, and not going would not make you a rat.

Right, right. We already went over this. White par and all that. \o (I turned around for that one). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

It would be optimal if you knew what was being discussed, but you don't. The lie Luke is talking about is in reference to him asking the_undertow if a specific person knew. Because he didn't rat out his buddy, Luke decides to call him a liar on AN/I while putting a hat on the thread. Yes, such a shady character.

At least Luke is open about the fact that he can't be trusted. Wikipolitics > all else. ArbCom at its finest, people.

[everyking]

Returning people to decent society is wildly outside the scope of Wikipedia. They need to become decent, on their own time, _before_ coming to the wiki.

But, I'd never expect the chat room crowd to understand that we should not try to do therapy. (Edit: no implications intended of who is or is not part of the "chat room crowd".)

This sort of thing makes my head hurt. Who cares what he believes, whether he's a "decent" person, or whatever he's done with the rest of his life? This is about Wikipedia, a project to build an encyclopedia. All he has to do is write content properly.

[One]

It would be optimal if you knew what was being discussed, but you don't. The lie Luke is talking about is in reference to him asking the_undertow if a specific person knew. Because he didn't rat out his buddy, Luke decides to call him a liar on AN/I while putting a hat on the thread. Yes, such a shady character.

At least Luke is open about the fact that he can't be trusted. Wikipolitics > all else. ArbCom at its finest, people.

Wrong. He didn't have to rat out anyone. I didn't even ask him; he volunteered his lie. It was in his first-ever email to me, unsolicited.

Personally, I don't think that you or anyone has done anything shameful by silently letting his new account run (although some statements have been somewhat misleading). However, The_undertow didn't just make a misleading statement--he made a verifiably false assertion on behalf of a friend.

Where I'm from, silence is different from lying. I don't lie on behalf of anyone.

Again, I don't think you're helping your friends by dragging this out. I was happy to let it drop. Many more people will have noticed my comment now, and they'll be much more curious about what we're talking about. I think it might hurt both of them, and I didn't intend that at all.

This post has been edited by One:

[A Horse With No Name]

This is about Wikipedia, a project to build an encyclopedia. All he has to do is write content properly.

A project to...what? Are we talking about the same Wikipedia? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Friday]

Returning people to decent society is wildly outside the scope of Wikipedia. They need to become decent, on their own time, _before_ coming to the wiki.

But, I'd never expect the chat room crowd to understand that we should not try to do therapy. (Edit: no implications intended of who is or is not part of the "chat room crowd".)

This sort of thing makes my head hurt. Who cares what he believes, whether he's a "decent" person, or whatever he's done with the rest of his life? This is about Wikipedia, a project to build an encyclopedia. All he has to do is write content properly.

Under normal circumstances, real-life things shouldn't matter much at Wikipedia.

But, if for example, we somehow know that someone is a kook in real life, they ought not to be welcome at Wikipedia. This is because they'll still be a kook, there, and Wikipedia is not made better by having kooks involved.

[Kelly Martin]

But, I'd never expect the chat room crowd to understand that we should not try to do therapy. (Edit: no implications intended of who is or is not part of the "chat room crowd".)

You're barmy, dude. The "chat room crowd" has absolutely no desire to see Wikipedia used to do therapy. However, it has no objection to Wikipedia being used to generate entertainment. As you are, of course, well aware, taunting the emotionally disabled is a great way to generate entertainment for the masses.

[everyking]

This is about Wikipedia, a project to build an encyclopedia. All he has to do is write content properly.

A project to...what? Are we talking about the same Wikipedia? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Well, there was once a time when Wikipedia really was about writing encyclopedia articles. Now, thanks to the ArbCom, it's more like a big role-playing game centered around inane politics, in which everyone tries to get their enemies banned. Occasionally some of the people involved do write content, although I observe that those who end up on the losing side of disputes seem far more likely to actually be interested in writing content (perhaps because they invest less of their time in obtaining popularity).

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

The problem is that undertow's history includes active participation in StormFront. He initially came to this site as indicating he had put this racism behind him. He was embraced and gained acceptance on the basis of transcending his previous views.

It is important to provide young people who become involved in racist extremism (if no physical harm or terrorism was done) some path of return to decent civil society. But their securing that acceptance requires a rigorous remaking, not half measures and self-justifications.

I don't know Glassbead, I like a lot of what you say, have said it and agreed with it. At the same time you were telling us on this forum not so long ago that Jewish suffering was ... "sui generis" ... superior to all other individuals' suffering. So I find it a little suspect when you come along and skirt around discussions of racism and racialism even while attempting to looking beneficent in your graces. It obviously has a discrediting effect upon others.

Now, frankly, I find the thought that any one religion's or people suffering is was ... "sui generis" ... superior to all other individuals suffering fairly repellant. I suspect that most people do.

But I would always judgement any individual comment, edit or series of edit you made apart from that and just overlook it as a minor judgement of error, or quirk, on your own behalf.

Was there any obvious correlation in his editing history? I have not see it so far.

I just find it laughable that at the same time as we are discussing 'edits by David Shankbone' multiple sock drawer and his Israeli Consulate funding ... and that all goes on without censure whilst some guy that has labored freely, without any obvious desire for self-promotion, gets publicly hammered.

What does that say to you?

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Friday]

But, I'd never expect the chat room crowd to understand that we should not try to do therapy. (Edit: no implications intended of who is or is not part of the "chat room crowd".)

You're barmy, dude. The "chat room crowd" has absolutely no desire to see Wikipedia used to do therapy.

You really believe that? I can't count how many times I've seen a block proposal for some disruptive editor, then someone pops up and says "I'm so-and-so's chat room friend.. let me mentor him- I can get him back on track!"

So the impression I've gotten is that they're all about trying to "fix" people.

[Kelly Martin]

Again, I don't think you're helping your friends by dragging this out. I was happy to let it drop. Many more people will have noticed my comment now, and they'll be much more curious about what we're talking about. I think it might hurt both of them, and I didn't intend that at all.

You should have kept your mouth shut, then. The urge to say "I know something I can't tell you" appears to remain strong with you; it's a habit you really need to work on breaking; that sort of pronouncement never leads to good ends. If you can't talk about, you can't talk about it. Talking about how you can't talk about it is just stupid, and you should bloody well know this.

You really believe that? I can't count how many times I've seen a block proposal for some disruptive editor, then someone pops up and says "I'm so-and-so's chat room friend.. let me mentor him- I can get him back on track!"

So the impression I've gotten is that they're all about trying to "fix" people.

That's not offering to "do therapy", they're just standing up for the friends.

Yet more evidence you have no idea what "friendship" entails.

[everyking]

Returning people to decent society is wildly outside the scope of Wikipedia. They need to become decent, on their own time, _before_ coming to the wiki.

But, I'd never expect the chat room crowd to understand that we should not try to do therapy. (Edit: no implications intended of who is or is not part of the "chat room crowd".)

This sort of thing makes my head hurt. Who cares what he believes, whether he's a "decent" person, or whatever he's done with the rest of his life? This is about Wikipedia, a project to build an encyclopedia. All he has to do is write content properly.

Under normal circumstances, real-life things shouldn't matter much at Wikipedia.

But, if for example, we somehow know that someone is a kook in real life, they ought not to be welcome at Wikipedia. This is because they'll still be a kook, there, and Wikipedia is not made better by having kooks involved.

There are two ways "kookery" can be determined: either from the content of edits (bad, POV editing), or through other means (off-wiki comments, or anything unrelated to the production of articles). My argument is that you should only be worried about "kooks" when the former is the case, because otherwise they have not manifested their views in their editing and are therefore not a problem.

[Somey]

...At the same time you were telling us on this forum not so long ago that Jewish suffering was ... "sui generis" ... superior to all other individuals' suffering.

That's completely untrue, and you've been told before that it's completely untrue. Lying once can be overlooked as a simple error; repeating the lie, not so much.

I just find it laughable that at the same time as we are discussing 'edits by David Shankbone' multiple sock drawer and his Israeli Consulate funding ... and that all goes on without censure whilst some guy that has labored freely, without any obvious desire for self-promotion, gets publicly hammered. ... What does that say to you?

That Mr. Law doesn't have the right wiki-friends, presumably. (And/or doesn't play the WP game right, i.e., in accordance to the secret gamer's manual.)

[A Horse With No Name]

But, if for example, we somehow know that someone is a kook in real life, they ought not to be welcome at Wikipedia.

Funny, I can't think of a better place for a kook to be welcome! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Somey]

...I can't count how many times I've seen a block proposal for some disruptive editor, then someone pops up and says "I'm so-and-so's chat room friend.. let me mentor him- I can get him back on track!" ... So the impression I've gotten is that they're all about trying to "fix" people.

See, now that's playing in accordance with the secret WP gamer's manual. Do a favor for someone, especially by lying for them, and they do a favor for you later on, perhaps even lie for you. Eventually, everybody passes their RfA and moves up a level. That's hardly "therapy" - it might be "politics" if you view it charitably, but it certainly has nothing to do with fixing anyone or anything.

[A Horse With No Name]

So did anyone put the popcorn on yet?

I could go for some blue corn popcorn -- a habit I picked up when I was wandering about New Mexico. Is that on the menu?

Do a favor for someone, especially by lying for them, and they do a favor for you later on, perhaps even lie for you. Eventually, everybody passes their RfA and moves up a level.

You know, if you told us that last month, TenPoundHammer would've had the game plan to pass his RfA. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[LaraLove]

It would be optimal if you knew what was being discussed, but you don't. The lie Luke is talking about is in reference to him asking the_undertow if a specific person knew. Because he didn't rat out his buddy, Luke decides to call him a liar on AN/I while putting a hat on the thread. Yes, such a shady character.

At least Luke is open about the fact that he can't be trusted. Wikipolitics > all else. ArbCom at its finest, people.

Wrong. He didn't have to rat out anyone. I didn't even ask him; he volunteered his lie. It was in his first-ever email to me, unsolicited.

Personally, I don't think that you or anyone has done anything shameful by silently letting his new account run (although some statements have been somewhat misleading). However, The_undertow didn't just make a misleading statement--he made a verifiably false assertion on behalf of a friend.

Where I'm from, silence is different from lying. I don't lie on behalf of anyone.

Again, I don't think you're helping your friends by dragging this out. I was happy to let it drop. Many more people will have noticed my comment now, and they'll be much more curious about what we're talking about. I think it might hurt both of them, and I didn't intend that at all.

Apologies for misunderstanding the situation. At long last we agree on something.

Kelly makes a good point, though. Throwing out a vague comment that he's a liar on ANI did no good.

[Milton Roe]

I would not lie to advance my friends. Maybe that's why I'm never entrusted with any of these open secrets.

Wasn't it justice Frankfurter who said he wouldn't hesitate to commit perjury for a friend, but only if the friend didn't ask him to? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Peter Damian]

This now clarifies a rather threatening email that someone claiming to be 'Law' sent me back in July (and later denied ever sending).

Where are this person's supposed good contributions to Wikipedia? He has never struck me as the type.

Another one to add to the list of those who have blocked or banned me in the name of the 'community' and who have later been struck from the rolls in disgrace.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Random832]

Where I'm from, silence is different from lying.

In response to a question, silence is not and can not be any different from saying the thing that the person asking you a question will assume silence to mean. It is not a "third option" between being a liar and being a rat.

[CharlotteWebb]

In response to a question, silence is not and can not be any different from saying the thing that the person asking you a question will assume silence to mean. It is not a "third option" between being a liar and being a rat.

Guess I'll remember that next time an officer tells me what rights I have. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[LaraLove]

Where I'm from, silence is different from lying.

In response to a question, silence is not and can not be any different from saying the thing that the person asking you a question will assume silence to mean. It is not a "third option" between being a liar and being a rat.

I don't agree with that. If your silence implies an answer, then it implies an answer, but it's not a lie.

Furthermore, part of this debate is regarding me (and whoever else) knowing and not telling. I wasn't asked a question until yesterday. When I was asked I told the truth.

Now, you can say that one should "do the right thing," as Jehochman put it, and turn in your friend when you find out, or at least keep completely quiet, basically recusing from all things related to them. That's silly to me, though.

I know him, I trust him, I'm going to support him. He came back with good intentions and made good contributions. He made controversial actions like most admins, I didn't agree with all of them, but that's how it goes. Just because I don't agree with him on something doesn't mean he loses my support. I couldn't turn my back on someone like that, and I lose respect for anyone who could.

[A Horse With No Name]

Not exactly an open secret, though if anyone had bothered looking hard enough, it wasn't particularly difficult to figure it out.

The particulars of this outing are nasty, though. On IRC on Tuesday night, Ironholds (T-C-L-K-R-D) asked Law (T-C-L-K-R-D) to move a particular article. Law wouldn't oblige, so Daniel (T-C-L-K-R-D) stepped in. The three of them bickered for a while (reading the logs, it was embarrassing behavior for all three). Eventually Ironholds figured out that Law was the_undertow (T-C-L-K-R-D) and sent IRC logs to the Arbitration Committee.

I'm not sure about other parts of the world, but 'round here we call that kind of thing being a rat.

Can we just go back to the beginning for a moment? What exactly was the genesis of this new drama? Precisely, what article did Ironholds want moved and why didn't Law oblige? I am curious to see how the conversation devolved from "Please move this article?" to "Aha, you're a phony!" -- I can't see the logical progression there. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

And what role, if any, did Daniel play in ratting out Law? According to this statement, it appears tomorrow's legal eagle (by his own admission) had a finger or two in the unmasking. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Sarcasticidealist]

Where I'm from, silence is different from lying.

In response to a question, silence is not and can not be any different from saying the thing that the person asking you a question will assume silence to mean. It is not a "third option" between being a liar and being a rat.

I don't agree with that. If your silence implies an answer, then it implies an answer, but it's not a lie.

It's contextual. If an RFA candidate has been an admin before under a different account, and doesn't mention this at the RFA, I'd say that's on par with "real" lying, since, by not saying anything, you are tacitly encouraging people to believe that you have not been an admin before. If Lara had had nothing to do with Law and had remained silent on her knowledge that he was socking, I don't think that would be in the same league at all. Voting in his RFA without divulging his sockpuppetry is probably somewhere in the middle; this is all subjective. But it's definitely contextual.

[CharlotteWebb]

I am curious to see how the conversation devolved from "Please move this article?" to "Aha, you're a phony!" -- I can't see the logical progression there. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

Reviewing this:

On IRC on Tuesday night, Ironholds (T-C-L-K-R-D) asked Law (T-C-L-K-R-D) to move a particular article. Law wouldn't oblige, so Daniel (T-C-L-K-R-D) stepped in. Eventually Ironholds figured out that Law was the_undertow (T-C-L-K-R-D) and sent IRC logs to the Arbitration Committee.

Let's not give him too much credit. I told him weeks ago.

Based on what we know so far the log might have looked something like this:

CODE

[23:59] <Law> no you fuck-wipe the current title is better
[00:00] <Ironholds> lolol if ur gonna be that way i guess ir start tellin ppl who ur
[00:00] <Law> go fuck the devil, shit-face
[00:05] <Ironholds> hey daniel, you got a second
[00:06] <Law> fuck you you fucking fucks

(or not!) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

More fun on today's shitstorm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Alternate

Based on what we know so far the log might have looked something like this:

CODE

[23:59] <Law> no you fuck-wipe the current title is better
[00:00] <Ironholds> lolol if ur gonna be that way i guess ir start tellin ppl who ur
[00:00] <Law> go fuck the devil, shit-face
[00:05] <Ironholds> hey daniel, you got a second
[00:06] <Law> fuck you you fucking fucks

(or not!) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Wait a minute...Law is also Tanthalas39? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[SirFozzie]

Someone rang?

It was just some free-range thoughts after reading this whole thing. I was trying to keep it low key rather then make it a full fledged RfC to start.. I'm pretty sure where WR (as an average) falls on my questions.. but they are questions we (WP) need to think about going forward..

[MBisanz]

Not exactly an open secret, though if anyone had bothered looking hard enough, it wasn't particularly difficult to figure it out.

The particulars of this outing are nasty, though. On IRC on Tuesday night, Ironholds (T-C-L-K-R-D) asked Law (T-C-L-K-R-D) to move a particular article. Law wouldn't oblige, so Daniel (T-C-L-K-R-D) stepped in. The three of them bickered for a while (reading the logs, it was embarrassing behavior for all three). Eventually Ironholds figured out that Law was the_undertow (T-C-L-K-R-D) and sent IRC logs to the Arbitration Committee.

I'm not sure about other parts of the world, but 'round here we call that kind of thing being a rat.

Can we just go back to the beginning for a moment? What exactly was the genesis of this new drama? Precisely, what article did Ironholds want moved and why didn't Law oblige? I am curious to see how the conversation devolved from "Please move this article?" to "Aha, you're a phony!" -- I can't see the logical progression there. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

And what role, if any, did Daniel play in ratting out Law? According to this statement, it appears tomorrow's legal eagle (by his own admission) had a finger or two in the unmasking. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

I suspect the article in dispute was Andrew Bonar Law, the below history extract also indicates something was oversighted between Law's move and Ironhold's subsequent edit.

# (cur) (prev) 16:42, September 29, 2009 Ironholds (talk | contribs | block) (83,036 bytes) (fix, thanks IP) (rollback | undo)
# (cur) (prev) 11:22, September 29, 2009 Law (talk | contribs | block) m (83,014 bytes) (moved Bonar Law to Andrew Bonar Law over redirect: Full name. No consensus to move.) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 10:44, September 29, 2009 Ironholds (talk | contribs | block) m (83,014 bytes) (moved Andrew Bonar Law to Bonar Law: per mostcommon) (undo)

[Apathetic]

Based on what we know so far the log might have looked something like this:

CODE

[23:59] <Law> no you fuck-wipe the current title is better
[00:00] <Ironholds> lolol if ur gonna be that way i guess ir start tellin ppl who ur
[00:00] <Law> go fuck the devil, shit-face
[00:05] <Ironholds> hey daniel, you got a second
[00:06] <Law> fuck you you fucking fucks

(or not!) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

epic lulz

plz do go on

[LaraLove]

Not exactly an open secret, though if anyone had bothered looking hard enough, it wasn't particularly difficult to figure it out.

The particulars of this outing are nasty, though. On IRC on Tuesday night, Ironholds (T-C-L-K-R-D) asked Law (T-C-L-K-R-D) to move a particular article. Law wouldn't oblige, so Daniel (T-C-L-K-R-D) stepped in. The three of them bickered for a while (reading the logs, it was embarrassing behavior for all three). Eventually Ironholds figured out that Law was the_undertow (T-C-L-K-R-D) and sent IRC logs to the Arbitration Committee.

I'm not sure about other parts of the world, but 'round here we call that kind of thing being a rat.

Can we just go back to the beginning for a moment? What exactly was the genesis of this new drama? Precisely, what article did Ironholds want moved and why didn't Law oblige? I am curious to see how the conversation devolved from "Please move this article?" to "Aha, you're a phony!" -- I can't see the logical progression there. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

And what role, if any, did Daniel play in ratting out Law? According to this statement, it appears tomorrow's legal eagle (by his own admission) had a finger or two in the unmasking. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Andrew Bonar Law.

Ironholds wanted it moved, Law didn't think it was within policy, so he refused. The Daniel almost immediately stepped in and deleted the redirect so that Ironholds could move it, which he did. Debate followed about naming conventions, Ironholds started the name-calling, referring to Law as "a bloody fool," and "dickwad," and saying that his refusal to do the move was moronic. This carried on for quite a long time. Law actually stayed pretty chill through most of it. Citing policies and pointing out he was needlessly being attacked. Ironholds also pinged him repeatedly and unnecessarily, and Law noted he didn't understand why he was being assailed, that he merely opined.

For Daniel's part, he can insinuate that he had some hand in an "investigation," but it surely couldn't have been any greater than my part in it: being questioned. In the logs ArbCom was sent by Ironholds, which I have from having been in chan (but AFK) at the time, Daniel joined in to give Law a hard time about refusing to do the move, referring to Ironholds as a worthy "sidekick" and then Ironholds correcting that it is, in fact, Daniel who is his sidekick. He also defended Ironholds name-calling to the chan mods by noting Law had called them meatpuppets, then proceeded to call Law a "tool" and made some bullshit excuse about how he was referencing how Law was using the situation as a tool... blah, blah, bullshit.

There was a continual reference to a consensus, Law pointed out you can't have a consensus of 2 on IRC and later asked what forum they thought was most appropriate for him to challenge the move. During the debate, Law stated several times that he thought it was a bad move, Daniel responded at one point that he should stop stating it was a bad move or "ill just state the opposite". This was almost immediately followed by Ironholds saying Find an appropriate venue to discuss this and I'll chip in. And when I kick your arse up and down the wiki until you're shitting blood like Daniel after six pints of guiness, I want an apology.

Following that Law posted Google results and it turned into a series of 'NO U's, so to speak, with regard to who carried the burden of gaining consensus (that the move was good or that it was bad). So, fastforward a touch, Law quotes the original ping from Ironholds asking him to do the move, "and when i said no, this is what i get?" The two justify their behavior by telling him it wasn't that he refused to do it, it was that, according to Ironholds, "it's because your argument for justifying it was moronic, and your behaviour since then has been one of stubbornly defending an untenable position"; and according to Daniel, it's because he "continued to push the envelope".

So Law asks, "so the personal attacks were justified", and Daniel responds "oh, poor law and the personal attacks / nawwww". A few minutes pass and Law comes back to "politely ask" that the move be reversed until consensus is gained. This sets both Ironholds and Daniel off again, and it's pretty much a repeat of the back and forth before resulting in Daniel being temp-banned from the channel. Ironholds brings up wheelwarring and Law says it's only a reversion. Ironholds asks a reversion of what, and then realizes that Law reverted the move. He then calls Law a "dick" and is then temp-banned from the channel himself just after Law tells him to take it on-wiki and gain consensus.

What transpired in PM between Ironholds and Law following that is unknown to me beyond what each of them told me. But there are your cliff's notes. Anyone else with logs can confirm should anyone feel the need to deny.

As far as who was right in the discussion on the move, I neither know nor care. The way it went down was shameful.

[One]

Moral of the story: use [[WP:RM]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

This post has been edited by One:

[Moulton]

Epic levels of unprofessionalism.

[Kelly Martin]

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Didn't I say a while back that most conflicts on Wikipedia are either ideologically-motivated fights or straight-up personality conflicts, and that many of the latter are really grounded in the former?

Very few Wikipedians know how to work collaborative in a collegial manner.

[The Wales Hunter]

Only on Wikipedia could a discussion about Andrew Bonar Law cause such fuss.

The man has received more words in this farce than he has for the past half-century!

[Deodand]

Not exactly an open secret, though if anyone had bothered looking hard enough, it wasn't particularly difficult to figure it out.

The particulars of this outing are nasty, though. On IRC on Tuesday night, Ironholds (T-C-L-K-R-D) asked Law (T-C-L-K-R-D) to move a particular article. Law wouldn't oblige, so Daniel (T-C-L-K-R-D) stepped in. The three of them bickered for a while (reading the logs, it was embarrassing behavior for all three). Eventually Ironholds figured out that Law was the_undertow (T-C-L-K-R-D) and sent IRC logs to the Arbitration Committee.

I'm not sure about other parts of the world, but 'round here we call that kind of thing being a rat.

Can we just go back to the beginning for a moment? What exactly was the genesis of this new drama? Precisely, what article did Ironholds want moved and why didn't Law oblige? I am curious to see how the conversation devolved from "Please move this article?" to "Aha, you're a phony!" -- I can't see the logical progression there. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

And what role, if any, did Daniel play in ratting out Law? According to this statement, it appears tomorrow's legal eagle (by his own admission) had a finger or two in the unmasking. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Andrew Bonar Law.

Ironholds wanted it moved, Law didn't think it was within policy, so he refused. The Daniel almost immediately stepped in and deleted the redirect so that Ironholds could move it, which he did. Debate followed about naming conventions, Ironholds started the name-calling, referring to Law as "a bloody fool," and "dickwad," and saying that his refusal to do the move was moronic. This carried on for quite a long time. Law actually stayed pretty chill through most of it. Citing policies and pointing out he was needlessly being attacked. Ironholds also pinged him repeatedly and unnecessarily, and Law noted he didn't understand why he was being assailed, that he merely opined.

For Daniel's part, he can insinuate that he had some hand in an "investigation," but it surely couldn't have been any greater than my part in it: being questioned. In the logs ArbCom was sent by Ironholds, which I have from having been in chan (but AFK) at the time, Daniel joined in to give Law a hard time about refusing to do the move, referring to Ironholds as a worthy "sidekick" and then Ironholds correcting that it is, in fact, Daniel who is his sidekick. He also defended Ironholds name-calling to the chan mods by noting Law had called them meatpuppets, then proceeded to call Law a "tool" and made some bullshit excuse about how he was referencing how Law was using the situation as a tool... blah, blah, bullshit.

There was a continual reference to a consensus, Law pointed out you can't have a consensus of 2 on IRC and later asked what forum they thought was most appropriate for him to challenge the move. During the debate, Law stated several times that he thought it was a bad move, Daniel responded at one point that he should stop stating it was a bad move or "ill just state the opposite". This was almost immediately followed by Ironholds saying Find an appropriate venue to discuss this and I'll chip in. And when I kick your arse up and down the wiki until you're shitting blood like Daniel after six pints of guiness, I want an apology.

Following that Law posted Google results and it turned into a series of 'NO U's, so to speak, with regard to who carried the burden of gaining consensus (that the move was good or that it was bad). So, fastforward a touch, Law quotes the original ping from Ironholds asking him to do the move, "and when i said no, this is what i get?" The two justify their behavior by telling him it wasn't that he refused to do it, it was that, according to Ironholds, "it's because your argument for justifying it was moronic, and your behaviour since then has been one of stubbornly defending an untenable position"; and according to Daniel, it's because he "continued to push the envelope".

So Law asks, "so the personal attacks were justified", and Daniel responds "oh, poor law and the personal attacks / nawwww". A few minutes pass and Law comes back to "politely ask" that the move be reversed until consensus is gained. This sets both Ironholds and Daniel off again, and it's pretty much a repeat of the back and forth before resulting in Daniel being temp-banned from the channel. Ironholds brings up wheelwarring and Law says it's only a reversion. Ironholds asks a reversion of what, and then realizes that Law reverted the move. He then calls Law a "dick" and is then temp-banned from the channel himself just after Law tells him to take it on-wiki and gain consensus.

What transpired in PM between Ironholds and Law following that is unknown to me beyond what each of them told me. But there are your cliff's notes. Anyone else with logs can confirm should anyone feel the need to deny.

As far as who was right in the discussion on the move, I neither know nor care. The way it went down was shameful.

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.

[Tarc]

Probably regretting that unretirement now to take care of CoM, eh?

Had nothing to do with that. Nothing at all.

The point was he was somewhat inactive before that point, and if he hadn't dragged himself back into the wikipedia to perform a bad unblock, might not have gotten tangled in the page move nonsense.

Just a dumb aside. Don't mind me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[The Joy]

I see Daniel gloating over his "epic win." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=316880621

[SirFozzie]

Well, Casliber's statement puts a new spin to it...

After thinking about it, I can't even say I'm disappointed in Casliber and/or Lara. They didn't do anything.. it was Undertow/Law who put them in a rough spot. I can empathize. Trust me.

This post has been edited by SirFozzie:

[One]

Well, Casliber's statement puts a new spin to it...

After thinking about it, I can't even say I'm disappointed in Casliber and/or Lara. They didn't do anything.. it was Undertow/Law who put them in a rough spot. I can empathize. Trust me.

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...y_from_Casliber

[No one of consequence]

I see Daniel gloating over his "epic win." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=316880621

Gloating sucks. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a game with wins and losses, even if some people treat it that way. I thought Daniel knew better.

[SirFozzie]

Definitely. I was thinking about reading him the riot act for that bit of unnecessary wankery, but at least Ironholds said the right thing.

[Noroton]

Well, Casliber's statement puts a new spin to it...

After thinking about it, I can't even say I'm disappointed in Casliber and/or Lara. They didn't do anything.. it was Undertow/Law who put them in a rough spot. I can empathize. Trust me.

There's something wrong with people becoming officers of an organization and then failing to act when they know the integrity of the organization's governance is being hurt. And if that sounds a little too abstract and high falutin', yeah, maybe. No huge crime took place. Casliber's case is more serious than Lara's because he's on the committee. If he didn't at least apologize, he'd need to resign or be dumped. Committee members need to support the committee's decisions, including past decisions, or help overturn them. How are admins supposed to help enforce committee decisions when committee members themselves aren't doing so? Lara, like Casliber, did something that will probably reduce morale among people who know about it.

That said, this isn't enough to dump a damn good arb from the committee. They're too rare.

Doesn't Wikipedia look crazy, though.

[Kelly Martin]

Wow, I'd say based on the last comment on Daniel's talk page that that boy would be better off with an indef block. But y'all won't do that, you don't have the moxie.

[SirFozzie]

"Play the game when it amuses me".. who does he think he is? Triple H? *snort*

[Noroton]

Wow, I'd say based on the last comment on Daniel's talk page that that boy would be better off with an indef block. But y'all won't do that, you don't have the moxie.

Spoke too soon. Georgewilliamherbert just announced the block.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniel#RE

This is grossly inappropriate, and I'm sickened that you're wikilawyering about it. Consider this a warning. GWH is not known to be a WR booster, BTW. Cool Hand Luke 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A warning for what, exactly? And, wow, where have I seen this crowd before...memo to everyone: I really don't care about anything. I don't edit for Wikipedia anymore, I edit for the subjects of articles near-exclusively. If this makes me disconnected from Wikipedia policies and standards, then I guess it's only a matter of time until it catches me out big time and I lose adminship. But until then, I'll be continuing along the same path I have for the last few months. If I get "blocked" over something like this, it'll simply be a weekend in the middle of the week, which is something I've been screaming at my university and place of employment to implement anyways; Wikipedia is progressive, I guess, so it's always a possibility. Daniel (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Does OTRS include off-site personality fights that result in "epic wins" for the participants? If so, it's much less collegial than I realized. For future reference, civility is still a policy here on the ol' wiki. Cool Hand Luke 01:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You obviously missed the "near-exclusively" bit. I will still play 'the game' when I feel it will benefit or amuse me. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As you are threatening to continue the incivility you were warned about, you have your requested 48 hr vacation.

Again - This is not about wins or losses, and calling anything that happened here in this incident an epic win is simply grossly unacceptable behavior. Doing a victory dance over a fallen opponent gets you a personal foul and 15 yard penalty in the NFL. Doing it here, and refusing to accept the validity of the warnings, is a 48 hr block. Treat other wikipedians, even those blocked or banned, with respect and dignity. Failure to do so is an insult to the entire community, degrades all our participation and communications. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Badly done. Daniel is being blocked for his 00:45 comment, in which he mouthed off like an idiot but didsn't actually commit another incivility, and is blocked for ... "refusing to accept the validity of the warnings". This is a block for having bad thoughts. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Still, who'd want to unblock the jackass?

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[LaraLove]

Moral of the story: use [[WP:RM]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.

[2009-09-29 06:53:08] <Ironholds> ..Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <Ironholds> Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[2009-09-29 06:53:11] <Ironholds> LAW

Three times in three seconds. That's once? I guess if you add them together and divide by three, then yea... that's once.

And I think it's a far stretch of the imagination to think Law was literally calling Daniel and Ironholds meatpuppets. Regardless, completely inappropriate to go on with the sidekick shit.

[Apathetic]

Eesh, is it a full moon or something?

(wrt the new drama on ut:Daniel, not the thing immediately above)

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[SirFozzie]

Am I the only one who Laughed my ass off reading the section where Daniel accuses GWH of carrying WR's water? Where'd he get his history from?

Remember "He sounded like WordBomb when he wrote an email to me?"

[One]

This is apparently inspiring Durova to set up an account. I don't quite understand why though.

[Kelly Martin]

Whee, two days in the sin bin. That'll larn him.

[Milton Roe]

This is grossly inappropriate, and I'm sickened that you're wikilawyering about it. Consider this a warning. GWH is not known to be a WR booster, BTW. Cool Hand Luke 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A warning for what, exactly? And, wow, where have I seen this crowd before...memo to everyone: I really don't care about anything. I don't edit for Wikipedia anymore, I edit for the subjects of articles near-exclusively. If this makes me disconnected from Wikipedia policies and standards, then I guess it's only a matter of time until it catches me out big time and I lose adminship. But until then, I'll be continuing along the same path I have for the last few months. If I get "blocked" over something like this, it'll simply be a weekend in the middle of the week, which is something I've been screaming at my university and place of employment to implement anyways; Wikipedia is progressive, I guess, so it's always a possibility. Daniel (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Does OTRS include off-site personality fights that result in "epic wins" for the participants? If so, it's much less collegial than I realized. For future reference, civility is still a policy here on the ol' wiki. Cool Hand Luke 01:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You obviously missed the "near-exclusively" bit. I will still play 'the game' when I feel it will benefit or amuse me. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/Arena.jpg)
"And just now, that one pleases me. See that it is played in the area."

[trenton]

Well, Casliber's statement puts a new spin to it...

After thinking about it, I can't even say I'm disappointed in Casliber and/or Lara. They didn't do anything.. it was Undertow/Law who put them in a rough spot. I can empathize. Trust me.

There's something wrong with people becoming officers of an organization and then failing to act when they know the integrity of the organization's governance is being hurt. And if that sounds a little too abstract and high falutin', yeah, maybe. No huge crime took place. Casliber's case is more serious than Lara's because he's on the committee. If he didn't at least apologize, he'd need to resign or be dumped. Committee members need to support the committee's decisions, including past decisions, or help overturn them. How are admins supposed to help enforce committee decisions when committee members themselves aren't doing so? Lara, like Casliber, did something that will probably reduce morale among people who know about it.

That said, this isn't enough to dump a damn good arb from the committee. They're too rare.

Doesn't Wikipedia look crazy, though.

One was an active role in the deception while another was just passive knowledge...

Not that I would expect any better, but I think it's a very selfish thing to do to one's "friends".

[Cedric]

This is apparently inspiring Durova to set up an account. I don't quite understand why though.

You never understand why, Abner.

[Malleus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312524681

Interesting. I have to say that I didn't see this coming, but hindsight being what it is, it makes sense.

Anyone who was paying attention should have known. There were many, many obvious connections.

Oh, and to answer your question (in case it wasn't evident), I knew.

I'm surprised everyone didn't know, I was told who Law was ages ago.

[Random832]

In response to a question, silence is not and can not be any different from saying the thing that the person asking you a question will assume silence to mean. It is not a "third option" between being a liar and being a rat.

Guess I'll remember that next time an officer tells me what rights I have. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Don't lawyers have to be specifically ordered not to make those sorts of implications in front of a jury? That tells you something: they work. (or is this a result of watching too many courtroom drama shows?)

I'm also pretty sure I remember that that right to remain silent doesn't actually extend to protecting your friends.

In response to a question, silence is not and can not be any different from saying the thing that the person asking you a question will assume silence to mean. It is not a "third option" between being a liar and being a rat.

I don't agree with that. If your silence implies an answer, then it implies an answer, but it's not a lie.

My point was as much or more that if your silence implies confirmation of someone's suspicion about someone it's as if you ratted them out.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[lone-wolf]

This whole matter has certainly forced me to re-evaluate a few people in regards to the amount of respect they should be accorded.

[LaraLove]

This whole matter has certainly forced me to re-evaluate a few people in regards to the amount of respect they should be accorded.

Coming from someone who doesn't feel the need to connect to their WP name, that means a lot.

[everyking]

Since the original ban was asinine and the Law account was doing good work, staying silent about the editor's prior account was not only acceptable, it was the right thing to do. Nevertheless I think Casliber should resign as an arb, just because I don't approve of the way he's handled ArbCom business and I don't think he has the right perspective.

Daniel shouldn't have been blocked. He was talking about an "epic win" because the wiki-culture implicitly endorses the use of blocks and bans to settle scores and eliminate enemies. His words reflected a culture that no longer sees a block as a last resort means to prevent disruption, but rather as a political weapon; to block him just reinforces the practice of misusing the block button and thereby encourages the very thing that the block is ostensibly intended to deter.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Kelly Martin]

See, I disagree with everyking on Daniel's fate. I think Daniel should be banned. But then again, I think about 80% of Wikipedians should be banned. Including everyking. So whatever.

[Malleus]

See, I disagree with everyking on Daniel's fate. I think Daniel should be banned. But then again, I think about 80% of Wikipedians should be banned. Including everyking. So whatever.

I'm kinda sympathetic to that view. So far as Law, or any other admin/editor who's changed identities, I really couldn't care less. And that goes for Horsey too. I take people as I find them.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

This is apparently inspiring Durova to set up an account. I don't quite understand why though.

Poor sportsmanship on Daniel's part. Who's less likely to post to Wikpedia Review than Georgewilliamherbert or me?

Might as well unblock the dude. He'll never live this down.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Welcome to WR, Durova. Make yourself comfortable. I think you'll find that the locals are surprisingly friendly. Well, except for GlassBeadGame; he gets a little cranky around nap time.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Welcome to WR, Durova. Make yourself comfortable. I think you'll find that the locals are surprisingly friendly. Well, except for GlassBeadGame; he gets a little cranky around nap time.

Thank you very much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[MBisanz]

This is apparently inspiring Durova to set up an account. I don't quite understand why though.

Poor sportsmanship on Daniel's part. Who's less likely to post to Wikpedia Review than Georgewilliamherbert or me?

Might as well unblock the dude. He'll never live this down.

Hiya! The rulebook here isn't nearly as long as WP's, but then again the opportunities for creating things are also lacking (well it is a great place to create drama), so have fun.

[Alison]

Welcome to WR, Durova. Make yourself comfortable. I think you'll find that the locals are surprisingly friendly. Well, except for GlassBeadGame; he gets a little cranky around nap time.

Thank you very much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

lol ----> 15 User(s) are reading this topic (4 Guests and 3 Anonymous Users)

Welcome to WR, Durova. It looks llke the audience has arrived, too (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Grep]

I'm surprised everyone didn't know, I was told who Law was ages ago.

Ah, the old Secret de Polichinelle. Funny en.wikipedia doesn't have that article.

[Kelly Martin]

Stand by all dramacopters!

[the_undertow]

i'm not the same person i was 2 years ago when i came to WR with an immediate assault on what i mistakenly perceived to go on here.

my silence here and on wiki is difficult, especially having to relive the accusations of white supremacy and mental instability. Not to mention the worst, which is watching potential heads roll.

i just wanted to put it out that i am listening to every word here, and there, and simply reflecting. i'm not ignoring this board, nor the situation that i created. i am simply and patiently listening. i guess i just wanted to say hello.

Chip

[MBisanz]

i'm not the same person i was 2 years ago when i came to WR with an immediate assault on what i mistakenly perceived to go on here.

my silence here and on wiki is difficult, especially having to relive the accusations of white supremacy and mental instability. Not to mention the worst, which is watching potential heads roll.

i just wanted to put it out that i am listening to every word here, and there, and simply reflecting. i'm not ignoring this board, nor the situation that i created. i am simply and patiently listening. i guess i just wanted to say hello.

Chip

Happily no one trusted me enough to let me in on the secret of who Law was (probably because I tend to frown on any socking), but I can't blame you personally for trying with the hope that you would end up being one of the large percentage of people who gets away with it by having friends in the right places/enemies in the wrong places and managing to return. It is a cat and mouse game and WP's skill level is very very poor/unwilling in the cat department. I do hope everything else is going well for you.

[Anonymous editor]

I see Daniel gloating over his "epic win." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=316880621

He's an epic scumbag.

[the_undertow]

i'm not the same person i was 2 years ago when i came to WR with an immediate assault on what i mistakenly perceived to go on here.

my silence here and on wiki is difficult, especially having to relive the accusations of white supremacy and mental instability. Not to mention the worst, which is watching potential heads roll.

i just wanted to put it out that i am listening to every word here, and there, and simply reflecting. i'm not ignoring this board, nor the situation that i created. i am simply and patiently listening. i guess i just wanted to say hello.

Chip

Happily no one trusted me enough to let me in on the secret of who Law was (probably because I tend to frown on any socking), but I can't blame you personally for trying with the hope that you would end up being one of the large percentage of people who gets away with it by having friends in the right places/enemies in the wrong places and managing to return. It is a cat and mouse game and WP's skill level is very very poor/unwilling in the cat department. I do hope everything else is going well for you.

I didn't try to get away with it in the end. I realized that I was unethically burdening one half of WP with my identity and lying to the other half. It just took me awhile to get over the 'ends and means' mindset. I put my real name and picture on my userpage. I also wantonly told just about everyone. It was hard enough to play a persona on WP that was not me. I cannot fathom what those in real-life have to go through by acting as if they were someone else.

Obviously there was a part of me that wanted to get caught. I retired to quash the urge to out myself, but that didn't stick. As Law, I'm very detached to the moniker. As undertow, I'm Chip - with a full personality. I'm the outspoken accountant who watches soaps, has 14 tattoos and an interest in antiques, Stella Artois, and menthol cigarettes. These are not the personality traits that one may wish for their kids, but they are mine, and I alone own them. If I couldn't be me, I would just rather not be anyone else, including Law. I don't know if that makes sense.

I don't regret evading my ban. I regret burdening anyone with this information and I regret that anyone gets hurt because of my selfish justifications. I thought that telling people was a way of letting my 'friends' know that I didn't want to lie. However, I didn't realize the impossible position that I had created for them.

There is obviously much more to it (including the AC motion and why it was accepted), but these things, well I will answer them privately, but I prefer to spare this board anymore drama or attention I have brought here, especially given that I was welcomed off the bat.

This post has been edited by the_undertow:

[Abd]

my silence here and on wiki is difficult, especially having to relive the accusations of white supremacy and mental instability. Not to mention the worst, which is watching potential heads roll.

For Wikipedia to work according to the original concept, true consensus is required. And one of the poisoners of consensus is the habit of telling other people what they believe. It's offensive even if you are right, and thoroughly stupid if you are wrong. After all, would you trust someone who confidently tells you that you believe what you know you don't believe?

I did a great deal of what could be called "Muslim apologetics," on usenet, and I became friends with some Christian apologists in the process. And then there were those whose habit was promote their own beliefs by attacking ours, and they were fond of telling us what we believed. Definitely not a good technique for a missionary!

There are people who seek understanding and people who don't. Those who seek understanding may disagree strongly, but can still work together and even find surprisingly deep consensus, but those who imagine that they already know what others believe, you know, those POV-pushers or fanatics or whatever, will never find peace, for their approach is battle and conflict. And contempt.

And this is far more common than I'd like to believe, it afflicts some of the best people, sometimes.

In any case, reading the comments about "white pride," I was mostly reminded about how I feel about my youngest daughter. I don't believe that race is a reality, it's a social construct, that's what the academics came to, and they are right. But identity is something else, and my daughter's identity includes that she was born in Africa, she has kinky black hair, big lips, chocolate skin, and smiles like the sunrise, all of which are very much characteristic of the people where she was raised for her first three years. And I'm proud of her and I want her to be proud of herself, and, in fact, that's a kind of "black pride." Black is beautiful, and my God, she's beautiful. But it's not racist. I have other children, five, who are "white," as people would think. And I'm proud of them and I want them to be proud of themselves, and I don't, for some reason, think of that as "white pride," and, in fact, I wonder why. Maybe it's because of associations from a racist past, a past most of us have been moving beyond, even as it is practically impossible to eliminate all of the stain of it.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of one's culture and family and tribe, as long as it does not lead to denial of the worth of others . So, Law -- somehow that seems more fitting than "the undertow" -- welcome to the community of those who remain connected outside the too-often-abusive whirlpool that is the wiki. I see more wisdom here in one day than in months on-wiki. And a lot of junk, as well, that's the way it goes....

[Anonymous editor]

Am I the only one who Laughed my ass off reading the section where Daniel accuses GWH of carrying WR's water? Where'd he get his history from?

That was most excellent.

Remember "He sounded like WordBomb when he wrote an email to me?"

No, but now you're obligated to link us!

[Alison]

In any case, reading the comments about "white pride," I was mostly reminded about how I feel about my youngest daughter. I don't believe that race is a reality, it's a social construct, that's what the academics came to, and they are right. But identity is something else, and my daughter's identity includes that she was born in Africa, she has kinky black hair, big lips, chocolate skin, and smiles like the sunrise, all of which are very much characteristic of the people where she was raised for her first three years. And I'm proud of her and I want her to be proud of herself, and, in fact, that's a kind of "black pride." Black is beautiful, and my God, she's beautiful. But it's not racist. I have other children, five, who are "white," as people would think. And I'm proud of them and I want them to be proud of themselves, and I don't, for some reason, think of that as "white pride," and, in fact, I wonder why. Maybe it's because of associations from a racist past, a past most of us have been moving beyond, even as it is practically impossible to eliminate all of the stain of it.

This whole paragraph made me smile (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Nice one! Your love for your kids shines through.

[the_undertow]

In any case, reading the comments about "white pride," I was mostly reminded about how I feel about my youngest daughter. I don't believe that race is a reality, it's a social construct, that's what the academics came to, and they are right. But identity is something else, and my daughter's identity includes that she was born in Africa, she has kinky black hair, big lips, chocolate skin, and smiles like the sunrise, all of which are very much characteristic of the people where she was raised for her first three years. And I'm proud of her and I want her to be proud of herself, and, in fact, that's a kind of "black pride." Black is beautiful, and my God, she's beautiful. But it's not racist. I have other children, five, who are "white," as people would think. And I'm proud of them and I want them to be proud of themselves, and I don't, for some reason, think of that as "white pride," and, in fact, I wonder why. Maybe it's because of associations from a racist past, a past most of us have been moving beyond, even as it is practically impossible to eliminate all of the stain of it.

This whole paragraph made me smile (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Nice one! Your love for your kids shines through.

For what it's worth. I have never opined here nor on wiki that I hold white pride to be my ideology. I have argued between doctrines such as 'white pride' v. 'white supremacy,' but never identified with either. I admitted here to a membership, six years or so ago on Stormfront, but also left because it was not what I was looking for. I thought that people could hold pride in a purely superficial context, but soon learned that my pride was going to be in my accomplishments, and not by virtue that I happened to be born with a skin color. As Moulton said, yes, I graduated last month with an MSacc in Taxation from SDSU. I have used my time constructively.

So much for my lurking, I suppose. I guess I'm chatty.

[Cla68]

i'm not the same person i was 2 years ago when i came to WR with an immediate assault on what i mistakenly perceived to go on here.

my silence here and on wiki is difficult, especially having to relive the accusations of white supremacy and mental instability. Not to mention the worst, which is watching potential heads roll.

i just wanted to put it out that i am listening to every word here, and there, and simply reflecting. i'm not ignoring this board, nor the situation that i created. i am simply and patiently listening. i guess i just wanted to say hello.

Chip

I would suggest that the next time that you create an account on Wikipedia, that you quietly build some great articles in noncontroversial topics, of course in subjects that interest you, and completely stay away from admin stuff. Make sure that your userpage is benign. If you do that, I think people will leave you alone.

Also, welcome to WR, Durova.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[victim of censorship]

Welcome to WR, Durova. Make yourself comfortable. I think you'll find that the locals are surprisingly friendly. Well, except for GlassBeadGame; he gets a little cranky around nap time.

NOT ME Ms Durova....


I consider any wikipeidian admin to be one of the following..

LIAR (all admins)
THIEF ( Of truth, Intellectual property, human rights )
CON ARTIST (JIMMY)
COWARD (ROB Fernandez)
DEGENERATE (David Gerard)
BRAIN-DAMAGED PUNK (Ryulong )
POWER DRUNK SOCIOPATH (Raul654)
BASEMENT DWELLING FREAK
SEXUAL DEVIATE (see SHANKBONE as typical example of such)
PLAGIARIZER (Essay)





I am willing to say any and more to any Wikipeidan admin, leader, or JIMMY FUCK HEAD WALES in the real, what have written here, and would be willing to let any coward have the first punch but to bad, Wikipedia are sniveling cowards and it would be just a dream.

I not going to be very nice.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Alison]

I consider any wikipeidian admin to be one of the following..

THIEF ( Of [..] human rights )

I have three WP editors tied up in my basement with their hands duct-taped behind their backs. What could I do? They'd all violated 3RR on the one article. But don't worry - I'll let them out after 31 hours. Maybe.

That'll larn 'em! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

BRAIN-DAMAGED PUNK

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb93/LovexClandi/vyvyan.jpg)

[Anonymous editor]

What is a "sexual deviate" and how would I go about becoming one?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Welcome to WR, Durova. Make yourself comfortable. I think you'll find that the locals are surprisingly friendly. Well, except for GlassBeadGame; he gets a little cranky around nap time.

NOT ME Ms Durova....

Oh, yes, sorry, I did forget about VoC; he's not very nice at all. Or coherent, most of the time. I think the staff only let him back here because what he lacks in ability to express himself, he makes up in unbridled hatred of Wikipedia. And, of course, of our beloved leader, JIMMY FUCK HEAD WALES.

[victim of censorship]

What is a "sexual deviate" and how would I go about becoming one?

TALK TO SANKBONE and one of the NAMBLA ers that run in wikipeidia.

[the_undertow]

i'm not the same person i was 2 years ago when i came to WR with an immediate assault on what i mistakenly perceived to go on here.

my silence here and on wiki is difficult, especially having to relive the accusations of white supremacy and mental instability. Not to mention the worst, which is watching potential heads roll.

i just wanted to put it out that i am listening to every word here, and there, and simply reflecting. i'm not ignoring this board, nor the situation that i created. i am simply and patiently listening. i guess i just wanted to say hello.

Chip

I would suggest that the next time that you create an account on Wikipedia, that you quietly build some great articles in noncontroversial topics, of course in subjects that interest you, and completely stay away from admin stuff. Make sure that your userpage is benign. If you do that, I think people will leave you alone.

Also, welcome to WR, Durova.

I did. Only tax law and watering holes. I'm not going to start over again. There is something oddly liberating about being the incivil, unstable, 'racially charged' undertow again. I see no point in creating another account. I was never happy taking on another persona. I don't need the tools for anything that I have ever done.

[victim of censorship]

Welcome to WR, Durova. Make yourself comfortable. I think you'll find that the locals are surprisingly friendly. Well, except for GlassBeadGame; he gets a little cranky around nap time.

NOT ME Ms Durova....

Oh, yes, sorry, I did forget about VoC; he's not very nice at all. Or coherent, most of the time. I think the staff only let him back here because what he lacks in ability to express himself, he makes up in unbridled hatred of Wikipedia. And, of course, of our beloved leader, JIMMY FUCK HEAD WALES.

Coherent enough for a little snarky over educated fuck like you to understand


I have have hatred, hatred for the evil which Wikipeida is all about... The lies, the hate, the destruction of reputations. the squelching of truth, the pollution of minds, the hurt it causes.

IS that reason enough for an arrogant little man like you?

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[the_undertow]

Welcome to WR, Durova. Make yourself comfortable. I think you'll find that the locals are surprisingly friendly. Well, except for GlassBeadGame; he gets a little cranky around nap time.

NOT ME Ms Durova....


I consider any wikipeidian admin to be one of the following..

LIAR (all admins)
THIEF ( Of truth, Intellectual property, human rights )
CON ARTIST (JIMMY)
COWARD (ROB Fernandez)
DEGENERATE (David Gerard)
BRAIN-DAMAGED PUNK (Ryulong )
POWER DRUNK SOCIOPATH (Raul654)
BASEMENT DWELLING FREAK
SEXUAL DEVIATE (see SHANKBONE as typical example of such)
PLAGIARIZER (Essay)

I hope I just fit in the 'liar' cat. Raul and Wales are two people who have expressed quite explicitly that I did not 'fit the mold.'

[Sarcasticidealist]

Coherent enough for a little snarky over educated fuck like you to understand

Overeducated? Come now: I'm 27 years old and I don't have any kind of post-secondary degree or diploma. I'm basically your brother in arms, here.

(Mods, I'd suggest splitting and tarpitting this in anticipation of the dozens of unrelated posts that I imagine will come up; I'm certainly not going to restrain myself, and I rather think that restraint ranks right around coherence and cuddliness on the list of VoC's virtues.)

[Anonymous editor]

What is a "sexual deviate" and how would I go about becoming one?

TALK TO SANKBONE and one of the NAMBLA ers that run in wikipeidia.

I've never heard of this sankbone. Who is he or she?

[Cla68]

What is a "sexual deviate" and how would I go about becoming one?

TALK TO SANKBONE and one of the NAMBLA ers that run in wikipeidia.

I've never heard of this sankbone. Who is he or she?

I suspect that VoC may have imbibed some liquid cheer this evening (North American time), so it may not be very nice to provoke him, although it may be fun.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[victim of censorship]

Coherent enough for a little snarky over educated fuck like you to understand

Overeducated? Come now: I'm 27 years old and I don't have any kind of post-secondary degree or diploma. I'm basically your brother in arms, here.

(Mods, I'd suggest splitting and tarpitting this in anticipation of the dozens of unrelated posts that I imagine will come up; I'm certainly not going to restrain myself, and I rather think that restraint ranks right around coherence and cuddliness on the list of VoC's virtues.)

TAR PIT IT... cowards... its now time to stand toe to toe and see what kind of stuff your made of..

by the way, I'm 52, and just because my writing is not up to your lofty standards, don't construe that I'm ignorant, stupid, or unaware of the issues. Don't...

I have friends (IN REAL LIVE NOT WIKIGAMESPACE) in many places, some of them quite high, and I am rather diligent in the damage it do to Wikipedia and diminishment of it's influence in schools in my town.

What is a "sexual deviate" and how would I go about becoming one?

TALK TO SANKBONE and one of the NAMBLA ers that run in wikipeidia.

I've never heard of this sankbone. Who is he or she?

HIM

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Alison]

TAR PIT IT... cowards... its now time to stand toe to toe and see what kind of stuff your made of..

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/letsgetdrunk.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

[the_undertow]

TAR PIT IT... cowards... its now time to stand toe to toe and see what kind of stuff your made of..

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/letsgetdrunk.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Apparently the accusations of mental defect and klan affiliations didn't tarpit it, so in all seriousness, can we let this stay here?

This is about me me me (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[MZMcBride]

An admin is blocked for 48 hours for incivility and no one has yet unblocked (or reduced it). We're coming up on seven hours now. I think this is a bit unprecedented. I'm not yet sure what it means, but I do think there is significance to it.

In a lot of ways, it appears to me (from the peanut gallery) that Daniel is simply stressed in real life and was looking for an out. I personally wouldn't have blocked, though I support it (albeit at a shorter length, say 12 or 24 hours). I imagine someone will reduce the block or unblock before the block expires.

I don't see too much else to discuss in this thread beside the hypocrisy of "nap time" being two words when "daytime" and "nighttime" aren't. (Though I guess it depends which dictionary you use.)

[Kelly Martin]

In a lot of ways, it appears to me (from the peanut gallery) that Daniel is simply stressed in real life and was looking for an out. I personally wouldn't have blocked, though I support it (albeit at a shorter length, say 12 or 24 hours). I imagine someone will reduce the block or unblock before the block expires.

See, this is why Wikipedia's admins are completely unable to maintain any sort of community discipline. You're all so addicted to Wikipedia that you think a brief block, or even the indignity of having been blocked at all, is enough to convince someone that their behavior is unacceptable (presumably because you get the hives if you can't edit for 30 seconds). It doesn't work that way. If you want to send Daniel the message that his behavior is unacceptable, you need to block him for at least a week; frankly I'd block him for at least a month.

Blocking is a joke on Wikipedia; the only thing getting blocked means is you can't use that sock for a few hours or maybe even a day, and if you were thinking of running for admin you'll have to create a new sock (but if you were planning that you'd have been careful to avoid using that account for anything that would be 'blockable' anyway).

[Sarcasticidealist]

its now time to stand toe to toe and see what kind of stuff your made of..

Approximately this.

by the way, I'm 52, and just because my writing is not up to your lofty standards, don't construe that I'm ignorant, stupid, or unaware of the issues.

No, no, the quality of your writing has very little to do with why I so-construe.

I don't see too much else to discuss in this thread beside the hypocrisy of "nap time" being two words when "daytime" and "nighttime" aren't. (Though I guess it depends which dictionary you use.)

As I believe I've mentioned before, I lost the OED in the divorce, so I basically just guess these days.

[Deodand]

Moral of the story: use [[WP:RM]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.

[2009-09-29 06:53:08] <Ironholds> ..Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <Ironholds> Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[2009-09-29 06:53:11] <Ironholds> LAW

Three times in three seconds. That's once? I guess if you add them together and divide by three, then yea... that's once.

And I think it's a far stretch of the imagination to think Law was literally calling Daniel and Ironholds meatpuppets. Regardless, completely inappropriate to go on with the sidekick shit.

:Ahh, I thought you meant literal pinging. Please quote in context, please. The dispute was over whether it should be Andrew Bonar Law or Bonar Law. Law/Undertow presented a link to a book he claimed supported his view (Andrew Bonar Law). Full context was:

11:52] <The_Law> http://books.google.com/books?id=9mj2hNGMh...r%20Law&f=false
[11:52] <Ironholds> ..Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> LAW
[11:52] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[11:52] <Ironholds> what's that book called
[11:53] <Ironholds> "Bonar Law"
[11:53] <Ironholds> in big gold capital letters
Rude, yes. Deliberate "pinging"? No.

And actually the statements from law:
[11:55] <The_Law> you know what meatpuppets are?
[11:57] <The_Law> keep talking meats
and the like make it clear that no, he meant literal meatpuppets. You were in the chan, you've got the logs. Stop quoting things out of context to support your little bitch.

[the_undertow]

Moral of the story: use [[WP:RM]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.

[2009-09-29 06:53:08] <Ironholds> ..Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <Ironholds> Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[2009-09-29 06:53:11] <Ironholds> LAW

Three times in three seconds. That's once? I guess if you add them together and divide by three, then yea... that's once.

And I think it's a far stretch of the imagination to think Law was literally calling Daniel and Ironholds meatpuppets. Regardless, completely inappropriate to go on with the sidekick shit.

:Ahh, I thought you meant literal pinging. Please quote in context, please. The dispute was over whether it should be Andrew Bonar Law or Bonar Law. Law/Undertow presented a link to a book he claimed supported his view (Andrew Bonar Law). Full context was:

11:52] <The_Law> http://books.google.com/books?id=9mj2hNGMh...r%20Law&f=false
[11:52] <Ironholds> ..Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> LAW
[11:52] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[11:52] <Ironholds> what's that book called
[11:53] <Ironholds> "Bonar Law"
[11:53] <Ironholds> in big gold capital letters
Rude, yes. Deliberate "pinging"? No.

And actually the statements from law:
[11:55] <The_Law> you know what meatpuppets are?
[11:57] <The_Law> keep talking meats
and the like make it clear that no, he meant literal meatpuppets. You were in the chan, you've got the logs. Stop quoting things out of context to support your little bitch.

Let's make this clear. As Law, I refused to use my tools to make a page move that was clearly out of policy. When I refused, Daniel decided to do so. I disagreed. I was called some pretty shitty things. I don't log shit. My IRC client doesn't do it, nor have I seen a need for it. When I pointed out it should be taken on wiki, I was told that I was a bloody fool and will feel the full impact of a six-pack of Guinness up my ass, or something relative to that. There are those that do have the full logs.

So while I didn't want to use the tools or be coerced into using them by a 6-time RfA hopeful and and Arb clerk, I told them to do what they need to do. Ironholds apparently needed to dime me out. Not really how I wanted to go out, but what the Hell? It happened.

Before you call me a little bitch, please realize that you will end up as unpopular as Ironholds. My friends online have ousted him for causing this situation. My enemies have ousted him for sitting on this information. The rest have castigated him for using this information to coerce an admin into his bidding. There is no win here.

And yes, I see a little undertow coming out. 2 days of this shit, where I've kept quiet, and I think I deserve to vent. I've admitted and apologized to everyone and anyone. I've listened to just about every insult that I can take, but I'm nobody's bitch, nor have I ever been. I think you're a bit hurt that I could go through 2 successful RFAs, when all you have are personal attacks. But be a man about it - contact me directly for the discussion. Don't hide here. That sort of makes you the bitch. While I may not be the most popular person here, my identity is no secret. Anonymity may free you, but that is problem #1 with tough guys on the Internet. I'm quite confident with supplying you to a GoogleMaps path to my door should you want to have a beer and act as a peer, as opposed to another badass who hides behind a screen name. I don't feel that a violent approach is ever appropriate. If you are not willing to say such things in person, that is something altogether. PM me with your concerns. Have a beer with your concerns. But it's just too easy to drive-by and call someone a bitch. Anonymity is cowardice.

Chip Kochendorfer


As a caveat, while I don't have a loyalty with WR, nor do I expect the reciprocal, I do regret bringing the drama I have caused to this board. I'm at a point where I really don't want to sit by and watch the re-occurrence of my first Rfar, so if I have tainted this board with my obvious willingness to break silence and spew my disdain for those with who I don't quite understand, I have no problem with you removing me as a user. I never wanted this to spill over here, contrary to how I used this website as a noticeboard in the past. I really have a high tolerance. I just have hit my boiling point.

This board, and all WR users, have my apologies for making this a WR issue.

[Malleus]

In any case, reading the comments about "white pride," I was mostly reminded about how I feel about my youngest daughter. I don't believe that race is a reality, it's a social construct, that's what the academics came to, and they are right. But identity is something else, and my daughter's identity includes that she was born in Africa, she has kinky black hair, big lips, chocolate skin, and smiles like the sunrise, all of which are very much characteristic of the people where she was raised for her first three years. And I'm proud of her and I want her to be proud of herself, and, in fact, that's a kind of "black pride." Black is beautiful, and my God, she's beautiful. But it's not racist. I have other children, five, who are "white," as people would think. And I'm proud of them and I want them to be proud of themselves, and I don't, for some reason, think of that as "white pride," and, in fact, I wonder why. Maybe it's because of associations from a racist past, a past most of us have been moving beyond, even as it is practically impossible to eliminate all of the stain of it.

This whole paragraph made me smile (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Nice one! Your love for your kids shines through.

Same here. Being proud of what we are doesn't mean that we can't allow or understand others being proud of what they are as well.

In a lot of ways, it appears to me (from the peanut gallery) that Daniel is simply stressed in real life and was looking for an out. I personally wouldn't have blocked, though I support it (albeit at a shorter length, say 12 or 24 hours). I imagine someone will reduce the block or unblock before the block expires.

See, this is why Wikipedia's admins are completely unable to maintain any sort of community discipline. You're all so addicted to Wikipedia that you think a brief block, or even the indignity of having been blocked at all, is enough to convince someone that their behavior is unacceptable ...

Is being blocked an indignity? I rather regard it as a sign of honesty and uncompromising integrity. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Malleus]

This board, and all WR users, have my apologies for making this a WR issue.

It's a curious thing, but perhaps echoing something that Moni3 said on WP, I have a very short memory for editors, unlike so many others it seems. I recall that you and I (Law) exchanged some sharp words a few months ago, after which I got a few emails from those in the know suggesting that in the past we'd been on friendly terms and if i thought back I could probably work out who you really were. What they failed to realise was that I'm incorrigibly lazy with an appalling memory for anything that doesn't interest me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Anyway, eventually one of them told me of your previous username, but it still meant nothing to me. My laziness would preclude me from ever doing what you did, but it also gives me an understanding of the relief it must be to drop the pretence.

[Deodand]

Moral of the story: use [[WP:RM]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.

[2009-09-29 06:53:08] <Ironholds> ..Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <Ironholds> Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[2009-09-29 06:53:11] <Ironholds> LAW

Three times in three seconds. That's once? I guess if you add them together and divide by three, then yea... that's once.

And I think it's a far stretch of the imagination to think Law was literally calling Daniel and Ironholds meatpuppets. Regardless, completely inappropriate to go on with the sidekick shit.

:Ahh, I thought you meant literal pinging. Please quote in context, please. The dispute was over whether it should be Andrew Bonar Law or Bonar Law. Law/Undertow presented a link to a book he claimed supported his view (Andrew Bonar Law). Full context was:

11:52] <The_Law> http://books.google.com/books?id=9mj2hNGMh...r%20Law&f=false
[11:52] <Ironholds> ..Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> LAW
[11:52] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[11:52] <Ironholds> what's that book called
[11:53] <Ironholds> "Bonar Law"
[11:53] <Ironholds> in big gold capital letters
Rude, yes. Deliberate "pinging"? No.

And actually the statements from law:
[11:55] <The_Law> you know what meatpuppets are?
[11:57] <The_Law> keep talking meats
and the like make it clear that no, he meant literal meatpuppets. You were in the chan, you've got the logs. Stop quoting things out of context to support your little bitch.

Let's make this clear. As Law, I refused to use my tools to make a page move that was clearly out of policy. When I refused, Daniel decided to do so. I disagreed. I was called some pretty shitty things. I don't log shit. My IRC client doesn't do it, nor have I seen a need for it. When I pointed out it should be taken on wiki, I was told that I was a bloody fool and will feel the full impact of a six-pack of Guinness up my ass, or something relative to that. There are those that do have the full logs.

So while I didn't want to use the tools or be coerced into using them by a 6-time RfA hopeful and and Arb clerk, I told them to do what they need to do. Ironholds apparently needed to dime me out. Not really how I wanted to go out, but what the Hell? It happened.

Before you call me a little bitch, please realize that you will end up as unpopular as Ironholds. My friends online have ousted him for causing this situation. My enemies have ousted him for sitting on this information. The rest have castigated him for using this information to coerce an admin into his bidding. There is no win here.

And yes, I see a little undertow coming out. 2 days of this shit, where I've kept quiet, and I think I deserve to vent. I've admitted and apologized to everyone and anyone. I've listened to just about every insult that I can take, but I'm nobody's bitch, nor have I ever been. I think you're a bit hurt that I could go through 2 successful RFAs, when all you have are personal attacks. But be a man about it - contact me directly for the discussion. Don't hide here. That sort of makes you the bitch. While I may not be the most popular person here, my identity is no secret. Anonymity may free you, but that is problem #1 with tough guys on the Internet. I'm quite confident with supplying you to a GoogleMaps path to my door should you want to have a beer and act as a peer, as opposed to another badass who hides behind a screen name. I don't feel that a violent approach is ever appropriate. If you are not willing to say such things in person, that is something altogether. PM me with your concerns. Have a beer with your concerns. But it's just too easy to drive-by and call someone a bitch. Anonymity is cowardice.

Chip Kochendorfer


As a caveat, while I don't have a loyalty with WR, nor do I expect the reciprocal, I do regret bringing the drama I have caused to this board. I'm at a point where I really don't want to sit by and watch the re-occurrence of my first Rfar, so if I have tainted this board with my obvious willingness to break silence and spew my disdain for those with who I don't quite understand, I have no problem with you removing me as a user. I never wanted this to spill over here, contrary to how I used this website as a noticeboard in the past. I really have a high tolerance. I just have hit my boiling point.

This board, and all WR users, have my apologies for making this a WR issue.

My comments were addressed to Lara, not to you. Either you're her bitch or she's yours - either way, all I see is her skewing a bad position to portray you as an innocent party here. Those comments above about beating a path to my door? From what I hear they were replicated to Ironholds, but with the addition of violent threats. Doesn't sound too much like an innocent party to me. I've been given the full logs by Ironholds and at no point did he try and "twist you to his will" and make you move it with threats - his threat to out you was after you threatened to own him and destroy his on- and off-wiki existence.

[Malleus]

... his threat to out you was after you threatened to own him and destroy his on- and off-wiki existence.

How does that work? I thought that slavery had been abolished in the States.

[Deodand]

... his threat to out you was after you threatened to own him and destroy his on- and off-wiki existence.

How does that work? I thought that slavery had been abolished in the States.

As a strictly humorous (although not particularly funny) aside; so have murder, rape and walking around in public with your dick out. I note they still happen.

[Lar]

I have friends (IN REAL LIVE NOT WIKIGAMESPACE) in many places, some of them quite high ...

Anyone else parse this the way I did?

[the_undertow]

Moral of the story: use [[WP:RM]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.

[2009-09-29 06:53:08] <Ironholds> ..Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <Ironholds> Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[2009-09-29 06:53:11] <Ironholds> LAW

Three times in three seconds. That's once? I guess if you add them together and divide by three, then yea... that's once.

And I think it's a far stretch of the imagination to think Law was literally calling Daniel and Ironholds meatpuppets. Regardless, completely inappropriate to go on with the sidekick shit.

:Ahh, I thought you meant literal pinging. Please quote in context, please. The dispute was over whether it should be Andrew Bonar Law or Bonar Law. Law/Undertow presented a link to a book he claimed supported his view (Andrew Bonar Law). Full context was:

11:52] <The_Law> http://books.google.com/books?id=9mj2hNGMh...r%20Law&f=false
[11:52] <Ironholds> ..Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> LAW
[11:52] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[11:52] <Ironholds> what's that book called
[11:53] <Ironholds> "Bonar Law"
[11:53] <Ironholds> in big gold capital letters
Rude, yes. Deliberate "pinging"? No.

And actually the statements from law:
[11:55] <The_Law> you know what meatpuppets are?
[11:57] <The_Law> keep talking meats
and the like make it clear that no, he meant literal meatpuppets. You were in the chan, you've got the logs. Stop quoting things out of context to support your little bitch.

Let's make this clear. As Law, I refused to use my tools to make a page move that was clearly out of policy. When I refused, Daniel decided to do so. I disagreed. I was called some pretty shitty things. I don't log shit. My IRC client doesn't do it, nor have I seen a need for it. When I pointed out it should be taken on wiki, I was told that I was a bloody fool and will feel the full impact of a six-pack of Guinness up my ass, or something relative to that. There are those that do have the full logs.

So while I didn't want to use the tools or be coerced into using them by a 6-time RfA hopeful and and Arb clerk, I told them to do what they need to do. Ironholds apparently needed to dime me out. Not really how I wanted to go out, but what the Hell? It happened.

Before you call me a little bitch, please realize that you will end up as unpopular as Ironholds. My friends online have ousted him for causing this situation. My enemies have ousted him for sitting on this information. The rest have castigated him for using this information to coerce an admin into his bidding. There is no win here.

And yes, I see a little undertow coming out. 2 days of this shit, where I've kept quiet, and I think I deserve to vent. I've admitted and apologized to everyone and anyone. I've listened to just about every insult that I can take, but I'm nobody's bitch, nor have I ever been. I think you're a bit hurt that I could go through 2 successful RFAs, when all you have are personal attacks. But be a man about it - contact me directly for the discussion. Don't hide here. That sort of makes you the bitch. While I may not be the most popular person here, my identity is no secret. Anonymity may free you, but that is problem #1 with tough guys on the Internet. I'm quite confident with supplying you to a GoogleMaps path to my door should you want to have a beer and act as a peer, as opposed to another badass who hides behind a screen name. I don't feel that a violent approach is ever appropriate. If you are not willing to say such things in person, that is something altogether. PM me with your concerns. Have a beer with your concerns. But it's just too easy to drive-by and call someone a bitch. Anonymity is cowardice.

Chip Kochendorfer


As a caveat, while I don't have a loyalty with WR, nor do I expect the reciprocal, I do regret bringing the drama I have caused to this board. I'm at a point where I really don't want to sit by and watch the re-occurrence of my first Rfar, so if I have tainted this board with my obvious willingness to break silence and spew my disdain for those with who I don't quite understand, I have no problem with you removing me as a user. I never wanted this to spill over here, contrary to how I used this website as a noticeboard in the past. I really have a high tolerance. I just have hit my boiling point.

This board, and all WR users, have my apologies for making this a WR issue.

My comments were addressed to Lara, not to you. Either you're her bitch or she's yours - either way, all I see is her skewing a bad position to portray you as an innocent party here. Those comments above about beating a path to my door? From what I hear they were replicated to Ironholds, but with the addition of violent threats. Doesn't sound too much like an innocent party to me. I've been given the full logs by Ironholds and at no point did he try and "twist you to his will" and make you move it with threats - his threat to out you was after you threatened to own him and destroy his on- and off-wiki existence.

It doesn't matter at all. Expletives should be used in person. Not hiding behind some guise. Either I'm a bitch, or she's a bitch. There is no way I will tolerate either. Those types of attacks should be discussed in person. No violence was implied. If you are willing to make such vulgar attacks, you should be willing to do them in person. That is why I suggested a meeting. Perhaps you would be hard-pressed to act so boldly in person. Maybe not. But either way, you hide. I'm not interested in a pissing contest. I'm more from the school that if you call me a bitch, do it in person. If you call a woman a bitch, you have bigger problems that I can imagine.

This board, and all WR users, have my apologies for making this a WR issue.

It's a curious thing, but perhaps echoing something that Moni3 said on WP, I have a very short memory for editors, unlike so many others it seems. I recall that you and I (Law) exchanged some sharp words a few months ago, after which I got a few emails from those in the know suggesting that in the past we'd been on friendly terms and if i thought back I could probably work out who you really were. What they failed to realise was that I'm incorrigibly lazy with an appalling memory for anything that doesn't interest me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Anyway, eventually one of them told me of your previous username, but it still meant nothing to me. My laziness would preclude me from ever doing what you did, but it also gives me an understanding of the relief it must be to drop the pretence.

I doubt you liked me as the_undertow. I had a huge disdain for you, ottava, and giano. But as Law, i grew up and did some observations. I realized that my incivility as UT was only overlooked by the fact that I was an admin. I also realized that CIV and NPA were things that I did not and would not uphold. As the_undertow and Law amalgamated, I realized that I was better suited to protect the editors from the admins who enforced such policies. Then again, I have always known that on the inside. Both Rfars stemmed from unblocking users. I'm far too lazy to adhere to heavy doctrine. I just know that I have done a 180 as far as my beliefs, and it shows with our discourse and well as my last unblock. I'm tired of civility. It is too much of an excuse to bait a great editor, like yourself, into a block, that would never happen over content. I think I made that clear as Law.

You may not remember me as undertow, but my incivility made you look like an alter boy.

[Silverman]

I doubt you liked me as the_undertow. ... But as Law, i grew up and did some observations.

That leads to a deep question, which may deserve its own thread.

If someone has several Internet names, as lots of people do, should we judge each identity separately or all the identities collectively by what the person behind them has done? In particular, if one of the identities has done something wrong, but the person has repented and started afresh with a new identity, can we forgive them? The Wikipedia policy on the latter seems to be no in theory, but sometimes yes in practice.

[Malleus]

I have friends (IN REAL LIVE NOT WIKIGAMESPACE) in many places, some of them quite high ...

Anyone else parse this the way I did?

He either has some quite high (tall?) friends, or he has friends who live in high places like Mexico City. Either way he probably ought to lay off recreational drugs while trying to conduct a serious conversation.

I doubt you liked me as the_undertow. I had a huge disdain for you, ottava, and giano. But as Law, i grew up and did some observations. I realized that my incivility as UT was only overlooked by the fact that I was an admin. I also realized that CIV and NPA were things that I did not and would not uphold. As the_undertow and Law amalgamated, I realized that I was better suited to protect the editors from the admins who enforced such policies. Then again, I have always known that on the inside. Both Rfars stemmed from unblocking users. I'm far too lazy to adhere to heavy doctrine. I just know that I have done a 180 as far as my beliefs, and it shows with our discourse and well as my last unblock. I'm tired of civility. It is too much of an excuse to bait a great editor, like yourself, into a block, that would never happen over content. I think I made that clear as Law.

You may not remember me as undertow, but my incivility made you look like an alter boy.

That's the thing you see, I really can't remember and nor does it bother me. I take everyone as I find them, day by day. I get baited on an almost weekly basis; it's usually just water off a duck's back as far as I'm concerned.

PS. Perhaps not everyone would be, but I'm quite flattered you categorise me with the terrible twins of Ottava and Giano. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Malleus]

I doubt you liked me as the_undertow. ... But as Law, i grew up and did some observations.

That leads to a deep question, which may deserve its own thread.

If someone has several Internet names, as lots of people do, should we judge each identity separately or all the identities collectively by what the person behind them has done? In particular, if one of the identities has done something wrong, but the person has repented and started afresh with a new identity, can we forgive them? The Wikipedia policy on the latter seems to be no in theory, but sometimes yes in practice.

Why should your behaviour on the internet be any different from your behaviour in real life? If you wandered around with n different identities in real life you'd probably eventually find yourself committed to an institution for the hopelessly insane. The problem wikipedia has is that it pretty much forces deception on any editor who for whatever reason wants to become an administrator. That's also a topic best discussed elsewhere though.

[Deodand]

Law/Undertow/Whatever: You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of "bitch" here. If I call you a bitch, I'm calling you a female dog or equivalent. It's intended as an insult to your character. If I call you (someone's) bitch, I'm saying they have you by the balls and you'll essentially do or say whatever you can to defend them. Given the context here it's clearly the latter, particularly since I never called you or lara "a bitch", simply "X's bitch". I would've thought with the prodigious affinity for swearwords you demonstrated in the /query log I have you'd be able to differentiate between the two, but evidently not.

[Malleus]

Law/Undertow/Whatever: You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of "bitch" here. If I call you a bitch, I'm calling you a female dog or equivalent. It's intended as an insult to your character. If I call you (someone's) bitch, I'm saying they have you by the balls and you'll essentially do or say whatever you can to defend them. Given the context here it's clearly the latter, particularly since I never called you or lara "a bitch", simply "X's bitch". I would've thought with the prodigious affinity for swearwords you demonstrated in the /query log I have you'd be able to differentiate between the two, but evidently not.

I always thought "bitch" was just an observation, not an insult. I've called Lara a bitch a few times, but probably not as often as she's called herself a bitch. She's also been kind enough to say that I have am a dick of porn star proportions. It's just talk, doesn't hurt anyone, and in fact it often makes me laugh.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[the_undertow]

I doubt you liked me as the_undertow. ... But as Law, i grew up and did some observations.

That leads to a deep question, which may deserve its own thread.

If someone has several Internet names, as lots of people do, should we judge each identity separately or all the identities collectively by what the person behind them has done? In particular, if one of the identities has done something wrong, but the person has repented and started afresh with a new identity, can we forgive them? The Wikipedia policy on the latter seems to be no in theory, but sometimes yes in practice.

As Law, I did what I could to be the buffer between editors and civility police. I stand by all my administrative actions. I also stand by all the articles I created and improved. As the_undertow, I can only apologize to everyone because I had the option to resign without incident. I was told that there was a small chance that I could continue editing. With that, I opted to resign (since there was no CU evidence), quietly, so long as I could go back to the_undertow. My only other option was to have the tools stripped and equated with the unblock of Child of Midnight. I guess my pride fucked everyone. It's not the first time I have let my friends down. I just hope that nobody believes that my real life persona reflect that of wiki.

I fear that the mess I created has spiraled to a point to where even I am in a state. My guilt rivals that of real-life offenses. I can't stop this ride. I have cried, and appealed, and pleaded to stop all of this, but cannot. Things that are beyond my control get to me.

The ends justify the means, but the ends here are devastating, even to someone who thinks WP is just a website. The damage I have done is irreversible. Just allow me some time to collect my thoughts. And please, hold off on the white pride, instability bullshit. I need to breathe. I am asking as a friend, and a member.

[Deodand]

Law/Undertow/Whatever: You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of "bitch" here. If I call you a bitch, I'm calling you a female dog or equivalent. It's intended as an insult to your character. If I call you (someone's) bitch, I'm saying they have you by the balls and you'll essentially do or say whatever you can to defend them. Given the context here it's clearly the latter, particularly since I never called you or lara "a bitch", simply "X's bitch". I would've thought with the prodigious affinity for swearwords you demonstrated in the /query log I have you'd be able to differentiate between the two, but evidently not.

I always thought "bitch" was just an observation, not an insult. I've called Lara a bitch a few times, but probably not as often as she's called herself a bitch. She's also been kind enough to say that I have am a dick of porn star proportions. It's just talk, doesn't hurt anyone, and in fact it often makes me laugh.

I don't think it's feasible to call Lara a bitch as often as she does. I mean you could, if you didn't mind giving up other parts of your day, like meals and breathing.

[A Horse With No Name]

She's also been kind enough to say that I have am a dick of porn star proportions.

Odd, but that reminds me of a joke I saw on a Tommy Cooper TV program from years back -- he was playing a plumber who has to repair the pipes in an Arabian harem. When he asked the harem gatekeeper why he was hired to work among all of the luscious harem beauties, the gatekeeper replied: "We couldn't find a eunuch, so we did the next best thing and hired an Englishman." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Is being blocked an indignity? I rather regard it as a sign of honesty and uncompromising integrity. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I guess that means being "banned" has you walking in the company of the saints and apostles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

See, I disagree with everyking on Daniel's fate. I think Daniel should be banned. But then again, I think about 80% of Wikipedians should be banned. Including everyking. So whatever.

I'm kinda sympathetic to that view. So far as Law, or any other admin/editor who's changed identities, I really couldn't care less. And that goes for Horsey too. I take people as I find them.

Awww, Malley gets a big Horsey kiss for that! Mwah! Mwah! Mwah! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Well, Casliber's statement puts a new spin to it...

After thinking about it, I can't even say I'm disappointed in Casliber and/or Lara. They didn't do anything.. it was Undertow/Law who put them in a rough spot. I can empathize. Trust me.

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...y_from_Casliber

It is nice to see Arbcom members actively encouraging sockpuppetry by "banned" editors. If it is good enough for Casliber's friends, does that mean it is good enough for everyone? Or are there two different rules that Arbcom plays by? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

And, for the record, how many members of Arbcom knew about Law's history? And did Daniel, the Arbcom clerk, also know about it in advance?

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[LaraLove]

:Ahh, I thought you meant literal pinging. Please quote in context, please. The dispute was over whether it should be Andrew Bonar Law or Bonar Law. Law/Undertow presented a link to a book he claimed supported his view (Andrew Bonar Law). Full context was:

11:52] <The_Law> http://books.google.com/books?id=9mj2hNGMh...r%20Law&f=false
[11:52] <Ironholds> ..Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> LAW
[11:52] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[11:52] <Ironholds> what's that book called
[11:53] <Ironholds> "Bonar Law"
[11:53] <Ironholds> in big gold capital letters
Rude, yes. Deliberate "pinging"? No.

And actually the statements from law:
[11:55] <The_Law> you know what meatpuppets are?
[11:57] <The_Law> keep talking meats
and the like make it clear that no, he meant literal meatpuppets. You were in the chan, you've got the logs. Stop quoting things out of context to support your little bitch.

I did mean literal pinging. If Ironholds was just repeating the man's last name repeatedly, then I've misinterpreted it. I still don't think that Chip was serious in his "accusation" of meatpuppetry. And no shit that I have logs, Sherlock. I've said that, summarized them and quoted them above. Jesus, you're quick. As far as bitches go, I am one but I am no one's. And Chip surely isn't my bitch. Now you're just being fucktarded.

My comments were addressed to Lara, not to you. Either you're her bitch or she's yours - either way, all I see is her skewing a bad position to portray you as an innocent party here. Those comments above about beating a path to my door? From what I hear they were replicated to Ironholds, but with the addition of violent threats. Doesn't sound too much like an innocent party to me. I've been given the full logs by Ironholds and at no point did he try and "twist you to his will" and make you move it with threats - his threat to out you was after you threatened to own him and destroy his on- and off-wiki existence.

Oh, my. The "I wasn't talk to you, I was talking to her about you" bit. Cork it. It's supremely silly to jump on someone for responding to you on a public message board when you weren't addressing them particularly when it's them you're talking about.

Now, for your point, do note that it was Ironholds who first said he was going to kick Law's ass up and down the wiki until he was shitting blood. Now, let's put this in perspective:

Ironholds, in England, fears for his safety from Chip in California. So let's assume Ironhold is being serious (which is a stretch) and consider then why he would think it a good idea to attempt to get Chip banned on a website. Take a moment to ponder that...

I don't know where your mind went, but mine thought, "Hmm, probably not the best option. That would probably just piss him off more. And, if he's willing to fly across the US and the Atlantic to get to you, you've just freed up his time." Like, really... be real. He didn't fear for his safety, that's bullshit. Because if he did, he wouldn't have poked the fucking bear by turning him in.

It was purely a matter of being pissed over the argument, which he provoked, and so he went to make trouble for Chip. In the process it's fucked up shit all over the place, because apparently a HUGE chunk of the active community knew. Pretty much everyone who doesn't suck was told. I've got emails from people I've never heard of that knew. People emailing support because they're afraid they'll get targeted on-wiki for having known. It's crazy. Crazy stupid.

Jesus. Who cares? He socked. Shocker.

I always thought "bitch" was just an observation, not an insult. I've called Lara a bitch a few times, but probably not as often as she's called herself a bitch. She's also been kind enough to say that I have am a dick of porn star proportions. It's just talk, doesn't hurt anyone, and in fact it often makes me laugh.

<3

I don't think it's feasible to call Lara a bitch as often as she does. I mean you could, if you didn't mind giving up other parts of your day, like meals and breathing.

I don't call myself a bitch that often. WTF are you talking about. He'd only need to sacrifice part of his daily routine if he were going to call me a bitch as often as I am one. Get your wording right.

Well, Casliber's statement puts a new spin to it...

After thinking about it, I can't even say I'm disappointed in Casliber and/or Lara. They didn't do anything.. it was Undertow/Law who put them in a rough spot. I can empathize. Trust me.

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...y_from_Casliber

It is nice to see Arbcom members actively encouraging sockpuppetry by "banned" editors. If it is good enough for Casliber's friends, does that mean it is good enough for everyone? Or are there two different rules that Arbcom plays by? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

And, for the record, how many members of Arbcom knew about Law's history? And did Daniel, the Arbcom clerk, also know about it in advance?

Upset your sock return wasn't endorsed by a member of the Committee?

[A Horse With No Name]

Upset your sock return wasn't endorsed by a member of the Committee?

Oh, nice to see the Arbcom members like to gossip about "official" business. But, then again, it always seems like diner waitresses are the most well-informed people in any community. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Of course, that doesn't answer the question, so I will ask it again: how many Arbcom members (including clerks) knew that Law was a sock of The Undertow? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Guido den Broeder]

I don't lie on behalf of anyone.

Makes one wonder why you do lie.

[Apathetic]

Casliber just announced his resignation

[Casliber]

In best Oliver Hardy voice:

...another fine mess you got me into Stanley Chipper!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Meh, I wrote some thoughts on the wikipage. Fuck it. I'm off to do some article writing in peace.

[Noroton]

For what it's worth. I have never opined here nor on wiki that I hold white pride to be my ideology. I have argued between doctrines such as 'white pride' v. 'white supremacy,' but never identified with either. I admitted here to a membership, six years or so ago on Stormfront, but also left because it was not what I was looking for. I thought that people could hold pride in a purely superficial context, but soon learned that my pride was going to be in my accomplishments, and not by virtue that I happened to be born with a skin color. As Moulton said, yes, I graduated last month with an MSacc in Taxation from SDSU. I have used my time constructively.

Good to see you say that. If you return to WP as undertow, you might want to put a very short, simple, broad statement on your user page saying you're not a white supremicist or racist despite having said/done/belonged to a group or website in the past and you wouldn't do it now. Do that and you can always point to it when you get comments like Deodand's. Not for his sake but for the sake of third parties watching you. That should pretty much immunize you as far as well-meaning strangers and third parties go (any lingering suspicion is simply dealt with by your ongoing actions).

I get the impression that Wikipedia is too important for you. I think that's a mistake I've made in the past. Wikipedia is a bitch best kept at arms length. (Keep WR even more distant.)

I thought yor unblocking Child of Midnight was a good move on human terms (you know, the ones that count in real life), but I'm not really familiar with the details of being an admin (it makes my eyes glaze over), so perhaps you messed up with that. No biggie, but it may mean you shouldn't be an admin. Either way, I admire your sense of decency regarding the lifting of that block. It's more important than being an admin.

You've also apologized for screwing up and putting others in difficult positions regarding your return. I admire that, too.

If I'd been voting in your RfA and you'd said you were undertow, I probably would have voted against you, just as I'd probably vote against any young teenager becoming an admin, because to me the white pride thing (like too much youth) indicates a lack of judgment and it tells me it would be a good guess that the person wouldn't be a good fit as an admin. But it's usually only a guess about that person, and some people surprise me. Julian Colton usually impresses me on WP and Herschel Krustofsky, despite following LaRouche, impresses me here, so there you go.

But you owed it to people voting in your RfA to tell them your past. They get to make that decision about whether to trust you with the mop, not just you or your friends. You and the people who knew did a disservice to the people voting in that RfA. And it should be more difficult for the rest of us to trust those people -- Lara, GlassCobra, Casliber, whoever else -- in the future.

Do you agree with that? Maybe you said so before and I missed it.

[Juliancolton]

I'm off to do some article writing in peace.

Now, everybody else: go do the same.

[One]

Since the original ban was asinine and the Law account was doing good work, staying silent about the editor's prior account was not only acceptable, it was the right thing to do. Nevertheless I think Casliber should resign as an arb, just because I don't approve of the way he's handled ArbCom business and I don't think he has the right perspective.

Daniel shouldn't have been blocked. He was talking about an "epic win" because the wiki-culture implicitly endorses the use of blocks and bans to settle scores and eliminate enemies. His words reflected a culture that no longer sees a block as a last resort means to prevent disruption, but rather as a political weapon; to block him just reinforces the practice of misusing the block button and thereby encourages the very thing that the block is ostensibly intended to deter.

This is zero for three.

What unrelated ArbCom business do you think compels Casliber's resignation, and what arbitrators do you believe should not resign?

I think it's very unfortunate for Wikipedia that he has.

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm off to do some article writing in peace.

Now, everybody else: go do the same.

Before we all go, I think the remaining 10 Arbcom members may wish to make a statement on whether or not each of them were aware of Law's sock history. Is that asking too much?

[Wiki Witch of the West]

As Law, I did what I could to be the buffer between editors and civility police. I stand by all my administrative actions. I also stand by all the articles I created and improved. As the_undertow, I can only apologize to everyone because I had the option to resign without incident. I was told that there was a small chance that I could continue editing. With that, I opted to resign (since there was no CU evidence), quietly, so long as I could go back to the_undertow. My only other option was to have the tools stripped and equated with the unblock of Child of Midnight. I guess my pride fucked everyone. It's not the first time I have let my friends down. I just hope that nobody believes that my real life persona reflect that of wiki.

I fear that the mess I created has spiraled to a point to where even I am in a state. My guilt rivals that of real-life offenses. I can't stop this ride. I have cried, and appealed, and pleaded to stop all of this, but cannot. Things that are beyond my control get to me.

The ends justify the means, but the ends here are devastating, even to someone who thinks WP is just a website. The damage I have done is irreversible. Just allow me some time to collect my thoughts. And please, hold off on the white pride, instability bullshit. I need to breathe. I am asking as a friend, and a member.

If it feels any better to know you slipped under someone's radar, I wasn't in on the secret. But then we almost never crossed paths when you were The Undertow.

What grates is how policy winks and nudges at this type of situation, then leaves you out in the cold if the past actually surfaces. You and everyone who knew with you. There's been a book called It Ain't Cheatin' If You Don't Get Caught, but imagine if they actually wrote that concept into the baseball rulebook. What astounds me is how readily people bounce from "Oh no, Sam Blacketer!" to "Oh no, Pastor Theo!" to "Oh no, Law!" without connecting the dots.

Ecoleetage probably shouldn't ever return. But site culture is all too ready to hang the Scarlet Letter on people's chests for behavior that isn't remotely on his level. Can't say I approve of your return (gotta be consistent--it's a principles thing), but on a practical level going for the admin bit again was a Bad Idea.

Mainly wishing it was simpler to return on the up-and-up, like Jack Merridew and Rootology did. And now that you've been at the center of Moar Drama that becomes even harder.

Want advice? Just chill and wait for this to pass. Or head over to one of the smaller WMF wikis and do good quiet work for a while. Most of the sister sites are a lot more mellow and supportive, as a function of being small enough that most of the regulars know each other.

[Friday]

Most of the sister sites are a lot more mellow and supportive, as a function of being small enough that most of the regulars know each other.

It seems that regulars knowing each other caused its share of trouble on en.wiki in this very case.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Most of the sister sites are a lot more mellow and supportive, as a function of being small enough that most of the regulars know each other.

It seems that regulars knowing each other caused its share of trouble on en.wiki in this very case.

Point. But in a smaller site he wouldn't have slipped through the cracks in the first place. The combustible mix was a critical mass of other regulars knowing without being able/bothering to regularize the situation. The path of least resistance was to let things slide until someone from the larger pool who didn't know found out and blew the whistle.

Of course the longer that festered and the more 'insiders' found out, the worse the end result became. Should've sussed that out from the Essjay debacle.

The more things change, the more they stay insane.

----
23 User(s) are reading this topic (14 Guests and 4 Anonymous Users)

Good heavens. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[MBisanz]

What grates is how policy winks and nudges at this type of situation, then leaves you out in the cold if the past actually surfaces. You and everyone who knew with you. There's been a book called It Ain't Cheatin' If You Don't Get Caught, but imagine if they actually wrote that concept into the baseball rulebook. What astounds me is how readily people bounce from "Oh no, Sam Blacketer!" to "Oh no, Pastor Theo!" to "Oh no, Law!" without connecting the dots.

I suppose a better version of that policy might be:

If you come back under a clean start, there is a 50/50 chance someone will make the connection to your old identity and it is permissible for them to publicly flog you and anyone who lost the race to the courthouse in announcing your treachery.

But that probably would be considered a bit crass for a formal policy (even if it is an accurate reflection of practice.)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

What grates is how policy winks and nudges at this type of situation, then leaves you out in the cold if the past actually surfaces. You and everyone who knew with you. There's been a book called It Ain't Cheatin' If You Don't Get Caught, but imagine if they actually wrote that concept into the baseball rulebook. What astounds me is how readily people bounce from "Oh no, Sam Blacketer!" to "Oh no, Pastor Theo!" to "Oh no, Law!" without connecting the dots.

I suppose a better version of that policy might be:

If you come back under a clean start, there is a 50/50 chance someone will make the connection to your old identity and it is permissible for them to publicly flog you and anyone who lost the race to the courthouse in announcing your treachery.

But that probably would be considered a bit crass for a formal policy (even if it is an accurate reflection of practice.)

The candor would be an improvement. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cthulhu.gif)

[Moulton]

A block for a block, and pretty soon everyone in the kerfuffle is a blockhead.

[One]

If you come back under a clean start, there is a 50/50 chance someone will make the connection to your old identity and it is permissible for them to publicly flog you and anyone who lost the race to the courthouse in announcing your treachery.

Some of your legal analogies have seemed a little off the mark to me, but this one makes me chuckle.

[the_undertow]

Law/Undertow/Whatever: You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of "bitch" here. If I call you a bitch, I'm calling you a female dog or equivalent. It's intended as an insult to your character. If I call you (someone's) bitch, I'm saying they have you by the balls and you'll essentially do or say whatever you can to defend them. Given the context here it's clearly the latter, particularly since I never called you or lara "a bitch", simply "X's bitch". I would've thought with the prodigious affinity for swearwords you demonstrated in the /query log I have you'd be able to differentiate between the two, but evidently not.

you think i got a master's degree in taxation, one of 13 programs in the US, because I didn't get semantics? My undergrad was in philosophy. i wouldn't refer to you as a fuck, and hide behind the guise that it was to Fornicate Under Consent of the Kind, nor For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. Get real. A bitch is a bitch. You are a douchebag, and a waste of carbon. I mean that in a clinical way. So yeah, fuck you.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Law's Law ...

"Three Wikipedians can keep a secret if two are dead".

That's completely untrue, and you've been told before that it's completely untrue. Lying once can be overlooked as a simple error; repeating the lie, not so much.

I am sorry ... if I did, I must have missed it. So easy on the "lying" accusations. I was off for about three weeks, so it may have happened back then. Check my edit history if you will.

It is really not that big an issue, but what exactly does "sui generis" mean to you? I suppose there is a subtle difference between "in a class of its own" and "superior". Personally, I'd say most folk use it to mean "above all others" or incomparable. Did we get a straight answer, or just more twisting of reality and accusations? I am sorry but he played the same card on me and it is a cheap and tiresome tactic.

Funnily enough, assbeads give a lot of people pleasure. I have never had any direct experience myself but it did bring back some hysterical memories of driving a band as a roadie and finding some woman's 'Ben Wa balls', aka Burmese bells, in the van ... some how they had managed to escape into the wild.

They spent the rest of the tour dangling from the rear view mirror like dice until mysterious disappearing into the darkness again. Seemingly one of the singers felt the need for a little inspiration on stage. The funniest bit was seeing them being passed around from hand to hand and squeezed as no one else could work out what they were.

No reliable sources or citations on that one but you can trust me on it.

If anyone does not know what Ben Wa Balls are, they are kind of like 'Clackers' but for girls.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[MBisanz]

Some of your legal analogies have seemed a little off the mark to me,

So should I assume then that you will not support my proposal to require Form 3 be filed by editors seeking to appeal WP:AE sanctions under the theory that the FRAP and FRCP should be used wherever possible onwiki?

[the_undertow]

In best Oliver Hardy voice:

...another fine mess you got me into Stanley Chipper!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Meh, I wrote some thoughts on the wikipage. Fuck it. I'm off to do some article writing in peace.

Not much fazes me. I've been in and out of gangs my whole life, and fucked just about anything that walked. I was a privileged white boy but found friends in the Mexican Mafia, the Cartel, and the Skins.
But I sit here in tears Cas. I admit that. This is my fucking fault. I need to own it.

Sorry WR, sorry WP, sorry to all the people that I burdened. I fucked up I shouldn't have said shit. I was selfish.

Fuck.

[CharlotteWebb]

It is a cat and mouse game and WP's skill level is very very poor/unwilling in the cat department.

When there are too many cats and not enough mice, the cats usually start eating other cats.

Before we all go, I think the remaining 10 Arbcom members may wish to make a statement on whether or not each of them were aware of Law's sock history. Is that asking too much?

Yes, due to the fact that it's none of your business, my business, or each other's business. Even if there was some need-to-know basis for these statements, they would mostly useless anyway (verifiability-not-truth, you know...)—everyone with any sense would deny it unless they expect some fourth party to present But-I-Knew-That-He-Knew evidence against the arbcombatant in question (which would be suicidal in itself).

Probably not worth asking.

...what arbitrators do you believe should not resign?

I think it's very unfortunate for Wikipedia that [Casliber] has [resigned].

Yes. If I were to answer that, I'd start by looking at those which represent a measurable net improvement over their predecessors (according to the official time-line/bar-graph/whatever), so based on what I've seen I'd say "Risker and Cas". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Not much fazes me. I've been in and out of gangs my whole life, and fucked just about anything that walked. I was a privileged white boy but found friends in the Mexican Mafia, the Cartel, and the Skins.
But I sit here in tears Cas. I admit that. This is my fucking fault. I need to own it.

Sorry WR, sorry WP, sorry to all the people that I burdened. I fucked up I shouldn't have said shit. I was selfish.

Fuck.

Everybody makes mistakes. The intelligent people are those who learn from their mistakes and go forward to do something wonderful. The stupid ones are those who define others solely by the mistakes they make.

[Jim]

Everybody makes mistakes. The intelligent people are those who learn from their mistakes and go forward to do something wonderful. The stupid ones are those who define others solely by the mistakes they make.

It's awful to interject here like this, and I probably shouldn't - but being me, I will...

Don't you have a long history of not learning from your mistakes yourself ?

Or maybe you're not the user everyone seems to think you are ?

I was just thinking pots and kettles, and stuff...

Still, none of my business, sorry to intrude.

(Don't flame me for a genuine interjection - please - I'd just have to cry...)

[Moulton]

Everybody makes mistakes. The intelligent people are those who learn from their mistakes and go forward to do something wonderful. The stupid ones are those who define others solely by the mistakes they make.

There are individual personal mistakes and there are collective mistakes. It's the latter variety that are especially challenging to overcome and learn from.

Peter Senge has defined and characterized a Learning Organization as one that learns from its mistakes and continually improves its practices so as to avoid repeating the lamentable mistakes of the past.

It is not easy to learn from one's mistakes, nor is it easy to devise and adopt better practices going forward.

The opposite of a Learning Organization is a dysfunctional organization.

Which kind is Wikipedia?

[A Horse With No Name]

It's awful to interject here like this, and I probably shouldn't - but being me, I will...

Don't you have a long history of not learning from your mistakes yourself ?

Of course I do. I also have a long and spectacular history of making a wide variety of vastly different mistakes that often trump my earlier debacles. And I suspect that I will continue to make bigger and bigger mistakes of mind-blowing stupidity that will metastasize with unprecedented speed until such time that an overly annoyed Grim Reaper shows up and says, "Cut it out -- at this rate, you're going to blow up the planet." But I was not talking about myself -- as much as the subject offers me endless whiffs of narcotized pleasure.

I am genuinely upset to read that Law/Undertow is "in tears" over something which is little more than an online performance art game. So he "fucked up" on Wikipedia. Who doesn't? So he was "selfish" on Wikipedia. Who hasn't been?

I am not judging Law/Undertow by this silly melodrama. From the little I know about him off-Wiki and from the depth and scope of what he has tried to accomplish on-Wiki, I am highly impressed with him. I am not going to judge him by this sock mistake -- I have been there, done that and got the t-shirt made with child labor.

And, really, Law/Undertow -- dry your tears. It ain't worth it.

[Deodand]

@Lara: makes perfect sense, if you just include IRL threats. If, however, you base it partially on Law's threats to destroy his WP existence, as it were, which makes more sense? Keeping schtum or trying to put Law in a position where he doesn't have the authority to do good on his threats?

[Anonymous editor]

I have friends (IN REAL LIVE NOT WIKIGAMESPACE) in many places, some of them quite high, and I am rather diligent in the damage it do to Wikipedia and diminishment of it's influence in schools in my town.

That makes very little sense.

[Friday]

I have friends (IN REAL LIVE NOT WIKIGAMESPACE) in many places, some of them quite high, and I am rather diligent in the damage it do to Wikipedia and diminishment of it's influence in schools in my town.

That makes very little sense.

Well, there's that general rule of thumb about people who loudly cry "censorship" on wikipedia.. it would appear that this applies here as well.

[SirFozzie]

and here we go with round 2 on RfArb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Newyorkbrad]

I fear that the mess I created has spiraled to a point to where even I am in a state. My guilt rivals that of real-life offenses. I can't stop this ride. I have cried, and appealed, and pleaded to stop all of this, but cannot. Things that are beyond my control get to me.

The ends justify the means, but the ends here are devastating, even to someone who thinks WP is just a website. The damage I have done is irreversible. Just allow me some time to collect my thoughts. And please, hold off on the white pride, instability bullshit. I need to breathe. I am asking as a friend, and a member.

I think we should respect this request on a human level and end this discussion, at least for now. Any more meta issues presented can be raised in a new thread.

[Anonymous editor]

I have friends (IN REAL LIVE NOT WIKIGAMESPACE) in many places, some of them quite high ...

Anyone else parse this the way I did?

I didn't originally, but now I see it. It fits with Joseph's condition last night, as supposed by Cla68.

It also makes a hell of a lot more sense.

[Peter Damian]

I fear that the mess I created has spiraled to a point to where even I am in a state. My guilt rivals that of real-life offenses. I can't stop this ride. I have cried, and appealed, and pleaded to stop all of this, but cannot. Things that are beyond my control get to me.

The ends justify the means, but the ends here are devastating, even to someone who thinks WP is just a website. The damage I have done is irreversible. Just allow me some time to collect my thoughts. And please, hold off on the white pride, instability bullshit. I need to breathe. I am asking as a friend, and a member.

I think we should respect this request on a human level and end this discussion, at least for now. Any more meta issues presented can be raised in a new thread.

Of course. If you do anything really bad on-wiki and you are accused then

1. If the accusers are of no importance and likely to be ignored, simply cry harrassment or ‘personal attack’. You can get away with anything you like.

2. If the accusers are somewhat important, or numerous enough for your guilt to become clear to all, just blub a little bit and say how sorry you are and so on, and everything will be OK. You can get away with anything you like.

[Friday]

I fear that the mess I created has spiraled to a point to where even I am in a state. My guilt rivals that of real-life offenses. I can't stop this ride. I have cried, and appealed, and pleaded to stop all of this, but cannot. Things that are beyond my control get to me.

The ends justify the means, but the ends here are devastating, even to someone who thinks WP is just a website. The damage I have done is irreversible. Just allow me some time to collect my thoughts. And please, hold off on the white pride, instability bullshit. I need to breathe. I am asking as a friend, and a member.

I think we should respect this request on a human level and end this discussion, at least for now. Any more meta issues presented can be raised in a new thread.

Brad, you're such a softy. In my experience, when you give in to emotional extortion, you accomplish exactly one thing: you encourage more emotional extortion. I got no use for manipulative people, so I would never encourage such a thing.

[A Horse With No Name]

I fear that the mess I created has spiraled to a point to where even I am in a state. My guilt rivals that of real-life offenses. I can't stop this ride. I have cried, and appealed, and pleaded to stop all of this, but cannot. Things that are beyond my control get to me.

The ends justify the means, but the ends here are devastating, even to someone who thinks WP is just a website. The damage I have done is irreversible. Just allow me some time to collect my thoughts. And please, hold off on the white pride, instability bullshit. I need to breathe. I am asking as a friend, and a member.

I think we should respect this request on a human level and end this discussion, at least for now. Any more meta issues presented can be raised in a new thread.

Brad, you're such a softy. In my experience, when you give in to emotional extortion, you accomplish exactly one thing: you encourage more emotional extortion. I got no use for manipulative people, so I would never encourage such a thing.

I have a question for Brad: were you aware of the Law-Undertow connection before this went public? And as a follow-up question: were other members of Arbcom also aware? A simple yes or no answer is more than fine - I've got the hot air quota covered. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Newyorkbrad]

I fear that the mess I created has spiraled to a point to where even I am in a state. My guilt rivals that of real-life offenses. I can't stop this ride. I have cried, and appealed, and pleaded to stop all of this, but cannot. Things that are beyond my control get to me.

The ends justify the means, but the ends here are devastating, even to someone who thinks WP is just a website. The damage I have done is irreversible. Just allow me some time to collect my thoughts. And please, hold off on the white pride, instability bullshit. I need to breathe. I am asking as a friend, and a member.

I think we should respect this request on a human level and end this discussion, at least for now. Any more meta issues presented can be raised in a new thread.

Brad, you're such a softy. In my experience, when you give in to emotional extortion, you accomplish exactly one thing: you encourage more emotional extortion. I got no use for manipulative people, so I would never encourage such a thing.

I have a question for Brad: were you aware of the Law-Undertow connection before this went public? And as a follow-up question: were other members of Arbcom also aware? A simple yes or no answer is more than fine - I've got the hot air quota covered. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I was not. I've just commented in the arbitration case.

[A Horse With No Name]

I was not. I've just commented in the arbitration case.

Thank you, Brad. You are a gentleman. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[lone-wolf]

This whole matter has certainly forced me to re-evaluate a few people in regards to the amount of respect they should be accorded.

Coming from someone who doesn't feel the need to connect to their WP name, that means a lot.

I'll think about it. To be honest, I'm not sure how much I want to edit here yet. If you feel it's important - I'll not get all huffy about it if you "out" me. And for the record Lara, your integrity is not something I question, it's something I admire. I was rather speaking of those looking for scapegoats and hunting for heads to hang on their walls. I'm very disappointed that an admin. would feel the need to "gloat" over something like this. I do not see this as an improvement for the 'pedia.

[trenton]

Meaning of the term Lone wolf for those who don't know.

I, for one, am getting tired of all these BS "apologies" after being discovered. It's the same story every time. Fresh start, blah blah blah. Real life problems, blah blah blah. Wracked with guilt, blah blah blah. So sorry, blah blah blah.

It's all very convenient and self serving. The perpetrator is always happily playing the game until the very last second they are discovered.

"I left stormfront, but then went to wikipedia to debate the fine points of white pride over white supremacy". Give me a fucking break.

If you have real life problems wtf are you doing playing games on wikipedia? Why the fuck would you want to be an administrator and add to your problems? None of these stories makes any damn sense.

[lone-wolf]

[quote name='trenton' date='Thu 1st October 2009, 5:32pm' post='197181']
Meaning of the term Lone wolf for those who don't know.


And for those of you inclined to think a little deeper: another meaning

[LaraLove]

Oh, nice to see the Arbcom members like to gossip about "official" business. But, then again, it always seems like diner waitresses are the most well-informed people in any community. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Of course, that doesn't answer the question, so I will ask it again: how many Arbcom members (including clerks) knew that Law was a sock of The Undertow? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

I'm not a waitress anymore. I was doing that and restaurant management. Actions of my unethical boss with an apparent lack of understanding wrt nepotism compelled me to walk. I am nw among the unemployed full-time college students.

As for your question, I neither know nor care, Eco.

@Lara: makes perfect sense, if you just include IRL threats. If, however, you base it partially on Law's threats to destroy his WP existence, as it were, which makes more sense? Keeping schtum or trying to put Law in a position where he doesn't have the authority to do good on his threats?

Okay, so disregarding the "IRL threats," taking only threats to ruin him on the project, what would he do? Ironholds made the first such threat. He got the ball rolling, Law took it and ran.

[A Horse With No Name]

Actions of my unethical boss with an apparent lack of understanding wrt nepotism compelled me to walk.

And I bet it was quite a walk, too. Something like the young lady in this video:



Proposition: let's put this discussion of Law/Undertow on hold and start posting irrelevant girlie videos. All in favor, say Aye! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Tarc]

Think a problem going forward with an ArbCom is people being able to separate one issue from another. How many are going to make the automatic leap from "socking was bad" to "others who knew about it was bad" ? IMO the former wasn't such a swift move, but the latter I'm not really all that worked up about.

On another vein, was this; (emphasis mine)

Sorry you got sent away for breaking the law... Good to see you are now out of jail. You were certainly missed! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

zomg its teh undertoes. Law shall be restored now, eh? GlassCobra 13:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that law may be restored, but order? Never! the_undertow talk 10:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

a bit of in-joking at the time, or happy coincidence?

[LaraLove]

My, oh my. JoshuaZ is joining in to take my tool belt. SHOCKING.

This is the optimal time for the anti-BLP people to come after me. My allies aren't going to speak up, so this should be a sweeping victory.

[MZMcBride]

Ugh.

[Ahypori]

My, oh my. JoshuaZ is joining in to take my tool belt. SHOCKING.

This is the optimal time for the anti-BLP people to come after me. My allies aren't going to speak up, so this should be a sweeping victory.

The hypocrisy is amazing: there's KillerChihuahua going on about you and GlassCobra being "loyal to your friends over policy", yet her own friends (who all defend each other's bad behavior) are showing up to support her position to get you both desysopped.

I don't believe it will be a victory for them either. If anything, this is all a defeat because they're more interested in scoring a victory over their opponents rather than focusing on issues that actually matter; and they're just wasting the time of everyone involved. As such, I'm not convinced they're doing all this because they care about reputation: it's because it's a decent chance to bring down an enemy.

I also note that Sandstein is now appeasing some of the people who wanted him desysopped the other week by agreeing with them.

[Friday]

I don't find it hard to believe that much of this is motivated by petty personal disputes. I don't know who is friends with who, so I don't know how the teams stack up.. but there's something that will hopefully not get lost amongst the nonsense.

Once you look past the schoolyard politicking, there's a legitimate concern here. If people would put down their "hooray for my side" banners, they might be able to see it.

[Deodand]

Oh, nice to see the Arbcom members like to gossip about "official" business. But, then again, it always seems like diner waitresses are the most well-informed people in any community. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Of course, that doesn't answer the question, so I will ask it again: how many Arbcom members (including clerks) knew that Law was a sock of The Undertow? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

I'm not a waitress anymore. I was doing that and restaurant management. Actions of my unethical boss with an apparent lack of understanding wrt nepotism compelled me to walk. I am nw among the unemployed full-time college students.

As for your question, I neither know nor care, Eco.

@Lara: makes perfect sense, if you just include IRL threats. If, however, you base it partially on Law's threats to destroy his WP existence, as it were, which makes more sense? Keeping schtum or trying to put Law in a position where he doesn't have the authority to do good on his threats?

Okay, so disregarding the "IRL threats," taking only threats to ruin him on the project, what would he do? Ironholds made the first such threat. He got the ball rolling, Law took it and ran.

Err, no he didn't. "I've started a page discussion" "fuck off, I'm going to own you on-wiki" and it degenerated from there.

[Guido den Broeder]

As a side note, the German ArbCom collapsed today, with 7 out of 10 members quitting.

[Appleby]

I'm kinda sympathetic to that view. So far as Law, or any other admin/editor who's changed identities, I really couldn't care less. And that goes for Horsey too. I take people as I find them.

I rather like Horsey as such, but I can't forget that he's someone who allegedly tried to get someone IRL into trouble by contacting his boss ...

[No one of consequence]

As a side note, the German ArbCom collapsed today, with 7 out of 10 members quitting.

Say what? Is there an English language recap of WTF happened?

[victim of censorship]

I fear that the mess I created has spiraled to a point to where even I am in a state. My guilt rivals that of real-life offenses. I can't stop this ride. I have cried, and appealed, and pleaded to stop all of this, but cannot. Things that are beyond my control get to me.

The ends justify the means, but the ends here are devastating, even to someone who thinks WP is just a website. The damage I have done is irreversible. Just allow me some time to collect my thoughts. And please, hold off on the white pride, instability bullshit. I need to breathe. I am asking as a friend, and a member.

I think we should respect this request on a human level and end this discussion, at least for now. Any more meta issues presented can be raised in a new thread.

Brad, you're such a softy. In my experience, when you give in to emotional extortion, you accomplish exactly one thing: you encourage more emotional extortion. I got no use for manipulative people, so I would never encourage such a thing.

I have a question for Brad: were you aware of the Law-Undertow connection before this went public? And as a follow-up question: were other members of Arbcom also aware? A simple yes or no answer is more than fine - I've got the hot air quota covered. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I was not. I've just commented in the arbitration case.

WHAT an obnoxious joke... Lets not have any allusions that the rule of law in Wikipedia is in operation. Wikipedia is just a Cyber simulation of an El Rukns Street gang. Lets not have any misunderstanding of that. Only law in wikipeidia is JUNGLE LAW and the JAGOFFS rule on Wikipedia.

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[nableezy]

I'm kinda sympathetic to that view. So far as Law, or any other admin/editor who's changed identities, I really couldn't care less. And that goes for Horsey too. I take people as I find them.

I rather like Horsey as such, but I can't forget that he's someone who allegedly tried to get someone IRL into trouble by contacting his boss ...

allegedly someone who admittedly did this, not someone who allegedly did this

[Deodand]

As a side note, the German ArbCom collapsed today, with 7 out of 10 members quitting.

Really? What happened? ~~~~

[No one of consequence]

~~~~

Your noob is showing (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[NuclearWarfare]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Dis...:Schiedsgericht

That explains it. Google translate does a good enough job. No big scandal, they just dislike the restrictions that their community places upon them.

[LaraLove]

Okay, so disregarding the "IRL threats," taking only threats to ruin him on the project, what would he do? Ironholds made the first such threat. He got the ball rolling, Law took it and ran.

Err, no he didn't. "I've started a page discussion" "fuck off, I'm going to own you on-wiki" and it degenerated from there.

You're using quotes as if you're quoting from the log, yet I see nothing in the log matching either of those. The first and only "fuck off" that shows up when I search is from Ironholds.

[Deodand]

Okay, so disregarding the "IRL threats," taking only threats to ruin him on the project, what would he do? Ironholds made the first such threat. He got the ball rolling, Law took it and ran.

Err, no he didn't. "I've started a page discussion" "fuck off, I'm going to own you on-wiki" and it degenerated from there.

You're using quotes as if you're quoting from the log, yet I see nothing in the log matching either of those. The first and only "fuck off" that shows up when I search is from Ironholds.

not a direct quote, but strangely enough the beginning of the conversation is at... the beginning of the conversation. Try the first bit of the log, maybe?

[CharlotteWebb]

As a side note, the German ArbCom collapsed today, with 7 out of 10 members quitting.

Damn Germans. Always seven steps ahead of us.

Seems to be partly related to with a case involving Wladyslaw, Umschattiger, and allegations of mutual wiki-stalking/rivalry/etc., possibly of a Brenneman–Sidaway calibre, and one arbitrator's failure to recuse from it.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Tarc]

WHAT an obnoxious joke... Lets not have any allusions that the rule of law in Wikipedia is in operation. Wikipedia is just a Cyber simulation of an El Rukns Street gang. Lets not have any misunderstanding of that. Only law in wikipeidia is JUNGLE LAW and the JAGOFFS rule on Wikipedia.

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.

As an aside, how's that IRS complaint going, Joe, any progress?

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[victim of censorship]

WHAT an obnoxious joke... Lets not have any allusions that the rule of law in Wikipedia is in operation. Wikipedia is just a Cyber simulation of an El Rukns Street gang. Lets not have any misunderstanding of that. Only law in wikipeidia is JUNGLE LAW and the JAGOFFS rule on Wikipedia.

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.

As an aside, how's that IRS complaint going, Joe, any progress?

It goes well... government moves slow, but remember this, it does move.

[A Horse With No Name]

allegedly someone who admittedly did this, not someone who allegedly did this

Okay, Horsey is a jackass who screwed up big time. Tell me something I don't know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Any way, in honor of the German Wikipedia revolt, a little Weimar-by-Broadway music:

[Deodand]

WHAT an obnoxious joke... Lets not have any allusions that the rule of law in Wikipedia is in operation. Wikipedia is just a Cyber simulation of an El Rukns Street gang. Lets not have any misunderstanding of that. Only law in wikipeidia is JUNGLE LAW and the JAGOFFS rule on Wikipedia.

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.

As an aside, how's that IRS complaint going, Joe, any progress?

It goes well... government moves slow, but remember this, it does move.

Brilliant. When they laugh you out of the office, please let us know.

[LaraLove]

Okay, so disregarding the "IRL threats," taking only threats to ruin him on the project, what would he do? Ironholds made the first such threat. He got the ball rolling, Law took it and ran.

Err, no he didn't. "I've started a page discussion" "fuck off, I'm going to own you on-wiki" and it degenerated from there.

You're using quotes as if you're quoting from the log, yet I see nothing in the log matching either of those. The first and only "fuck off" that shows up when I search is from Ironholds.

not a direct quote, but strangely enough the beginning of the conversation is at... the beginning of the conversation. Try the first bit of the log, maybe?

My log starts at midnight. I have the full day. I'm guessing you have a portion of the log. So when you say the beginning, is that where Ironholds says he's "busy writing about posh lawyer nutters"? After that he asks Law to do a move, Law says "okay", Ironholds links him, Law asks "why the move?" and the discussion takes off from there. I see nothing about "fuck off" or anything like that near the beginning.

[Deodand]

Okay, so disregarding the "IRL threats," taking only threats to ruin him on the project, what would he do? Ironholds made the first such threat. He got the ball rolling, Law took it and ran.

Err, no he didn't. "I've started a page discussion" "fuck off, I'm going to own you on-wiki" and it degenerated from there.

You're using quotes as if you're quoting from the log, yet I see nothing in the log matching either of those. The first and only "fuck off" that shows up when I search is from Ironholds.

not a direct quote, but strangely enough the beginning of the conversation is at... the beginning of the conversation. Try the first bit of the log, maybe?

My log starts at midnight. I have the full day. I'm guessing you have a portion of the log. So when you say the beginning, is that where Ironholds says he's "busy writing about posh lawyer nutters"? After that he asks Law to do a move, Law says "okay", Ironholds links him, Law asks "why the move?" and the discussion takes off from there. I see nothing about "fuck off" or anything like that near the beginning.

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.

[everyking]

As a side note, the German ArbCom collapsed today, with 7 out of 10 members quitting.

We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

[MBisanz]

As a side note, the German ArbCom collapsed today, with 7 out of 10 members quitting.

We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

it.wiki won that award a long time ago.

[everyking]

As a side note, the German ArbCom collapsed today, with 7 out of 10 members quitting.

We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

it.wiki won that award a long time ago.

I know I'd be interested to hear about how project governance functions on each of the major wikiprojects. Surely someone has developed something better than the severely dysfunctional model prevailing on en-wiki.

[Milton Roe]

As a side note, the German ArbCom collapsed today, with 7 out of 10 members quitting.

We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

it.wiki won that award a long time ago.

That was due to the porn stars and mafia-connected people they insisted run it. But hey, that's just Italy. They should be given some latitude.

[Moulton]

Surely someone has developed something better than the severely dysfunctional model prevailing on en-wiki.

Yes, but Jimbo has expressly rejected the more evolved and enlightened governance models in favor of the anachronistic ad hoc ochlocracy preferred by the entrenched en.wiki cabal.

[everyking]

Surely someone has developed something better than the severely dysfunctional model prevailing on en-wiki.

Yes, but Jimbo has expressly rejected the more evolved and enlightened governance models in favor of the anachronistic ad hoc ochlocracy preferred by the entrenched en.wiki cabal.

Democracy? What--are you suggesting feudalism isn't working well? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Moulton]

Corrupt feudalism didn't work too well for King John, either.

[MBisanz]

As a side note, the German ArbCom collapsed today, with 7 out of 10 members quitting.

We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

it.wiki won that award a long time ago.

I know I'd be interested to hear about how project governance functions on each of the major wikiprojects. Surely someone has developed something better than the severely dysfunctional model prevailing on en-wiki.

Well I know fr.wiki has had significant problems with its arbcom, es.wiki forked at one point so I suppose that is a form of governance, it.wiki deleted its arbcom, and now de.wiki's has resigned. I seem to remember some issues with ru.wiki's, but it might not have been DR related.

[Moulton]

Ironically, in the sum of all human knowledge, there is ample academic research on the efficacy of alternative governance models.

[Anonymous editor]

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

WHAT an obnoxious joke... Lets not have any allusions that the rule of law in Wikipedia is in operation. Wikipedia is just a Cyber simulation of an El Rukns Street gang. Lets not have any misunderstanding of that. Only law in wikipeidia is JUNGLE LAW and the JAGOFFS rule on Wikipedia.

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.

As an aside, how's that IRS complaint going, Joe, any progress?

Classic. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[The Joy]

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.

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v386/Warsmith/Pollice_Verso.jpg)

"Come on, Arbcom! Finish off Law and your former colleague, Casliber! We've got more in the queue!"

[Malleus]

Okay, Horsey is a jackass who screwed up big time. Tell me something I don't know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Ain't that the truth. But looking on the bright side, I doubt Horsey will make the same mistake again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

I can't help but to think that if an "old guard" arbitrator knew that a Wikifriend was an arb comm ruling-defying, block-evading, adminship-seeking sock, the reaction to that news on WR would be a little different than it's been here. Cas is no hypocrite: he's acknowledged that it was wrong when he did it, just as it would have been if James Forrester had. He's also done what I consider to be the right thing, and resigned. He's good people, and if he runs again in December, which I gather he won't, I'll vote for him. But I think some of the rest of you could stand to reread WP:SAUCE.

[everyking]

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.

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. This sad state of affairs is directly attributable to the ArbCom, which embraced and encouraged those tendencies in the community, enabling them to grow out of control. The only real solution is to scrap the ArbCom in favor of some governance mechanism that promotes a harmonious editing environment in which contributions are valued and contributors are respected.

[Moulton]

The only real solution is to scrap the ArbCom in favor of some governance mechanism that promotes a harmonious editing environment in which contributions are valued and contributors are respected.

Last summer, Jimbo expressly rejected a proposal to craft a harmonious editing environment consistent with the published Mission Statement of WMF.

[A Horse With No Name]

Okay, Horsey is a jackass who screwed up big time. Tell me something I don't know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Ain't that the truth. But looking on the bright side, I doubt Horsey will make the same mistake again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again? And I said: No, I'd make a whole bunch of new ones! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Oh, and tonight on Wiki-TV, it's "The Caine Mutiny" starring Protonk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFA...ment_by_Protonk (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Ahypori]

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

Correct: Bishonen has done far worse than Jennavecia's ever done.

Look at the oppose section for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

[A Horse With No Name]

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

What can I say? I move in obtuse circles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you going to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not? If not, you'd probably want to repeat at least some mistakes. There's a lot of wisdom in the experience of mistakes. You don't necessarily have to make all of these mistakes personally-- but some, you do. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Look at the oppose section for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.

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)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[LaraLove]

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.

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.

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v386/Warsmith/Pollice_Verso.jpg)

"Come on, Arbcom! Finish off Law and your former colleague, Casliber! We've got more in the queue!"

Exactly!

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.

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.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not?

If you didn't have the accumulated wisdom from your first go-round, you'd hardly have the option of avoiding the same mistakes, making the question moot.

[LaraLove]

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not?

If you didn't have the accumulated wisdom from your first go-round, you'd hardly have the option of avoiding the same mistakes, making the question moot.

I don't think that's the point of the question. To me it seems as though you're supposed to reflect on your life and where you are at the time you're asked the question. If you're pleased overall with where you've ended up in life, then to change even one mistake would change where you are. Butterfly effect.

A huge mistake in my life led to great things. Would I make that same mistake again? For sure. Would my life be far better than it is right now if I had not made that mistake? I cannot say for sure, but chances are surely high. Many opportunities lost. Many sacrifices had to be made. However, in avoiding that mistake, amongst the ripples of change, I would not have my children.

You look at the question in too simple of terms. It's not a simple question. It's supposed to provoke thought and reflection.

[Anonymous editor]

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

Correct: Bishonen has done far worse than Jennavecia's ever done.

Oh, absolutely. The worst part is that Bishonen is one of the guiltiest parties on Wikipedia when it comes to doing what she's accusing Jenna of doing. Bishonen has consistently performed abusive actions in support of her wikifriends.

If Jenna gets desysopped for this, then perhaps Bishonen should be desysopped about a dozen times (if only it were possible).

This makes me sick. I can see where someone would have a problem with what Jenna and GlassCobra did, but these are the last people that should be making a stink over it, considering their collective histories.

Look at the oppose section for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.

Naturally. The people who didn't like Jenna would jump at the opportunity to get her for something she did. They were just waiting for a big enough issue.

Jehochman, Bishonen, KC, and JoshuaZ are some of the most vomit-inducing editors on Wikipedia. Their abuses go a long way back.

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not? If not, you'd probably want to repeat at least some mistakes. There's a lot of wisdom in the experience of mistakes. You don't necessarily have to make all of these mistakes personally-- but some, you do. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Precisely.

[Sarcasticidealist]

You look at the question in too simple of terms. It's not a simple question. It's supposed to provoke thought and reflection.

Then it probably shouldn't be so stupid.

[LaraLove]

You look at the question in too simple of terms. It's not a simple question. It's supposed to provoke thought and reflection.

Then it probably shouldn't be so stupid.

Stupid because you don't grasp the point.

[LaraLove]

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

Correct: Bishonen has done far worse than Jennavecia's ever done.

Oh, absolutely. The worst part is that Bishonen is one of the guiltiest parties on Wikipedia when it comes to doing what she's accusing Jenna of doing. Bishonen has consistently performed abusive actions in support of her wikifriends.

If Jenna gets desysopped for this, then perhaps Bishonen should be desysopped about a dozen times (if only it were possible).

This makes me sick. I can see where someone would have a problem with what Jenna and GlassCobra did, but these are the last people that should be making a stink over it, considering their collective histories.

Look at the oppose section for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.

Naturally. The people who didn't like Jenna would jump at the opportunity to get her for something she did. They were just waiting for a big enough issue.

Jehochman, Bishonen, KC, and JoshuaZ are some of the most vomit-inducing editors on Wikipedia. Their abuses go a long way back.

I pointed this out in my email response to the case to an Arb, along with some other stuff. What it basically boils down to is if they want to make an example of me, then I'm fine with that. But it needs to set a precedent allowing for the removal of actual bad admins, including the hypocrites that came after me for this.

I'll gladly go out if I can take out some bad apples with me.

[Anonymous editor]

I'm with Sarcasticidealist. If I could start over again with the accumulated knowledge I now have, I certainly would.


Avoiding mistakes would change me as a person, but I don't mind. I'd most likely be better off had I avoided a few critical errors at certain points.

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

Correct: Bishonen has done far worse than Jennavecia's ever done.

Oh, absolutely. The worst part is that Bishonen is one of the guiltiest parties on Wikipedia when it comes to doing what she's accusing Jenna of doing. Bishonen has consistently performed abusive actions in support of her wikifriends.

If Jenna gets desysopped for this, then perhaps Bishonen should be desysopped about a dozen times (if only it were possible).

This makes me sick. I can see where someone would have a problem with what Jenna and GlassCobra did, but these are the last people that should be making a stink over it, considering their collective histories.

Look at the oppose section for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.

Naturally. The people who didn't like Jenna would jump at the opportunity to get her for something she did. They were just waiting for a big enough issue.

Jehochman, Bishonen, KC, and JoshuaZ are some of the most vomit-inducing editors on Wikipedia. Their abuses go a long way back.

I pointed this out in my email response to the case to an Arb, along with some other stuff. What it basically boils down to is if they want to make an example of me, then I'm fine with that. But it needs to set a precedent allowing for the removal of actual bad admins, including the hypocrites that came after me for this.

I'll gladly go out if I can take out some bad apples with me.

You would be a hero if this actually caused a change and got the tools removed from some of the long time abusive administrators. Fat chance of that happening, though. They're simply too good at playing the game, I suppose.

[Casliber]

You look at the question in too simple of terms. It's not a simple question. It's supposed to provoke thought and reflection.

Then it probably shouldn't be so stupid.

Stupid because you don't grasp the point.

You guys (who are about the same age) should meet up some time - would it be like "When Harry Met Sally" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Grep]

Interesting to see how the discussion continues the move away from the admin-is-no-big-deal position to the admins-are-better-than-us-and-so-can-be-trusted-with-arbitrary-power.

[Milton Roe]

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not?

If you didn't have the accumulated wisdom from your first go-round, you'd hardly have the option of avoiding the same mistakes, making the question moot.

No, there are many SF scenarios where it's a mixed bag. Guy makes mistake, wants to change it. Goes back and advises himself not to do it. Guy he advices has no idea whether to trust his judgement. Nor should he fully, since even the guy who decided it was a mistake, as NO idea what would certainly happen if he avoided it.

If you want a fun movie about a guy trying to go back to change main past mistakes, doing it but getting in deeper every time, I suggest indeed a film called The Butterfly Effect. Incidentally one of the actors (playing an abusive father) in THAT film is played by Eric Stolz. Who was once fired from the set of Back to the Future and replaced by Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly. Bummer. But then went on to do Mask, and get a Golden Globe. A part he probably would not otherwise have taken. Would he go back and change his life? What would he advise himself?

One scenario is where you keep your wisdom to the point that you advise yourself not to make the mistake, but when you don't, suddenly the old "you" that you are fades out, and you lose the wisdom you HAD from the mistake. Your actions in the past change your own future, and yourself. Now you're dumber. Etc. See the film above. It's quite gut wrenching, and much better ride than Back to the Future.

[SB_Johnny]

Wow, 248 posts... idle hands, eh?

couple things:

1. Wikipedia is not a state, and looks to me like the charge here is something akin to "treason".

2. If Wikipedia was a state, I'd hope it wasn't the kind of state where failing to report your friends for having counterrevolutionary thoughts would be cause for sending someone to the gulag.

3. Since everyone denies that Wikipedia is not a state, maybe they should follow the doctrine (by some British dude) of having no "eternal enemies". If Law had in fact become an asset (as most people seem to think), then what's the problem?

[Guido den Broeder]

Well I know fr.wiki has had significant problems with its arbcom, es.wiki forked at one point so I suppose that is a form of governance, it.wiki deleted its arbcom, and now de.wiki's has resigned. I seem to remember some issues with ru.wiki's, but it might not have been DR related.

The nl:arbcom is dead most of the time.

The concept simply does not work, and will never work, for two reasons:
- it's treating the environment as a community instead of a project, i.e. content comes last;
- it's easy as well was attractive for wikipediots to make it to the top.

[Mathsci]

John Vandenberg's apology

This post has been edited by Mathsci:

[A Horse With No Name]

A message to Law/Undertow: Hey there, how is the day treating you? I hope today will be a better one for you.

And remember what the Wizard told the Tin Man: "'A heart is not measured by how much you love, but how much you are loved by others." You have a lot of friends here who have been willing to stand up for you -- you must be doing something right! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

John Vandenberg's apology

An "oh shit" moment (reprinted in its entirety):
<<<

Question for John

Thanks for explaining this. I see no reason you should resign for a simple oversight. But I'd like to ask you why the functionary was telling you by email that Law was The undertow, and didn't simply block him, or take it to AE. This seems to me to go to the heart of the problem here. There's a feeling that The undertow was being treated differently from any other editor violating a ban, and it would be good to know why. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Who was the functionary? This should not need to be confidential. Jehochman Talk 12:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>


Wasn't MBisanz recently elevated to bureaucrat? Boy, the "community" can really trust these characters, eh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

You know, this is turning into the Wikipedia equivalent of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World" -- you never know which star is going turn up next! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Casliber]

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not?

If you didn't have the accumulated wisdom from your first go-round, you'd hardly have the option of avoiding the same mistakes, making the question moot.

No, there are many SF scenarios where it's a mixed bag. Guy makes mistake, wants to change it. Goes back and advises himself not to do it. Guy he advices has no idea whether to trust his judgement. Nor should he fully, since even the guy who decided it was a mistake, as NO idea what would certainly happen if he avoided it.

If you want a fun movie about a guy trying to go back to change main past mistakes, doing it but getting in deeper every time, I suggest indeed a film called The Butterfly Effect. Incidentally one of the actors (playing an abusive father) in THAT film is played by Eric Stolz. Who was once fired from the set of Back to the Future and replaced by Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly. Bummer. But then went on to do Mask, and get a Golden Globe. A part he probably would not otherwise have taken. Would he go back and change his life? What would he advise himself?

One scenario is where you keep your wisdom to the point that you advise yourself not to make the mistake, but when you don't, suddenly the old "you" that you are fades out, and you lose the wisdom you HAD from the mistake. Your actions in the past change your own future, and yourself. Now you're dumber. Etc. See the film above. It's quite gut wrenching, and much better ride than Back to the Future.

Butterfly Effect was a damn fine film. Except they had to sneak in a true-lurv-transcends-alternate-universes titbit right at the end but, meh, worked ok (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Apathetic]

It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>


Wasn't MBisanz recently elevated to bureaucrat? Boy, the "community" can really trust these characters, eh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

You know, this is turning into the Wikipedia equivalent of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World" -- you never know which star is going turn up next! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

No it wasnt Matt, and I am not going to say who it was at this stage. The functionary elevated it appropriately to me, and it is my fault that it was not dealt with after that. The functionary would like to avoid being caught up in this, and I respect that as they did the right thing. There are other functionaries involved, and I hope they speak up. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[A Horse With No Name]

It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>


Wasn't MBisanz recently elevated to bureaucrat? Boy, the "community" can really trust these characters, eh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

You know, this is turning into the Wikipedia equivalent of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World" -- you never know which star is going turn up next! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

No it wasnt Matt, and I am not going to say who it was at this stage. The functionary elevated it appropriately to me, and it is my fault that it was not dealt with after that. The functionary would like to avoid being caught up in this, and I respect that as they did the right thing. There are other functionaries involved, and I hope they speak up. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.

Okay, but now this raises two new questions: (1) How the hell did DuncanHill name Matt, of all people? And (2) If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

[Apathetic]

Okay, but now this raises two new questions: (1) How the hell did DuncanHill name Matt, of all people? And (2) If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

I think DuncanHill wrongly deduced it was MB because MB was complaining above about a handful of emails he had sent to Arb about various issues that had gone without answer/action.

As for 2), <speculation>perhaps they were a friend of Law/UT and for them, duty trumps friendship, but they didn't want to act themselves.</speculation>

Let's also not forget the chaos that would ensue if an admin just blocked another admin for sockpuppetry without the attendant desysop. ArbCom is the only body (other than an emergency steward request) that can desysop, so sending it to them rather than acting on their own makes perfect sense to me.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[Kelly Martin]

If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

Well, that one is obvious. Information one has about another editor that could embarrass that editor can be used to manipulate them, but only if it's not publicly known. Acting on that information in such a way as to publicly disclose it is therefore only to be done as a last resort, as doing so reduces the value of that information to zero.

[Moulton]

What with all the cults, kabals, and behind-the-scenes stealth and intrigue, I'm expecting some forthcoming denial along the lines of, "I did not have sects with that woman."

[A Horse With No Name]

If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

Well, that one is obvious. Information one has about another editor that could embarrass that editor can be used to manipulate them, but only if it's not publicly known. Acting on that information in such a way as to publicly disclose it is therefore only to be done as a last resort, as doing so reduces the value of that information to zero.

But then go back to JV's original apology:

"It was brought to my attention this morning, about 9 hours ago, that a functionary had privately informed me on August 21 about the connection between Law and The undertow. The email that I received, which was sent to the audit subcommittee this morning and will be send to arbcom-l shortly, did not spell out the connection explicitly, and I can't be certain that I had even read the email until this morning."

This is like a Jackie Mason routine: I got an e-mail that said something, but maybe it didn't say something, so I forwarded it six weeks later even though I didn't read it in the first place, or maybe I did read it... Something is not adding up. And why did the functionary e-mail JV only and not the full Arbcom committee? And how and when did this functionary add two and two?

I am no fan of GlassCobra and I know that Lara hates me, but I have to say that they are being held up as scapegoats. This whole thing smells. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

[No one of consequence]

People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.

Lost their senses in the drama, I expect.

And (2) If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

Are you kidding? Do you remember the shitstorms that followed when Giano's "open sock" Catherine de Burgh and Geogre's "open sock" Utgard Loki were blocked? If you come across evidence that Law is a sockpuppet, but you also see that lots of other people seem OK with it, who wouldn't be hesitant to take unilateral action.

[A Horse With No Name]

Are you kidding? Do you remember the shitstorms that followed when Giano's "open sock" Catherine de Burgh and Geogre's "open sock" Utgard Loki were blocked?

Actually, I don't. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[No one of consequence]

Let's also not forget the chaos that would ensue if an admin just blocked another admin for sockpuppetry without the attendant desysop. ArbCom is the only body (other than an emergency steward request) that can desysop, so sending it to them rather than acting on their own makes perfect sense to me.

What he said.

Are you kidding? Do you remember the shitstorms that followed when Giano's "open sock" Catherine de Burgh and Geogre's "open sock" Utgard Loki were blocked?

Actually, I don't. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Lucky you.

[MBisanz]

It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>


Wasn't MBisanz recently elevated to bureaucrat? Boy, the "community" can really trust these characters, eh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

You know, this is turning into the Wikipedia equivalent of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World" -- you never know which star is going turn up next! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

No it wasnt Matt, and I am not going to say who it was at this stage. The functionary elevated it appropriately to me, and it is my fault that it was not dealt with after that. The functionary would like to avoid being caught up in this, and I respect that as they did the right thing. There are other functionaries involved, and I hope they speak up. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.

Probably worth pointing out three things.

1. I'm not a functionary so I can't of been the person Jay was referring to.

2. I wasn't involved with the Law thing.

3. My comment here with regard to tipsters seems very prophetic right now.

[A Horse With No Name]

Probably worth pointing out three things.

1. I'm not a functionary so I can't of been the person Jay was referring to.

2. I wasn't involved with the Law thing.

3. My comment here with regard to tipsters seems very prophetic right now.

My apologies for not being faster in getting Duncan's retraction up here. You are a good man, MB -- any new photos online? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[LaraLove]

People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.

Lost their senses in the drama, I expect.

And (2) If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

Are you kidding? Do you remember the shitstorms that followed when Giano's "open sock" Catherine de Burgh and Geogre's "open sock" Utgard Loki were blocked? If you come across evidence that Law is a sockpuppet, but you also see that lots of other people seem OK with it, who wouldn't be hesitant to take unilateral action.

The block of Giano's Catherine de Burgh sock was stupid. That one was clearly linked to him and was a joke account. If we want to start blocking joke sock accounts, hit this atrociously unfunny account. At least Giano is amusing.

It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>

Nice how Duncan just made a random guess and stated it as fact. My, the things those who feel they are in a position to judge do. I mean, stating something you don't know (which is actually wrong) as fact... isn't that lying?

[Friday]

There's a lot of idiocy going on here.

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"? That seems to be what a great many people are saying here.

This is an argument a child would make. Any reasonable adult should see right through it.

[Malleus]

The block of Giano's Catherine de Burgh sock was stupid. That one was clearly linked to him and was a joke account. If we want to start blocking joke sock accounts, hit this atrociously unfunny account. At least Giano is amusing.

I find that account astonishing, but I guess if you were around in the days when ... you can do whatever you like. Actually, I don't have to guess, because recent events have proven that's exactly the way that wikipedia "works".

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Friday]

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.

That's funny. If you take other people's word for it, that's the exact opposite of what's happening here. This is apparently merely a grudge between rival factions of admins.

I don't deny that such grudges and factions exist. But it's very easy to ignore all that, and still see a problem here.

[trenton]

Time for a nice old fashioned purge. Well deserved, and it should get rid of a lot of the "social club" admins.

[Malleus]

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.

That's funny. If you take other people's word for it, that's the exact opposite of what's happening here. This is apparently merely a grudge between rival factions of admins.

I don't deny that such grudges and factions exist. But it's very easy to ignore all that, and still see a problem here.

Sorry, don't understand your banter. Are you suggesting that similar grudge matches between groups of regular editors would be tolerated?

Time for a nice old fashioned purge. Well deserved, and it should get rid of a lot of the "social club" admins.

The Good Articles project started a Sweeps process, reassessing every article promoted before August 2007. Perhaps the admin corps needs a similar reassessment.

[MBisanz]

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.

That's funny. If you take other people's word for it, that's the exact opposite of what's happening here. This is apparently merely a grudge between rival factions of admins.

I don't deny that such grudges and factions exist. But it's very easy to ignore all that, and still see a problem here.

Sorry, don't understand your banter. Are you suggesting that similar grudge matches between groups of regular editors would be tolerated?

At Bates method the grudge match among non-admins lasted over two years among four editors, and consumed over 5,000 edits, before arbcom was finally willing to step in and ban the unreasonable party.

[Friday]

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.

That's funny. If you take other people's word for it, that's the exact opposite of what's happening here. This is apparently merely a grudge between rival factions of admins.

I don't deny that such grudges and factions exist. But it's very easy to ignore all that, and still see a problem here.

Sorry, don't understand your banter. Are you suggesting that similar grudge matches between groups of regular editors would be tolerated?

Oh.. I thought you were trying to say something like "Typical admins.. always circling the wagons for each other." And I don't believe that's the case at all- history is full of all sorts of petty, stupid grudges between admins. Sure, _some groups_ of admins tend to protect people in their groups, and yes, this is a problem. But it's hardly a case of admins forming a single coherent group.

We get grudge-based bullshit from non-admin editors all the time, too. The easy solution, in all these cases, is to ignore the bullshit and focus on what's relevant. Yet so many people seem completely unable to do this.

I believe this problem would be much easier to handle if editors stopped making "friends" or "enemies" with other editors. It's a huge time-sink, and I cannot possibly imagine that such ersatz friendships are a good substitute for the real-life kind.

[trenton]

And look at how easy it is for all these sockpuppets to gain power once they know the system. The most extreme case, Sam Blacketer, went from account creation to arbcom in about 1 1/2 years I believe. You just have to know how to play the game. Rack up thousands of edits using automated tools / vandalism reversion. Hang out and "debate" at article deletion debates. Vote frequently at requests for adminship. Generally be polite and nice until you've achieved your desired power level, then revert back to being your asshole self, because there's zero accountability after you gain power.

Of course it also help to have buddies who will lie, cheat, and steal for you. Especially if they're admins.

[Tintomara]

Butterfly Effect was a damn fine film. Except they had to sneak in a true-lurv-transcends-alternate-universes titbit right at the end but, meh, worked ok (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Heyy...I was going to watch that... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

[Friday]

Wow. Apparently, on wikipedia, "NO YOU!" is what passes for rational discourse.

[Cla68]

Could someone summarize why this particular incident is getting so much attention and commentary? I think I understand some of the reasons but I'm not confident that I get all of it.

[Noroton]

You guys (who are about the same age) should meet up some time - would it be like "When Harry Met Sally" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

No, it would be like one of those Star Trek movies with female Klingons. Sarcastic would be some kind of mind meld between McCoy and Spock ("I'm a doctor, Jim! Not a Wikipedic dramaturgist soliloquizing with a keyboard! That would be illogical -- not to mention unspeakably idiotic!") Phasers would not be set to stun. Everybody would be demanding that Scotty beam them up because there's no intelligent life on the Wikipedia drama boards.

Speaking of drama and trodding the notice boards, the Arbcom pages are looking like the last scene in Hamlet.

Like a Klingon, Lara fights when a diplomatic apology is called for. What do they call that in soccer when you knock the ball into your own net -- "own goal"? What she did was something like that. Daniel, of course, had the worst own goal.

Notice that Hochman moderates his criticism and doesn't ask for a ban or anything, which is a lot smarter than Sandstein's move at AN/I. Hochman would've been even smarter if, at AN/I, he'd just stuck to asking questions of Lara and pointing out what was wrong with what she'd done. She couldn't have accused him of drama, and she'd be stuck answering questions. SlimVirgin is very good at that tactic.

It's so much easier to be a sports fan than to play on the field. When I played, I wasn't playing, just fighting (and therefore spent time in the penalty box), and so much of this is a strategy game.

If you come across evidence that Law is a sockpuppet, but you also see that lots of other people seem OK with it, who wouldn't be hesitant to take unilateral action.

Georgewilliamherbert.

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[Friday]

Could someone summarize why this particular incident is getting so much attention and commentary? I think I understand some of the reasons but I'm not confident that I get all of it.

This specific case is bringing up general questions of whether obvious cronyism should be a sanctionable offense.


In this case, there was some guy (undertow) who was desysopped and banned. I don't know the story. But, a few of his chat-room buddies (Jennavecia and Glasscobra) helped support him in passing an RFA under a new account.

The new admin account didn't really get noticed until it did an obviously stupid thing- unblocking some other guy (child of midnight) for no good reason. Apparently, the unblocked guy was an old crony of undertow.

Anyway, the new account of undertow was discovered, and desysopped. So then the question comes up of whether the other people involved should face any sanctions.

So basically it's obvious, stupid cronyism all around. And some of the people involved are standing up proudly and saying "So what? There's no rule against cronyism. I help my friends. That's what I do."

Some people think this is an obvious ethical violation, whether it's against some formal rule or not. Some people are insisting that as long as no articles were harmed, nothing bad could have happened. Some people are saying that it's unreasonable to expect people to _not_ stand up for their friends. Arbcom is sitting on their hands, doing nothing.

I believe that's pretty much the case.

[LaraLove]

There's a lot of idiocy going on here.

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"? That seems to be what a great many people are saying here.

This is an argument a child would make. Any reasonable adult should see right through it.

Oh God. More with the "adult" argument. Get off it already, Friday.

This whole thing is such bullshit. How possibly can anyone with an ounce of clue jump my ass or anyone else's for pointing out that the people bringing this case against me are KNOWN for doing far worse actions that are strangely similar at the root? Don't even start with me Friday.

I never supported Chip for things I didn't agree with. I never shared sensitive information with him. I didn't support his RFA so that there would be another admin to advance my position in anything. You want to go at me while the people trying to bring me down have conspired off-wiki to skew POV, ban and harass editors, and protect each other from punishment for deeds that actually served to damage the project and run editors off?

Uh uh. I'm not losing my bit unless it serves to take out the bad apples. I will gladly be the first to be taken out by the community in some desysop process if it sets a precedent for easy removal of shitty admins who actually manipulate and damage the project.

[Milton Roe]

There's a lot of idiocy going on here.

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"? That seems to be what a great many people are saying here.

This is an argument a child would make. Any reasonable adult should see right through it.

The problem is that it's not entirely childish. Selective enforcement of a law violates equal protection. That's why the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.

Also see the concept of "clean hands." Not childish at all.

[Friday]

There's a lot of idiocy going on here.

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"? That seems to be what a great many people are saying here.

This is an argument a child would make. Any reasonable adult should see right through it.

The problem is that it's not entirely childish. Selective enforcement of a law violates equal protection. That's why the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.

Also see the concept of "clean hands." Not childish at all.

Not sure what country you live in, but where I'm at, cops pull over speeders without some bizarre requirement that they pull over _every_ speeder.

I understand clean hands. But in this case, it's being misused as a distraction technique. Look at how people are responding.. it's pure nonsense. People come to Jennavecia saying "You did a bad thing here" and she responds with "But you're bad too!"

[LaraLove]

Time for a nice old fashioned purge. Well deserved, and it should get rid of a lot of the "social club" admins.

The Good Articles project started a Sweeps process, reassessing every article promoted before August 2007. Perhaps the admin corps needs a similar reassessment.

A process I started, might I add.

Of course it also help to have buddies who will lie, cheat, and steal for you. Especially if they're admins.

See, this is where things are getting exaggerated. Lie, cheat, and steal? I didn't take it to the community to be overblown, because CLEARLY drama is more important to some people than anything else. I kept a secret and the project was improved.

But, a few of his chat-room buddies (Jennavecia and Glasscobra). . .

Wrong. Not chatroom buddies. Chip and I have been friends, outside of the project, for two years. He's not some editor I chat with on IRC a couple days a week.

Not sure what country you live in, but where I'm at, cops pull over speeders without some bizarre requirement that they pull over _every_ speeder.

I understand clean hands. But in this case, it's being misused as a distraction technique. Look at how people are responding.. it's pure nonsense. People come to Jennavecia saying "You did a bad thing here" and she responds with "But you're bad too!"

This is people too corrupt to be cops trying to pull me over and have me arrested. This analogy sucks, by the way.

I also don't appreciate you misrepresenting me. Stop doing the fake quotes thing. I never said I did a bad thing. I said people coming after me have done far worse than what they're after me for. I let down people that trusted me and that is unfortunate, but I don't believe I did anything "bad" or "wrong." Did I break a rule? Apparently an unwritten one. Do I have a policy to fall back on? I damn well do, and I've yet to see anyone even attempt to demonstrate that it doesn't apply.

[Kelly Martin]

The Good Articles project started a Sweeps process, reassessing every article promoted before August 2007. Perhaps the admin corps needs a similar reassessment.

Every admin should be required to stand for reconfirmation at least once every two years. It is of no concern whatsoever to me that this could possibly require ten or more confirmations each week, every week. If nothing else, it would trim the number of administrators to a reasonable number.

Here's the proposal: Admins shall be automatically deadmined two years from the date of when they were most recently promoted or reconfirmed. For the purpose of assisting with transition, the following deadlines apply, based on date of last promotion or reconfirmation: Prior to 2001, October 31, 2009; prior to 2002, November 14; prior to 2003, November 28; prior to 2004, December 12; prior to 2005, December 26; prior to July 2006, January 9, 2010; prior to December 2006, January 23; prior to April 2007, February 6; prior to June 2007, February 20; prior to October 2007, March 6; prior to December 2007, March 20. All others must reconfirm prior to two years after their anniversary or be deadmined.

Show some balls, Wikipedia: adopt this proposal. What do you have to lose but your administrative deadweights?

I believe this problem would be much easier to handle if editors stopped making "friends" or "enemies" with other editors. It's a huge time-sink, and I cannot possibly imagine that such ersatz friendships are a good substitute for the real-life kind.

We've already established that you have no idea what friendship entails.

[A Horse With No Name]

stand up for their friends. Arbcom is sitting on their hands, doing nothing.

Actually, DuncanHill is stealing my shtick. He specifically asked the Arbcom fun bunch whether they were in on the game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFA...all_arbitrators

So far, all of the Arbcom team except Brad has refused to answer that question. John V. claims that he didn't know, but I think his "oopsie, I forgot to read my e-mail" excuse isn't kosher.

I know betting is frowned upon here, but I would be willing to put money on the table that at least half of Arbcom knew that Law and Undertow were the same person.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Guido den Broeder]

So would I, Horsey, if I had any. Money, that is.

Even more interesting may be: how many arbcom members have similar backgrounds?

[Abd]

With few exceptions, it's not the people, it's the structure. Human beings always interact structurally; people who don't are immediately rejected as insane or dangerous. Wikipedia structure creates the problems that we can see. Put the same people in a different structure, their behavior would be different, generally.

Ochlocratic structures are murder on the participants. Crowds will at one point encourage leaders, cheering their actions, and at the next point, send them to the guillotine, cheering a new set of champions of "community values."

Consider the situation: ArbComm is nowhere near breaching the limits of its power. It could ignore the jeers of the crowd, but to do this, it would need to elevate itself above any desire to appease the crowd; as long as enough members of the committee are vulnerable to crowd pressure, ArbComm will remain almost paralyzed in dealing with the real problems.

ArbComm needs to know, in order to facilitate the project, what the real community supports, not what is supported only by the most-active core. By failing to distinguish between the two groups, ArbComm supports the effective oligarchy of the gathering crowds, which are not representative of the "people," but only of the most-highly-motivated, and that filters for attachment and against wisdom.

And what the real community supports will depend on the leadership of ArbComm; a healthy wiki would only result from voluntary cooperation between the real community and those who represent it.

There is a segment of the community, highly vocal in this case, which imagines its own responsibility as being a watchdog over ArbComm, demanding the highest standards of Committee members. However, they do not, in fact, have any authority except as members of ArbComm bow to their pressure. ArbComm would wisely set up dispute resolution channels to handle complaints about the behavior of the committee or members of the committee, and then should cheerfully ignore anything in those channels that doesn't find broad consensus, for there is no body that represents the community more accurately than ArbComm. Because of defective election methods, ArbComm is not fully representative, so it is merely the best, and the best may even be far short of adequate.

ArbComm could fix this, it has the power to do so, practically. The community, unless directly organized, which is probably impossible on-wiki, can't do it by itself. If there were ways for the community, absent coherent organization, to fix the problem, it would have done so; the problem is precisely the lack of such modality. Paradoxically, if the ochlocratic community could function well enough to decide on how to structure itself, it would not need to structure itself.

Out of this understanding, two immediate comments:

1. Casliber should not have resigned, and if he can, he should retract that. Rather, he should elevate himself beyond any conception that he is directly responsible to the crowd. He was elected by the crowd or the community (it's unclear which) to serve the project, and serving the project, according to his own best judgment, is exactly what he should do. He should listen to the community, but not imagine that the currently active crowd is the community or even that it represents the community. Amidst the shouting, there may be only one small voice that is truly speaking for the community, if that. Any arbitrator could set up off-wiki structures whereby the real community could coherently advise him or her, and through the arbitrator, the Committee. If even a few arbitrators did this, or maybe even as few as one, those structures would seed the process by which Wikipedia could move beyond the limitations of ochlocracy. If Casliber or any arbitrator has any desire for advice on how to do this, they should email me.

2. The sociologist Piotrus, in his paper studying Wikipedia structure and its supposed freedom from the limitations of the Iron Law of Oligarchy, mentioned Esperanza as an example of direct organization of editors, and the mention was as if he was not aware that Esperanza was crushed.

[Peter Damian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madness_of_crowds

[A Horse With No Name]

1. Casliber should not have resigned, and if he can, he should retract that. Rather, he should elevate himself beyond any conception that he is directly responsible to the crowd. He was elected by the crowd or the community (it's unclear which) to serve the project, and serving the project, according to his own best judgment, is exactly what he should do.

Sorry, character, but I have to differ. Casliber is actually among the very few open and honest people in this sorry affair: he acknowledged that he allowed this charade to go on in violation of policies and he took responsibility by resigning. If he retracts his resignation, then he is just a glutton for power.

And what the real community supports will depend on the leadership of ArbComm; a healthy wiki would only result from voluntary cooperation between the real community and those who represent it.

You cannot have that without a "real community." Sorry to be the broken record, but it is hard not to notice the same names in this smackdown as in every other similar smackdown.

There is no community - there is a clique. The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors are either not aware of this situation or don't particularly care.

[Random832]

...the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.

This is... sarcasm?

[Apathetic]

...the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.

This is... sarcasm?

If all the traffic is traveling over the speed limit, you have to keep up with the flow or you can get a ticket for impeding traffic.

So a cop can't pick out someone in the middle and pull them over.

It's all about the convoy!

[Milton Roe]

Not sure what country you live in, but where I'm at, cops pull over speeders without some bizarre requirement that they pull over _every_ speeder.

No requirement that cops pull over every speeder. They can decide to pull over the NEXT speeder (and let many go by while dealing with that one). Or they can look at two and pull over the fastest. What they cannot do is arbitrarily select speeders out of a pack of people who are all seen by them to be equally guilty. Or look at two speeders and decide to go after the slowest, due to not liking the color of the car or the driver. Or even for the hell of it.

[A Horse With No Name]

It's all about the convoy!

I used to love CB radio.

[Apathetic]

It's all about the convoy!

I used to love CB radio.

Shake the trees and rake the leaves!

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[LaraLove]

If all the traffic is traveling over the speed limit, you have to keep up with the flow or you can get a ticket for impeding traffic.

So a cop can't pick out someone in the middle and pull them over.

It's all about the convoy!

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

[Apathetic]

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

yes, you need to try and get the sweet spot in the middle.

[LaraLove]

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

yes, you need to try and get the sweet spot in the middle.

Sweet spot in the middle, huh?

Keep it clean, boys. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Apathetic]

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

yes, you need to try and get the sweet spot in the middle.

Sweet spot in the middle, huh?

Keep it clean, boys. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Hey, at least I wasn't the one trying to get a look at your bits!

[Milton Roe]

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

yes, you need to try and get the sweet spot in the middle.

Sweet spot in the middle, huh?

Keep it clean, boys. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Hey, at least I wasn't the one trying to get a look at your bits!

Cf. Anthony Bourdain's book of essays, The Nasty Bits. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

Of course it also help to have buddies who will lie, cheat, and steal for you. Especially if they're admins.

My, what intolerance... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

The problem is that it's not entirely childish. Selective enforcement of a law violates equal protection. That's why the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.

Well they've got either a de jure or de facto quota to meet. While there is no bag limit per se, there is a point of diminishing return with respect to one's performance evaluation. Beyond this the probability of retribution outweighs whatever reward system is in place.

There's an old fable about the driver asking the cop "why did you pull me over when everyone else was just as guilty of speeding?" to which the cop says replies something vaguely philosophical like When you go fishing... but it is never entirely random.

Of course they don't target the fastest drivers, not the ones posing the greatest threat to "safety", but rather those which they estimate to most likely to pay the ticket and least likely to attack the officer.

The candid law-man might use a different metaphor: When wolves go hunting, do they catch all the caribou or...

Well, y'all know the answer to that.

Casliber is actually among the very few open and honest people in this sorry affair: he acknowledged that he allowed this charade to go on in violation of policies and he took responsibility by resigning. If he retracts his resignation, then he is just a glutton for power.

Candor never does go unpunished does it?

There are fundamental flaws in a system which allows the most "open and honest" people to resign (or "be recalled" etc.) in the face of minor complaints.

I'll start by saying there's nothing wrong with holding yourself to higher standards than others. It's a good way to live, really, but if you overdo it, if it becomes conspicuous... sure, a few people will hate you for it all the while, but the rest will just reciprocate by holding you to a higher standard than themselves. Once the resident sycophants drink of the meme that you can do no wrong, some of them will defend you based on reputation alone when you do fuck up, and convince you that you made no mistake (as if they want you to repeat it, having not learned a thing). Others will see the elephant and call you on it, demanding a full crucifixion for this error because, well... they expected better from you, damn it!

Secondly, since the community reacts only to things it knows about (and defeats only those willing to surrender) it ends up selecting against the traits it claims to promote, steadily pushing the moral gene-pool to a darker shade of black.

[Guido den Broeder]

Meanwhile, the number of stewards is going down rapidly.

[Peter Damian]

Endorse. I guess Law's indef should have been left alone. Lara 21:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

[MZMcBride]

Any chance of getting this forum software's BadWordsFilterâ„¢ to block all posts by Friday that include "maturity" or "adult"? Who cares about false positives, this shit is old and tired.

[SB_Johnny]

Meanwhile, the number of stewards is going down rapidly.

Gawd. Last time around people were trying to talk me into that. I've already got a full time job, don't need another (drama-filled) one!

[Ahypori]

Oh, absolutely. The worst part is that Bishonen is one of the guiltiest parties on Wikipedia when it comes to doing what she's accusing Jenna of doing. Bishonen has consistently performed abusive actions in support of her wikifriends.

If Jenna gets desysopped for this, then perhaps Bishonen should be desysopped about a dozen times (if only it were possible).

This makes me sick. I can see where someone would have a problem with what Jenna and GlassCobra did, but these are the last people that should be making a stink over it, considering their collective histories.

Naturally. The people who didn't like Jenna would jump at the opportunity to get her for something she did. They were just waiting for a big enough issue.
Jehochman, Bishonen, KC, and JoshuaZ are some of the most vomit-inducing editors on Wikipedia. Their abuses go a long way back.

Yes; plus, if this really wasn't all being done out of vengeance, why their heavy focus on Jennavecia over everyone else?

This was funny though, considering what Majorly said before, and Jenna's response was good too.

But, a few of his chat-room buddies (Jennavecia and Glasscobra) helped support him in passing an RFA under a new account.

Is there anyone who isn't a chatroom buddy? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Any chance of getting this forum software's BadWordsFilterâ„¢ to block all posts by Friday that include "maturity" or "adult"? Who cares about false positives, this shit is old and tired.

Can that actually be done? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[The Joy]

What with all the cults, kabals, and behind-the-scenes stealth and intrigue, I'm expecting some forthcoming denial along the lines of, "I did not have sects with that woman."

Still preferable compared to "insects." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Cla68]

Lara, do you understand why it's not a good idea to allow banned editors to become admins under an alternate account? I saw that someone tried to use the police citing a traffic violator analogy, but I think a better analogy is running an organization's network. If you were an administrator on some company's network, and you secretly made someone who had been kicked-off the network an admin, can you understand why the other network administrators and network security technicians would be extremely concerned?

[Kelly Martin]

Lara, do you understand why it's not a good idea to allow banned editors to become admins under an alternate account? I saw that someone tried to use the police citing a traffic violator analogy, but I think a better analogy is running an organization's network. If you were an administrator on some company's network, and you secretly made someone who had been kicked-off the network an admin, can you understand why the other network administrators and network security technicians would be extremely concerned?

Wikipedia admins are in no way comparable to a network administrator; neither the level of competency nor the level of responsibility required are even remotely the same. The Wikipedia equivalent to a network administrator is "developer", or perhaps "steward".

[A Horse With No Name]

Yes; plus, if this really wasn't all being done out of vengeance, why their heavy focus on Jennavecia over everyone else?

Because she and GlassCobra are being held up as scapegoats for something that was supposedly an "open secret." Clearly, they were not the only two people who were aware of this.

I am finding it more than a little unlikely that Casliber was the only Arbcom member who was aware of what was going on -- the obfuscation (not to mention the perjury) from the digital Sanhedrin is getting to be a little bit obvious.

[Friday]

Lara, do you understand why it's not a good idea to allow banned editors to become admins under an alternate account? I saw that someone tried to use the police citing a traffic violator analogy, but I think a better analogy is running an organization's network. If you were an administrator on some company's network, and you secretly made someone who had been kicked-off the network an admin, can you understand why the other network administrators and network security technicians would be extremely concerned?

Wikipedia admins are in no way comparable to a network administrator; neither the level of competency nor the level of responsibility required are even remotely the same. The Wikipedia equivalent to a network administrator is "developer", or perhaps "steward".

It's not all that accurate, but I wouldn't say it's completely incomparable. It's just an analogy.. and a reasonably useful one.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Lara, do you understand why it's not a good idea to allow banned editors to become admins under an alternate account? I saw that someone tried to use the police citing a traffic violator analogy, but I think a better analogy is running an organization's network. If you were an administrator on some company's network, and you secretly made someone who had been kicked-off the network an admin, can you understand why the other network administrators and network security technicians would be extremely concerned?

Gotta chime in with Cla68 here. It's not so much that The Undertow had been sanctioned and you believed he was trustworthy, but that you knew he hadn't jumped through all the hoops on his way back.

There are times when helping a friend means pulling him aside and saying "It sounds like you want to hear 'yes' instead of my real opinion. But the thing you're about to do could come back and bite you."

That's tough to say at the outset and harder to acknowledge in retrospect if the situation goes haywire because then other factors intervene. Yes, you're being singled out. It's possible that's political. There's a real temptation to point back and say that's wrong. I don't like the looks in that direction either.

What several people have asking in different ways is for you to acknowledge a role in the problem. Policy may not have covered it, but reasonable varieties of common sense do. Perhaps those aren't your favorite brands of common sense, but those brands seem to be doing brisk business this week. Maybe it's time to reevaluate. Good intentions don't necessarily make you right.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[LaraLove]

Endorse. I guess Law's indef should have been left alone. Lara 21:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight.

Lara, do you understand why it's not a good idea to allow banned editors to become admins under an alternate account? I saw that someone tried to use the police citing a traffic violator analogy, but I think a better analogy is running an organization's network. If you were an administrator on some company's network, and you secretly made someone who had been kicked-off the network an admin, can you understand why the other network administrators and network security technicians would be extremely concerned?

Not an apt analogy. Chip tried to appeal his ban and was completely ignored. I'm sure half the people on this website have BTDT. So he went with the Law account. Considering the circumstances around his case, what some of the members of this community did and what everyone else let them get away with, there was no point in taking it to the community. We know how these people are. It's demonstrated this week. Look what happened to you. Look what happened to Everyking. This community can't handle shit. Too much focus on politics and drama. Why do you think so many people are silent all of a sudden? Because if they speak up now and they're found out later, they're ruined too. Politics. It's not about content. It's not about what is "good" and "bad" for the project, it's about drama. It's about what they don't approve of, which is secrets they're not privy to.

You wanna tell me that SlimVirgin has some fucking right to have her nose up in this mess? SlimVirgin has a right to be questioning the use of oversight? Someone remind the readers here what Jayjg did with oversight for SlimVirgin. Someone remind the readers who ClearBlueWater is.

Friday wants to get pissy that I'm bringing up the shit other people have done. It's not that Friday, I'm not just bringing up "other people." It's the people that completely lack self-awareness who have come after me for this, something that did no damage to the project.

Talking about dirty secrets and backdoor tactics. Watch this case and you see it in action.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Chip tried to appeal his ban and was completely ignored.

Dangit, I wish I'd known. Suspected more instances like that were happening.

Almost exactly a year ago an editor came to me whose ban appeal was completely ignored. He didn't tell me that; he just gave an apology for his previous conduct and asked if I might support his appeal to ArbCom. His user talk was protected and he couldn't post an unblock request. He more than satisfied the standard offer so I answered yes and wrote the Committee immediately. A day later an arbitrator replied and asked for more background. Gave that promptly too.

One month afterward the banned editor wrote me again. Nothing had happened. It came as a surprise that things had stagnated so I told him this was the community's ban; the community could take it back. Started an ANI thread and within three days he was reinstated with modest restrictions. Those restrictions are repealed now and he's gotten barnstars.

But during that discussion a big surprise came: an administrator stepped forward to say he'd been watching and advising in the background during the appeals process. That hadn't been a one month delay: it had been an eight month delay. Four arbitrators and a clerk had all replied with initially positive messages, then stopped answering. The banned editor's communications were entirely polite and proper (in the administrator's observation, and also in mine). They didn't even tell him no; just left him hanging.

Now with a community ban review, as you know, the usual first step is to contact the blocking administrator. At least a quick inquiry to ask about the background. I can guarantee you that for over half a year nobody took that first step. Because the blocking administrator had been me.

We need a better system for ban reviews. ArbCom's 'black box' approach has too many downsides and almost no safeguards. Lara, I wish we had touched bases about The Undertow months ago. Without drama. Rather than this way.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[LaraLove]

Chip tried to appeal his ban and was completely ignored.

Dangit, I wish I'd known. Suspected more instances like that were happening.

Almost exactly a year ago an editor came to me whose ban appeal was completely ignored. He didn't tell me that; he just gave an apology for his previous conduct and asked if I might support his appeal to ArbCom. His user talk was protected and he couldn't post an unblock request. He more than satisfied the standard offer so I answered yes and wrote the Committee immediately. A day later an arbitrator replied and asked for more background. Gave that promptly too.

One month afterward the banned editor wrote me again. Nothing had happened. It came as a surprise that things had stagnated so I told him this was the community's ban; the community could take it back. Started an ANI thread and within three days he was reinstated with modest restrictions. Those restrictions are repealed now and he's gotten barnstars.

But during that discussion a big surprise came: an administrator stepped forward to say he'd been watching and advising in the background during the appeals process. That hadn't been a one month delay: it had been an eight month delay. Four arbitrators and a clerk had all replied with initially positive messages, then stopped answering. The banned editor's communications were entirely polite and proper (in the administrator's observation, and also in mine). They didn't even tell him no; just left him hanging.

Now with a community ban review, as you know, the usual first step is to contact the blocking administrator. At least a quick inquiry to ask about the background. I can guarantee you that for over half a year nobody took that first step. Because the blocking administrator had been me.

We need a better system for ban reviews. ArbCom's 'black box' approach has too many downsides and almost no safeguards. Lara, I wish we had touched bases about The Undertow months ago. Without drama. Rather than this way.

No doubt.

[Hell Freezes Over]

You wanna tell me that SlimVirgin has some fucking right to have her nose up in this mess? SlimVirgin has a right to be questioning the use of oversight? Someone remind the readers here what Jayjg did with oversight for SlimVirgin. Someone remind the readers who ClearBlueWater is.

There's no connection there at all. I had early edits oversighted because of real-life concerns. If the oversighting in this case was for similar reasons, there won't be a problem. But if it was done to remove that Law was The undertow, that raises questions. I haven't seen the edit, so I don't know which was the case.

As for Sweet Blue Water, this was an account at the end of 2004, shortly after I joined Wikipedia, that I was going to start editing with, but changed my mind about and continued as SV. It made 21 edits. There's no comparison with this situation.

If I don't respond again, it's only because this isn't a thread I want to keep posting to, because the issues are better dealt with onwiki.

[LaraLove]

If I don't respond again, it's only because this isn't a thread I want to keep posting to, because the issues are better dealt with onwiki.

Yes. We know how opposed you are to manipulating wiki-rules. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

It's not so much that The Undertow had been sanctioned and you believed he was trustworthy, but that you knew he hadn't jumped through all the hoops on his way back.

And why the hell should that matter? Wikipedia's "hoops" are randomly erected, moved, and pulled down anyway, so even if you do "jump through all the hoops" it won't matter, as someone will pull a secret hoop out of a closet that you missed just because they want you gone anyway, and poof you're gone just like that.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

It's not so much that The Undertow had been sanctioned and you believed he was trustworthy, but that you knew he hadn't jumped through all the hoops on his way back.

And why the hell should that matter? Wikipedia's "hoops" are randomly erected, moved, and pulled down anyway, so even if you do "jump through all the hoops" it won't matter, as someone will pull a secret hoop out of a closet that you missed just because they want you gone anyway, and poof you're gone just like that.

Because when the hoops are in disarray with people jumping in random chaotic directions, there are three choices:

1. Move forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities.
2. Endeavor to fix the hoops.
3. Taunt the disarray.

One of those three options is known as trolling.

[victim of censorship]

It's not so much that The Undertow had been sanctioned and you believed he was trustworthy, but that you knew he hadn't jumped through all the hoops on his way back.

And why the hell should that matter? Wikipedia's "hoops" are randomly erected, moved, and pulled down anyway, so even if you do "jump through all the hoops" it won't matter, as someone will pull a secret hoop out of a closet that you missed just because they want you gone anyway, and poof you're gone just like that.

Because when the hoops are in disarray with people jumping in random chaotic directions, there are three choices:

1. Move forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities.
2. Endeavor to fix the hoops.
3. Taunt the disarray.

One of those three options is known as trolling.

HELLO TROLL....

For the record Mr. Kato pretty much sums up Wikipedia, in comparison to the real world and it's values.
Mr. Kato wisdom on wiki

Did You Know... Wikipedia contains incorrect, misleading, and biased information. Whether through vandalism, subtle disinformation, or the prolonged battling over biased accounts, many of Wikipedia’s articles are unsuitable for scholarly use. Because of poor standards of sourcing and citation, it is often difficult to determine the origin of statements made in Wikipedia in order to determine their correctness. Pursuit of biased points of view by powerful administrators is considered a particular problem, as opposing voices are often permanantly banned from Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s culture of disrespect for expertise and scholarship (see below) make it difficult to trust anything there.

Did You Know... Wikipedia’s articles are used to spread gossip, abet character assassination, and invade the privacy of the general public. So-called “Biographies of Living Persons” are often the result of attempts by powerful but anonymous editors and administrators at humiliating or belittling those real-world people with whom they disagree. Wikipedia’s “anyone can edit” culture has allowed baseless defamation of various individuals to spread widely through the Internet. When the family, friends, associates, or subjects of these biographies attempt to correct errors or insert balance, they are often banned from Wikipedia for “Conflicts of Interest”. Subjects of these hatchet jobs usually must resort to legal action to get the articles removed or corrected, a course not available to all.

Did You Know... Wikipedia over-emphasizes popular culture and under-emphasizes scholarly disciplines. Wikipedia contains more articles, of greater depth, on television shows, toy and cartoon characters, and other emphemera of popular culture than on many prominent historical figures, events, and places. Massive effort is spent on documenting fictional places and characters rather than science, history, and literature.

Did You Know... Wikipedia violates copyrights, plagiarizes the work of others, and denies attribution to contributions. Wikipedia contains no provision to ensure that the content it hosts is not the work of another, or that content it hosts is properly attributed to its author. It contains thousands of photographs, drawings, pages of text and other content that is blatantly plagiarized from other authors without permission.

Did You Know... Wikipedia, frequently searched and prominently positioned among results, spreads misinformation, defamation, and bias far beyond its own site. Wikipedia is searched by Google and is usually one of the top results. Its database is scraped by spammers and other sites, so misinformation, even when corrected on Wikipedia, has a long life elsewhere on the network, as a result of Wikipedia’s lack of controls.

Did You Know... Wikipedia disrespects and disregards scholars, experts, scientists, and others with special knowledge. Wikipedia specifically disregards authors with special knowledge, expertise, or credentials. There is no way for a real scholar to distinguish himself or herself from a random anonymous editor merely claiming scholarly credentials, and thus no claim of credentials is typically believed. Even when credentials are accepted, Wikipedia affords no special regard for expert editors contributing in their fields. This has driven most expert editors away from editing Wikipedia in their fields. Similarly, Wikipedia implements no controls that distinguish mature and educated editors from immature and uneducated ones.

Did You Know... Wikipedia’s culture of anonymous editing and administration results in a lack of responsible authorship and management. Wikipedia editors may contribute as IP addresses, or as an ever-changing set of pseudonyms. There is thus no way of determining conflicts of interest, canvassing, or other misbehaviour in article editing. Wikipedia’s adminsitrators are similarly anonymous, shielding them from scrutiny for their actions. They additionally can hide the history of their editing (or that of others).

Did You Know... Wikipedia’s administrators have become an entrenched and over-powerful elite, unresponsive and harmful to authors and contributors. Without meaningful checks and balances on administrators, administrative abuse is the norm, rather than the exception, with blocks and bans being enforced by fiat and whim, rather than in implementation of policy. Many well-meaning editors have been banned simply on suspicion of being previously banned users, without any transgression, while others have been banned for disagreeing with a powerful admin’s editorial point of view. There is no clear-cut code of ethics for administrators, no truly independent process leading to blocks and bans, no process for appeal that is not corrupted by the imbalance of power between admin and blocked editor, and no process by which administrators are reviewed regularly for misbehaviour.

Did You Know... Wikipedia’s numerous policies and procedures are not enforced equally on the community — popular or powerful editors are often exempted. Administrators, in particular, and former administrators, are frequently allowed to trangress (or change!) Wikipedia’s numerous “policies”, such as those prohibiting personal attacks, prohibiting the release of personal information about editors, and those prohibiting collusion in editing.

Did You Know... Wikipedia’s quasi-judicial body, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt. ArbCom holds secret proceedings, refuses to be bound by precedent, operates on non-existant or unwritten rules, and does not allow equal access to all editors. It will reject cases that threaten to undermine the Wikipedia status quo or that would expose powerful administrators to sanction, and will move slowly or not at all (in public) on cases it is discussing in private.

Did You Know... The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the organization legally responsible for Wikipedia, is opaque, is poorly managed, and is insufficiently independent from Wikipedia’s remaining founder and his business interests. The WMF lacks a mechanism to address the concerns of outsiders, resulting in an insular and socially irresponsible internal culture. Because of inadequate oversight and supervision, Wikimedia has hired incompetent and (in at least one case) criminal employees. Jimmy Wales’ for-profit business Wikia benefits in numerous ways from its association with the non-profit Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Wiki Witch of the West]

HELLO TROLL....

Why hello, pleased to meet you. I don't come to this site with that particular aim, but you'll notice I give as good as I get. Now get over the excitement; this business with Lara and The Undertow is serious.

[Kelly Martin]

Because when the hoops are in disarray with people jumping in random chaotic directions, there are three choices:

1. Move forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities.
2. Endeavor to fix the hoops.
3. Taunt the disarray.

You forgot the most sensible option: Get the hell out of Dodge. Optionally, warn others to keep away as well.

Wikipedia needs a big sign on it: "Abandon hope, all ye who edit here."

[victim of censorship]

HELLO TROLL....

Why hello, pleased to meet you. I don't come to this site with that particular aim, but you'll notice I give as good as I get. Now get over the excitement; this business with Lara and The Undertow is serious.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH I WOULD LOVE TO MEET AN ADMIN FROM WIKIPEIDIA IN THE FLESH AND BLOOD tell them why their a fucking ASS.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[One]

Chip tried to appeal his ban and was completely ignored.

Dangit, I wish I'd known. Suspected more instances like that were happening.

Next time, he should try appealing his block before he starts socking. His first unblock request in the archive seems to have been forwarded from an arbitrator and was made after he already started editing as Law.

[victim of censorship]

Because when the hoops are in disarray with people jumping in random chaotic directions, there are three choices:

1. Move forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities.
2. Endeavor to fix the hoops.
3. Taunt the disarray.

You forgot the most sensible option: Get the hell out of Dodge. Optionally, warn others to keep away as well.

Wikipedia needs a big sign on it: "Abandon hope, all ye who edit here."

LIKE THIS???
(IMG:http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/7455/wikifish.jpg)

[A Horse With No Name]

One month afterward the banned editor wrote me again. Nothing had happened. It came as a surprise that things had stagnated so I told him this was the community's ban; the community could take it back.

The tragedy of Wikipedia (or the comedy -- depending how you prefer your entertainment) is that people confuse this game with freeze tag. It appears that to some people, a slap on the bottom means that you have to remain in a state of silent, frozen immobility -- and you cannot get defrosted until someone gives you the okay. To their credit, Law and his friends proved otherwise.

And then there are those who do not put nostalgia or sentiment into disposable Internet accounts, realizing that a block or a ban is nothing more than the disabling of a free and unverified account. Again, more power to Law and his friends on this front.

Furthermore, we have to stop this crap about a "community" -- it doesn't exist, and people who insist that there is a "community" are delusional. And if such a community had a real life equivalent, it would never exclude intelligent adults like Petey or Guido or Moulton or our friends here while allowing idiot children like Daniel and Ironholds to run amok without supervision.

The moral of this affair is simple for anyone who prefers reality to fantasy: the Wikipedia working model doesn't work. Maybe it did at one time, but today it is a blubbery, fumbling, disorganized mess that has dragged down the web site's reputation and wrecked the morale of those who invested their time and energy into its operation.

I am genuinely angry that someone like Law has to state that this situation has brought him to tears -- no one should be made to cry over this crap. I am furious that people who value the true currency of friendship over the meaningless rot of make-believe rules are being held up to ridicule. And I am furious that people who are supposed to be in charge of things lack the ethics to do their duties properly.

I am glad for WR for playing to wise outspoken child to WP's naked king.

[nableezy]

this business with Lara and The Undertow is serious.

No its not. There are a lot of "serious" problems with and in Wikipedia, this is not one of them.

[One]

The tragedy of Wikipedia (or the comedy -- depending how you prefer your entertainment) is that people confuse this game with freeze tag. It appears that to some people, a slap on the bottom means that you have to remain in a state of silent, frozen immobility -- and you cannot get defrosted until someone gives you the okay. To their credit, Law and his friends proved otherwise.

Well, people can no more be banned from Wikipedia than they can be banned from having fun. Most banned users realize this pretty quickly... if they want to continue editing anyway.

On the other hand, some of the best editors never return after a bite... or one bad block.

It's not a good system, but I don't see how we could make a better one without discarding non-negotiable foundation policy. So, here we are. People evade bans because it's ridiculously easy to do, and sometimes others know about them. We're not going to make much progress in this scenario.

This post has been edited by One:

[Cedric]

Because when the hoops are in disarray with people jumping in random chaotic directions, there are three choices:

1. Move forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities.
2. Endeavor to fix the hoops.
3. Taunt the disarray.

You forgot the most sensible option: Get the hell out of Dodge. Optionally, warn others to keep away as well.

Wikipedia needs a big sign on it: "Abandon hope, all ye who edit here."

I would use the word "optimally" rather than "optionally". Otherwise, I could not agree more.

Incidentally, how does one "taunt the disarray"? Is that anything like insulting a verruca?

[A Horse With No Name]

Well, people can no more be banned from Wikipedia than they can be banned from having fun. Most banned users realize this pretty quickly...

So do Arbcom members, especially when questioned about their role in facilitating the fun -- as witnessed in this ongoing RfArb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[One]

Well, people can no more be banned from Wikipedia than they can be banned from having fun. Most banned users realize this pretty quickly...

So do Arbcom members, especially when questioned about their role in facilitating the fun -- as witnessed in this ongoing RfArb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

What's with this pet theory? I wouldn't be surprised if more than those two had the means to know, but a majority of the committee certainly didn't. After the shit The_undertow did last year, it's hard to imagine any of the pre-2009 arbs consenting. If Randy had known, Law would have been blocked by him--Rlevse hates this crap more than anyone I know on the site.

Many of the others have already denied knowing--some pretty convincingly from my perspective. But YMMV, I guess.

This post has been edited by One:

[A Horse With No Name]

It's not a good system, but I don't see how we could make a better one without discarding non-negotiable foundation policy. So, here we are. People evade bans because it's ridiculously easy to do, and sometimes others know about them. We're not going to make much progress in this scenario.

Nothing is chiseled in stone, and this situation shows that something has to give. The system obviously doesn't work, and this shitstorm du jour has shown that those who are supposed to be enforcing policy aren't making any pretense of doing their duties. And it isn't a double standard -- at the very least, it is a quadruple standard.

If WMF has to fix it, then put pressure on them to do so. Until such time, laissez les bon temps roulez and don't take any of this junk seriously. Rules were made to be broken, so everyone should take a piece and start bending. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[The Joy]

Besides an early kerfuffle over "white pride," which ended amicably, the only major sin I can find that the undertow committed was unblocking Moulton. What exactly did he do that warranted an ArbCom sanction and why are people upset over his return? His ArbCom punishment was done privately on the ArbCom mailing list and his sentence ended in April 2009 (if I counted 9 months from June 2008 correctly).

So why the drama?

[One]

Besides an early kerfuffle over "white pride," which ended amicably, the only major sin I can find that the undertow committed was unblocking Moulton. What exactly did he do that warranted an ArbCom sanction and why are people upset over his return?

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

This post has been edited by One:

[The Joy]

Besides an early kerfuffle over "white pride," which ended amicably, the only major sin I can find that the undertow committed was unblocking Moulton. What exactly did he do that warranted an ArbCom sanction and why are people upset over his return?

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Was there a formal public case and/or announcement regarding this?

[A Horse With No Name]

What's with this pet theory? I wouldn't be surprised if more than those two had the means to know, but a majority of the committee certainly didn't. After the shit The_undertow did last year, it's hard to imagine any of the pre-2009 arbs consenting. If Randy had known, Law would have been blocked by him--Rlevse hates this crap more than anyone I know on the site.

The majority (including Randy) have conveniently ignored the question put forward by DuncanHill in the RfArb discussion: were they aware of this situation and are they aware of similar situations? A simple yes or no answer -- where is the problem?

It says very little for the Arbcom members when they are asked a simple question and will not give an answer.

[One]

Besides an early kerfuffle over "white pride," which ended amicably, the only major sin I can find that the undertow committed was unblocking Moulton. What exactly did he do that warranted an ArbCom sanction and why are people upset over his return?

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Was there a formal public case and/or announcement regarding this?

ArbCom didn't do that so much last year. WP:AC/N was one of the things that the 2009 arbs set up. If this were to happen again today, it would have been different. It wouldn't have been a former arb, and it would have been announced publicly with a vote tally. But I have no doubt that we would block in this situation again. It probably would have been indefinite though, with instructions to appeal when X obtains.

[A Horse With No Name]

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Possibly? Either he did or he didn't. Can't have it both ways.

[One]

What's with this pet theory? I wouldn't be surprised if more than those two had the means to know, but a majority of the committee certainly didn't. After the shit The_undertow did last year, it's hard to imagine any of the pre-2009 arbs consenting. If Randy had known, Law would have been blocked by him--Rlevse hates this crap more than anyone I know on the site.

The majority (including Randy) have conveniently ignored the question put forward by DuncanHill in the RfArb discussion: were they aware of this situation and are they aware of similar situations? A simple yes or no answer -- where is the problem?

It says very little for the Arbcom members when they are asked a simple question and will not give an answer.

Do you think that every arb reads every comment at RFAR every day? Really? A majority of them haven't even weighed in at all!

To satisfy Horse, I'm going to ask each individually on their talk page. If they ignore the question then, you can conclude they're stonewalling.

Actually, someone else can do it if they really care. There's now a plenty visible section to link to them to if you ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...n_4_days_ago.3F

This post has been edited by One:

[No one of consequence]

Besides an early kerfuffle over "white pride," which ended amicably, the only major sin I can find that the undertow committed was unblocking Moulton. What exactly did he do that warranted an ArbCom sanction and why are people upset over his return?

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Was there a formal public case and/or announcement regarding this?

Here is the announcement. It's a bit obscure, but there are more clues in the comments afterwards.

[The Joy]

Besides an early kerfuffle over "white pride," which ended amicably, the only major sin I can find that the undertow committed was unblocking Moulton. What exactly did he do that warranted an ArbCom sanction and why are people upset over his return?

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Was there a formal public case and/or announcement regarding this?

ArbCom didn't do that so much last year. WP:AC/N was one of the things that the 2009 arbs set up. If this were to happen again today, it would have been different. It wouldn't have been a former arb, and it would have been announced publicly with a vote tally. But I have no doubt that we would block in this situation again. It probably would have been indefinite though, with instructions to appeal when X obtains.

Before 2009, ArbCom announcements were usually placed on WP:AN.

Ah, I found them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...of_The_undertow

Following inquiries from the Arbitration Committee, The undertow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) has requested that his sysop privileges be removed temporarily. Prior to any application to reinstate The_undertow's sysopship, the Arbitration Committee should be consulted.

For the Arbitration Committee.

James F. (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Further explanation of his block here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...related_dispute

I may be getting confused, but just to clarify: the ArbCom never decided to indef. block or ban the undertow, correct? He could come back after Raul's 9 month block with no restrictions?

[No one of consequence]

I may be getting confused, but just to clarify: the ArbCom never decided to indef. block or ban the undertow, correct? He could come back after Raul's 9 month block with no restrictions?

Right, except that he would have to get Arbcom's permission if he wanted to be an admin again.

The problem, of course, is not that he came back, but that he came back during his ban with another account and was made an admin with a rather significant omission at his RFA.

[One]

...

This post has been edited by One:

[A Horse With No Name]

Do you think that every arb reads every comment at RFAR every day? Really? A majority of them haven't even weighed in at all!

Thank you for acknowledging that Arbcom is ignoring the comments on RFAR. Obviously, the people who go out of their way and take the time and energy to post their concerns about how Wikipedia functions are not being taken seriously by those who were elected to listen to the "community" (or clique or population or whatever).

To satisfy Horse, I'm going to ask each individually on their talk page. If they ignore the question then, you can conclude they're stonewalling.

I don't need to be satisfied. Besides, they were already asked in RfArb by DuncanHill. The fact that would ignore a question by a regular editor but answer the same question posed by one of their circle doesn't carry water.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[One]

Thank you for acknowledging that Arbcom is ignoring the comments on RFAR. Obviously, the people who go out of their way and take the time and energy to post their concerns about how Wikipedia functions are not being taken seriously by those who were elected to listen to the "community" (or clique or population or whatever).

ArbCom should actually do less to reward people that interject at every possible dispute. I do my part by skipping past those who habitually do so. Typically, users don't even read each others comments, and I doubt its fair to require arbitrators to savor every word. Every arbcom page becomes repetitive enough that it starts to look like a vote to others. And if it's a vote, shouldn't they too interject?

RFAR is something like 70,000 words at this moment, which doesn't include emails (80 per day average), case pages (topping 500,000 words in a recent example), and all the other stuff thrown at ArbCom. If you can find fifteen people in the "community" who say they can and will read this morass every two weeks so that people like you can have the pleasure of attacking them, I will show you fifteen liars.

This post has been edited by One:

[The Joy]

I may be getting confused, but just to clarify: the ArbCom never decided to indef. block or ban the undertow, correct? He could come back after Raul's 9 month block with no restrictions?

Right, except that he would have to get Arbcom's permission if he wanted to be an admin again.

The problem, of course, is not that he came back, but that he came back during his ban with another account and was made an admin with a rather significant omission at his RFA.

Ah, well then. That changes everything, doesn't it? I didn't see or remember an official arbcom case against the undertow except for his 9 month ban mentioned on his talk page.

I still think the amount of drama over this is way overboard. As Law, the undertow committed no offenses or repeated his previous problems. If anything, Law is a success story about how the fallen can rise again and be redeemed in wiki's glow.

[Messedrocker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312524681

Interesting. I have to say that I didn't see this coming, but hindsight being what it is, it makes sense.

I don't care.

[A Horse With No Name]

If you can find fifteen people in the "community" who say they can and will read this morass every two weeks so that people like you can have the pleasure of attacking them, I will show you fifteen liars.

Actually, you don't need to spell out "fifteen" -- writing "15" is adequate. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[tarantino]

Actually, someone else can do it if they really care. There's now a plenty visible section to link to them to if you ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...n_4_days_ago.3F

Risker has removed your poll. It's hardly surprising, given that she never addressed the fact she knew her admin pal Geogre was using another account deceptively.

[A Horse With No Name]

Risker has removed your poll. It's hardly surprising, given that she never addressed the fact she knew her admin pal Geogre was using another account deceptively.

Mr. T., I was wondering when you were going to show up here! Seriously, what is your take on all of this stuff? And do you think Arbcom knew about the whole shenanigans?

P.S. Risker removed it but didn't answer it. Also...how is it that Risker only blocked Law but not The Undertow? Is that worth an arched eyebrow of suspicion? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Abd]

Actually, someone else can do it if they really care. There's now a plenty visible section to link to them to if you ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...n_4_days_ago.3F

Risker has removed your poll. It's hardly surprising, given that she never addressed the fact she knew her admin pal Geogre was using another account deceptively.

Cool Hand Luke reverted Risker, but then moved the discussion to the Talk page. There were hints on CHL's talk page that a block might come down for edit warring.... My, my, I really should make some popcorn, my excuse for eating lots of butter.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Actually, someone else can do it if they really care. There's now a plenty visible section to link to them to if you ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...n_4_days_ago.3F

Risker has removed your poll. It's hardly surprising, given that she never addressed the fact she knew her admin pal Geogre was using another account deceptively.

Cool Hand Luke reverted Risker, but then moved the discussion to the Talk page. There were hints on CHL's talk page that a block might come down for edit warring.... My, my, I really should make some popcorn, my excuse for eating lots of butter.

...steals a handful from Abd's bowl. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Oy gevalt.

[MBisanz]

Actually, someone else can do it if they really care. There's now a plenty visible section to link to them to if you ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...n_4_days_ago.3F

Risker has removed your poll. It's hardly surprising, given that she never addressed the fact she knew her admin pal Geogre was using another account deceptively.

Cool Hand Luke reverted Risker, but then moved the discussion to the Talk page. There were hints on CHL's talk page that a block might come down for edit warring.... My, my, I really should make some popcorn, my excuse for eating lots of butter.

CHL knows I would not have hesitated to use Special:ClerkBlock if needed, which besides stopping a user from editing, has the added feature of third grade teacher reaching out of the screen and smacking the user on the knuckles with a ruler.

[Cla68]

Lara, do you understand why it's not a good idea to allow banned editors to become admins under an alternate account? I saw that someone tried to use the police citing a traffic violator analogy, but I think a better analogy is running an organization's network. If you were an administrator on some company's network, and you secretly made someone who had been kicked-off the network an admin, can you understand why the other network administrators and network security technicians would be extremely concerned?

Wikipedia admins are in no way comparable to a network administrator; neither the level of competency nor the level of responsibility required are even remotely the same. The Wikipedia equivalent to a network administrator is "developer", or perhaps "steward".

I know that WP admins are more like "super users" on organizational networks, but I didn't want to make the analogy too convoluted by trying to explain all that. My point is, I can understand why there is concern over Law's appointment as an admin.

[Appleby]

My, my, I really should make some popcorn, my excuse for eating lots of butter.

...steals a handful from Abd's bowl.

A handful of butter? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

A handful of butter? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

When did this conversation turn into "Last Tango in Paris"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

(And the sad thing is that no one under the age of 45 is going to have any clue what that comment means without having to pause and look it up! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) )

[A Horse With No Name]

Cool Hand Luke reverted Risker, but then moved the discussion to the Talk page. There were hints on CHL's talk page that a block might come down for edit warring.... My, my, I really should make some popcorn, my excuse for eating lots of butter.

And on the latest episode of "As the Stomach Turns," we find CHL inexplicably deleting the poll from the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=317587699 -- adding a reference to "McCarthy" to justify this abrupt deletion (which, I am assuming, came with a bit of off-Wiki pressure from people who would rather not talk openly on-Wiki).

Obviously, few people will confuse Dalton Trumbo with Risker, and the "McCarthy" reference shows a shocking ignorance of U.S. political history.

If there is a political analogy, it would probably be the Watergate investigations, and the paraphrase here is "What did Arbcom know and when did they know it?"

The funny thing is that Lara and GC have been completely open and honest in acknowledging that they knew Law and Undertow shared a toothbrush. Other people have also stepped up to say that. But how can Arbcom claim any authority (moral or otherwise) to consider this case when it is not clear whether most of their membership also had this information prior to the Daniel-Ironholds "I'm gonna tell on you!" antics?

Of course, the McCarthy reference could be about someone other than Joseph?

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Kelly Martin]

It's not a good system, but I don't see how we could make a better one without discarding non-negotiable foundation policy.

Discard the people who are responsible for making that "non-negotiable foundation policy" non-negotiable.

I may be getting confused, but just to clarify: the ArbCom never decided to indef. block or ban the undertow, correct? He could come back after Raul's 9 month block with no restrictions?

Oh, they definitely decided to toss him in the doghouse. They just didn't bother to tell anyone outside the cabal of that decision.

See what I mean about "secret hoops"? There was no possible course of action that the undertow could have undertaken, at any determinate point in time, that could have, with any degree of certainty, satisfied all of the parties that are empowered to object to his status on Wikipedia. Given the vagueness of his punishment and the legendary vindictiveness of Wikipedians, I'd say that his course of conduct was quite reasonable indeed.

Right, except that he would have to get Arbcom's permission if he wanted to be an admin again.

That's not what Jamesie said. He said that the "Arbcom should be consulted". What that was was a general tarring and feathering, without specifics, not responsible governance; as such, it should simply be ignored. So Jamesie's little wish wasn't respected. So what? If the ArbCom wanted him prohibited from regaining adminship without their permission, it should bloody well have said so, and given reasons therefore. Drumhead trials, and the pseudojudgments issuing thereforth, lack all moral standing and should simply be ignored for the farces they are.

[Obesity]

A handful of butter? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

When did this conversation turn into "Last Tango in Paris"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

(And the sad thing is that no one under the age of 45 is going to have any clue what that comment means without having to pause and look it up! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) )

Yes, Douche, I agree it's such a minor scene from an obscure and wholly forgotten movie. And I've never met any college and grad students who watch art films from the 70s. It's simply unheard of.

Your knowledge of cinema is breathtaking.

[A Horse With No Name]

Yes, Douche, I agree it's such a minor scene from an obscure and wholly forgotten movie. And I've never met any college and grad students who watch art films from the 70s. It's simply unheard of.

Yeah, kids...with their iPhones and their Jonas Brothers videos and their text messaging. Young whippersnappers, they have no appreciation for the finer things in life -- like watching Marlon Brando naked in an Oscar-nominated Bertolucci movie. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Your knowledge of cinema is breathtaking.

You ain't so bad yourself, kiddo. I'd give you a big Horsey kiss, but I don't know where your lips have been. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Friday]

Besides an early kerfuffle over "white pride," which ended amicably, the only major sin I can find that the undertow committed was unblocking Moulton. What exactly did he do that warranted an ArbCom sanction and why are people upset over his return?

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

So these accusations are legit? And did the people who helped him know these things? I cannot understand how anyone could excuse this behavior... Helping a character like this sneak back onto the pedia and gain adminship is simply inexcusable.

Whoever was involved needs to just go away and not come back.. (which is of course impossible to enforce, blah blah blah)

It would surprise me if arbcom, in possession of these facts, would still refuse to act. Yet, I suppose nothing should surprise me.

[A Horse With No Name]

It would surprise me if arbcom, in possession of these facts, would still refuse to act. Yet, I suppose nothing should surprise me.

What if you were in a restaurant and someone wheeled out a giant birthday cake -- and what if SirFozzie popped out of the cake, dressed like Marilyn Monroe when she sang "Happy Birthday" to JFK? Would that surprise you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

So these accusations are legit?

In all seriousness, this is closer to "McCarthy" than CHL's previous misuse of the moniker. "Possibly" is snarky -- either he did or he didn't.

Can CHL or someone else confirm whether or not a lawsuit was filed -- and, if so, in which court of law?

[Peter Damian]

The funny thing is that Lara and GC have been completely open and honest in acknowledging that they knew Law and Undertow shared a toothbrush. Other people have also stepped up to say that. But how can Arbcom claim any authority (moral or otherwise) to consider this case when it is not clear whether most of their membership also had this information prior to the Daniel-Ironholds "I'm gonna tell on you!" antics?

They weren't completely open and honest when it came to Law's RfA though, were they?

[Friday]

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

So these accusations are legit?

In all seriousness, this is closer to "McCarthy" than CHL's previous misuse of the moniker. "Possibly" is snarky -- either he did or he didn't.

Can CHL or someone else confirm whether or not a lawsuit was filed -- and, if so, in which court of law?

Well, an arb could easily be in a position to know that a lawsuit was threatened. He is in much less of an easy position to know if it really was filed. I don't think this is snark or McCarthyism- it's just someone telling us what he knows to be true, and what possibly might be true.

[Moulton]

I am furious that people who are supposed to be in charge of things lack the ethics to do their duties properly.

A year ago last summer, Jimbo expressly issued a ruling that the fundamental principles of managerial ethics were "beyond the scope of the project."

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Your knowledge of cinema is breathtaking.

You ain't so bad yourself, kiddo. I'd give you a big Horsey kiss, but I don't know where your lips have been. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

1. Mr. Happy?
2. Mr. Ed?

[tarantino]

Seriously, what is your take on all of this stuff?

It's happened before. Sam Blacketer managed to level up to arbcom. It'll happen again, because there's no effective way to prevent a reasonably intelligent person from doing it.

And do you think Arbcom knew about the whole shenanigans?

Arbcom knows about a lot of stuff that would surprise the drama board regulars if they found out.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Yes, Douche, I agree it's such a minor scene from an obscure and wholly forgotten movie. And I've never met any college and grad students who watch art films from the 70s. It's simply unheard of.

No shit - I've seen maybe a dozen movies in my life, and that's one of them.

[SB_Johnny]

Arbcom knows about a lot of stuff that would surprise the drama board regulars if they found out.

Hopefully they'll have the sense not to publish it then.

Just curious: is this just an everyday drama, or is this unusual? I've generally tried to ignore these things before, and it's pretty bizarre crap.

This post has been edited by SB_Johnny:

[Noroton]

Right, except that he would have to get Arbcom's permission if he wanted to be an admin again.

That's not what Jamesie said. He said that the "Arbcom should be consulted". What that was was a general tarring and feathering, without specifics, not responsible governance; as such, it should simply be ignored. So Jamesie's little wish wasn't respected. So what? If the ArbCom wanted him prohibited from regaining adminship without their permission, it should bloody well have said so, and given reasons therefore. Drumhead trials, and the pseudojudgments issuing thereforth, lack all moral standing and should simply be ignored for the farces they are.

No, you've got your analogies all screwed up. The proper analogy is to someone on probation who needs to be watched. Courts place certain restrictions on people who have committed crimes. Those restrictions sometimes amount to "You have to get permission from a probation officer to do a certain thing". The exact hoops that the person on probation has to jump through can't always be mapped out in advance. The potential problem with this kind of restriction isn't in the restriction itself but in whether it's justified in a particular case. The links to the announcements about undertow's desysopping and 9-month block make the consult-ArbCom restriction look reasonable enough, especially since aspects of the case needed to be private -- only someone who was in-the-know about the private, sensitive information could make an intelligent decision.

So the restriction on going back to ArbCom before running for admin was justified, and going around that restriction was not justified.

Any admins and arbs who knew Law's previous identity (and knew about the restriction) were gutting the ArbCom decision. Now I think it's a good thing Casliber (who I still respect) resigned. There's simply no way that his failure to act can be tolerated in a member of that committee. If everyone did that then WP governance would be completely corrupt. To tolerate Lara's actions and statements without at least formally admonishing or rebuking her would send the message that her corrupt acts are acceptable. And "corrupt" is the word, regardless of the fact that all involved seemed to think they were acting in the best interests of Wikipedia.

Boldface added for emphasis below:

I may be getting confused, but just to clarify: the ArbCom never decided to indef. block or ban the undertow, correct? He could come back after Raul's 9 month block with no restrictions?

Oh, they definitely decided to toss him in the doghouse. They just didn't bother to tell anyone outside the cabal of that decision.

See what I mean about "secret hoops"? There was no possible course of action that the undertow could have undertaken, at any determinate point in time, that could have, with any degree of certainty, satisfied all of the parties that are empowered to object to his status on Wikipedia. Given the vagueness of his punishment and the legendary vindictiveness of Wikipedians, I'd say that his course of conduct was quite reasonable indeed.

With any degree of certainty for undertow? He doesn't have a right to have certainty that he'd get to run for admin if he did certain things. He's in the position of having violated WP policy, the group set up to enforce policy let him come back to the encyclopedia to edit under certain restrictions and he violated those restrictions. ArbCom must be allowed to do that. We can't know whether or not some of the information they're privy to made the restrictions reasonable or unreasonable.

They just didn't bother to tell anyone outside the cabal of that decision. They announced the decision at AN and AN/I (the links are a page or two back in this thread), so you're either factually wrong or you mean something else. Do you mean that ArbCom didn't announce exactly how they would go about making the decision that it was OK for undertow to run for admin again? That may well have depended on factors that needed to stay private.

When it comes down to it, Wikipedia needs to elect people to ArbCom that Wikipedians trust. That's another reason why Casliber had to go. When you do anything as an ArbCom member that shows Wikipedia can't trust you, you've broken the deal.


This post has been edited by Noroton:

[LaraLove]

Next time, he should try appealing his block before he starts socking. His first unblock request in the archive seems to have been forwarded from an arbitrator and was made after he already started editing as Law.

So you're saying ArbCom knew he was socking and so then he was ignored? No, I don't think so. He would have been ignored either way. That you or anyone else would honestly expect a user to stay away after a ban doesn't make sense to me. People can't walk away when they want to.

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them [. . .]. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Good to know what was intentionally kept private at the time is now freely thrown about in public. Talk about trust issues.

P.S. Risker removed it but didn't answer it. Also...how is it that Risker only blocked Law but not The Undertow? Is that worth an arched eyebrow of suspicion? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

As was explained in the original announcement, Law was blocked and Chip was to be allowed to go on editing as the_undertow. Life would be merry right now with no drama, articles being improved, and work on the BLP front steaming ahead, but instead we've got drama-mongers sinking everyone's time.

[Noroton]

Thank you for acknowledging that Arbcom is ignoring the comments on RFAR. Obviously, the people who go out of their way and take the time and energy to post their concerns about how Wikipedia functions are not being taken seriously by those who were elected to listen to the "community" (or clique or population or whatever).

[...]RFAR is something like 70,000 words at this moment, which doesn't include emails (80 per day average), case pages (topping 500,000 words in a recent example), and all the other stuff thrown at ArbCom. If you can find fifteen people in the "community" who say they can and will read this morass every two weeks so that people like you can have the pleasure of attacking them, I will show you fifteen liars.

ArbCom is in this position of having too much to read partly because it gets so many cases. It would get fewer cases if Wikipedia policy could be adjusted and added to so that predictably common, repeating types of situations would be prevented from happening or nipped in the bud at an earlier stage by admins. That won't happen because policies would have to be changed in a major way, probably with entirely new policies, and such a high consensus is needed for that that it isn't reasonable to expect to do it. And so nobody does. This is one result of WP governance being so dysfunctional.

A while back in this thread, MBisanz mentioned all the disruption in ArbComs for other wikis. It would be interesting to know more. I wonder if they're similarly dysfunctional in getting new policies passed.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Arbcom knows about a lot of stuff that would surprise the drama board regulars if they found out.

Hopefully they'll have the sense not to publish it then.

Just curious: is this just an everyday drama, or is this unusual? I've generally tried to ignore these things before, and it's pretty bizarre crap.

Well, arbitrators don't resign and and misuse rollback on each other very often.

[One]

Next time, he should try appealing his block before he starts socking. His first unblock request in the archive seems to have been forwarded from an arbitrator and was made after he already started editing as Law.

So you're saying ArbCom knew he was socking and so then he was ignored? No, I don't think so. He would have been ignored either way. That you or anyone else would honestly expect a user to stay away after a ban doesn't make sense to me. People can't walk away when they want to.

True that. The ball was dropped on that one.

I think Durova is on to something with this issue.

[Noroton]

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them [. . .]. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Good to know what was intentionally kept private at the time is now freely thrown about in public. Talk about trust issues.

Factually wrong. FT2 mentioned it in his AN/I announcement at the time of the block.

As was explained in the original announcement, Law was blocked and Chip was to be allowed to go on editing as the_undertow. Life would be merry right now with no drama, articles being improved, and work on the BLP front steaming ahead, but instead we've got drama-mongers sinking everyone's time.

So no one can have legitimate concerns when you support an editor who you know is violating an ArbCom restriction? No one can have legit concerns when GlasCobra nominates him for admin? All the opposition to you is simply coming from your enemies or from drama-mongers? No legitimate concerns have been raised here? That won't wash. Turning from the level of principles to the practicalities, consider: If the new identity was an open secret among so many, it was bound to come out. When it came out it was bound to cause drama. When you play catch on the shoulder of a highway, you can predict that some car at some point is going to drift onto the shoulder, disrupting the game and causing drama. So it's not just the driver who's at fault. And if the driver needed to get on the shoulder, well, that's what it's for, so then it's entirely your fault. Editors with legitimate concerns are the equivalent of drivers who needed to get on the shoulder.

And if you become roadkill over all of this, how does that help your BLP activities?

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[CharlotteWebb]

Yeah, kids...with their iPhones and their Jonas Brothers videos and their text messaging. Young whippersnappers, they have no appreciation for the finer things in life -- like watching Marlon Brando naked in an Oscar-nominated Bertolucci movie. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Anyone who's seen the film will remind everyone that Brando and Schneider for some reason remain fully clothed during the infamous "butter scene", making it appear that much more contrived.

I understand by the end of the decade he had switched to Crisco anyway.

Can CHL or someone else confirm whether or not a lawsuit was filed -- and, if so, in which court of law?

Trenton, NJ.

[One]

Good to know what was intentionally kept private at the time is now freely thrown about in public. Talk about trust issues.

It's been discussed in this thread, it was public last year, and it didn't cease to be public since then.

I just don't know whether it was filed. There have been suggestions that it was dropped, that suggests it might have been filed. Or perhaps it's just a way of saying the effort was abandoned. I dunno.

Trenton, NJ.

New to me.

[MZMcBride]

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH I WOULD LOVE TO MEET AN ADMIN FROM WIKIPEIDIA IN THE FLESH AND BLOOD tell them why their a fucking ASS.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Yesterday, 10:34pm

Two questions:

1. If this is the edited posted, what could have possibly been in the original draft? This is the seemingly improved version?
2. Where the hell are the mods?

[LaraLove]

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them [. . .]. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Good to know what was intentionally kept private at the time is now freely thrown about in public. Talk about trust issues.

Factually wrong. FT2 mentioned it in his AN/I announcement at the time of the block.

Can someone please provide me with that link? I'll go back through the pages, but if someone has it handy, I'd appreciate it. I don't recall a specific portion of that being included in any public announcements.

So no one can have legitimate concerns when you support an editor who you know is violating an ArbCom restriction? [...] All the opposition to you is simply coming from your enemies or from drama-mongers? No legitimate concerns have been raised here? [...] it was bound to come out. When it came out it was bound to cause drama. <snip poor analogy>

And if you become roadkill over all of this, how does that help your BLP activities?

People can have concerns, but it's being way overblown. I never said all the opposition against me was from my enemies. It was started by my enemies who, yes, are mostly drama-mongers, and this is not the first time [this case] that I've pointed this out. Legitimate concerns have been raised, but a witch hunt is unnecessary, and taking our bits is not for any benefit to the project. We all do good admin work. We are not the admins known to abuse our tools.

And as far as my BLP work goes, keep in mind that the "community" is why this problem isn't fixed. The "community" is my biggest obstacle, so excuse me if I'm not up in arms about the "community" being displeased with me. I'd be damn happy if they'd gtfo of the way and let this problem be solved so I could fucking walk away, but they won't. So I'll fix the damn problem any way I can get it done, then I'm out.

[Peter Damian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...related_dispute

You have to unclick one of those wretched collapsing boxes, but it is all there.

I am documenting the event here

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...int_of_View/Law

Any corrections, further information, welcome. Note you can edit the talk pages of MWB articles, but not the articles themselves.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them [. . .]. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Good to know what was intentionally kept private at the time is now freely thrown about in public. Talk about trust issues.

Factually wrong. FT2 mentioned it in his AN/I announcement at the time of the block.

Can someone please provide me with that link? I'll go back through the pages, but if someone has it handy, I'd appreciate it. I don't recall a specific portion of that being included in any public announcements.

Actually taking legal action is not against Wikipedia policy, just threatening is.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[MZMcBride]

Can CHL or someone else confirm whether or not a lawsuit was filed -- and, if so, in which court of law?

Trenton, NJ.

Goddamn it, Charlotte, I was just about to make that joke. (For reference: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mr. Treason)

[Peter Damian]

We are not the admins known to abuse our tools.

You are the admins known to abuse your tools. That you (and Lar and others) are unable to see quite how bad this all is, is what is most disturbing about this whole incident.

PS http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...int_of_View/Law - does anyone know where Law boasted that dozens of people knew about this?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Jim]

We are not the admins known to abuse our tools.

You are the admins known to abuse your tools. That you (and Lar and others) are unable to see quite how bad this all is, is what is most disturbing about this whole incident.

PS http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...int_of_View/Law - does anyone know where Law boasted that dozens of people knew about this?

I had 2 clients with entries on Greg's website.

They were happy with their entries - but if they saw that page, they'd make me remove their pages, and I just may do so anyway.

Isn't wikipedia and here enough ?

Do you guys have to fight on every street corner you can find ?

And then invent more...

This post has been edited by Jim:

[Cedric]

That you or anyone else would honestly expect a user to stay away after a ban doesn't make sense to me. People can't walk away when they want to.

What are you talking about? People "walk away" all the time. I certainly did.

[Peter Damian]

I had 2 clients with entries on Greg's website.

They were happy with their entries - but if they saw that page, they'd make me remove their pages, and I just may do so anyway.

Isn't wikipedia and here enough ?

Do you guys have to fight on every street corner you can find ?

And then invent more...

This is simply documenting an event in Wikipedia history. Everything is sourced. The possibly contentious one (by a recused arbitrator) is enclosed in quotation marks. What is the problem?

[Jim]

I had 2 clients with entries on Greg's website.

They were happy with their entries - but if they saw that page, they'd make me remove their pages, and I just may do so anyway.

Isn't wikipedia and here enough ?

Do you guys have to fight on every street corner you can find ?

And then invent more...

This is simply documenting an event in Wikipedia history. Everything is sourced. The possibly contentious one (by a recused arbitrator) is enclosed in quotation marks. What is the problem?

No real problem.

If you're happy - I'm happy.

I just thought maybe the drama had played out on enough stages it didn't need a new one.

But what would I know ?

[One]

Can someone please provide me with that link? I'll go back through the pages, but if someone has it handy, I'd appreciate it. I don't recall a specific portion of that being included in any public announcements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...related_dispute

FT2 can be TL;DR.

This post has been edited by One:

[the_undertow]

bump for lack of activity. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

amazing the amount i can learn about myself from total strangers. i'm not convinced that i'm not writing this from a mental facility as part of my 10 minute Minesweeper break. i think last time all this speculation and accusation was overwhelming and i took it personally. but this time, the picture that has been painted about me is so larger-than-life that i can safely say this is one of the few times ive smiled these last couple of days, in light of what i've done to my friends by putting them in an impossible position. of course that's not to say there's no truth to be found in this thread, but this reputation that i'm the Lex Luthor of wikipedia is one that is a bit exaggerated. except for the haircut. that's pretty right on.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)

[LaraLove]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...related_dispute

You have to unclick one of those wretched collapsing boxes, but it is all there.

I am documenting the event here

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...int_of_View/Law

Any corrections, further information, welcome. Note you can edit the talk pages of MWB articles, but not the articles themselves.

Jesus, that collapse box took out half the page, including every section under it.

Anyway, I don't recall having ever read that before, and it (as I thought) left out the part I was speaking on above. What was kept private appears to have just been made public. Violations of trust, people cry.

As for your page on MWB, seems to be mostly accurate from my scan of it. The implication from my "no matter what" comment is not correct, however. Poor wording on my part. That was meant in broad terms, not just Wikipedia. Regardless of the circumstances, if I believe he is deserving of defense, I'm going to have his back. That's for Wikipedia or elsewhere. If I don't agree with what's he done, that's a different matter. "No matter what" isn't "no matter what he's done." It's more "no matter what people think."

Actually taking legal action is not against Wikipedia policy, just threatening is.

That's not what I was talking about. I removed the portion I was talking about ([...]).

That you or anyone else would honestly expect a user to stay away after a ban doesn't make sense to me. People can't walk away when they want to.

What are you talking about? People "walk away" all the time. I certainly did.

Are you saying that most people who walk away don't go back?

[Peter Damian]

As for your page on MWB, seems to be mostly accurate from my scan of it. The implication from my "no matter what" comment is not correct, however. Poor wording on my part. That was meant in broad terms, not just Wikipedia. Regardless of the circumstances, if I believe he is deserving of defense, I'm going to have his back. That's for Wikipedia or elsewhere. If I don't agree with what's he done, that's a different matter. "No matter what" isn't "no matter what he's done." It's more "no matter what people think."

But this is what you actually said, enclosed in quotes. I can't help it if people draw unintended inferences - although perhaps you can - being careful about what you say is all part of growing up.

[Jim]

being careful about what you say is all part of growing up.

I found the most important part of growing up was controlling my urge to be a smug git.

But we all have different experiences, don't we ?

[Noroton]

But this is what you actually said, enclosed in quotes. I can't help it if people draw unintended inferences - although perhaps you can - being careful about what you say is all part of growing up.

Her explanation of the original statement is also what she said, and you could include that as well.

[Peter Damian]

I found the most important part of growing up was controlling my urge to be a smug git.

Who are you, Jim?

I just thought maybe the drama had played out on enough stages it didn't need a new one.

The drama soon dies down and people forget, and threads like this soon get lost in a forum like this. I just record the more relevant stuff, with permanent links and so on.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[LaraLove]

As for your page on MWB, seems to be mostly accurate from my scan of it. The implication from my "no matter what" comment is not correct, however. Poor wording on my part. That was meant in broad terms, not just Wikipedia. Regardless of the circumstances, if I believe he is deserving of defense, I'm going to have his back. That's for Wikipedia or elsewhere. If I don't agree with what's he done, that's a different matter. "No matter what" isn't "no matter what he's done." It's more "no matter what people think."

But this is what you actually said, enclosed in quotes. I can't help it if people draw unintended inferences - although perhaps you can - being careful about what you say is all part of growing up.

Hey, I'm just correcting an error. If you want to leave it inaccurate, by all means.

[Peter Damian]

Hey, I'm just correcting an error. If you want to leave it inaccurate, by all means.

There is no error. The link follows the quote. This is what you actually said. I copied and pasted it into the article.

[Jim]

I found the most important part of growing up was controlling my urge to be a smug git.

Who are you, Jim?

That's really funny.

Because I knew someone would ask that.

I'm no-one you know - I'm a 46 year old guy in Australia - I'm a computer programmer/web designer, married. with a 6 year old daughter.

I've used wikipedia for ages, and I've taken a passing interest in the drama when I've been bored for a few minutes.

I knew, as soon as I posted an opinion somewhere, someone would want to know "who I was"

All of the above notwithstanding - I think I'm probably entitled to an opinion, and even to post it if I feel like it - hell, it's even my real name...

Thanks for amusing me.

This post has been edited by Jim:

[Peter Damian]

I found the most important part of growing up was controlling my urge to be a smug git.

Who are you, Jim?

That's really funny.

Because I knew someone would ask that.

I'm no-one you know - I'm a 46 year old guy in Australia - I'm a computer programmer/web designer, married. with a 6 year old daughter.

I've used wikipedia for ages, and I've taken a passing interest in the drama when I've been bored for a few minutes.

I knew, as soon as I posted an opinion somewhere, someone would want to know "who I was"

All of the above notwithstanding - I think I'm probably entitled to an opinion, and even to post it if I feel like it - hell, it's even my real name...

Thanks for amusing me.

I only asked because you said you had 2 clients with entries on Greg's website. It suggested you were a lawyer. Sorry for any confusion.

[Noroton]

People can have concerns, but it's being way overblown. I never said all the opposition against me was from my enemies. It was started by my enemies who, yes, are mostly drama-mongers, and this is not the first time [this case] that I've pointed this out. Legitimate concerns have been raised, but a witch hunt is unnecessary, and taking our bits is not for any benefit to the project. We all do good admin work. We are not the admins known to abuse our tools.

Agreed. By acknowledging the legitimate concerns, you make it much less likely that your bit would be taken away.

And as far as my BLP work goes, keep in mind that the "community" is why this problem isn't fixed. The "community" is my biggest obstacle, so excuse me if I'm not up in arms about the "community" being displeased with me. I'd be damn happy if they'd gtfo of the way and let this problem be solved so I could fucking walk away, but they won't. So I'll fix the damn problem any way I can get it done, then I'm out.

Unless you have enough support in the community, which obviously will never get out of the way, you won't fix anything, just like I don't have a chance in hell of fixing mass POV warring and GBG doesn't have a chance in hell of fixing inappropriate images, content and contact regarding kids. You say I'll fix the damn problem any way I can So make it easier for yourself in doing that by helping diffuse this case (especially helping diffuse its drama) by acknowledging legitimate causes for concern with an apology, the way Casliber did and Jay Vandenberg did. You can't stop other people from carting in fuel and lighting it up in the ArbCom square, but you can haul away the fuel you brought there. You'll also reduce the possibility that arbs will remove your bit (I doubt that will happen, but I'm a lousy judge of these things). By making the acknowledgment, you'd shore up your credibility for your good BLP work.

[Jim]

I found the most important part of growing up was controlling my urge to be a smug git.

Who are you, Jim?

That's really funny.

Because I knew someone would ask that.

I'm no-one you know - I'm a 46 year old guy in Australia - I'm a computer programmer/web designer, married. with a 6 year old daughter.

I've used wikipedia for ages, and I've taken a passing interest in the drama when I've been bored for a few minutes.

I knew, as soon as I posted an opinion somewhere, someone would want to know "who I was"

All of the above notwithstanding - I think I'm probably entitled to an opinion, and even to post it if I feel like it - hell, it's even my real name...

Thanks for amusing me.

I only asked because you said you had 2 clients with entries on Greg's website. It suggested you were a lawyer. Sorry for any confusion.

I'm a web designer, as I said

Try recent changes on Greg's website, and you'll see which client's pages I have removed until she confirms she's happy to share a business listing with a kiddie infight...

Clue - she's a dance instructor.

[Random832]

I had early edits oversighted because of real-life concerns.

There is no possible real-life concern for this edit (all of which was yours except for the change to the "French" wikilink at the top).

As for Sweet Blue Water, this was an account at the end of 2004, shortly after I joined Wikipedia, that I was going to start editing with, but changed my mind about and continued as SV. It made 21 edits. There's no comparison with this situation.

I believe this is the first public admission you have made that both accounts were yours. Didn't you vote with both accounts in a featured article candidate?

----

I don't know all of the history here, so someone else can verify if i'm right or not, but I also seem to remember her trying to get someone's checkuser bit removed over this (since IIRC WordBomb broke the story, and therefore anyone who acts on it [meaning they dared to read it] is clearly supporting off-wiki harassment)

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Appleby]

FT2 can be TL;DR.

Usually when he wants to hide something methinks.

[Random832]

Because when the hoops are in disarray with people jumping in random chaotic directions, there are three choices:

1. Move forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities.
2. Endeavor to fix the hoops.
3. Taunt the disarray.

One of those three options is known as trolling.

You seem to have misspelled "one" as "all". But, then, it's always been more about who you are than what you do. If (for example) Peter Damian does #1, he's trolling. If anyone tries to do #2 in a way that others don't agree with, they're trolling. And I'm betting that #3 is the one you had in mind.

[Peter Damian]

Clue - she's a dance instructor.

So you have!

http://www.wikipediareview.com/index.php?title=D...420&oldid=92476

But I don't understand the problem. Is it you don't like the idea of a whole directory devoted to criticism of Wikipedia? It covers a whole range of issues, such as paedophile activism on Wikipedia

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...Wikipaedophilia

promotion of quack therapy

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Neurolinguistic_programming

and an article under development about POV pushing on Balkan articles

http://www.wikipediareview.com/User_talk:Ockham/...litical_Agendas

Or is it you don't like the fact that personalities are involved? I don't like that either but it is hard to present the facts as they are without mentioning the personalities - who are after all pseudonymous. In the article you have objected to I have highlighted the issue of principle in 'Community reaction'.

[LaraLove]

Because when the hoops are in disarray with people jumping in random chaotic directions, there are three choices:

1. Move forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities.
2. Endeavor to fix the hoops.
3. Taunt the disarray.

One of those three options is known as trolling.

You seem to have misspelled "one" as "all". But, then, it's always been more about who you are than what you do. If (for example) Peter Damian does #1, he's trolling. If anyone tries to do #2 in a way that others don't agree with, they're trolling. And I'm betting that #3 is the one you had in mind.

Well, when formulating ways to "destroy" the wiki is moving forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities, then yes, it tends to be viewed as trolling.

[CharlotteWebb]

As for Sweet Blue Water, this was an account at the end of 2004, shortly after I joined Wikipedia, that I was going to start editing with, but changed my mind about and continued as SV. It made 21 edits. There's no comparison with this situation.

That is correct.

I believe this is the first public admission you have made that both accounts were yours.

That is also correct.

Didn't you vote with both accounts in a featured article candidate?

3/3
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=9074635&diff=prev
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=9086625&diff=prev

I don't know all of the history here, so someone else can verify if i'm right or not, but I also seem to remember her trying to get someone's checkuser bit removed over this (since IIRC WordBomb broke the story, and therefore anyone who acts on it [meaning they dared to read it] is clearly supporting off-wiki harassment)

Not sure about that, or what practical effect it would have had if successful (no part of this investigation being based on checkuser evidence). However "Uncle Fred" did make a laughable effort to desysop Cyde. Maybe that's what you were thinking of?

[A Horse With No Name]

Oh, the poll of Arbcom members is back again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=317663405

And, so far, no one else from Arbcom has bothered to give a simple yes or no answer regarding their knowledge of what took place.

When is the next Arbcom election? And are there any new candidates in waiting?

[CharlotteWebb]

Oh, the poll of Arbcom members is back again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=317663405

What's up with all these apologies? Will Luke be resigning too? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

When is the next Arbcom election? And are there any new candidates in waiting?

Yes, worse ones. Just as in all elections previous.

[trenton]

And if you become roadkill over all of this, how does that help your BLP activities?

Well it's a convenient flag to wrap around yourself to try and deflect criticism. Frankly I don't see the current round of "BLP enforcers" as much better than the previous round of "NPOV enforcers". Both are rather deluded in thinking that they're trying to solve the larger problems in Wikipedia.

GlassCobra whines:

I think that users essentially accusing me of allowing the drama to occur is unfair; are we now to accuse the nominators of all admins of allowing their drama to happen?

Well, most nominators don't substitute their own judgement over the "community's", so when somebody goes rogue the blame goes to the "community". In this case GlassCobra decided his judgment was superior so when things go wrong why shouldn't he be held responsible?

In criminal organizations, when you "vouch" for somebody and they turn out to be a cop, you'd better expect some trouble coming your way.

----

It's funny to see Lar getting schooled on history by, of all people, Durova. Sometimes, dude, you just gotta realize that nobody bats .100 ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) and stop digging.

[LaraLove]

<snip>

And who are you on Wikipedia?

[trenton]

I don't edit there. My last edit was probably before you even joined....

[Milton Roe]

It's funny to see Lar getting schooled on history by, of all people, Durova. Sometimes, dude, you just gotta realize that nobody bats .100 ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) and stop digging.

Lots of people bat .100, even me.

Baseball Milt

[Wiki Witch of the West]

It's funny to see Lar getting schooled on history by, of all people, Durova. Sometimes, dude, you just gotta realize that nobody bats .100 ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) and stop digging.

Lots of people bat .100, even me.

Baseball Milt

1.000 (dagnabbit, I've been helping the baseball project)

[Noroton]

And if you become roadkill over all of this, how does that help your BLP activities?

Well it's a convenient flag to wrap around yourself to try and deflect criticism. Frankly I don't see the current round of "BLP enforcers" as much better than the previous round of "NPOV enforcers". Both are rather deluded in thinking that they're trying to solve the larger problems in Wikipedia.

What does that even mean? That editors are not trying to solve problems? Are you questioning motivations?

[Guido den Broeder]

And in the news of today, the ArbCom mailing list appears to have been corrupt for quite a while, discarding mail from many addresses without message.

Caused by parties unknown.

[Apathetic]

And in the news of today, the ArbCom mailing list appears to have been corrupt for quite a while, discarding mail from many addresses without message.

Caused by parties unknown.

I don't know about "corrupt" - "haphazardly configured" would be more accurate.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[SB_Johnny]

And in the news of today, the ArbCom mailing list appears to have been corrupt for quite a while, discarding mail from many addresses without message.

Caused by parties unknown.

I don't know about "corrupt" - "haphazardly configured" would be more accurate.

Haphazardly corrupted, perhaps.

The more I watch this nonsense play out, the more I think that the primary requirement for Arbcommers is a passion for feeding the trolls.

[Lar]

The more I watch this nonsense play out, the more I think that the primary requirement for Arbcommers is a passion for feeding the trolls.

Who knew?

(and when did they know it?) <--- KIDDING

I suspect that the feeding thing is not actually a deliberate thing, it's just a gift.

It's funny to see Lar getting schooled on history by, of all people, Durova. Sometimes, dude, you just gotta realize that nobody bats .100 ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) and stop digging.

If I could bat .100 at baseball I'd actually be fairly happy. I might as well wear a big K on my back for all the good my swinging does at the plate.

But that said, I think it rather odd how much fuss is being raised over a choice of phrasing... sturm und drang about "what if Howard Baker saw this page" and suchlike... well gee, if someone would have just mailed me and asked for a reword instead of trying to publicly flog me with accusations of unpatriotic behaviour, general ignorance, and thrown in "dignity of a steward" to boot (1)(2), maybe Howard Baker's name would not have been mentioned (3) for spiffy search engines (4) to find at some future date.

I guess I better say it here too. I don't think Watergate was a witch hunt and I don't think Howard Baker was hunting witches.

But is this WP:RFAR-annex now too?

1- a laughable concept, especially if you've seen me actually swinging a baseball bat and batting .000...
2- oh and they forgot to throw in "mopery and dopery of the spaceways"
3- by Durova and KC first, not by me, mind you
4 - maybe only ones that ignore robots.txt, I forget if that page is NOINDEXed or not. It should be.

[RMHED]

The more I watch this nonsense play out, the more I think that the primary requirement for Arbcommers is a passion for feeding the trolls.

Now which of the players will get nailed to the cross?

[Wiki Witch of the West]

It's funny to see Lar getting schooled on history by, of all people, Durova. Sometimes, dude, you just gotta realize that nobody bats .100 ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) and stop digging.

If I could bat .100 at baseball I'd actually be fairly happy. I might as well wear a big K on my back for all the good my swinging does at the plate.

But that said, I think it rather odd how much fuss is being raised over a choice of phrasing... sturm und drang about "what if Howard Baker saw this page" and suchlike... well gee, if someone would have just mailed me and asked for a reword instead of trying to publicly flog me with accusations of unpatriotic behaviour, general ignorance, and thrown in "dignity of a steward" to boot (1)(2), maybe Howard Baker's name would not have been mentioned (3) for spiffy search engines (4) to find at some future date.

I guess I better say it here too. I don't think Watergate was a witch hunt and I don't think Howard Baker was hunting witches.

But is this WP:RFAR-annex now too?

1- a laughable concept, especially if you've seen me actually swinging a baseball bat and batting .000...
2- oh and they forgot to throw in "mopery and dopery of the spaceways"
3- by Durova and KC first, not by me, mind you
4 - maybe only ones that ignore robots.txt, I forget if that page is NOINDEXed or not. It should be.

It's the symbolism of it, which goes over as stubborn inability to distinguish between appropriate questioning of authority and McCarthyism. One post could be honest misunderstanding, but to carry it all day?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Killerchihuahua and I are hardly fellow travelers.

[CharlotteWebb]

Now which of the players will get nailed to the cross?

Depends on what standard they are being held to, see previous.

[Lar]

It's the symbolism of it, which goes over as stubborn inability to distinguish between appropriate questioning of authority and McCarthyism. One post could be honest misunderstanding, but to carry it all day?

You left out "mopery and dopery of the spaceways'. Give it a rest, Durova. I don't know what you're playing at, or why, but I don't want to play.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

It's the symbolism of it, which goes over as stubborn inability to distinguish between appropriate questioning of authority and McCarthyism. One post could be honest misunderstanding, but to carry it all day?

You left out "mopery and dopery of the spaceways'. Give it a rest, Durova. I don't know what you're playing at, or why, but I don't want to play.

No game, Lar. You should know me that well by now. You equated one of the most honorable acts of the Watergate fiasco to McCarthyism--apparently because people onsite were asking a similar question and you wished to discourage it. If you had a better reason, please explain. And why do you keep dodging the fact that it's a living person's legacy you've misused?

[Kelly Martin]

And in the news of today, the ArbCom mailing list appears to have been corrupt for quite a while, discarding mail from many addresses without message.

Caused by parties unknown.

I doubt the parties responsible are unknown; merely unknown to you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[LaraLove]

The more I watch this nonsense play out, the more I think that the primary requirement for Arbcommers is a passion for feeding the trolls.

Who knew?

(and when did they know it?) <--- KIDDING

lawl.

<snip>
. . . I think it rather odd how much fuss is being raised over a choice of phrasing. . . . if someone would have just mailed me and asked for a reword instead of trying to publicly flog me with accusations of unpatriotic behaviour, general ignorance, and thrown in "dignity of a steward" to boot (1)(2), maybe Howard Baker's name would not have been mentioned (3) for spiffy search engines (4) to find at some future date.

I guess I better say it here too. I don't think Watergate was a witch hunt and I don't think Howard Baker was hunting witches.

But is this WP:RFAR-annex now too?

1- a laughable concept, especially if you've seen me actually swinging a baseball bat and batting .000...
2- oh and they forgot to throw in "mopery and dopery of the spaceways"
3- by Durova and KC first, not by me, mind you
4 - maybe only ones that ignore robots.txt, I forget if that page is NOINDEXed or not. It should be.

Lar, honey, clearly you're a liar! It is without doubt. Wholly certain. For you to think that your wording, as similar as it was, would not lead to this historical comparison... I've lost all respect. SHAME be upon you! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/noooo.gif)

Also, why email when public flogging is an option? Transparency, Lar. Transparency.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)
Speaking of unpatriotic, I wonder... if I derobe from the BLP flag I apparently have wrapped around me and light it on fire, what wiki-political statement would that make?

[Lar]

Lar, honey, clearly you're a liar! It is without doubt. Wholly certain. For you to think that your wording, as similar as it was, would not lead to this historical comparison... I've lost all respect. SHAME be upon you!

Gadzooks, I've been found out!! Clearly I never should have tried to outwit the master of semantic analysis!! I was paraphrasing in a similar way!! NOW WHAT DO I DO!!

Speaking of unpatriotic, I wonder... if I derobe from the BLP flag I apparently have wrapped around me and light it on fire, what wiki-political statement would that make?

Lara, sweetie, I'm not sure exactly.

But I think you had Horsey's attention as soon as you said "derobe"... by the way it's "disrobe" but I digress.

No game, Lar. You should know me that well by now. You equated one of the most honorable acts of the Watergate fiasco to McCarthyism--apparently because people onsite were asking a similar question and you wished to discourage it. If you had a better reason, please explain. And why do you keep dodging the fact that it's a living person's legacy you've misused?

WWW: I call BS.

YOU equated all of that, not me. You've built this awesomely complex theory of mind around what was merely a turn of phrase. ANY question, asked over and over is a witch hunt-y question.

[Jim]

Clue - she's a dance instructor.

But I don't understand the problem. Is it you don't like the idea of a whole directory devoted to criticism of Wikipedia? It covers a whole range of issues, such as paedophile activism on Wikipedia

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...Wikipaedophilia

promotion of quack therapy

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Neurolinguistic_programming

and an article under development about POV pushing on Balkan articles

http://www.wikipediareview.com/User_talk:Ockham/...litical_Agendas

Or is it you don't like the fact that personalities are involved? I don't like that either but it is hard to present the facts as they are without mentioning the personalities - who are after all pseudonymous. In the article you have objected to I have highlighted the issue of principle in 'Community reaction'.

No - I have no problem with criticism of Wikipedia - it's all good and healthy - the articles you link to make some very good points.

I guess what upset me about the other one was that it seemed to be pointed commentary on a current "bunfight", when there was altogether enough of that going on already.

Don't worry - I'm over it now - apologies if you felt it was an over-reaction.

Jim

[Doc glasgow]

So Lar got McCarthy and Nixon confused? And we're getting high-and-mighty about "American history" (now that's an oxymoron if ever there was one).

Well, McCarthy didn't invent the witchhunt - we Europeans perfected those before your nation was discovered.

And, of course, some witches were indeed very evil indeed.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[LaraLove]

Lar, honey, clearly you're a liar! It is without doubt. Wholly certain. For you to think that your wording, as similar as it was, would not lead to this historical comparison... I've lost all respect. SHAME be upon you!

Gadzooks, I've been found out!! Clearly I never should have tried to outwit the master of semantic analysis!! I was paraphrasing in a similar way!! NOW WHAT DO I DO!!

CLEARLY, THE ONLY OPTION IS TO RESIGN!

Speaking of unpatriotic, I wonder... if I derobe from the BLP flag I apparently have wrapped around me and light it on fire, what wiki-political statement would that make?

Lara, sweetie, I'm not sure exactly.

But I think you had Horsey's attention as soon as you said "derobe"... by the way it's "disrobe" but I digress.

Ah, indeed I'm sure I did. Thank you for the spelling correction. I normally have MZ (the grammarphile) for that, but he was away. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Lar]

So Lar got McCarthy and Nixon confused?

Eh? I did no such thing. The claim is that I got Howard Baker and Joseph McCarthy confused, try to keep up.

[Milton Roe]

FT2 can be TL;DR.

Usually when he wants to hide something methinks.

He must be trying to hide something all the time then.

[the_undertow]

I was an admin as the_undertow.
I unblocked Moulton.
Raul took me straight to Rfar.
The AC, who did not want to deal with ID Cab, asked me to give up the tools, with the promise that I could have them back upon asking.
4 days later, I asked for them back - they refused.
During my Rfar, SWATjester, who is now OK with me, posted no less than 4 times that I was a white supremacist, during my Rfar and correlating ANI.
I had my lawyer draw up a lawsuit. No action was taken.
My impression at the time was that SWAT was a BLP inclusionist, so I decided to created an article on him.
He agreed the article was fine and NPOV.
I dropped the suit against SWAT and told the (then current) AC that the suit would be attached to them for allowing such libel to occur. Allowing such libel is not acceptable for Arbcon, or ConArbists or Arbitrary Committee. (all trademarked (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif))
Raul, the admin who took me to Rfar, blocked (not banned) for nine months, on behalf of AC.
AC never told me why, but said it was for disruption.
I dropped all suits and created Law. Never told anyone until months later.
I was tired of fucking around with my 'friends' so I unburdened myself by telling them.
All were surprised. So here we are. This is the whole story. The real story. Not much room for speculation. So I would ask the speculation stops with the_undertow/Law shit.

However, I did confide in nearly 3 dozen editors. My remorse is beyond regret. But those who knew are now falling on their swords; except for a few higher-ups. At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up. That is all my fault. One Arb, is still not coming clean and chastising me. I get it - it's your life bro. I never wished anyone would admit to my selfish actions by forcing this information on them. All my fault. I've see enough people go down for my actions.

But Luke, you were the first to know. You want everyone else to fall, when you were the first person I told. You called me a liar for defending Cas - hell yeah, I defend my friends until I die. But you knew first and what's worse, you watched as your AC brother made an example of himself. You are the biggest rat I've ever seen. What did you gain by that? One less AC member to contend with? I fucked up, but I'm here to admit it.

[Peter Damian]

However, I did confide in nearly 3 dozen editors. My remorse is beyond regret. But those who knew are now falling on their swords; except for a few higher-ups. At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up. That is all my fault. One Arb, is still not coming clean and chastising me. I get it - it's your life bro. I never wished anyone would admit to my selfish actions by forcing this information on them. All my fault. I've see enough people go down for my actions.

How many of these were admins? Understand that this is not about you, and however personal it may feel to you, it is not personal. The question is how much of this is evidence of a climate that condones and enables such open deception in violation of policy, undermining the trust of the community. It was even more worrying that this seemed to have been accepted by the Committee itself.

You remember I tried to start a group of editors which would be self-selecting (on the basis of contributions and neutrality, rather than adminstrative skills). This was ruthlessly quashed by the administration, on the grounds that it was a cabal, went against the collectivist and egalitarian ethos of Wikipedia &c &c. Even though the group's membership would not have been secret.

Now we have evidence of a similar cabal operating at apparently high levels of the administration. How extensive was this? That is the question.

[the_undertow]

However, I did confide in nearly 3 dozen editors. My remorse is beyond regret. But those who knew are now falling on their swords; except for a few higher-ups. At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up. That is all my fault. One Arb, is still not coming clean and chastising me. I get it - it's your life bro. I never wished anyone would admit to my selfish actions by forcing this information on them. All my fault. I've see enough people go down for my actions.

How many of these were admins? Understand that this is not about you, and however personal it may feel to you, it is not personal. The question is how much of this is evidence of a climate that condones and enables such open deception in violation of policy, undermining the trust of the community. It was even more worrying that this seemed to have been accepted by the Committee itself.

You remember I tried to start a group of editors which would be self-selecting (on the basis of contributions and neutrality, rather than adminstrative skills). This was ruthlessly quashed by the administration, on the grounds that it was a cabal, went against the collectivist and egalitarian ethos of Wikipedia &c &c. Even though the group's membership would not have been secret.

Now we have evidence of a similar cabal operating at apparently high levels of the administration. How extensive was this? That is the question.

PD, you realize that one diatribe that i exposed contained the sentiment that i did realize what i had done wrong. this includes your block as well - as i concluded that npa and civ were not blocks that i was ever willing to make again. while you mistook my email for aggression, you have my permission to post it. i made it quite clear that i understood it was apologetic as well as that i understood where you were you coming from.

i won't shit on the current AC. however, i have no sympathy for the last round of AC. and since this thread deals directly with me, i actually am somewhat interested that someone thought i might have an opinion here. after 22 pages, i feel like my story may be valid. i take no solace in the fact that so much time has been dedicated to my usernames, but do feel that my silence has come to an end.

[Peter Damian]

i won't shit on the current AC.

OK, what percentage of the few dozen who knew were admins? How many members of the Committee (apart from the two who we know about) knew?

Arbitrator poll: were you aware that Law = The_undertow more than 4 days ago?
Some people would seem to appreciate an answer to this question. Please provide answers for all members of the community. Clerks: feel free to provide links to the answers to this question if they've already been provided on-wiki. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth - No. First I heard of this was when it hit arb-l a few days ago. I'd heard of The_undertow, and was aware of Law, but prior to reading the e-mail on arb-l, I was not aware of anything connecting them. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool Hand Luke - No
Coren -
FayssalF - No.
FloNight - No
John Vandenberg - Statement
Newyorkbrad - No
Risker -
Rlevse - No
Roger Davies -
Stephen Bain -
Vassyana -
Wizardman -
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...n_4_days_ago.3F

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[the_undertow]

i won't shit on the current AC.

OK, what percentage of the few dozen who knew were admins? How many members of the Committee (apart from the two who we know about) knew?

Arbitrator poll: were you aware that Law = The_undertow more than 4 days ago?
Some people would seem to appreciate an answer to this question. Please provide answers for all members of the community. Clerks: feel free to provide links to the answers to this question if they've already been provided on-wiki. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth - No. First I heard of this was when it hit arb-l a few days ago. I'd heard of The_undertow, and was aware of Law, but prior to reading the e-mail on arb-l, I was not aware of anything connecting them. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool Hand Luke - No
Coren -
FayssalF - No.
FloNight - No
John Vandenberg - Statement
Newyorkbrad - No
Risker -
Rlevse - No
Roger Davies -
Stephen Bain -
Vassyana -
Wizardman -
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...n_4_days_ago.3F

just cas and luke

[Peter Damian]

just cas and luke

Thanks. But Luke says he knew nothing about it until four days before it broke. Is this just a confusion over dates, or did Luke know something before the time he claims he did?

Updated list here

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...ator_connivance

Four so far, including Davis who said he heard it on IRC. That means a lot of people knew. And proves that IRC is just as bad as it ever was, in spite of those who claim I am flogging a dead horse.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Anonymous editor]

Oh, absolutely. The worst part is that Bishonen is one of the guiltiest parties on Wikipedia when it comes to doing what she's accusing Jenna of doing. Bishonen has consistently performed abusive actions in support of her wikifriends.

If Jenna gets desysopped for this, then perhaps Bishonen should be desysopped about a dozen times (if only it were possible).

This makes me sick. I can see where someone would have a problem with what Jenna and GlassCobra did, but these are the last people that should be making a stink over it, considering their collective histories.

Naturally. The people who didn't like Jenna would jump at the opportunity to get her for something she did. They were just waiting for a big enough issue.
Jehochman, Bishonen, KC, and JoshuaZ are some of the most vomit-inducing editors on Wikipedia. Their abuses go a long way back.

Yes; plus, if this really wasn't all being done out of vengeance, why their heavy focus on Jennavecia over everyone else?

This was funny though, considering what Majorly said before, and Jenna's response was good too.

Someone ask KC why she and her "chat-room buddies" (in Friday's words) still have the tools if "admins are held to a higher level"?

But, a few of his chat-room buddies (Jennavecia and Glasscobra) helped support him in passing an RFA under a new account.

Is there anyone who isn't a chatroom buddy? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Any chance of getting this forum software's BadWordsFilterâ„¢ to block all posts by Friday that include "maturity" or "adult"? Who cares about false positives, this shit is old and tired.

Can that actually be done? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

I sincerely hope so.

[GlassBeadGame]

I was an admin as the_undertow.
I unblocked Moulton.
Raul took me straight to Rfar.
The AC, who did not want to deal with ID Cab, asked me to give up the tools, with the promise that I could have them back upon asking.
4 days later, I asked for them back - they refused.
During my Rfar, SWATjester, who is now OK with me, posted no less than 4 times that I was a white supremacist, during my Rfar and correlating ANI.
I had my lawyer draw up a lawsuit. No action was taken.
My impression at the time was that SWAT was a BLP inclusionist, so I decided to created an article on him.
He agreed the article was fine and NPOV.
I dropped the suit against SWAT and told the (then current) AC that the suit would be attached to them for allowing such libel to occur. Allowing such libel is not acceptable for Arbcon, or ConArbists or Arbitrary Committee. (all trademarked (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif))
Raul, the admin who took me to Rfar, blocked (not banned) for nine months, on behalf of AC.
AC never told me why, but said it was for disruption.
I dropped all suits and created Law. Never told anyone until months later.
I was tired of fucking around with my 'friends' so I unburdened myself by telling them.
All were surprised. So here we are. This is the whole story. The real story. Not much room for speculation. So I would ask the speculation stops with the_undertow/Law shit.

However, I did confide in nearly 3 dozen editors. My remorse is beyond regret. But those who knew are now falling on their swords; except for a few higher-ups. At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up. That is all my fault. One Arb, is still not coming clean and chastising me. I get it - it's your life bro. I never wished anyone would admit to my selfish actions by forcing this information on them. All my fault. I've see enough people go down for my actions.

But Luke, you were the first to know. You want everyone else to fall, when you were the first person I told. You called me a liar for defending Cas - hell yeah, I defend my friends until I die. But you knew first and what's worse, you watched as your AC brother made an example of himself. You are the biggest rat I've ever seen. What did you gain by that? One less AC member to contend with? I fucked up, but I'm here to admit it.

Just to be clear, was any action ever actually filed in any court? If so, was anyone ever served? If so, did they ever answer or defend?

[LaraLove]

At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up.

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Unless 40 to 50 people fessed up overnight, that's not true. Not that I recommend anyone do it.

And when did you tell Luke? And why?

You remember I tried to start a group of editors which would be self-selecting (on the basis of contributions and neutrality, rather than adminstrative skills). This was ruthlessly quashed by the administration, on the grounds that it was a cabal, went against the collectivist and egalitarian ethos of Wikipedia &c &c. Even though the group's membership would not have been secret.

Now we have evidence of a similar cabal operating at apparently high levels of the administration. How extensive was this? That is the question.

Peter, it's too bad your proposal collapsed. Them's the breaks on Wikipedia. You can't introduce anything new and you can't change anything. That's just the way the model is. There was no undertow/Law cabal, though. Be serious. That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've read throughout this entire thing. When I found out I didn't know who else knew. It wasn't something that was discussed, and we surely weren't coordinating actions. He was just another admin and we happened to know his former identity. You're making this into a whole other type of matter that it surely wasn't.

[Anonymous editor]

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH I WOULD LOVE TO MEET AN ADMIN FROM WIKIPEIDIA IN THE FLESH AND BLOOD tell them why their a fucking ASS.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Yesterday, 10:34pm

Two questions:

1. If this is the edited posted, what could have possibly been in the original draft? This is the seemingly improved version?
2. Where the hell are the mods?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Now we have evidence of a similar cabal operating at apparently high levels of the administration. How extensive was this? That is the question.

Peter, it's too bad your proposal collapsed. Them's the breaks on Wikipedia. You can't introduce anything new and you can't change anything. That's just the way the model is. There was no undertow/Law cabal, though. Be serious. That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've read throughout this entire thing. When I found out I didn't know who else knew. It wasn't something that was discussed, and we surely weren't coordinating actions. He was just another admin and we happened to know his former identity. You're making this into a whole other type of matter that it surely wasn't.

Well there was evidence it was discussed on IRC (see Ched Davis statement). On my making it something it perhaps isn't, it is clear a lot of editors on WP believe there is such a group.

[Doc glasgow]

... it is clear a lot of editors on WP believe there is such a group.

A lot of editors on WP believe they are merely writing an encyclopedia
A lot of editors on WP believe there is a benign service they are doing to humanity
A lot of editors on WP believe that they have the moral right to create articles on anyone
A lot of editors on WP believe that eventualism works
A lot of editors on WP believe that inhouse civility is more important that off-wiki effects
A lot of editors on WP believe that Wikipedia is a microstate
A lot of editors on WP believe that there is a toothfairy, an almighty Jimbo and no cabal.

So what?

[One]

And when did you tell Luke? And why?

Good question.

And what the hell? I had just moved past this crap.

Look undertow, you told me one lie and I flipped out. I'm sorry for that. You don't need to live up to being a liar because it's not part of your person. That is, it's not something that should define you. You need to be your own person.

Thanks. But Luke says he knew nothing about it until four days before it broke. Is this just a confusion over dates, or did Luke know something before the time he claims he did?

For clarity, the first I knew was the forwarded IRC log about four days ago.

"You got your mind right, Luke?" is a quote from the movie I named myself after. This was a lighthearted warning for The_undertow's apparently uncivil statement in the middle of our Cool Hand Luke jokes on CoM's talk page. I wasn't sure whether Law meant it as cruelly as it seemed, so I thought asking the same question as the boss in Cool Hand Luke would be a good way to express my uncertain civility warning (note the link to NPA). In the movie, the boss is asking Luke whether he's got his "mind right" meaning that he won't try to escape again.

Perhaps you haven't seen the film The_undertow? You should. I obviously think highly of it. It would also help defy Horse's prejudice that young people don't watch made before they were born.

This post has been edited by One:

[LaraLove]

Well there was evidence it was discussed on IRC (see Ched Davis statement). On my making it something it perhaps isn't, it is clear a lot of editors on WP believe there is such a group.

I believe you're taking that wrong. Admins talk to each other on IRC all the time, and that's not cabalism. What makes the_undertow being Law a special case? People spilling the secret of his former identity is hardly cabalism. I mean, I literally don't understand how you took it from "people discussed it in IRC" to "people who knew he was Law formed a cabal." It doesn't make sense to me in the least.

[Malleus]

At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up.

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Unless 40 to 50 people fessed up overnight, that's not true. Not that I recommend anyone do it.

And when did you tell Luke? And why?

You remember I tried to start a group of editors which would be self-selecting (on the basis of contributions and neutrality, rather than adminstrative skills). This was ruthlessly quashed by the administration, on the grounds that it was a cabal, went against the collectivist and egalitarian ethos of Wikipedia &c &c. Even though the group's membership would not have been secret.

Now we have evidence of a similar cabal operating at apparently high levels of the administration. How extensive was this? That is the question.

Peter, it's too bad your proposal collapsed. Them's the breaks on Wikipedia. You can't introduce anything new and you can't change anything. That's just the way the model is. There was no undertow/Law cabal, though. Be serious. That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've read throughout this entire thing. When I found out I didn't know who else knew. It wasn't something that was discussed, and we surely weren't coordinating actions. He was just another admin and we happened to know his former identity. You're making this into a whole other type of matter that it surely wasn't.

I'll just say simply that I feel kind of let down and demotivated by this issue. I've got no intention of joining in the hunt for anyone to de desysoped though, and neither do I see much value in pursuing a "Who knew what when" line of questioning. It's surely been very clear for some considerable time that wikipedia's system of governance is corrupt, and all I'm intererested in seing now is what changes are going to be made as a result of this situation.

Sadly though I believe that i already know the answer. None.

[LaraLove]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ike_a_witchhunt

I'm blown away that Rlevse is calling for every admin that participated in the RFA to be questioned. He's actually perpetuating the drama. Unbelievable.

[A Horse With No Name]

Perhaps you haven't seen the film The_undertow? You should. I obviously think highly of it. It would also help defy Horse's prejudice that young people don't watch made before they were born.

Hey, leave me out of this, okay? I was just joking around with Obesity (that poor dull man needs all of the humoring he can get). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

I'm blown away that Rlevse is calling for every admin that participated in the RFA to be questioned. He's actually perpetuating the drama. Unbelievable.

Zomg, an arbitrator perpetuating drama?

That said, his proposal actually makes sense if you accept (which I don't) that what Law/the undertow did was inappropriate. Administrators ought not turn a blind eye to egregious violations, policy, or governing decree just because they disagree with them. I'm entitled to disregard the ArbCom's decisions, because I'm neither an administrator nor an editor. Administrators are not given that freedom. If Wikipedia ever wants to have meaningful governance, it needs to hold people accountable for their actions. And that includes identifying who dropped the ball in situations like these, and dealing with those people appropriately.

[A Horse With No Name]

But I think you had Horsey's attention as soon as you said "derobe"... by the way it's "disrobe" but I digress.

Please, I'm distracted enough as it is! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Besides, I am taking up a new hobby: I am learning do-it-yourself liposuction via the University of Phoenix Online. If anyone wants to shed a few pounds, just PM me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

<snip>

And who are you on Wikipedia?

Trust me, don't answer that question! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm blown away that Rlevse is calling for every admin that participated in the RFA to be questioned. He's actually perpetuating the drama. Unbelievable.

The facts speak for themselves: at least two Arbcom members and one Arbcom clerk knew about this situation. And I am sorry, but John V.'s "Oops, I forgot to read my e-mail" excuse is too silly for words.

We all know it is impossible to keep secrets on Wikipedia. It is a fair question to know whether this information -- which at least two-and-a-half men within the inner chamber knew -- was passed around to others.

[Malleus]

I'm blown away that Rlevse is calling for every admin that participated in the RFA to be questioned. He's actually perpetuating the drama. Unbelievable.

The facts speak for themselves: at least two Arbcom members and one Arbcom clerk knew about this situation. And I am sorry, but John V.'s "Oops, I forgot to read my e-mail" excuse is too silly for words.

We all know it is impossible to keep secrets on Wikipedia. It is a fair question to know whether this information -- which at least two-and-a-half men within the inner chamber knew -- was passed around to others.

What I'm finding a little difficult about this is that Law didn't seem to take any great care to hide his previous identity, so I'm quite certain that it was an open secret shared by a great many people. Back in July I had an email from him after we'd had a minor disagreement over him granting me all sorts of rights that I didn't want, like autoreviewer and rollbacker. In it he suggested that we'd formerly been on good terms on wikipedia, and that I should ask Lara if I wanted to know what his previous account had been. I did, and she told me, but on looking back I see that someone else had already told me, back in May. But the username (the Undertow) meant nothing to me, and so I thought no more about it.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[LaraLove]

<snip>

And who are you on Wikipedia?

Trust me, don't answer that question! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Despite the raging douchebag I think you are, your sense of humor can be nothing but appreciated.

[A Horse With No Name]

Despite the raging douchebag I think you are, your sense of humor can be nothing but appreciated.

Being a raging douchebag is the critical element for success in any field. Leo Durocher wasn't anywhere near wrong when he said "Nice guys finish last." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Appleby]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

[Noroton]

"American history" (now that's an oxymoron if ever there was one).

Obviously, that was silly banter.

Говори русский? Спасибо американской истории, что вам не нужно.

[victim of censorship]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

There are bascily four types of Wikipeidia Administrators...


LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.


A Wikpeidan Admin will have at lest one or more of these basic stated traits.

So, to the Wikpedian admins posting here, which one are you???

[JayT]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

WP:OTHERDOUCHEBAGSEXIST?

[Malleus]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

There are bascily four types of Wikipeidia Administrators...


LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.


A Wikpeidan Admin will have at lest one or more of these basic stated traits.

So, to the Wikpedian admins posting here, which one are you???

I'm a bit puzzled by "THIEF". Could you just explain that one a little more?

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

WP:OTHERDOUCHEBAGSEXIST?

We're all human beings, none of us perfect. Not even me, and certainly not you.

[A Horse With No Name]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

The funny thing is that I don't find the word least bit offensive. I actually giggle when I see it. If it is supposed to hurt me, it is having the exact opposite effect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

We're all human beings, none of us perfect. Not even me, and certainly not you.

An argument can be made that Sophia Loren comes pretty damn close to perfect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Malleus]

An argument can be made that Sophia Loren comes pretty damn close to perfect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I don't think I'd be arguing with that, but the Italian tax authorities might.

[Grep]

Any indications of how many real, content-adding, editors have left in disgust over this echoed buggery?

[A Horse With No Name]

Any indications of how many real, content-adding, editors have left in disgust over this echoed buggery?

Was there evidence that there were real, content-adding editors in the first place? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Oh, since Sophia Loren is more interesting than Rlvese:

[Lar]

Говори русский? Спасибо американской истории, что вам не нужно.

Слишком мало людей понимают это, мой друг. Или я должен сказать "мой товарищ"?

(no I don't speak Russian, that was courtesy of Google's translation facility, I hope the nuances came through. My mother had to learn Russian to keep her job but she never cared for it)

[Grep]

Any indications of how many real, content-adding, editors have left in disgust over this echoed buggery?

Was there evidence that there were real, content-adding editors in the first place? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

All too many dupes I have to say.

[LaraLove]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

I insult them plenty.

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

WP:OTHERDOUCHEBAGSEXIST?

What he said.

The funny thing is that I don't find the word least bit offensive. I actually giggle when I see it. If it is supposed to hurt me, it is having the exact opposite effect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Butt-snorkel... does that sting? Even a little?

[CharlotteWebb]

Being a raging douchebag is the critical element for success in any field. Leo Durocher wasn't anywhere near wrong when he said "Nice guys finish last." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Not last, just 4th out of 6.

[A Horse With No Name]

The funny thing is that I don't find the word least bit offensive. I actually giggle when I see it. If it is supposed to hurt me, it is having the exact opposite effect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Butt-snorkel... does that sting? Even a little?

Honey, I've had newspaper columnists publish articles stating that I don't have talent. I've had a university professor write to me saying that the only job I am qualified to handle is collecting shopping carts from the K-Mart parking lot. I've been the subject of two simultaneous hate mail campaigns. I can go on and on. Trust me, this stuff is a weekend at the beach in comparison. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

Говори русский? Спасибо американской истории, что вам не нужно.

отвали, баллон для спринцевания.

[Lar]

Говори русский? Спасибо американской истории, что вам не нужно.

отвали, баллон для спринцевания.

Темперамент, характер! Будь хорошим.

(I have no idea why "temper, temper!" translates as "temperament, character!" Maybe нет настроения истерику! is more fitting? )

[CharlotteWebb]

(I have no idea why "temper, temper!" translates as "temperament, character!" Maybe нет настроения истерику! is more fitting? )

Probably because it attempts wherever possible to choose idiomatic phrases which a native speaker might actually use.

[A Horse With No Name]

I appreciate the Russian language conversation, considering the persecution and assassination of Law as performed by the inmates of the asylum of Charenton under the direction of the Marquis de Sade appears to have stalled. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Говори русский? Спасибо американской истории, что вам не нужно.

Слишком мало людей понимают это, мой друг. Или я должен сказать "мой товарищ"?

(no I don't speak Russian, that was courtesy of Google's translation facility, I hope the nuances came through. My mother had to learn Russian to keep her job but she never cared for it)

Your mother was a German rocket scientist?

[LaraLove]

The funny thing is that I don't find the word least bit offensive. I actually giggle when I see it. If it is supposed to hurt me, it is having the exact opposite effect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Butt-snorkel... does that sting? Even a little?

Honey, I've had newspaper columnists publish articles stating that I don't have talent. I've had a university professor write to me saying that the only job I am qualified to handle is collecting shopping carts from the K-Mart parking lot. I've been the subject of two simultaneous hate mail campaigns. I can go on and on. Trust me, this stuff is a weekend at the beach in comparison. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

You would mention the beach...

But at least you finally admitted it. Maybe you had before and I missed it. Completely possible as I'm behind on my reading, but this is the first I've seen you actually admit to being Eco.

[Lar]

Говори русский? Спасибо американской истории, что вам не нужно.

Слишком мало людей понимают это, мой друг. Или я должен сказать "мой товарищ"?

(no I don't speak Russian, that was courtesy of Google's translation facility, I hope the nuances came through. My mother had to learn Russian to keep her job but she never cared for it)

Your mother was a German rocket scientist?

Nope, merely a teacher...she told me that to keep that job in the GDR, one had to join the Party and learn Russian. That's partly why she left. (and her leaving, along with millions of others, presumably is why the Berlin Wall was built... her "escape" consisted of leaving everything behind, then taking the U-bahn from East Berlin to West Berlin and then applying for FRG citizenship. I hear that U-bahn section has been reopened now)

[The Joy]

Говори русский? Спасибо американской истории, что вам не нужно.

Слишком мало людей понимают это, мой друг. Или я должен сказать "мой товарищ"?

(no I don't speak Russian, that was courtesy of Google's translation facility, I hope the nuances came through. My mother had to learn Russian to keep her job but she never cared for it)

Your mother was a German rocket scientist?

Nope, merely a teacher...she told me that to keep that job in the GDR, one had to join the Party and learn Russian. That's partly why she left. (and her leaving, along with millions of others, presumably is why the Berlin Wall was built... her "escape" consisted of leaving everything behind, then taking the U-bahn from East Berlin to West Berlin and then applying for FRG citizenship. I hear that U-bahn section has been reopened now)

Did she get out by Trabant?

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Berlin_Wall_Trabant_grafitti.jpg)

[Abd]

I'm going to disclose an operating assumption of mine. People tell the truth as they see it. Most of the time, this assumption is warranted, as long as there isn't some special condition, such as major negative or positive consequences attached to telling the truth or lying. Even then, it's a useful operating assumption, because it almost never benefits anyone to accuse another of lying, unless (1) it's necessary and (2) you have proof, not only of error or falsehood, but of intention to deceive.

Then, if we think that a writer is telling the truth as they see it, we can put more effort into understanding what's behind the words, and if there is any hope of future agreement, we are more likely to find it. AGF used to be WP policy. It's interesting to read the original essay: March 2004. Notice the assumption that the goal is full consensus. That goal has been lost, abandoned. And violation of AGF is routine in core discussions on WP, as well as here on WR.

ArbComm got it right in my case, they found that AGF was consistent with sanctions. I.e., I could be intending to help the project, but if my behavior was damaging, I could be sanctioned. Where I'd say they screwed up was in using a site ban to do it, instead of simply instructing me as appropriate. Did they assume I'd disregard instructions? Apparently. This was a point on which the arbs differed.

I was an admin as the_undertow.
I unblocked Moulton.
Raul took me straight to Rfar.

My sympathy level just pegged the meter.

The AC, who did not want to deal with ID Cab, asked me to give up the tools, with the promise that I could have them back upon asking.
4 days later, I asked for them back - they refused.

Procedurally, they were within their rights. As a human institution, presumably composed of human beings who are individually responsible for the effect they have on people, that sucks. It's even possible that all arbs who were involved in making the original promise supported honoring it. It could be argued -- and is being argued -- that all ArbComm proceedings that result in decisions exercising power would require public voting, if not actual public discussion. Any deliberative body, even an elected one, should have the right to meet privately, under some conditions, but I doubt that those obtained in your case.

During my Rfar, SWATjester, who is now OK with me, posted no less than 4 times that I was a white supremacist, during my Rfar and correlating ANI.

We saw similar accusations here. They were based on a denial of your statements about yourself and the distinctions you drew. Ignorance, basically, and very rude. It's possible to argue that "white pride" leads to racism, and certainly it can be associated with racism, under some conditions, but that's not the same as specifically tagging someone as racist because of a position on pride. Further, "racist" itself isn't identical to "white supremacist," I know plenty of people who, technically, are racist, but who don't subscribe to the particularly pernicious form of racism that represents a doctrine of ethnic superiority/inferiority, which then shades into racial hatred.

I had my lawyer draw up a lawsuit. No action was taken.
My impression at the time was that SWAT was a BLP inclusionist, so I decided to created an article on him.
He agreed the article was fine and NPOV.
I dropped the suit against SWAT and told the (then current) AC that the suit would be attached to them for allowing such libel to occur. Allowing such libel is not acceptable for Arbcon, or ConArbists or Arbitrary Committee. (all trademarked (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif))

Naughty, Undertow, what did you expect them to do with this?

Raul, the admin who took me to Rfar, blocked (not banned) for nine months, on behalf of AC.
AC never told me why, but said it was for disruption.

Like implying you would sue them? Anyway, I think you understand that this was provocative, because:

I dropped all suits and created Law. Never told anyone until months later.
I was tired of fucking around with my 'friends' so I unburdened myself by telling them.
All were surprised. So here we are. This is the whole story. The real story. Not much room for speculation. So I would ask the speculation stops with the_undertow/Law shit.

You can ask for that, but it's not likely to happen, is it?

However, I did confide in nearly 3 dozen editors. My remorse is beyond regret. But those who knew are now falling on their swords; except for a few higher-ups. At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up. That is all my fault.

No, you aren't that powerful. The world doesn't turn on your errors. You told them, that was not an error, it was honest, and honest isn't an error. They did with the information what they chose to do, I presume you had no gun held to their heads. And what they did was reasonable. The claim that editors/administrators/arbitrators are obligated to act on what they know instead of keeping private information private is a pernicious one that will lead to no good. Reticence/disclosure and even lying, under some circumstances, are individual choices that we must make based on our own perceptions of responsibility. Telling the truth is a high value, but not the highest.

Certainly I can understand your remorse: unburdening yourself, you burdened them. But you are also human, with limited capacity, and sharing our predicament is positive, not negative. The one who outed you, in the end, is likewise human and is personally responsible according to his or her intentions, ultimately. I do generally believe that we are better off when truth comes out, and this includes all those who kept the secret. Losing status, or even being blocked on Wikipedia, is not a true loss; as many here know, it may, indeed, be a benefit.

One Arb, is still not coming clean and chastising me. I get it - it's your life bro. I never wished anyone would admit to my selfish actions by forcing this information on them. All my fault. I've see enough people go down for my actions.

But Luke, you were the first to know. You want everyone else to fall, when you were the first person I told. You called me a liar for defending Cas - hell yeah, I defend my friends until I die. But you knew first and what's worse, you watched as your AC brother made an example of himself. You are the biggest rat I've ever seen. What did you gain by that? One less AC member to contend with? I fucked up, but I'm here to admit it.

Now, I do have the benefit of having read, before this, Luke's response, which rings true to me. Consider this, my friend, you just failed to assume good faith for Luke. Was this a mere failure of the imagination, or does it represent some deeper problem?

If I read this right -- maybe I'm not doing that -- what you have just done is worse than anything for which you have expressed remorse. Let's see if I got it right.

1. You told Luke about your identity (according to your memory, or perhaps on evidence you possess).
2. He didn't tell anyone, and denies that you told him.
3. You accuse him of lying about this. Publicly.

That is, you set him up, by disclosing to him your secret. Now you use that prior disclosure to impeach him. Is he lying? Perhaps, and though that doesn't seem consistent with his character, I can imagine quite a good motive to lie under the circumstances, and it doesn't have to do with personal power or self-protection.

I will say that if you recall telling him it doesn't prove that he heard you, that he received the message, just as that someone emailed JV about this matter doesn't prove that JV read it. And AGF, if they tell us they didn't notice it, requires that we assume they are telling the truth.

The problem of noise is the basic problem faced by ArbComm; and I intend to address this further today, there is an occasion. When there is too much noise, we start missing much more.

Undertow, stick around! Those who have fallen, even through personal error, are the resource which may save the project, and Wikipedia Review may be a piece of the solution.

As to your allegedly telling Luke, if you want to take personal responsibility for damage you've done, and if you have proof you told Luke, and that he noticed it and so responded, lose it. (The link you gave doesn't show that response.) It is an aspect of personal integrity to take blame for what is not one's own error, even if nobody ever will know about it. I don't say this for Luke's benefit, I say it for yours.

Let's make the situation more dramatic than it is, perhaps. Suppose the Gestapo is after Luke for not telling them that you were an enemy spy. Perhaps under duress or in an unguarded moment, you said that Luke told you, but Luke denies any knowledge. If you have proof somewhere, do you expose him for lying? Or do you take that information to your grave? To make it even more dramatic, suppose they offer you leniency if you expose all those whose loyalty to the regime was weak.

There is no Gestapo here, and nobody lives or dies based on this situation. The moral obligations are therefore weaker, but they do not reverse sense.

[Anonymous editor]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

There are bascily [sic] four types of Wikipeidia [sic] Administrators...


LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.


A Wikpeidan [sic] Admin will have at lest one or more of these basic stated traits.

So, to the Wikpedian [sic] admins posting here, which one are you???

You keep changing the classifications.

Here, you gave the following options:

I consider any wikipeidian [sic] admin to be one of the following..

LIAR (all admins)
THIEF ( Of truth, Intellectual property, human rights )
CON ARTIST (JIMMY)
COWARD (ROB Fernandez)
DEGENERATE (David Gerard)
BRAIN-DAMAGED PUNK (Ryulong )
POWER DRUNK SOCIOPATH (Raul654)
BASEMENT DWELLING FREAK
SEXUAL DEVIATE (see SHANKBONE as typical example of such)
PLAGIARIZER (Essay)


I am willing to say any and more to any Wikipeidan [sic] admin, leader, or JIMMY FUCK HEAD WALES in the real, what have written here, and would be willing to let any coward have the first punch but to bad, Wikipedia are sniveling cowards and it would be just a dream.

I not going to be very nice.

I'm a bit puzzled by "THIEF". Could you just explain that one a little more?

You may want to reconsider that RfA. I'm not sure you could tolerate being called:
LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.

by our dear Joseph. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

just kidding. I know you've been called worse.

The funny thing is that I don't find the word least bit offensive. I actually giggle when I see it. If it is supposed to hurt me, it is having the exact opposite effect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Butt-snorkel... does that sting? Even a little?

Honey, I've had newspaper columnists publish articles stating that I don't have talent. I've had a university professor write to me saying that the only job I am qualified to handle is collecting shopping carts from the K-Mart parking lot. I've been the subject of two simultaneous hate mail campaigns. I can go on and on. Trust me, this stuff is a weekend at the beach in comparison. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

You would mention the beach...

But at least you finally admitted it. Maybe you had before and I missed it. Completely possible as I'm behind on my reading, but this is the first I've seen you actually admit to being Eco.

He vaguely acknowledged it earlier in this thread, in a response alleging hypocrisy.


This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[Malleus]

You may want to reconsider that RfA. I'm not sure you could tolerate being called:
LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.

by our dear Joseph. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

just kidding. I know you've been called worse.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I was called worse only last week in fact, didn't kill me.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[A Horse With No Name]

But Luke, you were the first to know. You want everyone else to fall, when you were the first person I told. You called me a liar for defending Cas - hell yeah, I defend my friends until I die. But you knew first and what's worse, you watched as your AC brother made an example of himself. You are the biggest rat I've ever seen. What did you gain by that? One less AC member to contend with? I fucked up, but I'm here to admit it.

This statement is very interesting, considering that Luke made this completely contradictory statement on WP on October 2:

"I was not aware of The_undertow's undisclosed return to this site before John Vandenburg forwarded the IRC logs less than 3.5 days ago."

Both Undertow and Luke cannot be telling the truth. Which one is telling the truth?

[Abd]

You remember I tried to start a group of editors which would be self-selecting (on the basis of contributions and neutrality, rather than adminstrative skills). This was ruthlessly quashed by the administration, on the grounds that it was a cabal, went against the collectivist and egalitarian ethos of Wikipedia &c &c. Even though the group's membership would not have been secret.

Last I noticed "collectivist and egalitarian" aren't policy, and there is no "administration." There is the administrative Cabal -- and denial that there is any cabal is particularly amusing because that's what Jimbo called it at the very beginning of its existence -- and there are other cabals. The Iron Law of Oligarchy insists that cabals will arise. I'm not aware of your specific attempt -- links would be appreciated -- but the fatal flaw in it, obviously, would have been on-wiki organization. Were it organized off-wiki, and with appropriate precautions, it would not have been possible to crush it. And it's even possible for membership to be open, and documented on-wiki, and for it still to be basically invulnerable to pressure from the jeering mob that passes for the "administration."

Voluntary self-organization of the community is the best key to recovery from the impasse, it's the only distributed-power solution I can imagine, the classic true oligarchal systems are what most people think of first as useful in dealing with the efficiency and noise problems that will be fatal to Wikipedia if not addressed.

(Basically, there are the fascist or totalitarian solutions, and democratic solutions, both involve setting up an empowered oligarchy, small or large; in the latter case, the oligarchs are "elected." The current "administration" is a particularly inefficient and unstable version of the latter, with elected oligarchs -- administrators -- who have indefinite terms, and with, therefore, so many of them that the problem of scale has simply reproduced itself, 1600, or even a few hundred members, is way beyond what classic decision-making systems can handle. If there were 20 or 30 administrators representing the community, and able to personally delegate administrative authority, restricted only under rules by the "council" that the representatives would compose, it would be doable. And there are ways to make this work and keep immediate and continuous responsibility to an awakened community.)

Now we have evidence of a similar cabal operating at apparently high levels of the administration. How extensive was this? That is the question.

No, the question is, "Why should we care?" A "cabal of silence" isn't any kind of a cabal at all, unless there is a coordinated and enforced silence. Even with a mutual agreement to keep silent, it wouldn't rise to the level of "cabal," because there is no expressed power in silence, there is only an allowance for other forces to prevail. When a true cabal is operating, the kind that actually exercises power on Wikipedia, the defection of any individual member is without effect, for the truly effective cabals do not rely on secrecy but on the massing of numbers, of whom a few, at least, are administrators. With a secret, for any member to disclose it reverses the entire action, even making it a hazard to the members.

The cabal that was denied by ArbComm in my case wasn't the dangerous kind of cabal, in fact. I have some suspicion that the whole TINC movement is a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the true situation. On the other hand, that hypothesis isn't necessary. Still, I did show in the RfAr, had anyone been actually reading the evidence, that WMC was aware that he was acting as part of a coherent group, he used "we" in quite a precise reference to cabal activity. He just thinks, probably, of his group as "the sensible editors," as distinct from "the drama queens, attention-seekers, fringe POV-pushers," in which group are easily categorized anyone disagreeing with cabal positions.

How many "sensible editors" are there? Well, the usual suspects in the Global Warming, Anti-Fringe "cabal," the one I seriously offended, seem to be roughly two dozen editors, with occasional sympathy from a few others. What I found was that whenever I went through true dispute resolution process, the CAb position would evaporate. And this has continued in my absence.

In the RfAr, the Cab vigorously opposed restrictions on administrative authority to ban based on individual opinion and decision; my view, as expressed, was that so-called "administrative topic or page bans" were really only strong warnings that an admin considers an editor's behavior with respect to a particular topic or page as generally disruptive, and that a block might ensue with no further warning, and that a unilateral ban like this created no special right to block, whereas community bans and discretionary (ArbComm) sanctions created bans that could, indeed, result in blocks for harmless edits, which is necessary for shared enforcement to be practical.

Vigorously opposed, my position was, even ridiculed. And now it's consensus, only a few weeks later, at WP:BAN, see WP:BAN diff And this happened again and again, in small matters and large.

The power of these small cabals only exists because of the lack of larger ones! For larger cabals to exist and be stable would require organizational structure, and that has been generally rejected on-wiki, because the structures have all been the kinds that are vulnerable, as well as being insufficiently efficient. Esperanza hit a flat spot because of inefficient bureaucracy, and this was an excuse to crush it.

"Efficient" has become somewhat of a by-word for "fascist," which is unearned. Fascist systems are short-term efficient, but in the long term they are unstable and fall, unless they can somehow coerce or otherwise enjoy sufficient continued support. Modern history is proving that some kind of democracy, where at least the illusion of personal freedom exists, is more stable, and my guess is that true freedom, under the right conditions, is more efficient than what often passes for it. People are social animals and naturally cooperate, as long as they identify the other participants as members of the same tribe or interest group.

[The Adversary]

Ok, just to return to the subject for a second. Lara, I don´t want to get involved with the dramah over at WP, but just my 2 cent: you have acted, and are still acting, like an damn idiot.
Yes: Idiot.

Something extremely basic: truly supporting your friends does not mean that you support them in *everything*. Specifically, it does not mean that you should support them when they are doing wrong/stupid things (like we all do, at times). If you had told the Undertow to stay put during his 9 month block, then perhaps retire that account, come back as a fresh user....Hey: we would have avoided all this dramah/tears. Your short-term thinking did not do the Undertow...or anyone else...any good at all. Face up to that. (why do I feel I´m constantly telling people that 2+2=4? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ) (And why on earth did you not think of the obvious? That when people come back as banned/blocked users, they are always open for "blackmail"...or "pressure""...call it what you want. Which is exactly what happened here, if I have understood correctly.)

If there is one word I would use to characterize your behaviour it is unprofessional. And yes, I do expect, no, demand, that anyone in an elected position (even in on online gaming community like WP) act with a minimum of professionalism. All your "standing up for friends -no matter what" makes me go (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) ....it was watching SV and Jayjg protect their "friends" on WP, no matter what, which nearly drove me off WP (and onto WR) years ago. WP-rules were simply not for their "friends." And now you come, makeing the same type of argument? Again: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

I see that many of the people over at WP who are now after your hide are people who were gunning for you earlier. Which is to be expected. You have handed them tons of free ammo. Though reading some of the comments there.....is like reading, say, a lecture from Bill Clinton on "the importance of marital fidelity when elected to high office". Look who´s talking! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

But, that aside, Lara, you have also greatly disappointed some who trusted you.

PS: I would have supported a temporary desysopping of you, for say, 3-6 months.
PPS: keep up the good BLP-work, that is great.
PPPS: sorry if I come off as unbearably pompous/mouldy... I´m old enough to be you mum, sorry if I sound like one.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

Both Undertow and Luke cannot be telling the truth. Which one is telling the truth?

Do you categorically deny the possibility that both are lying?

[Abd]

Both Undertow and Luke cannot be telling the truth. Which one is telling the truth?

Probably both, and that Horse can't imagine how is only a sign of Horse's impoverished imagination. Really, it's not rocket science. Or even Cold fusion.

[A Horse With No Name]

Both Undertow and Luke cannot be telling the truth. Which one is telling the truth?

Do you categorically deny the possibility that both are lying?

Yes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Probably both, and that Horse can't imagine how is only a sign of Horse's impoverished imagination. Really, it's not rocket science. Or even Cold fusion.

It's not even cold beer, though I could use one right now. And while I make no great claims of superior brainpower, I can read English and there is a contradiction where Law/TU claims that he told Luke but Luke claims that he learned of this from John V.'s forwarding of the IRC logs.

I am not going to take sides, because I don't know what transpired. I am only raising this because it is the only part of the story where things fall out of sync.

[Abd]

I can read English and there is a contradiction where Law/TU claims that he told Luke but Luke claims that he learned of this from John V.'s forwarding of the IRC logs.

What's the contradiction? Law/TU says that he told Luke. Luke says that he first learned from IRC. You know, it always amazes me to see people who supposedly had some experience editing Wikipedia, who don't recognize the difference between synthesis and fact.

Just read the claims. TU is making a claim about his own action. What can be derived as a necessary conclusion if we assume TU is not lying? Frankly, practically nothing! We've not been provided with anything like the level of information we'd need to move beyond what was actually written.

What Horse is doing is synthesizing a conclusion that if TU remembers telling Luke, therefore Luke remembers being told. In order for Luke or TU to be lying (one or the other, perhaps), we need at least four necessary conditions, none one of which we have actual knowledge on, AFAIK.

(1) TU's memory is not deficient.
(2) The communication actually was delivered.
(3) Luke actually read or heard it.
(4) Luke remembered that when writing about when he first knew it.

As to the latter, I've read a great deal on Wikipedia. While I'm older than Luke, by quite a bit, I believe, I'm sure there is a great deal that I've read that I don't remember, and that would have been true when I was his age, I think. To remember what I read, it has to have had some impact. Suppose, as an example, TU wrote to Luke that he was TU, but Luke simply didn't think it, at the time, to be important. So what if he was TU? Luke could have dismissed it as a trivial piece of information, and it might even have been before he was elected to ArbComm (does that timing work?). And if he was already elected, I expect, his mail traffic went way up, which could be expected to increase the amount he forgets. And that's just the fourth condition.

Another outrageous aspect of this affair is the cynicism and ABF about arbitrator John V. in his claim to have not noticed the email to him disclosing the identity of Law. This is quite believable, and the claims about it simply show how far ABF goes. It also shows how dangerous a witch-hunt can get on what people knew and when.

Look, I was screwed over by ArbComm, in a sense. While Luke had recused, I had depended on him, in fact, to take a more active role in presenting evidence, because I knew he was aware of much of the history. Instead what he presented was practically trivial. I don't have any need to defend ArbComm or Luke, but .... what amount to personal attacks will never resolve the problems of Wikipedia. ArbComm is failing, sure, and so are, in a sense, the individual arbitrators, but the problem they are faced with is not one that they know how to solve, and they don't know where to look for solutions. They get piles of bad advice. Somewhere buried in it is good advice, and they don't know how to filter it. That I do know what each one of them could do doesn't really help them, because my advice is likewise buried; when I say I know, and if they even notice that, they don't believe me, nor do most people.

This does suggest an obvious solution, but my experience is that "obvious solutions" are mostly overlooked because most people don't even believe that they exist.

[Appleby]

there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

I insult them plenty.

Diffs! Diffs!! We want diffs!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by Appleby:

[One]

Gmail does not forget, and I checked that because memory can be feeble. He did not tell me.

I'd appreciate an answer to Lara's question. He claims to have told me before anyone else, and it certainly does beg the question why. Better yet, I'd appreciate if The_undertow stop lying.

This post has been edited by One:

[SB_Johnny]

I don't have any need to defend ArbComm or Luke, but .... what amount to personal attacks will never resolve the problems of Wikipedia. ArbComm is failing, sure, and so are, in a sense, the individual arbitrators, but the problem they are faced with is not one that they know how to solve, and they don't know where to look for solutions. They get piles of bad advice. Somewhere buried in it is good advice, and they don't know how to filter it. That I do know what each one of them could do doesn't really help them, because my advice is likewise buried; when I say I know, and if they even notice that, they don't believe me, nor do most people.

I haven't seen it directly stated anywhere, but going by other incidents I'm pretty sure the committee members fall outside of the foundation's CYA umbrella. It's pretty amazing, under those circumstances, that they've been as effective as they've managed to be. Personally, I wouldn't do what they're doing without some decent pay and legal backup, but that doesn't mean I don't admire them for doing it.

Lar's right on: this is a witch hunt. Not quite interesting enough (yet) to get a book deal, but I'm a bit surprised the newsfeed isn't pinging on it yet.

[Noroton]

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Of the two of you, which one do you think has more credibility with most of the people reading this? Provide proof. Put up or shut up.

[RMHED]

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Of the two of you, which one do you think has more credibility with most of the people reading this? Provide proof. Put up or shut up.

They should stop suppressing their homoerotic desires.

Kiss and make up,

Luke and Undertow sitting in a tree, K. I. S. S. I. N. G.

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[Abd]

Gmail does not forget, and I checked that because memory can be feeble. He did not tell me.

Or he "told you" in some way that you didn't see and maybe it wasn't gmail. That he told you and remember it and you are lying is highly unlikely because you would be shooting yourself in the foot for no good reason, unless you have some agenda to make him look bad, which is truly unlikely upon unlikely and would be very risky.

I'd appreciate an answer to Lara's question. He claims to have told me before anyone else, and it certainly does beg the question why. Better yet, I'd appreciate if The_undertow stop lying.

He will, after you stop beating your wife. Come on, Luke, you should know better. It should be enough that you stand with what you know, it's totally unnecessary to imply that Law is lying.

Why am I commenting on this? What's my dog in this race? Well, AGF is an essential part of consensus communities, it should be an operating assumption that isn't discarded. It isn't necessary to assume bad faith to protect a group from disruption, it isn't necessary to assume bad faith to protect an article from POV-pushing, and it isn't necessary to assume bad faith in defending oneself against false accusations.

My two daughters get into arguments like this all the time. It's impossible to tell who is lying, or, indeed, if anyone is lying, even though the statements they make are quite contradictory, and each of them accuses the other of lying. Loudly, while literally kicking and screaming. We can sometimes find out who was "right." But that doesn't mean that the other was lying, rather -- perhaps -- the other misinterpreted the evidence she had. There often turns out to have been a basis for that, such as resemblance between two objects.

The older one, especially, accuses me of "not believing" her when I don't immediately conclude she's right and the younger isn't telling the truth, and give her the toy or other item they are fighting over, and so she will throw a huge fit over this larger problem. I can even say to her, "I think you're probably right, but let's wait until Momma comes home, I think she'll remember whose little game this was," and it's useless. Were it not for the fact that, until the younger daughter found the thing and took it and claimed that it had been given to her by her mother, the older daughter had no interest at all in it, I'd be more sympathetic. I am still sympathetic, but in a longer-term sense, I know that she's asserting her independence and authority in the world, and defining her autonomy and all that good stuff. But it's still hard sometimes. Remaining firm without losing my temper is my own work.

By the way, these girls, later the same day, may be hugging and singing together, and they clearly love each other deeply. Unfortunately, the time scale on Wikipedia is different, people are more frozen into their personalities, and the wiki brothers and sisters get locked into this long-term, highly dysfunctional dance of firm opposition and mistrust.

Consensus. When "rough consensus" was deemed adequate, when efforts to find true consensus were abandoned at that point and considered "disruptive" or a "waste of time," that's when the wiki was lost. I understand very well what happened, given the conditions, it is utterly unsurprising. It is known how to move beyond this in organizations, but who is seeking that knowledge? Those who know it either stay away because they know better than to dive into a catfight, or they are themselves driven away as interlopers if they try to share the knowledge. But there is a way around this impasse.

And you will never find consensus by accusing others of lying. How could one even imagine so? Even if people are actually lying, they have their reasons, and only by imagining that somehow we can disregard "liars" would we even think there is an advantage to the accusation.

So, Luke, I hope you will forgive me for suggesting some language here. "I'm sorry, Law, I shouldn't have implied that you were lying, it's just that I've looked at my mail archive and didn't find anything, and I really can't remember you telling me. If it still matters to you, would you let me know how you told me, so I can check, if possible? Or was it accompanied by something else that might jog my memory?" And then, Luke, you would email Law and have a frank and respectful private discussion, seeking to resolve any dispute between you, where no posturing before the entire internet readership is involved on any side, and no need for any pretense. And if either of you didn't trust direct contact like that, then you would involve a mediator who accepts being an intermediary in confidence -- if either of you thought it of sufficient importance. And if you don't, then why in the world would either of you go so far as to call the other a liar?

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Of the two of you, which one do you think has more credibility with most of the people reading this? Provide proof. Put up or shut up.

And this, right here, is the kind of "community" that foments conflict instead of resolving it.

[RMHED]

Blah, blah, blah...

Needs more homoeroticism.

[A Horse With No Name]

Blah, blah, blah...

Needs more homoeroticism.

Someone better ping RMHED -- I think Shankbone is compromising his account. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Abd]

Blah, blah, blah...

Needs more homoeroticism.

Are you making an offer? However, I must say I'm only turned on by people who show an interest in me and what I have to say. I'm like any other bitch in that respect.

[RMHED]

Blah, blah, blah...

Needs more homoeroticism.

Someone better ping RMHED -- I think Shankbone is compromising his account. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Ping!!!

Is that some fucking euphemism?

Don't you get euphemistic with me you fucking cunt.

[A Horse With No Name]

Blah, blah, blah...

Needs more homoeroticism.

Someone better ping RMHED -- I think Shankbone is compromising his account. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Ping!!!

Is that some fucking euphemism?

Don't you get euphemistic with me you fucking cunt.

I think Robert Morley said it best: That's the problem with international events...too many foreigners! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Noroton]

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Of the two of you, which one do you think has more credibility with most of the people reading this? Provide proof. Put up or shut up.

And this, right here, is the kind of "community" that foments conflict instead of resolving it.

Putting up or shutting up would resolve the conflict PDQ. If he can't or won't provide the proof, there's nothing more to say. If he can, there's nothing more to say. If a mistake was made, it's the only way it'll come out. It's a very easy way to resolve the conflict. He should've provided proof immediately, of course, if he has it. The burden, you know, is with the accuser. Try asking the accuser to take the lead in being reasonable first, before asking the accusee.

[RMHED]

Blah, blah, blah...

Needs more homoeroticism.

Someone better ping RMHED -- I think Shankbone is compromising his account. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Ping!!!

Is that some fucking euphemism?

Don't you get euphemistic with me you fucking cunt.

I think Robert Morley said it best: That's the problem with international events...too many foreigners! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Morley was a fat fucker, so fuck him.

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Of the two of you, which one do you think has more credibility with most of the people reading this? Provide proof. Put up or shut up.

And this, right here, is the kind of "community" that foments conflict instead of resolving it.

Putting up or shutting up would resolve the conflict PDQ. If he can't or won't provide the proof, there's nothing more to say. If he can, there's nothing more to say. If a mistake was made, it's the only way it'll come out. It's a very easy way to resolve the conflict. He should've provided proof immediately, of course, if he has it. The burden, you know, is with the accuser. Try asking the accuser to take the lead in being reasonable first, before asking the accusee.

Needs more homoeroticism.

[A Horse With No Name]

Morley was a fat fucker, so fuck him.

Eric and Ernie got there first:

[Noroton]

Don't you get euphemistic with me you fucking cunt.

I think Robert Morley said it best: That's the problem with international events...too many foreigners! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Horsey, I think you owe RMHED an apology for your inappropriate response to what in Britain (so we've been told) is clearly a term of endearment. For a fuller explanation of RMHED's exuberence, check the category on his WP talk page.

Needs more homoeroticism.

More cowbell.

[A Horse With No Name]

Don't you get euphemistic with me you fucking cunt.

I think Robert Morley said it best: That's the problem with international events...too many foreigners! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Horsey, I think you owe RMHED an apology for your inappropriate response to what in Britain (so we've been told) is clearly a term of endearment. For a fuller explanation of RMHED's exuberence, check the category on his WP talk page.

Yes, he is literally in a category by himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiki...it_whilst_drunk

Well, then RHMED deserves more than an apology -- he deserves a Horsey French kiss! Ooo la la, monsieur! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

[The Joy]

So basically this whole tragedy summed up is:

-----

Swatjester: "You're a Nazi, The Undertow!"
The Undertow: "I am not! I'll sue and make a BLP of you to show how much that hurt me!"

Moulton: "Jimbo has created an environment in violation of accepted learning principles."
The Undertow: "I'll unblock you, Moulton!"
Raul: "You're going to ArbCom, Undertow."
Arbcom: "Banned for 9 months. Don't get your bits back without consulting us."

Later.

The Undertow: "Guys? Can I come back? Maybe get the bits back?"
Arbcom: "GAH! FT2 has lost his mind! Get back, FT2! Leave Orangemarlin alone!"
The Undertow: "Guys?"
Arbcom: "Stop it, Giano! For the love of... NO, FT2! Don't block him! Oh, sh...!"
The Undertow: "Guys?"
Arbcom: "Can't talk now. We're in disarray more so than ever before!"
The Undertow: "..."

Later.

The Undertow: "Screw this! I'm becoming Law!"

The Undertow becomes Law.

Law: "Now I can edit peacefully. Oh, but I feel bad about coming back without telling my friends."

Law tells his friends that he is The Undertow and his friends rejoice.

Later

Some of Law's Friends: "You'd make a great admin!"
Law: "Ok."

Law becomes an admin.

Later.

Law unblocks ChildofMidnight. Angers Sandstein and others.

Later on IRC.

Ironholds: "Help me with something, Law."
Law: "No."
Ironholds: "You're stupid."
Law: "No. Won't do it."
Daniel: "Stupid Law!"
Ironholds: "Oh, I hear a little birdie saying you're The Undertow. Naughty! Naughty!"
Daniel: "Ha, ha! You're The Undertow!"

Keegan alerts Arbcom.

Casliber, maybe Luke, and others: "Oh, great. We're screwed."

Slim Virgin, ChildofMidnight, Giano, Mattisse, and many more come on scene.

Them: "Get the Arbcom!"

Others come and form mob.

Mob: "Hang the deceivers! Hang the Arbcom! Hang Law! We need trust!"

Rlevse: "I'll hang everyone who knew about this. If you don't believe me, here's my Eagle badge."
Mob: "That's a Girl Scout badge."
Rlevse: "Never you mind that."

Some rational Wikipedians: "Can't we just forgive and forget?"
Mob and Rlevse: "Never!"

The Undertow: "I know that Luke and Casliber knew of my identity."
Luke: "Liar!"
The Undertow: "Liar!"
Luke: "Liar!"

Et cetera.

Moulton: "I am still blocked. Hello?"

-----

Is this the gist of what all happened?

[Kelly Martin]

Is this the gist of what all happened?

Needs more cowbell.

[TungstenCarbide]

Rlevse: "I'll hang everyone who knew about this. If you don't believe me, here's my Eagle badge."
Mob: "That's a Girl Scout badge."
Rlevse: "Never you mind that."

Thank you, Joy.

[SirFozzie]

Hee Hee. Thanks Joy, that's the first smile that any of this crap has brought to me.

[One]

So, Luke, I hope you will forgive me for suggesting some language here. "I'm sorry, Law, I shouldn't have implied that you were lying, it's just that I've looked at my mail archive and didn't find anything, and I really can't remember you telling me. If it still matters to you, would you let me know how you told me, so I can check, if possible? Or was it accompanied by something else that might jog my memory?" And then, Luke, you would email Law and have a frank and respectful private discussion, seeking to resolve any dispute between you, where no posturing before the entire internet readership is involved on any side, and no need for any pretense. And if either of you didn't trust direct contact like that, then you would involve a mediator who accepts being an intermediary in confidence -- if either of you thought it of sufficient importance. And if you don't, then why in the world would either of you go so far as to call the other a liar?

Did you read what he wrote? This isn't a polite good faith misunderstanding, Abd.

He should produce details to back up his attack in public. If these details are not forthcoming, I cannot intelligently respond in any more detail than I already have. So, The_undertow, please produce whatever you can. Complete emails (with headers), logs, diffs, whatever--or best yet, a really good apology.

What's the contradiction? Law/TU says that he told Luke. Luke says that he first learned from IRC.

Wrong. He says that I knew first. He's says he told me and that I knew before anyone else, which is false and does directly contradict me. He also makes assertions on my motives--it's simply an attack. Nothing more or less.

This post has been edited by One:

[Cedric]

So basically this whole tragedy summed up is:
. . . .

Is this the gist of what all happened?

More or less, without getting into that idiotic sideshow about historical analogies.

Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things;
Some shall be pardon'd, and some punished;
For never was a story of more wiki-woe
Than this of ArbCom and The Undertow.

Play us out, Bette Midler:

. . . and apologies to Will

[A Horse With No Name]

Rlevse: "I'll hang everyone who knew about this. If you don't believe me, here's my Eagle badge."
Mob: "That's a Girl Scout badge."
Rlevse: "Never you mind that."

Thank you, Joy.

As funny as Joy is, the real McCoy is even funnier:

"Demanding the arbs answer "When did you know about Law" without any evidence of a particular arb being culpable is a witch hunt. Why aren't all those who !voted in his RFA being asked to answer? Just for the record, I did not know til this all blew up a few days ago." Rlvese, 13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)"

Evidence of culpability: Casliber immediately acknowledged being aware of what transpired and resigned from Arbcom. John V. abruptly announced that he was informed of this fact six weeks earlier, but claimed that he wasn't certain if he read the e-mail that provided the information -- he remains on Arbcom despite his admission of incompetence. Daniel, the Arbcom clerk whose off-Wiki harassment of Law triggered this event, obviously knew of the Law/TU connection prior to his role in outing Law -- but said nothing. He was briefly blocked, but was then unblocked because of his alleged invaluable role in "clerking" the Piotrus-based Eastern European snoozefest.

Law/TU has asserted that Luke was aware of his identity -- Luke has denied it and we are awaiting Law/TU to respond. Risker tried to have Luke's Arb poll on Law/TU awareness removed, arguing that it made no sense for a "recused" arbitrator to ask the question -- and she has refused to answer the poll directly, claiming (without a diff) to have answered the question already. (I am not certain if she is referring to her remarks where she acknowledges cherry picking which sock cases she prefers to prosecute and which she would allow to violate policy).

And if we are citing the Divine Miss M, the only way we can truly appreciate this story is "from a distance"! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[victim of censorship]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

There are bascily four types of Wikipeidia Administrators...


LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.


A Wikpeidan Admin will have at lest one or more of these basic stated traits.

So, to the Wikpedian admins posting here, which one are you???

I'm a bit puzzled by "THIEF". Could you just explain that one a little more?

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

WP:OTHERDOUCHEBAGSEXIST?

We're all human beings, none of us perfect. Not even me, and certainly not you.

To STEAL some ones intellectual property, dignity, reputation.

[Abd]

Is this the gist of what all happened?

Needs more cowbell.

I was going to say that the part about having sex with dead horses was left out, but maybe the cowbell would be enough, depending on what is done with it.

[Cla68]

If Wikipedia ever wants to have meaningful governance, it needs to hold people accountable for their actions. And that includes identifying who dropped the ball in situations like these, and dealing with those people appropriately.

This is true, but it doesn't mean that you need to publicly humiliate or fire the people who made a poor decision or a mistake. Usually, some additional training, counsel, and discussion should help them learn the lesson that needs to be learned. The incident and follow-up actions should be documented, however, in case any of the people involved continue to make the same mistakes.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Moulton]

Well done, Joy and Cedric. The comic opera is shaping up nicely.

[Cla68]

Well done, Joy and Cedric.

I agree.

[Random832]

Gmail does not forget, and I checked that because memory can be feeble. He did not tell me.

I'd appreciate an answer to Lara's question. He claims to have told me before anyone else, and it certainly does beg the question why. Better yet, I'd appreciate if The_undertow stop lying.

There is someone else who occasionally shows up on IRC who uses the name "One".

It is possible in theory that he may have revealed all this to someone he believed to be you.

[MBisanz]

Gmail does not forget, and I checked that because memory can be feeble. He did not tell me.

I'd appreciate an answer to Lara's question. He claims to have told me before anyone else, and it certainly does beg the question why. Better yet, I'd appreciate if The_undertow stop lying.

There is someone else who occasionally shows up on IRC who uses the name "One".

It is possible in theory that he may have revealed all this to someone he believed to be you.

WP One = IRC One
WR One = WP Cool Hand Luke
WR One != IRC One



Also, to the best of my knowledge, Cool Hand Luke has never been on IRC, at least not in -en, -en-admins, or any of the other channels I am aware of.

[LaraLove]

Ok, just to return to the subject for a second. Lara, I don´t want to get involved with the dramah over at WP, but just my 2 cent: you have acted, and are still acting, like an damn idiot.
Yes: Idiot.

Something extremely basic: truly supporting your friends does not mean that you support them in *everything*. Specifically, it does not mean that you should support them when they are doing wrong/stupid things (like we all do, at times). If you had told the Undertow to stay put during his 9 month block, then perhaps retire that account, come back as a fresh user....Hey: we would have avoided all this dramah/tears. Your short-term thinking did not do the Undertow...or anyone else...any good at all. Face up to that. (why do I feel I´m constantly telling people that 2+2=4? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ) (And why on earth did you not think of the obvious? That when people come back as banned/blocked users, they are always open for "blackmail"...or "pressure""...call it what you want. Which is exactly what happened here, if I have understood correctly.)

If there is one word I would use to characterize your behaviour it is unprofessional. And yes, I do expect, no, demand, that anyone in an elected position (even in on online gaming community like WP) act with a minimum of professionalism. All your "standing up for friends -no matter what" makes me go (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) ....it was watching SV and Jayjg protect their "friends" on WP, no matter what, which nearly drove me off WP (and onto WR) years ago. WP-rules were simply not for their "friends." And now you come, makeing the same type of argument? Again: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

I see that many of the people over at WP who are now after your hide are people who were gunning for you earlier. Which is to be expected. You have handed them tons of free ammo. Though reading some of the comments there.....is like reading, say, a lecture from Bill Clinton on "the importance of marital fidelity when elected to high office". Look who´s talking! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

But, that aside, Lara, you have also greatly disappointed some who trusted you.

PS: I would have supported a temporary desysopping of you, for say, 3-6 months.
PPS: keep up the good BLP-work, that is great.
PPPS: sorry if I come off as unbearably pompous/mouldy... I´m old enough to be you mum, sorry if I sound like one.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Thanks, Adversary. I posted my response to the RFAR which I think clearly articulates my position. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...t_by_Jennavecia

Blah, blah, blah...

Needs more homoeroticism.

Someone better ping RMHED -- I think Shankbone is compromising his account. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Ping!!!

Is that some fucking euphemism?

Don't you get euphemistic with me you fucking cunt.

Simmer down.

So basically this whole tragedy summed up is:

lawl. That was brilliant.

Only error I see is that Keegan notified JV earlier, by about six weeks, but the email was overlooked. Ironholds notified AC last week. Otherwise, seems spot on. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Mr. Mystery]

Yawn.... Haven't been overly involved, but I do hope Lara and the Undertoe make it out of this one. Or, failing that, take more than a few of their "friends" with them.

* Just read your statement. Thank you Lara that was very professional. [/sarcasm]

This post has been edited by Mr. Mystery:

[Deodand]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

There are bascily four types of Wikipeidia Administrators...


LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.


A Wikpeidan Admin will have at lest one or more of these basic stated traits.

So, to the Wikpedian admins posting here, which one are you???

I'm a bit puzzled by "THIEF". Could you just explain that one a little more?

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

WP:OTHERDOUCHEBAGSEXIST?

We're all human beings, none of us perfect. Not even me, and certainly not you.

To STEAL some ones intellectual property, dignity, reputation.

Firstly, "someone's". Secondly, "steal" implies that the Wikipedian now has the dignity and reputation. Ever met one? You'll find its not the case. Afaik intellectual property is not/has not been stolen other than some copyvio, which is normally got rid of as fast as possible. I appreciate that with the massive amounts of fury searing and melting through your synapses at every mention of the word "Wikipedia", cogent argument is difficult for you, but please, try. For the childrens sake - after all, thats what you claim to be protecting, isn't it? Think of the children, and the poor example your shitty prose and critical thinking sets for them.

Daniel, the Arbcom clerk whose off-Wiki harassment of Law triggered this event, obviously knew of the Law/TU connection prior to his role in outing Law -- but said nothing. He was briefly blocked, but was then unblocked because of his alleged invaluable role in "clerking" the Piotrus-based Eastern European snoozefest.

Actually from the logs I've been given Daniel was unaware of the fact beforehand. Ironholds told him with the intention of having it reported and...it was reported.

[No one of consequence]

Daniel, the Arbcom clerk whose off-Wiki harassment of Law triggered this event, obviously knew of the Law/TU connection prior to his role in outing Law -- but said nothing. He was briefly blocked, but was then unblocked because of his alleged invaluable role in "clerking" the Piotrus-based Eastern European snoozefest.

Actually from the logs I've been given Daniel was unaware of the fact beforehand. Ironholds told him with the intention of having it reported and...it was reported.

Nor did the unblock have anything to do with the Arbitration case he was assigned to at the time.

[victim of censorship]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

There are basically four types of Wikipeidia Administrators...


LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.


A Wikipedia Admin will have at lest one or more of these basic stated traits.

So, to the Wikpedian admins posting here, which one are you???

I'm a bit puzzled by "THIEF". Could you just explain that one a little more?

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

WP:OTHERDOUCHEBAGSEXIST?

We're all human beings, none of us perfect. Not even me, and certainly not you.

To STEAL some ones intellectual property, dignity, reputation.

Firstly, "someone's". Secondly, "steal" implies that the Wikipedian now has the dignity and reputation. Ever met one? You'll find its not the case. Afaik intellectual property is not/has not been stolen other than some copyvio, which is normally got rid of as fast as possible. I appreciate that with the massive amounts of fury searing and melting through your synapses at every mention of the word "Wikipedia", cogent argument is difficult for you, but please, try. For the childrens sake - after all, thats what you claim to be protecting, isn't it? Think of the children, and the poor example your shitty prose and critical thinking sets for them.

Daniel, the Arbcom clerk whose off-Wiki harassment of Law triggered this event, obviously knew of the Law/TU connection prior to his role in outing Law -- but said nothing. He was briefly blocked, but was then unblocked because of his alleged invaluable role in "clerking" the Piotrus-based Eastern European snoozefest.

Actually from the logs I've been given Daniel was unaware of the fact beforehand. Ironholds told him with the intention of having it reported and...it was reported.

See these links for an overview of the concept of "Theft" by Wikipedia

An explanation of Wiki stealing other people's work


Death by Wikipeidia


Theft of reputation by the WIKIPEDIOT EMPIRE


Cult of the Wikipediot hive stealing

Leave you with this quot.....

“What you may not realize is that what is free is actually costing us a fortune,” Mr. Keen writes. “The new winners — Google, YouTube, MySpace, Craigslist, and the hundreds of start-ups hungry for a piece of the Web 2.0 pie — are unlikely to fill the shoes of the industries they are helping to undermine, in terms of products produced, jobs created, revenue generated or benefits conferred. By stealing away our eyeballs, the blogs and wikis are decimating the publishing, music and news-gathering industries that created the original content those Web sites ‘aggregate.’ Our culture is essentially cannibalizing its young, destroying the very sources of the content they crave.” Mr. Keen quoted..

NY times Books of the Times
The Cult of the Amateur

By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Published: June 29, 2007"

"

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Deodand]

Daniel, the Arbcom clerk whose off-Wiki harassment of Law triggered this event, obviously knew of the Law/TU connection prior to his role in outing Law -- but said nothing. He was briefly blocked, but was then unblocked because of his alleged invaluable role in "clerking" the Piotrus-based Eastern European snoozefest.

Actually from the logs I've been given Daniel was unaware of the fact beforehand. Ironholds told him with the intention of having it reported and...it was reported.

Nor did the unblock have anything to do with the Arbitration case he was assigned to at the time.

Well yes, that too. Note, Thatcher (from your posts to Daniel's talkpage) that the "revelation" that Law=The Undertow and the decision to go to ArbCom was not directly related to the move discussion.

[Peter Damian]

Nor did the unblock have anything to do with the Arbitration case he was assigned to at the time.

Sorry this reads heavily like irony. You mean, it did have something to do with it?

[A Horse With No Name]

Nor did the unblock have anything to do with the Arbitration case he was assigned to at the time.

Sorry this reads heavily like irony. You mean, it did have something to do with it?

As per Luke's request to GWH asking that Daniel be unblocked due to his supposedly invaluable role in "clerking" the Eastern European brouhaha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geo...rt#Daniel_block -- though Thatcher claimed the unblock was based on WP:CIVIL overkill. For the record, Daniel never requested an unblock -- Thatcher took his own initiative.

In any event, Daniel viewed the block in sarcastic terms: "If I get "blocked" over something like this, it'll simply be a weekend in the middle of the week, which is something I've been screaming at my university and place of employment to implement anyways." No further comment needed.

The moral of the story: off-Wiki harassment is perfectly acceptable if you are part of the Arbcom crowd or if your friends are connected to that clique.

Actually from the logs I've been given Daniel was unaware of the fact beforehand. Ironholds told him with the intention of having it reported and...it was reported.

Daniel has never acknowledged, one way or the other, whether he was aware of Law/TU before Ironholds went to town. Knowing IRC is logged and that logs get passed around, I wouldn't put it past him to play dumb. Of course, he may not be playing dumb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Since the whole thing broke, he has been conspicuously absent from WP (though he has peeked in here, as confirmed by the "who's peeking in" function at the bottom of the page).

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[A Horse With No Name]

As an FYI, with Mr. McWeenie claiming that far-reaching Bathrobe Cabal members are involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFA..._by_Will_Beback -- nice seeing EVula dragged into this!

Funny, that some negative people cited how a lot of the players involved in this comic opera were also at the recent Nashville meet-up. What is not mentioned, though, is that an Arbcom member was also at that meet-up: FloNight. Now, if one believes the Arb poll, then Flo didn't know.

If people are going to accuse the Nashville meet-up participants of conspiring, then they have to include an Arbcom member of being in on the plot and lying about it. Any takers? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[No one of consequence]

Nor did the unblock have anything to do with the Arbitration case he was assigned to at the time.

Sorry this reads heavily like irony. You mean, it did have something to do with it?

As per Luke's request to GWH asking that Daniel be unblocked due to his supposedly invaluable role in "clerking" the Eastern European brouhaha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geo...rt#Daniel_block -- though Thatcher claimed the unblock was based on WP:CIVIL overkill. For the record, Daniel never requested an unblock -- Thatcher took his own initiative.

Actually, I never read Luke's request to GWH. I noticed the comment about "epic win" and posted my disapproval. Later I noticed he had been blocked, apparently for refusing to withdraw the "epic win" comment. My reason for unblocking is exactly what I posted on Daniel's talk page.

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually, I never read Luke's request to GWH. I noticed the comment about "epic win" and posted my disapproval. Later I noticed he had been blocked, apparently for refusing to withdraw the "epic win" comment. My reason for unblocking is exactly what I posted on Daniel's talk page.

No reason to doubt your version. The problem, however, is that we have a request from an Arbcom member who is trying to finagle most favored status to an unrepentant Arbcom clerk, under the absurd notion that he cannot remain blocked because he is invaluable to "clerking" a grueling Eastern European investigation. The sad thing is that Luke tells GWH "I'd honestly also like to see some acknowledgment from Daniel that it was an inappropriate remark" -- Daniel has never apologized for his actions and he is still an Arbcom clerk, working with the full consent and permission of Arbcom.

[Daniel]

Daniel has never acknowledged, one way or the other, whether he was aware of Law/TU before Ironholds went to town. Knowing IRC is logged and that logs get passed around, I wouldn't put it past him to play dumb. Of course, he may not be playing dumb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I didn't know until the evening that the issue broke. I informed the Committee within an hour of me finding out. I didn't know prior to that, nor did I even suspect it.

And that's about all I'll be saying on the matter. Well, except for the fact that already-lengthened-by-Labour-Day-on-Monday-public-holiday weekends are smashing when they start Thursday morning. Future blocks or not (hopefully the latter), I think I might do that more often.

Now, back to watching the Aussies play in the champions trophy final...

This post has been edited by Daniel:

[LaraLove]

* Just read your statement. Thank you Lara that was very professional. [/sarcasm]

I care a lot about your opinion.

Well yes, that too. Note, Thatcher (from your posts to Daniel's talkpage) that the "revelation" that Law=The Undertow and the decision to go to ArbCom was not directly related to the move discussion.

Bullshit.

Daniel has never acknowledged, one way or the other, whether he was aware of Law/TU before Ironholds went to town. Knowing IRC is logged and that logs get passed around, I wouldn't put it past him to play dumb. Of course, he may not be playing dumb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Since the whole thing broke, he has been conspicuously absent from WP (though he has peeked in here, as confirmed by the "who's peeking in" function at the bottom of the page).

I don't think Daniel knew before Ironholds told him. Daniel is, by the way, a BRC member.

As an FYI, with Mr. McWeenie claiming that far-reaching Bathrobe Cabal members are involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFA..._by_Will_Beback -- nice seeing EVula dragged into this!

Funny, that some negative people cited how a lot of the players involved in this comic opera were also at the recent Nashville meet-up. What is not mentioned, though, is that an Arbcom member was also at that meet-up: FloNight. Now, if one believes the Arb poll, then Flo didn't know.

If people are going to accuse the Nashville meet-up participants of conspiring, then they have to include an Arbcom member of being in on the plot and lying about it. Any takers? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Yea, I had to respond to this. It's ridiculous. The BRC is almost two years old. There are people who joined that I never knew. I didn't know them before they joined and I didn't get to know them after. There are some I didn't particularly care for when they joined and some I don't particularly care for now. There is a group of us that are friends, and we all tried to meetup in Nashville, but it didn't work out. The tightest of those in our group are the ones that helped Chet out. Can't explain it, but a bond formed from that.

But yes, not only do they have to include an Arb and her husband, they also have to include Keegan (who's the one that told ArbCom to begin with, two weeks before the meetup), and an IP editor. What a joke.

Actually, I never read Luke's request to GWH. I noticed the comment about "epic win" and posted my disapproval. Later I noticed he had been blocked, apparently for refusing to withdraw the "epic win" comment. My reason for unblocking is exactly what I posted on Daniel's talk page.

No reason to doubt your version. The problem, however, is that we have a request from an Arbcom member who is trying to finagle most favored status to an unrepentant Arbcom clerk, under the absurd notion that he cannot remain blocked because he is invaluable to "clerking" a grueling Eastern European investigation. The sad thing is that Luke tells GWH "I'd honestly also like to see some acknowledgment from Daniel that it was an inappropriate remark" -- Daniel has never apologized for his actions and he is still an Arbcom clerk, working with the full consent and permission of Arbcom.

Is it even worth the effort to point out the irony?

[CharlotteWebb]

There is someone else who occasionally shows up on IRC who uses the name "One".

It is possible in theory that he may have revealed all this to someone he believed to be you.

Ah yes, the SushiGeek defense... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

If people are going to accuse the Nashville meet-up participants of conspiring, then they have to include an Arbcom member of being in on the plot and lying about it. Any takers? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Is that the one you tried to invite yourself to? Sounds like sour grapes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

If Wikipedia ever wants to have meaningful governance, it needs to hold people accountable for their actions. And that includes identifying who dropped the ball in situations like these, and dealing with those people appropriately.

This is true, but it doesn't mean that you need to publicly humiliate or fire the people who made a poor decision or a mistake. Usually, some additional training, counsel, and discussion should help them learn the lesson that needs to be learned. The incident and follow-up actions should be documented, however, in case any of the people involved continue to make the same mistakes.

Is anybody else scratching their heads at the arbitrator comments at RFAR? It's looking like they're drafting a summary motion instead of conducting an actual case.

This could go one of two ways, neither of which promises to be very edifying:
1. Actual desysopping, banning, etc. (which would be unwise without a full case)
2. Cautions, admonishments, and other bromides.

The latter seems more likely. Generally speaking, counsel isn't a bad thing. But the community is quite capable of doing that themselves (remember conduct RfC?). In this instance particularly, the community would carry more credibility.

The long term result of ineffectual summary motions is political incentive to bypass real dispute resolution, and erosion of the Committee's credibility.

Does the Committee suffer from the Abilene paradox? Collective amnesia? Or am I missing something?

[LaraLove]

Is anybody else scratching their heads at the arbitrator comments at RFAR? It's looking like they're drafting a summary motion instead of conducting an actual case.

This could go one of two ways, neither of which promises to be very edifying:
1. Actual desysopping, banning, etc. (which would be unwise without a full case)
2. Cautions, admonishments, and other bromides.

The latter seems more likely. Generally speaking, counsel isn't a bad thing. But the community is quite capable of doing that themselves (remember conduct RfC?). In this instance particularly, the community would carry more credibility.

The long term result of ineffectual summary motions is political incentive to bypass real dispute resolution, and erosion of the Committee's credibility.

Does the Committee suffer from the Abilene paradox? Collective amnesia? Or am I missing something?

RFCs are generally worthless anyway. Having one now would serve no purpose whatsoever but to prolong the drama. We've already seen what the community thinks. I be damned if I'm going to read it all over again on another page. Waste of time and kb. My statement is up. Let ArbCom do what they're going to do.

A case is pointless. As Flo or Coren, I forget which, pointed out, there's nothing to build a case with. There was no conspiracy. A case, like an RFC at this point would be a waste of time. Let 'em do it by motion. If I lose my bit, I'll know it when my tabs are gone.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Is anybody else scratching their heads at the arbitrator comments at RFAR? It's looking like they're drafting a summary motion instead of conducting an actual case.

This could go one of two ways, neither of which promises to be very edifying:
1. Actual desysopping, banning, etc. (which would be unwise without a full case)
2. Cautions, admonishments, and other bromides.

The latter seems more likely. Generally speaking, counsel isn't a bad thing. But the community is quite capable of doing that themselves (remember conduct RfC?). In this instance particularly, the community would carry more credibility.

The long term result of ineffectual summary motions is political incentive to bypass real dispute resolution, and erosion of the Committee's credibility.

Does the Committee suffer from the Abilene paradox? Collective amnesia? Or am I missing something?

RFCs are generally worthless anyway. Having one now would serve no purpose whatsoever but to prolong the drama. We've already seen what the community thinks. I be damned if I'm going to read it all over again on another page. Waste of time and kb. My statement is up. Let ArbCom do what they're going to do.

A case is pointless. As Flo or Coren, I forget which, pointed out, there's nothing to build a case with. There was no conspiracy. A case, like an RFC at this point would be a waste of time. Let 'em do it by motion. If I lose my bit, I'll know it when my tabs are gone.

If you had it to do over, knowing what you know now, would you change anything?

[LaraLove]

If you had it to do over, knowing what you know now, would you change anything?

That question isn't really relevant. I don't think that's the question to ask to get the information you want, but I'll answer anyway. Knowing what I know now, I can see that the best course of action would have been to pester the AC until they responded. There was a consensus forming to accept his request. I think that was in September 2008. A few reminders would probably have bumped up his request and it would have seen some action instead of falling unanswered into archives. With that, all drama would have been avoided, he would have again been editing as the_undertow, and there would have been no deception.

[A Horse With No Name]

Is that the one you tried to invite yourself to? Sounds like sour grapes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Honey, the idea of being witness to Lara at poolside can drive the sane and serene into extraordinary heights of libido-fueled frenzy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

...the sane and serene...

Or so you're told?

[A Horse With No Name]

Is anybody else scratching their heads at the arbitrator comments at RFAR? It's looking like they're drafting a summary motion instead of conducting an actual case.

It's obvious they don't want anything to do with this case. The attempt to scapegoat GC and Lara completely failed the moment Cas stepped down and John V. admitted having knowledge of the facts six weeks earlier. Not helping was Luke's recusal, which openly accused Law/TU of deceitful lying -- those opinions were conspicuously not echoed by the other Arbcom members on WP. Whatever moral authority Arbcom possessed to investigate the matter evaporated, and it is impossible for them to conduct an impartial case -- especially one that involves self-policing.

...the sane and serene...

Or so you're told?

Grrrrr, I looooooooooooooooove it when you look askew at me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

If you had it to do over, knowing what you know now, would you change anything?

That question isn't really relevant. I don't think that's the question to ask to get the information you want, but I'll answer anyway. Knowing what I know now, I can see that the best course of action would have been to pester the AC until they responded. There was a consensus forming to accept his request. I think that was in September 2008. A few reminders would probably have bumped up his request and it would have seen some action instead of falling unanswered into archives. With that, all drama would have been avoided, he would have again been editing as the_undertow, and there would have been no deception.

That's a pretty good answer.

It's also one of the reasons I bristle at the summary motion idea. Your dilemma was harder than mine, but here's more background; they're related closely enough. In the immediate aftermath of the eight month fall through the cracks I dealt with (see much earlier in this thread), I wrote up a proposal to the Committee that would have devolved most ban reviews to the Community on an open basis. It was a structured plan, but its details aren't pertinent to this discussion.

We'll take it under advisement was the Committee's bland response (they didn't seem to get the basic idea that the community really could review community-based bans on its own initiative). The Committee already had at least two other internal proposals to improve ban reviews--both of which were very top-down--and hadn't acted upon either of them. Very frustrating, especially when they implement no actual reform for many months afterward. The only reason I didn't bring my proposal directly to the community was because the fellow who finally got unbanned had been through the mill: he needed a quiet return. When ArbCom finally implemented something that purports to be reform it's a top-down system that reduces the number of eyes on an appeal--when more eyes rather than less is what's really needed.

Really recently, they've started to publish some of the appeals. Don't let that fool you: I still know multiple appeals that they've sat on for long periods of time without publishing. They don't know who's talking to me.

I wonder whether the Committee's summary motions will acknowledge their own share in the debacle: neglecting an appeal was an organizational failure, as opposed to the later failure to relay information that was one single arbitrator's error. That analysis doesn't vindicate you, Lara, but my experience with this Committee is that they're more interested in deflecting attention from their shortcomings than in setting things right. There is a bureaucratic expedience to pointing fingers, and this doesn't seem to be your week.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[No one of consequence]

Is anybody else scratching their heads at the arbitrator comments at RFAR? It's looking like they're drafting a summary motion instead of conducting an actual case.

The best use of the arbitration case format (and yes, there are occasional well-heard cases) is to allow the parties to gather the evidence in one place, give them the chance to respond to each other's evidence, and give the parties and the community an opportunity to provide feedback to the arbitrators about the evidence should be interpreted and what the remedies should be.

Here, the facts are either known (the admins who have admitted to knowing about Law) or unknowable (since there is no mediawiki extension to scan someone's hard drive for incriminating emails and chat logs), and the community has given more than enough feedback. The only element of a formal case that is missing from the request page is the votes on the proposed decision.

[Kelly Martin]

Here, the facts are either known (the admins who have admitted to knowing about Law) or unknowable (since there is no mediawiki extension to scan someone's hard drive for incriminating emails and chat logs), and the community has given more than enough feedback. The only element of a formal case that is missing from the request page is the votes on the proposed decision.

The formal case format that Fred was so fond of was a great way to increase drama. Most cases that reach the ArbCom are suitable for summary adjudication, perhaps with an appeal to a slower, more deliberate process. The ArbCom has long been enthralled with the trappings of a court, and its process has been deliberately overblown without any good reason therefore. It's especially silly that they go to such lengths to set forth principles and such while at the same time refusing to be bound by precedent, which is the only good reason for setting forth such detailed arguments.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Here, the facts are either known (the admins who have admitted to knowing about Law) or unknowable (since there is no mediawiki extension to scan someone's hard drive for incriminating emails and chat logs), and the community has given more than enough feedback. The only element of a formal case that is missing from the request page is the votes on the proposed decision.

The formal case format that Fred was so fond of was a great way to increase drama. Most cases that reach the ArbCom are suitable for summary adjudication, perhaps with an appeal to a slower, more deliberate process. The ArbCom has long been enthralled with the trappings of a court, and its process has been deliberately overblown without any good reason therefore. It's especially silly that they go to such lengths to set forth principles and such while at the same time refusing to be bound by precedent, which is the only good reason for setting forth such detailed arguments.

But the shortcoming of that approach is that it creates an incentive to bypass all rational discussion and dispute resolution. Think about it; observe who filed this case. That individual could have dealt with the matter at user talk pages, or sought consensus for clearer policy, or headed to conduct RfC. Instead he turned ANI dysfunctional and darted to RFAR (which frames the case's focus upon Lara and places his own actions outside scrutiny). Watch ANI and RFAR over the course of a year or two; see which individuals do this repeatedly. The same names do arise.

[LaraLove]

Grrrrr, I looooooooooooooooove it when you look askew at me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

I didn't realize horses growled.

But the shortcoming of that approach is that it creates an incentive to bypass all rational discussion and dispute resolution. Think about it; observe who filed this case. That individual could have dealt with the matter at user talk pages, or sought consensus for clearer policy, or headed to conduct RfC. Instead he turned ANI dysfunctional and darted to RFAR (which frames the case's focus upon Lara and places his own actions outside scrutiny). Watch ANI and RFAR over the course of a year or two; see which individuals do this repeatedly. The same names do arise.

Do you recall how the_undertow's case came about? It started at AN/I and was fast-tracked to RFAR.
If ArbCom passes a motions to strip me of my bit and Jehochman requests the removal on Meta, we'll have come full-circle. Not that I would be opposed to that, but surely others would get their thongs up in a wad.

Blocking someone on behalf of the AC that you're not a sitting member of, following the closure of the case you requested is a bit more extreme, though.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

But the shortcoming of that approach is that it creates an incentive to bypass all rational discussion and dispute resolution. Think about it; observe who filed this case. That individual could have dealt with the matter at user talk pages, or sought consensus for clearer policy, or headed to conduct RfC. Instead he turned ANI dysfunctional and darted to RFAR (which frames the case's focus upon Lara and places his own actions outside scrutiny). Watch ANI and RFAR over the course of a year or two; see which individuals do this repeatedly. The same names do arise.

Do you recall how the_undertow's case came about? It started at AN/I and was fast-tracked to RFAR.

If ArbCom passes a motions to strip me of my bit and Jehochman requests the removal on Meta, we'll have come full-circle. Not that I would be opposed to that, but surely others would get their thongs up in a wad.

No need to remind me of that sequence. Seeing it unfold was why I offered to certify an RfC against either of you. On the merits of the principle at stake I happen to agree with him, but I'm appalled at the way he's gone about it.

[LaraLove]

And this proves that GlassCobra and I are the chosen scapegoats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ernate_accounts

[SB_Johnny]

But the shortcoming of that approach is that it creates an incentive to bypass all rational discussion and dispute resolution. Think about it; observe who filed this case. That individual could have dealt with the matter at user talk pages, or sought consensus for clearer policy, or headed to conduct RfC. Instead he turned ANI dysfunctional and darted to RFAR (which frames the case's focus upon Lara and places his own actions outside scrutiny). Watch ANI and RFAR over the course of a year or two; see which individuals do this repeatedly. The same names do arise.

Do you recall how the_undertow's case came about? It started at AN/I and was fast-tracked to RFAR.

If ArbCom passes a motions to strip me of my bit and Jehochman requests the removal on Meta, we'll have come full-circle. Not that I would be opposed to that, but surely others would get their thongs up in a wad.

No need to remind me of that sequence. Seeing it unfold was why I offered to certify an RfC against either of you. On the merits of the principle at stake I happen to agree with him, but I'm appalled at the way he's gone about it.

I was rather appalled that he started a *second* case when the drama bladder seemed to have emptied on the first. It seems to have disappeared now though (I have no idea why, but I really don't know much about how Arbcom functions and/or is supposed to function).

Maybe someone should start a "research project" on Wikiversity tracing how Arb cases make their way from the various noticeboards and such to the committee itself.

BTW, I had no idea they rejected the idea of precedent. That's just stupid, if true.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

But the shortcoming of that approach is that it creates an incentive to bypass all rational discussion and dispute resolution. Think about it; observe who filed this case. That individual could have dealt with the matter at user talk pages, or sought consensus for clearer policy, or headed to conduct RfC. Instead he turned ANI dysfunctional and darted to RFAR (which frames the case's focus upon Lara and places his own actions outside scrutiny). Watch ANI and RFAR over the course of a year or two; see which individuals do this repeatedly. The same names do arise.

Do you recall how the_undertow's case came about? It started at AN/I and was fast-tracked to RFAR.

If ArbCom passes a motions to strip me of my bit and Jehochman requests the removal on Meta, we'll have come full-circle. Not that I would be opposed to that, but surely others would get their thongs up in a wad.

No need to remind me of that sequence. Seeing it unfold was why I offered to certify an RfC against either of you. On the merits of the principle at stake I happen to agree with him, but I'm appalled at the way he's gone about it.

I was rather appalled that he started a *second* case when the drama bladder seemed to have emptied on the first. It seems to have disappeared now though (I have no idea why, but I really don't know much about how Arbcom functions and/or is supposed to function).

Maybe someone should start a "research project" on Wikiversity tracing how Arb cases make their way from the various noticeboards and such to the committee itself.

BTW, I had no idea they rejected the idea of precedent. That's just stupid, if true.

They moved his second proposal to RFAR talk because it wasn't really formulated in an operable manner.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[Moulton]

Alienation and scapegoating is the fourth phase of the generic five phase model of WikiDrama.

[Cedric]

And this proves that GlassCobra and I are the chosen scapegoats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ernate_accounts

Yep:

Some of my colleagues may want to suggest more than those three motions, but I think that 1 and one of the 2 should allow us to close this matter. — Coren (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But then, surely most of us here saw that coming. What I am waiting to see is if anyone gets blocked, banned, desysopped or otherwise hung out dry for criticizing this "closure".

[No one of consequence]

BTW, I had no idea they rejected the idea of precedent. That's just stupid, if true.

They just don't want to be bound by a one-size-fits-all approach and harangued by disgruntled combatants, "Last year in RFAR/Smith you banned Smith for a year but now in RFAR/Jones you are only giving Jones a topic ban." In practice, Arbcom follows precedent all the time, especially with respect to general case principles, although remedies and sanctions tend to be fairly consistent as well.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[Apathetic]

And this proves that GlassCobra and I are the chosen scapegoats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ernate_accounts

Jayron32 added

[cyofee]

And this proves that GlassCobra and I are the chosen scapegoats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ernate_accounts

Who else should be desysopped?

[Appleby]

WP One = IRC One
WR One = WP Cool Hand Luke
WR One != IRC One

A clear violation of WP:SYNTH. It's also faulty logic unless you can prove

WP One != WP Cool Hand Luke

[Deodand]

Well yes, that too. Note, Thatcher (from your posts to Daniel's talkpage) that the "revelation" that Law=The Undertow and the decision to go to ArbCom was not directly related to the move discussion.

Bullshit.

The page move led to the decision to go to arbcom. This is acceptable. The idea that the user in question just went "he won't move a page, lets get him desysopped as punishment" is not acceptable. I found the IRC log of the PM, btw; starts:

01[12:26] <Ironholds> just a ping that I'm setting up a talkpage discussion now (in case you were doing the same and we'd ec)
[12:26] <The_Law> thats funny because i don't give a fuck about you
[12:27] <The_Law> i will pwn u every time. and that sucks.

Kind of undermines the idea that Ironholds went "waah, he won't move my page! Blam goes his Mighty Tools!"

[One]

And when did you tell Luke? And why?

Hey Lara, if you could get your good friend to answer these reasonable questions (along with any other supporting evidence), I would appreciate it.

[Peter Damian]

And this proves that GlassCobra and I are the chosen scapegoats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ernate_accounts

Jayron32 added

How do we know that Jayron knew?

[Wiki Witch of the West]

BTW, I had no idea they rejected the idea of precedent. That's just stupid, if true.

They just don't want to be bound by a one-size-fits-all approach and harangued by disgruntled combatants, "Last year in RFAR/Smith[/] you banned Smith for a year but now in [i]RFAR/Jones you are only giving Jones a topic ban." In practice, Arbcom follows precedent all the time, especially with respect to general case principles, although remedies and sanctions tend to be fairly consistent as well.

The usual line is that they aren't bound by precedent. The theory behind it, at its best, is that it allows them to tailor responses to particular situations. As the precedents accumulate, two things happen though. One is that a decreasing number of arbitrators actually know what the precedents are (the old saying comes to mind about people who fail to learn the lessons of history being doomed to repeat them); the other is that it's politically convenient to cherry pick one's precedents. One guaranteed way to make oneself unpopular with the arbitrators is to know about five dozen arbitration cases well enough to quote them.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[Apathetic]

Jayron32 added

How do we know that Jayron knew?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=317425028

[A Horse With No Name]

Jayron32 added

How do we know that Jayron knew?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=317425028

Jayron deserves a big Horsey kiss -- and more -- for being upright and honest.

The page move led to the decision to go to arbcom. This is acceptable. The idea that the user in question just went "he won't move a page, lets get him desysopped as punishment" is not acceptable. I found the IRC log of the PM, btw; starts:

01[12:26] <Ironholds> just a ping that I'm setting up a talkpage discussion now (in case you were doing the same and we'd ec)
[12:26] <The_Law> thats funny because i don't give a fuck about you
[12:27] <The_Law> i will pwn u every time. and that sucks.

Kind of undermines the idea that Ironholds went "waah, he won't move my page! Blam goes his Mighty Tools!"

It would be helpful if we were all working from the full log and not selected sections that may or may not be out of context.

As the precedents accumulate, two things happen though. One is that a decreasing number of arbitrators actually know what the precedents are (the old saying comes to mind about people who fail to learn the lessons of history being doomed to repeat them); the other is that it's politically convenient to cherry pick one's precedents.

Arbcom should get a barnstar from WikiProject Agriculture -- they have done an amazing job with cherry picking. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

They just don't want to be bound by a one-size-fits-all approach and harangued by disgruntled combatants, "Last year in RFAR/Smith[/] you banned Smith for a year but now in [i]RFAR/Jones you are only giving Jones a topic ban." In practice, Arbcom follows precedent all the time, especially with respect to general case principles, although remedies and sanctions tend to be fairly consistent as well.

In other words, they want to be bound by precedent only when it's convenient to them. I think this is called "having your cake and eating it too".

The principle that precedent must either be followed, or distinguished, is one of the cornerstones of equitable jurisprudence in a society based on common-law principles. Wikipedia's rejection of this principle underscores its lack of commitment to equitable governance.

[A Horse With No Name]

Who else should be desysopped?

Should we go by age, height or alphabetical order? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[No one of consequence]

...

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[Achromatic]

They just don't want to be bound by a one-size-fits-all approach and harangued by disgruntled combatants, "Last year in RFAR/Smith[/] you banned Smith for a year but now in [i]RFAR/Jones you are only giving Jones a topic ban." In practice, Arbcom follows precedent all the time, especially with respect to general case principles, although remedies and sanctions tend to be fairly consistent as well.

In other words, they want to be bound by precedent only when it's convenient to them. I think this is called "having your cake and eating it too".

The principle that precedent must either be followed, or distinguished, is one of the cornerstones of equitable jurisprudence in a society based on common-law principles. Wikipedia's rejection of this principle underscores its lack of commitment to equitable governance.

Or, to summarize:

"We don't do due process. Why should we do precedent, either?"

[CharlotteWebb]

BTW, I had no idea they rejected the idea of precedent. That's just stupid, if true.

With precedent would come some consistency of outcome, but based on what I've seen with my own eyes I'd rather choose "inconsistent" over "consistently poor", because the former implies the defendants have a fighting chance. I think the notion of binding precedents would just give the committee the excuse they need to willfully and knowingly repeat the same mistakes when convenient.

WP One = IRC One
WR One = WP Cool Hand Luke
WR One != IRC One

A clear violation of WP:SYNTH. It's also faulty logic unless you can prove

WP One != WP Cool Hand Luke

This is a common source of confusion, but they are in fact different people. I'm 100% certain sure of this (though I'm not about to prove this in a public forum—others will be less prudent I'm sure).

You might as well be asking someone to prove the user "Guy" here was not "Guy (JzG)" on Wikipedia, or that "Kato" here was not "Cato" on Wikiquote, etc.

I mean... coincidences happen!

One guaranteed way to make oneself unpopular with the arbitrators is to know about five dozen arbitration cases well enough to quote them.

Otherwise it's certainly a good way for lawyers to make themselves unpopular in real life. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

I think the notion of binding precedents would just give the committee the excuse they need to willfully and knowingly repeat the same mistakes when convenient.

They do that quite well already.

[A Horse With No Name]

Next time, run a spell Czech! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[CharlotteWebb]

I think the notion of binding precedents would just give the committee the excuse they need to willfully and knowingly repeat the same mistakes when convenient.

They do that quite well already.

And there's no excuse for it (so far)! They ought to quit that shit rather than...

Heh. I guess I've found the dark side of "policy follows practice".

[LaraLove]

And this proves that GlassCobra and I are the chosen scapegoats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ernate_accounts

Who else should be desysopped?

Who else? I don't believe anyone should be.

[LaraLove]

Next time, run a spell Czech! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Haha, you got a shout out. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318106334

[Apathetic]

Next time, run a spell Czech! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Haha, you got a shout out. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318106334

editing on behalf of a banned user lawl

[CharlotteWebb]

I have significant involvement with one of a parties who is a regular on ''Wikipedia Review'' such that my my participation could lead to lead to the perception of prejudice.

Hmm... it it reads almost as if as if he is he is doubly prejudiced doubly prejudiced due to due to involvement with both with both parties.

Nah, probably just needs some coffee. Err wait... I didn't mean it like that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[No one of consequence]

I have significant involvement with one of a parties who is a regular on ''Wikipedia Review'' such that my my participation could lead to lead to the perception of prejudice.

Hmm... it it reads almost as if as if he is he is doubly prejudiced doubly prejudiced due to due to involvement with both with both parties.

Nah, probably just needs some coffee. Err wait... I didn't mean it like that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I wonder what impact Luke's recusing himself from any case involving a WR participant will have on the next elections.

[A Horse With No Name]

Next time, run a spell Czech! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Haha, you got a shout out. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318106334

editing on behalf of a banned user lawl

It appears that elementary English is not pre-requisite for Arbcom membership. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

'''Law of the Horse''' is a term that was used in the mid-1990s to define the state of [[cyberlaw]] during the nascent years of the Internet’s development as a socio-economic force of information.

The term first gained prominence in a 1996 cyberlaw conference presentation by Judge [[Frank H. Easterbrook]] of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]]. Easterbrook, who was also a professor at the [[University of Chicago]], later published his presentation in the University of Chicago Law Review as ''Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse,'' in which he argued against the notion of defining cyberlaw as a unique section of legal studies and litigation.<ref>{{cite news | author =Amy Harmon | title =The Law Where There Is No Land; A Legal System Built on Precedents Has Few of Them in the Digital World | publisher =The New York Times | date =March 16, 1998 | url =http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/16/business/law-where-there-no-land-legal-system-built-precedents-has-few-them-digital-world.html?pagewanted=2 | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref> Easterbrook cited [[Gerhard Casper]] as coining the expression “law of the horse,” and stated that Casper’s arguments against specialized or niche legal studies applied to cyberlaw:
<blockquote>
“...the best way to learn the law applicable to specialized endeavors is to study general rules. Lots of cases deal with sales of horses; others deal with people kicked by horses; still more deal with the licensing and racing of horses, or with the care veterinarians give to horses, or with prizes at horse shows. Any effort to collect these strands into a course on 'The Law of the Horse' is doomed to be shallow and to miss unifying principles.”<ref>{{cite news | author =Frank H. Easterbrook | title =Cyberspace and the Law of the House | publisher =University of Chicago Law Review | date =1996 | url =http://www.law.upenn.edu/fac/pwagner/law619/f2001/week15/easterbrook.pdf | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref></blockquote>

Easterbrook’s theory was challenged by [[Lawrence Lessig]], a professor at [[Stanford Law School]], in an April 1997 article ''The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach.'' Lessig’s article, which was first presented at the [[Boston University]] Law School Faculty Workshop, argued that legal perceptions and rules would need to evolve as the cyberspace environment developed and expanded.<ref>{{cite news | author =Wired News Staff | title =Newly Appointed 'Special Master' To Probe MS Issues | publisher =Wired Magazine | date =December 11, 1997 | url =http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1997/12/9118 | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news | author =Bret A. Fausett | title =Hooray RIAA | publisher =Dr. Dobb’s Journal | date =February 12, 2003 | url =http://www.ddj.com/architect/184411637 | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Computer law]]
[[Category:Cyberspace]]



(Mod note) Removed code that broke the thread. -Derktar

Sorry about that, Derktar. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Milton Roe]

I have significant involvement with one of a parties who is a regular on ''Wikipedia Review'' such that my my participation could lead to lead to the perception of prejudice.

Hmm... it it reads almost as if as if he is he is doubly prejudiced doubly prejudiced due to due to involvement with both with both parties.

Nah, probably just needs some coffee. Err wait... I didn't mean it like that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I wonder what impact Luke's recusing himself from any case involving a WR participant will have on the next elections.

And as a side note, this nifty background HTML tag is going to make WR lots more colorful. Ripe for abuse!

[Abd]

BTW, I had no idea they rejected the idea of precedent. That's just stupid, if true.

Depends on what the purpose is. The purpose is to prevent the formation of any settled "law," to allow actual practice to be superior to policy. And the purpose of that is to empower the "masses," in theory, which, as is well know, means empowering the active core, the oligarchy which is known to always form per the Iron Law. The absence of law means that the mob is in charge, and the mob can block reform. Until the general "public" wakes up and asserts its power, it will remain helpless, because only a few editors who see the problem will act at any one time, and the massing power of the mob can overwhelm them.

Now, this is an extreme description. In fact, there is some level of deliberative process on Wikipedia, but it's unreliable and easily overcome by mass reactions.

The problem with "practice over policy" is that it's possible to deliberate policy, to document and find a settled consensus, based on careful and thoughtful examination and experience, at least temporarily. Actual practice, involving hundreds or thousands or more editors, isn't amenable to deliberation, because the discussion size becomes impossible. Hence there is ArbComm, which can in theory deliberate and make policy decisions, but it is confused about its own role. Does it "represent" the community, or is it an "instrument" of the community through which the community deliberates? Can it make policy? Or is its only role to express and apply "actual practice"?

Revolutionaries classically called upon the oppressed masses to rise up and throw out the oppressors. It was backwards, in fact, because rising up and tossing the oligarchy simply opened up an opportunity for a new oligarchy, which the masses were unable to resist, for it appeared at first that it represented them. To move around this hazard, it's necessary that the masses organize for communication only, not for power.

The essential organizational problem is the same as the essential political problem: how can large numbers of people communicate, find consensus, and act coherently -- which means efficiently as well as effectively. How can this be done while avoiding the Scylla and Charybdis of excessive volatility and noise, leading to paralysis and thus vulnerability to crowd behavior, which often is like a dumb and vicious beast, on the one hand, or fascism or heavy central control, on the other?

Before it can be done, it's necessary that enough people recognize the problem. That's difficult enough for one day! Or one year, probably! Most people readily fall into the habit of considering that the problem is the bad guys, the corrupt, the incompetent, you know, them. Get rid of them, and things will be fine. Not.

Consider the current arb cases. Where in these cases is the attempt to find an inclusive consensus? It seems to be all about judging a contest, where the winners will be vindicated and the bad guys punished. ArbComm does attempt to find some internal consensus, usually, though that attempt can also be notably absent. But it seems to do this, too often, only to "settle" a dispute without actually resolving it. People usually misbehave for a reason. Unless the reason is addressed, the misbehavior will return, with or without a new face or new name.

I find it very dangerous that ArbComm allows normal dispute resolution to be bypassed, and one of the consequences of this is that disputes come to ArbComm not being well defined much beyond "He's bad!" "No, she's bad!" This makes questions large and complex, and deliberative bodies have learned, over the centuries, to avoid those without first engaging on small questions.

[LaraLove]

Nah, probably just needs some coffee. Err wait... I didn't mean it like that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

OMG, I love this website.

Next time, run a spell Czech! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Haha, you got a shout out. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318106334

editing on behalf of a banned user lawl

It appears that elementary English is not pre-requisite for Arbcom membership. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

<article>

I would post it, but I'd surely be banned before I got back from class tonight.

[A Horse With No Name]

I would post it, but I'd surely be banned before I got back from class tonight.

No prob, Lara. Nonetheless, this shows the ironic stupidity of Wikipedia -- for all of the commotion about the scapegoating of yourself, GC, Jayron and Law/TU, the core mission of "building an encyclopedia" and "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" turns out to be a bunch of horseshit.

This article relating to cyberlaw won't go online -- not because it stinks (it doesn't) or because it is incorrect (it is not), but because of who wrote it. It shows the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is really a private club, with a clique deciding who can play and who has to stay outside. That is emetic at a moral, ethical and intellectual level.

Next time anyone claims that Wikipedians should be focusing on "building an encyclopedia," give 'em a smack in the chops -- and ask them what they've done to write an encyclopedia. Because you don't build an encyclopedia - you build a house, a car and a better mousetrap, but you don't "build" a reference text. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Milton Roe]

The essential organizational problem is the same as the essential political problem: how can large numbers of people communicate, find consensus, and act coherently -- which means efficiently as well as effectively. How can this be done while avoiding the Scylla and Charybdis of excessive volatility and noise, leading to paralysis and thus vulnerability to crowd behavior, which often is like a dumb and vicious beast, on the one hand, or fascism or heavy central control, on the other?

Before it can be done, it's necessary that enough people recognize the problem. That's difficult enough for one day! Or one year, probably! Most people readily fall into the habit of considering that the problem is the bad guys, the corrupt, the incompetent, you know, them. Get rid of them, and things will be fine. Not.

Indeed. No sooner does the animal farm get rid of its exploitive farmers, than a bunch of pigs that were no problem before, get up on their hind legs and start to act more human.

[Guido den Broeder]

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

'''Law of the Horse''' is a ...

Done. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Appleby]

A clear violation of WP:SYNTH. It's also faulty logic unless you can prove

WP One != WP Cool Hand Luke

This is a common source of confusion, but they are in fact different people. I'm 100% certain sure of this (though I'm not about to prove this in a public forum—others will be less prudent I'm sure).

I'm not suggesting for a moment that they're the same people, just pointing out that there's a gap in the logic.

You might as well be asking someone to prove the user "Guy" here was not "Guy (JzG)" on Wikipedia, or that "Kato" here was not "Cato" on Wikiquote, etc.

Or indeed that someone here is the same person as a user of the same name on Wikipedia. Surely you can't confuse Cato and Kato. Next you'll confuse Jayvdb and Jayjg! Actually, Cato is an admin on the Norwegian Wikipedia.

http://nn.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...1&username=Cato

Next time, run a spell Czech!

Do you mean "one of a parties" and the repetitions? Not actually spelling errors.

This post has been edited by Appleby:

[Noroton]

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

Added by somebody else, deleted, re-added with explanation on talk page and on an admin's page. All done. (You missed a footnote, but good article.) Now I'm late for dinner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Horse

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[Deodand]

The page move led to the decision to go to arbcom. This is acceptable. The idea that the user in question just went "he won't move a page, lets get him desysopped as punishment" is not acceptable. I found the IRC log of the PM, btw; starts:

01[12:26] <Ironholds> just a ping that I'm setting up a talkpage discussion now (in case you were doing the same and we'd ec)
[12:26] <The_Law> thats funny because i don't give a fuck about you
[12:27] <The_Law> i will pwn u every time. and that sucks.

Kind of undermines the idea that Ironholds went "waah, he won't move my page! Blam goes his Mighty Tools!"

It would be helpful if we were all working from the full log and not selected sections that may or may not be out of context.

That was literally the first section of the log. I don't have permission to further distribute it, nor methods unfortunately. I'm sure Ironholds would completely fail to see the irony if I was to blab the logs to all and sundry (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif).

[A Horse With No Name]

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

'''Law of the Horse''' is a ...

Done. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

That was sweet of you, Guido. You get a big Horsey kiss. Mwah! Mwah! Mwah! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

Added by somebody else, deleted, re-added with explanation on talk page and on an admin's page. All done. (You missed a footnote, but good article.) Now I'm late for dinner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Horse

I would be curious to know who added it first. I am not surprised that the asswipe NawlinWiki deleted it -- the man seems to have no Wiki-life outside of deleting articles. Your input is welcomed, Noroton, but I wouldn't be surprised if some other idiot admin (probably one of the insecure teenagers) deletes it under the argument that censoring people is more noble than offering information and education.

P.S Oh, I see who added it first -- some idiot troll. Well, at least Nuclear Warfare made him feel at home.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Sarcasticidealist]

In other words, they want to be bound by precedent only when it's convenient to them. I think this is called "having your cake and eating it too".

I can't seem to find it online, but I'm certain I've read a quote from a former Canadian Supreme Court justice to the effect of "For a high court, precedent is more convenience than necessity."

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The ArbCom case on this topic is one of those gala events where everyone has to put in an appearance. Thanx and a hat tip to SlimVirgin for the obligatory plug for the Review. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Lar]

(snip)

Horsey, can you explicitly release this article under GFDL (by saying so here would do I think)? It would maybe make the question on the talk page a bit easier to straighten out.

Thanks!

There might be a picture of Roxie in it for you, but no promises.

[No one of consequence]

P.S Oh, I see who added it first -- some idiot troll. Well, at least Nuclear Warfare made him feel at home.

I wonder what message he was planning on sending.

[Abd]

In other words, they want to be bound by precedent only when it's convenient to them. I think this is called "having your cake and eating it too".

I can't seem to find it online, but I'm certain I've read a quote from a former Canadian Supreme Court justice to the effect of "For a high court, precedent is more convenience than necessity."

High courts are not bound by precedent, they can change it at any time. That's the meaning that justice's statement. However, courts also recognize the damage done when precedent is not upheld, because people expect the law to be predictable, we should know, as far as possible, in advance, what is lawful and what is not, what activities will be taxed and what will not. Predictability is a major part of rule of law (the other aspect being equality before the law; if every judgment is different, there is a ready path for cronyism, etc.) As a long-time student -- and often, admirer -- of the legal thinking in U.S. Supreme Court decisions, I was flabbergasted by the Court's interference in Florida election process in 2000, it was about as obvious a result-oriented decision as I've ever seen; the Court majority, in disregarding their own oft-declared precedents and firm judicial philosophy, declared that the decision wasn't to be taken as a precedent, which was very funny. Why not, pray tell? Wasn't it sound and based in impartial reasoning? Why wouldn't that apply again?

The Court had the right to disregard the precedent. However, Congress also had the right to overturn that decision, but didn't have the balls to even try. The cost to the nation and the world was enormous. It was then that I decided that I should start to make my conclusions about about how to scale up consensus process known. It isn't about Democrat vs. Republican or any of that nonsense. It's about how we act, collectively and intelligently for the common welfare, supposedly the goal of government and of any organization. If simple oligarchies were reliable, it would be fine. But, unless well-advised and inclined to attend to the advice, they aren't reliable, they become corrupt, easily, very easily. On Wikipedia the corruption is mostly on the level of inefficiency and arbitrary personal power and simple stupidity. Note that "stupidity" is normal, most of us are stupid, in the way I'm talking, most of the time, we simply don't know enough. But we can do better, if we know how. The secret? Choose your advisors carefully. You cannot investigate everything.

[Lar]

In other words, they want to be bound by precedent only when it's convenient to them. I think this is called "having your cake and eating it too".

I can't seem to find it online, but I'm certain I've read a quote from a former Canadian Supreme Court justice to the effect of "For a high court, precedent is more convenience than necessity."

High courts are not bound by precedent, they can change it at any time. That's the meaning that justice's statement. However, courts also recognize the damage done when precedent is not upheld, because people expect the law to be predictable, we should know, as far as possible, in advance, what is lawful and what is not, what activities will be taxed and what will not. Predictability is a major part of rule of law (the other aspect being equality before the law; if every judgment is different, there is a ready path for cronyism, etc.) As a long-time student -- and often, admirer -- of the legal thinking in U.S. Supreme Court decisions, I was flabbergasted by the Court's interference in Florida election process in 2000, it was about as obvious a result-oriented decision as I've ever seen; the Court majority, in disregarding their own oft-declared precedents and firm judicial philosophy, declared that the decision wasn't to be taken as a precedent, which was very funny. Why not, pray tell? Wasn't it sound and based in impartial reasoning? Why wouldn't that apply again?

The Court had the right to disregard the precedent. However, Congress also had the right to overturn that decision, but didn't have the balls to even try. The cost to the nation and the world was enormous. It was then that I decided that I should start to make my conclusions about about how to scale up consensus process known. It isn't about Democrat vs. Republican or any of that nonsense. It's about how we act, collectively and intelligently for the common welfare, supposedly the goal of government and of any organization. If simple oligarchies were reliable, it would be fine. But, unless well-advised and inclined to attend to the advice, they aren't reliable, they become corrupt, easily, very easily. On Wikipedia the corruption is mostly on the level of inefficiency and arbitrary personal power and simple stupidity. Note that "stupidity" is normal, most of us are stupid, in the way I'm talking, most of the time, we simply don't know enough. But we can do better, if we know how. The secret? Choose your advisors carefully. You cannot investigate everything.

Well said.

Usually I just tl;dr and skip whatever you have to say. How fortunate that I decided to try this once...

Would that you always wrote this cogently and succinctly. It's worth the effort.

[A Horse With No Name]

(snip)

Horsey, can you explicitly release this article under GFDL (by saying so here would do I think)? It would maybe make the question on the talk page a bit easier to straighten out.

If the editors of Wikipedia are too stupid to read and comprehend the plainest of plain English, then my sympathies go to their parents and to their teachers. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

So, what is the story on the Lara/GC/Jayron/Law-TU front? Has Rlvese detonated an atomic warhead yet? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Lar]

(snip)

Horsey, can you explicitly release this article under GFDL (by saying so here would do I think)? It would maybe make the question on the talk page a bit easier to straighten out.

If the editors of Wikipedia are too stupid to read and comprehend the plainest of plain English, then my sympathies go to their parents and to their teachers. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Humor me? You know "the forms must be obeyed"... say "I release the text under the GFDL" and THEN be sympathetic.

It'd be a shame to have that article go away on a technicality (unless you were going for the Peter Damian maneuver? )

[The Joy]

(snip)

Horsey, can you explicitly release this article under GFDL (by saying so here would do I think)? It would maybe make the question on the talk page a bit easier to straighten out.

If the editors of Wikipedia are too stupid to read and comprehend the plainest of plain English, then my sympathies go to their parents and to their teachers. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

So, what is the story on the Lara/GC/Jayron/Law-TU front? Has Rlvese detonated an atomic warhead yet? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ernate_accounts

From the looks of it, there's reluctance to desysop the Law Three (GlassCobra, Lara, and Jayron) and a likelihood of an admonishment with a "go and sin no more" warning. Carcharoth is pushing for GlassCobra to be desysoped, however.

There is no motion yet on whether Rlevse must turn in his Eagle Scout badge or turn in his atomic weapons. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

You know, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was an Eagle Scout. I be scared of Rlevse! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

In other words, they want to be bound by precedent only when it's convenient to them. I think this is called "having your cake and eating it too".

I can't seem to find it online, but I'm certain I've read a quote from a former Canadian Supreme Court justice to the effect of "For a high court, precedent is more convenience than necessity."

High courts are not bound by precedent, they can change it at any time. That's the meaning that justice's statement. However, courts also recognize the damage done when precedent is not upheld, because people expect the law to be predictable, we should know, as far as possible, in advance, what is lawful and what is not, what activities will be taxed and what will not. Predictability is a major part of rule of law (the other aspect being equality before the law; if every judgment is different, there is a ready path for cronyism, etc.) As a long-time student -- and often, admirer -- of the legal thinking in U.S. Supreme Court decisions, I was flabbergasted by the Court's interference in Florida election process in 2000, it was about as obvious a result-oriented decision as I've ever seen; the Court majority, in disregarding their own oft-declared precedents and firm judicial philosophy, declared that the decision wasn't to be taken as a precedent, which was very funny. Why not, pray tell? Wasn't it sound and based in impartial reasoning? Why wouldn't that apply again?

The Court had the right to disregard the precedent. However, Congress also had the right to overturn that decision, but didn't have the balls to even try. The cost to the nation and the world was enormous. It was then that I decided that I should start to make my conclusions about about how to scale up consensus process known. It isn't about Democrat vs. Republican or any of that nonsense. It's about how we act, collectively and intelligently for the common welfare, supposedly the goal of government and of any organization. If simple oligarchies were reliable, it would be fine. But, unless well-advised and inclined to attend to the advice, they aren't reliable, they become corrupt, easily, very easily. On Wikipedia the corruption is mostly on the level of inefficiency and arbitrary personal power and simple stupidity. Note that "stupidity" is normal, most of us are stupid, in the way I'm talking, most of the time, we simply don't know enough. But we can do better, if we know how. The secret? Choose your advisors carefully. You cannot investigate everything.

Well said.

Usually I just tl;dr and skip whatever you have to say. How fortunate that I decided to try this once...

Would that you always wrote this cogently and succinctly. It's worth the effort.

Your understanding of jurisprudence is flawed ."High courts" cannot "disregard precedent" under the rule of law. They can overturn it by explaining why it was wrong in the first place. They have the burden of reasoned elaboration. Not that ArbCom has anything to do with the rule of law nor do their decision have any value as precedent. The former is obvious and the latter by their own admission. The burden of showing their errors would be as light as a feather.

Here is my earlier post on the flaws of ArbCom. None of substantive flaws have since been addressed. The jab at Fred Bauder has grown stale. He has been succeeded by at least one pornographer and one advocate of bestiality. It remains something of a jury of the damned.

[Random832]

Your understanding of jurisprudence is flawed ."High courts" cannot "disregard precedent" under the rule of law. They can overturn it by explaining why it was wrong in the first place. They have the burden of reasoned elaboration.

A) who's going to stop them?
B) how can you operationally distinguish between proper 'reasoned elaboration' and, say, FT2?

[A Horse With No Name]

Humor me? You know "the forms must be obeyed"... say "I release the text under the GFDL" and THEN be sympathetic.

It'd be a shame to have that article go away on a technicality (unless you were going for the Peter Damian maneuver? )

I am not doing any maneuver. I am genuinely astonished that alleged "editors" cannot read plain English.

And the only genuine shame is a web site where people need a "front" in order to get their writing published. If you cannot appreciate the utter stupidity of that, then we're in parallel conversations.

Besides, the article isn't going away -- it is already on Wikisage. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[LaraLove]

Interesting to see the motions to re-ban Chip.

In the original agreement, the deal for Chip was that Law would be desysoped and banned and he could go on editing as the_undertow. Perhaps some new discussion unfolded (I haven't talked to Chip today), but it looks to me as if there is some going back on that. It's starting to look like they're going to ban him for another six months because he proved that their fucktarded arbitrary nine month ban was excessive and unnecessary.

Then we have the weird fiddling with wording, changing "banned" to "blocked." There's a distinct difference between a ban and a block. If he were merely blocked for nine months, we wouldn't be having this issue. The difference between the two is that someone is banned when there is no admin willing to unblock. Well hot damn. Considering how many people knew who he was and supported his adminship in that, I think there were some admins willing to unblock, THUS, my friends, he was banned.

Tinkering with the wording now doesn't change that. Furthermore, what preventative action is being served by blocking him now? He's just proven that he can and wants to edit constructively, and there was no actual damage to the project. Some people might be suffering from cellulite now, from having their undies on too tight and all in a bunch, but no content was affected.

Absolutely ridiculous. It just keeps getting worse.

[GlassBeadGame]

Your understanding of jurisprudence is flawed ."High courts" cannot "disregard precedent" under the rule of law. They can overturn it by explaining why it was wrong in the first place. They have the burden of reasoned elaboration.

A) who's going to stop them?
B) how can you operationally distinguish between proper 'reasoned elaboration' and, say, FT2?

In the real world what tends to stop them (and only imperfectly) is the desire for the legitimacy of working under the rule of law. People serving on high courts didn't get there in order to be seen as hacks. The opinion of peers (for the most part the legal community) including peer reviewed publications matters, athough by the time it filters into the popular press this might be hard to see.

FT2 just seems to generating content for a video game about arbitrating disputes. He uses many of the same word and at times in some of the same order as might be found in the real activity but seemingly without any real understanding. This is probably a weakness in the design of game engine that does not cut off the length at some reasonable point nor check for coherent contents.

[Random832]

I think there were some admins willing to unblock

Why didn't they?

[LaraLove]

I think there were some admins willing to unblock

Why didn't they?

Because it was a ban. That's precisely the point I was making.

Clearly I'm not getting my monies worth out of my English class.

[Noroton]

Humor me? You know "the forms must be obeyed"... say "I release the text under the GFDL" and THEN be sympathetic.

It'd be a shame to have that article go away on a technicality (unless you were going for the Peter Damian maneuver? )

I am not doing any maneuver. I am genuinely astonished that alleged "editors" cannot read plain English.

And the only genuine shame is a web site where people need a "front" in order to get their writing published. If you cannot appreciate the utter stupidity of that, then we're in parallel conversations.

Besides, the article isn't going away -- it is already on Wikisage. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Oh, thanks a lot. Several people spent some time on that one, and now you're wasting it. So it was all for drama purposes? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Guido gets a slurpy homoerotic kiss. I get bupkis. You owe me your left testicle. And I don't mean while it's still attached to you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[MZMcBride]

Clearly I'm not getting my monies worth out of my English class.

I simply can't take the risk that you were making a joke here. It's "money's worth."

[Random832]

That's precisely the point I was making.

It becomes a problem when it is unclear whether the number of layers of sarcasm is even or odd.

[Mathsci]

the_undertow's response to the 6 month ban

[Cedric]

I regret the time spent on Wikipedia - time I can never get back.

As do so many of us here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Peter Damian]

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

'''Law of the Horse''' is a ...

Done. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Interesting that the definition given in the article is a particular instance, and not a general one invoking unifying principles, and thus itself violates the principle being expressed. The definition (according to the description in the body of the article) should really be


"Law of the Horse is an imaginary counter-example to the argument or position that laws can be made be collecting strands of information or cases together, without regard to unifying principles. It was first used in the mid-1990s to define the state of cyberlaw during the nascent years of the Internet."

Changing the subject:

The idea of a three month or six month ban is ridiculous. The three months term is arbitrary. I know that my Master's in Taxation may give me an upper hand on the mathematical skills, but I don't think it was really required to figure out that if I was banned for six months, that has a high percentage that the six months includes three months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318196836

He may have an upper hand in mathematical skills, but his English could do with some improvement. No loss to the project, in my view. Never understood what the fuss was about.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Guido den Broeder]

I think there were some admins willing to unblock

Why didn't they?

Because it was a ban. That's precisely the point I was making.

So why were they willing? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Moulton]

Wikipedia is not a Just Place. It's just a place.

A place for comic opera, self-lampooning a hopelessly dysfunctional community.

[One]

(I haven't talked to Chip today)

Next time you do talk, do you suppose you could have him publicly reply to your question here, along with any other details he sees fit?

And when did you tell Luke? And why?

[A Horse With No Name]

Oh, thanks a lot. Several people spent some time on that one, and now you're wasting it. So it was all for drama purposes? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

If you go back to the beginning of this detour: I wrote an article for a half-joking Luke on a subject that was absent from Wikipedia. I could have just as easily created a new account to put it online -- and please do not use the word "sockpuppet," because I don't have Shari Lewis' hand up my ass. Instead, I sent it to him for posting, which didn't happen. Rather than waste the article (which took me 20 minutes to write), I posted it here and clearly stated that anyone who wanted to post it on WP could do it with my permission.

Instead of being pissed off with me for refusing to repeat myself for the sake of those who cannot comprehend basic English, why don't you raise a hue and cry against a system that blacklists writers? I don't think the sandbox crowd at WP would be very comfortable if they substituted the word "blacklisted" for "banned."

And, by the way, when was the last time anyone at Arbcom actually wrote an original article? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Guido gets a slurpy homoerotic kiss. I get bupkis. You owe me your left testicle. And I don't mean while it's still attached to you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

You wouldn't know what to do with my left testicle if I gave you an instructional manual and a DVD with Rip Taylor offering step-by-step procedures. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Interesting that the definition given in the article is a particular instance, and not a general one invoking unifying principles, and thus itself violates the principle being expressed. The definition (according to the description in the body of the article) should really be


"Law of the Horse is an imaginary counter-example to the argument or position that laws can be made be collecting strands of information or cases together, without regard to unifying principles. It was first used in the mid-1990s to define the state of cyberlaw during the nascent years of the Internet."

I hope you get paid to do that kind of stuff in real life, Petey. I love talented writers. I would give you a big Horsey kiss, but I'm afraid that you would clobber me with a shovel. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

the_undertow's response to the 6 month ban

It is interesting to notice that there is no official Arbcom admonishment for Arbcom clerk Daniel for the documented off-Wiki harassment of Law/TU which triggered this situation. There is no official admonishment or desysopping calls for Casliber, who resigned from Arbcom after admitting that he was aware of Law/TU but did nothing to enforce policies. There is no official admonishment for John V. for blatant incompetence in sitting on related information for six weeks before this thing blew up.

I do not see the logic in calling for the desysopping of GlassCobra for supporting the Law RfA when Arbcom member Risker has openly admitted that she is aware of sock accounts and allows them to flourish.

I also call into question this comment by Carcharoth: "However, if this motion passes, and the_undertow appeals his ban to the ban appeals subcommittee, and points to the good work done with the Law account, both as editor and admin, then I am sure an appeal (with conditions) would be looked upon favourably." Considering that Luke is a member of BASC and Luke has openly accused Law/TU of being a deceitful liar, can we expect BASC to act with impartial fairness?

I commend Chip for calling out the culture of selective prosecution and lapsed ethics that has been reinforced by a dozen or so people elected by 100 or so people to supposedly drive a machine populated by 10.5 million people.

[No one of consequence]

I also call into question this comment by Carcharoth: "However, if this motion passes, and the_undertow appeals his ban to the ban appeals subcommittee, and points to the good work done with the Law account, both as editor and admin, then I am sure an appeal (with conditions) would be looked upon favourably." Considering that Luke is a member of BASC and Luke has openly accused Law/TU of being a deceitful liar, can we expect BASC to act with impartial fairness?

Arbs serve 3 months on the appeal subcommittee, rotating one each month. Luke came on in August so October is the last month of his term.

I'm more interested in the implicit wink and nod in Carcharoth's statement that if The_undertow follows Da Rules he will be unbanned well before 6 months. If that is the case, why not just make it 3 months for block evasion and skip the charade?

[One]

I'm recused on undertow. Besides, it'll probably go to the whole committee.

If we could resolve his accusations, I'll be taking a much-needed break anyway.

Lara: any word on why The_undertow can't or won't answer your reasonable question?

This post has been edited by One:

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm recused on undertow. Besides, it'll probably go to the whole committee.

Then what is the point of having a "Ban Appeal Subcommittee" if the subcommittee won't do its duties?

And is this correct, that "the good work done...would be looked upon favourably" by BASC? Is that how BASC works? Does BASC weigh all of the documented good work by an editor against the real and perceived problems of the editor?

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Tintomara]

P.S Oh, I see who added it first -- some idiot troll. Well, at least Nuclear Warfare made him feel at home.

I wonder what message he was planning on sending.

He sent the message, but the revisions have been deleted. It was in rather bad taste

This post has been edited by Tintomara:

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm recused on undertow.

I've never seen a recusal where the recused party openly and repeatedly calls into question the integrity of someone in the spotlight. I always thought "recused" means no involvement, usually due to a conflict of interest. This is closer to "I am not going to judge that deceitful liar" as opposed to "I would prefer not to participate, due to personal considerations."

[Guido den Broeder]

Carcharoth always makes such seemingly forgiving comments, but when push comes to shove he is never home.

[GlassBeadGame]

I'm recused on undertow.

I've never seen a recusal where the recused party openly and repeatedly calls into question the integrity of someone in the spotlight. I always thought "recused" means no involvement, usually due to a conflict of interest. This is closer to "I am not going to judge that deceitful liar" as opposed to "I would prefer not to participate, due to personal considerations."

People recuse themselves from decisions because they have an interest in the matter that might impair their neutrality. Once they are removed from the decision making they ought to be free to pursue that interest. The only problem comes if they are exerting undue influence of those persons that still involved in making the decision.

[No one of consequence]

I'm recused on undertow. Besides, it'll probably go to the whole committee.

Then what is the point of having a "Ban Appeal Subcommittee" if the subcommittee won't do its duties?

Division of labor. Before the establishment of the ban appeal subcommittee, all ban appeals went to the committee as a whole. This probably contributed to the breakdown in the appeals process, such as Undertow's 9/08 appeal going stale without resolution. If you are one of 15 people are responsible for something, it is easy to tell yourself that any particular issue is someone else's problem. Creating a BASC with only 3 members and a short term probably gives the ban appeal process a lot more focus.

And is this correct, that "the good work done...would be looked upon favourably" by BASC? Is that how BASC works? Does BASC weigh all of the documented good work by an editor against the real and perceived problems of the editor?

Probably. That was the rationale for unblocking Poetlister last year. You can look at the results of the BASC's work so far this year in the archives of the Arbcom announcement page.

I'm recused on undertow.

I've never seen a recusal where the recused party openly and repeatedly calls into question the integrity of someone in the spotlight. I always thought "recused" means no involvement, usually due to a conflict of interest. This is closer to "I am not going to judge that deceitful liar" as opposed to "I would prefer not to participate, due to personal considerations."

People recuse themselves from decisions because they have an interest in the matter that might impair their neutrality. Once they are removed from the decision making they ought to be free to pursue that interest. The only problem comes if they are exerting undue influence of those persons that still involved in making the decision.

This is my understanding as well. It is precisely because Luke recused on The_undertow that he is free to argue and defend himself over undertow's claims that Luke knew about his account. Or perhaps it is because of the accusation that Luke recused, in order to be free to defend himself.

Either way, what is important is that Luke not be participating in behind-the-scenes debates or votes, and I am sure he is not.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

the_undertow's response to the 6 month ban

It is interesting to notice that there is no official Arbcom admonishment for Arbcom clerk Daniel for the documented off-Wiki harassment of Law/TU which triggered this situation. There is no official admonishment or desysopping calls for Casliber, who resigned from Arbcom after admitting that he was aware of Law/TU but did nothing to enforce policies. There is no official admonishment for John V. for blatant incompetence in sitting on related information for six weeks before this thing blew up.

I do not see the logic in calling for the desysopping of GlassCobra for supporting the Law RfA when Arbcom member Risker has openly admitted that she is aware of sock accounts and allows them to flourish.

I also call into question this comment by Carcharoth: "However, if this motion passes, and the_undertow appeals his ban to the ban appeals subcommittee, and points to the good work done with the Law account, both as editor and admin, then I am sure an appeal (with conditions) would be looked upon favourably." Considering that Luke is a member of BASC and Luke has openly accused Law/TU of being a deceitful liar, can we expect BASC to act with impartial fairness?

I commend Chip for calling out the culture of selective prosecution and lapsed ethics that has been reinforced by a dozen or so people elected by 100 or so people to supposedly drive a machine populated by 10.5 million people.

Just read this quote:

ArbCom offers guidance when it sees risky situations, and this is most certainly one case where the community needs a little shove in the right direction to avoid increasing drama. — Coren (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The motion he's commenting on is this one:
Friendship and Wikipedia

5.1 While friendship is a noble trait and attitude engraved into the human nature, it should not be used as a motive behind Wikipedia actions, such as administrative duties or influencing a debate. Due to its subjectivity, personal friendship should not affect Wikipedia rules. The community is encouraged to develop guidelines to avoid any misconception of impartiality.

Don't know what other people thought they were voting for, but I elected arbitrators to resolve disputes. ArbCom isn't the community's moral compass (especially this time) and doesn't exist to "shove" the community.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[CharlotteWebb]

You owe me your left testicle. And I don't mean while it's still attached to you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

You've created a race condition, and I don't mean anything related to "white pride" or Pimlico.

You wouldn't know what to do with my left testicle if I gave you an instructional manual...

Neither would you.

ArbCom isn't the community's moral compass...

Unless you mean the tool one uses to draw a perfect circle. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[A Horse With No Name]

You wouldn't know what to do with my left testicle if I gave you an instructional manual...

Neither would you.

Oh, I looooooooooooooooove it when you put my testicles in the spotlight. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

Bad Horsey! Bad Horsey! No oats for you tonight! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[thekohser]

And is this correct, that "the good work done...would be looked upon favourably" by BASC? Is that how BASC works? Does BASC weigh all of the documented good work by an editor against the real and perceived problems of the editor?

I'm sure that's what they say is happening, but it doesn't always work out that way.

ArbCom isn't the community's moral compass... and doesn't exist to "shove" the community.

That's more your role, then, right?

Sorry, Lise... you set up that one too nicely.

[Kelly Martin]

I'm more interested in the implicit wink and nod in Carcharoth's statement that if The_undertow follows Da Rules he will be unbanned well before 6 months. If that is the case, why not just make it 3 months for block evasion and skip the charade?

Because the ArbCom, and the community in general, enjoy the charade.

[lone-wolf]

Now we have evidence of a similar cabal operating at apparently high levels of the administration. How extensive was this? That is the question.

Peter, it's too bad your proposal collapsed. Them's the breaks on Wikipedia. You can't introduce anything new and you can't change anything. That's just the way the model is. There was no undertow/Law cabal, though. Be serious. That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've read throughout this entire thing. When I found out I didn't know who else knew. It wasn't something that was discussed, and we surely weren't coordinating actions. He was just another admin and we happened to know his former identity. You're making this into a whole other type of matter that it surely wasn't.

Well there was evidence it was discussed on IRC (see Ched Davis statement). On my making it something it perhaps isn't, it is clear a lot of editors on WP believe there is such a group.

link?

[Anonymous editor]

P.S Oh, I see who added it first -- some idiot troll. Well, at least Nuclear Warfare made him feel at home.

Looks like he was trying to spell something out with his edits, a la that guy some time ago.

At least he was welcomed by another admin before being blocked!

[LaraLove]

That's precisely the point I was making.

It becomes a problem when it is unclear whether the number of layers of sarcasm is even or odd.

Really? In that there are three admins up for desysoping and others who knew but didn't support the RFA so are free to walk, clearly there were admins who supported Chip editing. Because he was banned, not blocked, by ArbCom, he couldn't throw up an unblock template and be unblocked. No, he was banned and thus had to appeal to the committee, which he did and was wholly ignored.

He got outed as the_undertow and Risker made a deal with him that if he'd just admit it (presumably to save them the trouble of having to gather evidence and prove it) that he could resume editing with the_undertow account freely and no one else would be sanctioned. Clearly that's not what's happening. We saved the AC the work and now we're being taken down for having done no damage to the encyclopedia, while admins who have manipulated content and piled together to get other editors banned or otherwise off the project fight tooth and nail to accomplish it.

If the_undertow had been blocked, he would have been unblocked by request on his talk page and none of this would be happening. But blame doesn't fall on the committee for their failure to fulfill their end of the deal on the original case, nor the fact that they outright lied at the start of this one. No, we are the untrustworthy liars who have caused this fallout.

Is that too much sarcasm there at the end?

the_undertow's response to the 6 month ban

It is interesting to notice that there is no official Arbcom admonishment for Arbcom clerk Daniel for the documented off-Wiki harassment of Law/TU which triggered this situation. There is no official admonishment or desysopping calls for Casliber, who resigned from Arbcom after admitting that he was aware of Law/TU but did nothing to enforce policies. There is no official admonishment for John V. for blatant incompetence in sitting on related information for six weeks before this thing blew up.

I do not see the logic in calling for the desysopping of GlassCobra for supporting the Law RfA when Arbcom member Risker has openly admitted that she is aware of sock accounts and allows them to flourish.

I also call into question this comment by Carcharoth: "However, if this motion passes, and the_undertow appeals his ban to the ban appeals subcommittee, and points to the good work done with the Law account, both as editor and admin, then I am sure an appeal (with conditions) would be looked upon favourably."

It's not interesting. It's typical, and it's ironic in this case.

The good work Law did was, I thought, considered in the original deal that kicked off this drama. If an appeal would have been looked upon so favorably, why then is he being rebanned now? He proved them wrong and now they've further embittered yet another group of constructive editors and admins for what benefit? To appease the screaming mob?

I'm recused on undertow. Besides, it'll probably go to the whole committee.

If we could resolve his accusations, I'll be taking a much-needed break anyway.

Lara: any word on why The_undertow can't or won't answer your reasonable question?

I'll ask him if I get a chance to talk to him tonight. He was taking a break from the intrawebs this weekend and I've spent so much time dealing with this drama that I've been catching up with my course load and haven't taken the time to call.

I'm recused on undertow.

I've never seen a recusal where the recused party openly and repeatedly calls into question the integrity of someone in the spotlight. I always thought "recused" means no involvement, usually due to a conflict of interest. This is closer to "I am not going to judge that deceitful liar" as opposed to "I would prefer not to participate, due to personal considerations."

I agree.

Luke, I've found your recusal in this case to be a strange one. Although there's not contribution to the tallies, there sure is a lot of opinion/judgment being given. Is that normal?

I'm more interested in the implicit wink and nod in Carcharoth's statement that if The_undertow follows Da Rules he will be unbanned well before 6 months. If that is the case, why not just make it 3 months for block evasion and skip the charade?

Because the ArbCom, and the community in general, enjoy the charade.

Obviously they want a show. Arbs publicly requested a statement from me, saying it would help them decide, two days after I sent my statement to the committee. Granted, my views on the matter had changed slightly since the original statement, but I don't think it was enough to matter. Not that I think it mattered to begin with. Not to mention they're reading my comments elsewhere, including here, so it's not as if my position wasn't already clear.

I am amazed at what certain people have been hauled to ArbCom for and gotten away with. Years of manipulation of the system and abuse of administrative tools and weight that caused great damage to the encyclopedia, other users, and the project as a whole, all detailed by multiple users to a point it cannot be refuted. These cases resulted in admonishments or temporary desysops. I kept a secret that caused no actual damage to the project and I'm about to be stripped of adminstrative tools that I never abused, to a point that no one has even attempted to suggest I may have.

But I'm supposed to drop to my knees and start kissing asses? That's not how I am. That said, there is no precedent for my desysop, so I can only hope it at least serves to set one.

[Abd]

Carcharoth always makes such seemingly forgiving comments, but when push comes to shove he is never home.

The presence of Carcharoth on ArbComm is actually dangerous. If all the arbitrators were like Carcharoth, it would be excellent. But they aren't. I depended on Carcharoth, and when push came to shove, he (or she?) voted helpfully. But what is needed isn't votes, it's cogent and compelling argument, and I think Carcharoth, in my case, was confused on some of the issues. Cold fusion is a topic where the usual assumptions about fringe science are upside-down from the reality, i.e., the large bulk of peer-reviewed reliable source, overall, favors the field, publication rate is rising significantly, and negative publication under peer review has almost entirely disappeared. But there is a persistence of vision.

If one thinks that "of course" most sources favor rejection of cold fusion as "pathological science" -- and ArbComm was told that, and used that kind of evidence in determining that I was a tendentious editor -- the conclusion follows. So content judgments do, in fact, have major influence over behavioral judgments.

In this case, as in other recent and active cases, there are some awful precedents being set, and precedent has power, regardless of what one thinks. It may be that the power is misleading, i.e., trying relying on a precedent and you may find that you have walked off a cliff, but bad precedent will embolden further disruption.

I was once asked to sign an "ethics" statement at a company I worked for. Signing it, I'd be agreeing to not only follow the established rules, but to report anyone who violated them, with no exception for trivial violations or harmless ones. I refused. By the time they got around to considering firing me, I was already quitting for other reasons.... Suppose you are a police officer. Attending a function with your sister, you find out that your brother-in-law sometimes smokes marijuana, and in your state, that's a misdemeanor. Do you report him?

Suppose you aren't just an officer, you are a judge. Does the situation change?

There are, with children, "status offenses." I.e., these are violations of the law that proceed from the age or status of the offender, not from an actual harm to society. There may be harm, or not, depending on the actual circumstances. On Wikipedia, ban violation is a status offense, if the violating behavior is not itself harmful, other than violating a ban. For all the claim that actual practice trumps policy, and while actual practice with ScienceApologist was to look the other way when he made harmless edits and the fact of this was taken to Arbitration Enforcement by Hipocrite, SA's friend, the community generally considered Hipocrite disruptive for repeatedly pointing out harmess edits at AE. (Why would SA's friend take him to AE? Because SA's purpose in the edits was to test the boundaries and attempt to trap an admin into blocking him for something harmless, so well established was the concept that editors were not to be blocked for harmless edits. SA, in the end, was blocked for disruptive intent, not for actual ban violation.) However, when I made, over two months or so, two harmless edits to Cold fusion or the Talk page, not only were there screams that I was "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point," but suddenly there were a host of editors claiming that "of course" editors should be blocked if they "violate a ban. Ban means no edits, period."

So much for IAR! There are forces on Wikipedia pushing for strict rules and strict enforcement, and the tide swings as to any particular interest group. If strict rules prevent them from "improving the project," they ignore them and claim that the rules should be ignored. And if the rules favor their position, they argue for strict enforcement. Law unblocked CoM, which was a move that would be expected to offend the same cabal I confronted. So it is utterly unsurprising that there are hosts of editors screaming for strict enforcement of ban rules against Law/Undertow, even though, in context, the rules are punitive in effect rather than preventative.

(The only "preventive" aspect is that of setting an example -- and no precedents, remember? -- and punishing to set an example rather than to protect the project is the basis of the principle that Wikipedia does not punish. The central power represented by ArbComm is to be exercised to protect and foster, and that requires encouraging IAR, in fact, protecting through following AGF and thus allowing IAR whenever motivation is *possibly* good, and damage from error not so egregious that prevention is necessary in spite of good intention.)

And then running a witch hunt, replicated here, intensely concerned with "who knew?", provides even more opportunity to punish good deeds and the avoidance of evil, and, yes, by not reporting his brother-in-law, the officer is quite likely to be doing the right thing. If he tried to cover up for his relative, in an illegal way, that would be another matter, an abuse of power.

To some substantial extent, the community is playing "Gotcha!", using this case to work out old grudges. And it's happening here on WR, as well. I'm struck by the demands that Law/UT provide "proof" for his claim that he told Luke. Why? I do not know if such proof exists, and if it does, I'd dislike seeing it revealed, if it was the revelation of a private communication. Law/UT is clearly immature. Or, in fact, a liar and deceiver and worse. I'll stick with the former, which allows him to be a useful editor and participant in the community. Were he mature, and whether or not he did, in fact, tell Luke, he would never have revealed it; what it looks like to me is that he saw Luke's silence as a betrayal. But if he told Luke as a friend, he should have remained loyal to his friend; instead, what loyalty was he serving in making the claim that Luke knew? Loyalty to Wikipedia? Doesn't look like it to me. Loyalty to "The Truth ™"? When there is a witch hunt, and you know that your friend has dabbled in witchcraft, you don't tell the hunters. Period. You lie if you need to. And that's morality, because we are responsible for what we *do* and for what we can anticipate of the effects of what we do, not mere words that we say. Lying, in itself, is an offense, but avoiding harm is an obligation, and circumstances arise where one, indeed, must choose the lesser evil to avoid the greater harm.

There was no rule requiring Lara to disclose her knowledge, nor on Casliber, the same. I see no sign that either one of them was doing anything other than pursuing the welfare of the project by allowing a previously banned editor to be rehabilitated, and there were only "status offenses" as rule violations. Wikipedia trades on the long-term and common highly negative opinion about "sock puppets," but uses the word in a way that would never have had that perjorative connotation, to refer to a banned editor coming back as a new one. Only if this is done to create the appearance of additional support for some position would this be common-law offensive, and that hasn't been alleged in this case.

I've seen this before, even a few days ago: Sarsaparilla abandoned that account and started a new one, Absidy. Absidy was blocked and then unblocked, using a new account, but connected, Obuibo Mbstpo. Obuibo Mbstpo was blocked for creating a hoax article (a blatant hoax which was immediately detected, normally, this would have resulted in a warning only; he didn't contest the speedy, though he pretended for a few hours that it was real and he had the book....) A deal was made for Obuiblo Mbstpo to come back as another editor, Ron Duvall, I think. Over the last several days, a ban-violating old enemy of Sarsapariilla nominated articles he'd created as having been created by a "sock puppet of the banned editor, Sarsaparilla.) If it were just that, I wouldn't comment here, But I've seen the same claim made numerous times about Sarsaparilla, who was a highly productive editor, high edit count, many useful edits, Newyorkbrad was distressed about losing him when Ron Duvall was blocked for creating a non-notable article, allegedly, Easter Bunny Hotline.

The real story here? Sarsaparilla was meddling in policy. He offended cabal editors and others.

Yes, he also then registered a series of temporary accounts. SarcasticIdealist became a standard observer of these accounts, rather vigorously enforcing the ban. (He'd unblocked to allow the creation of Ron Duvall, as I recall, and may have felt burnt). As I've seen many times, easy blocking often leads to what we call "socking." When someone is blocked and sees it as unjust, they aren't exactly "educated" by the process. By assuming that we don't need to gain the consent of restricted editors, by insisting on exclusion as a simple solution, we create continued disruption, and this whole flap about Law can be traced back to an unjust block, to the fact that ArbComm allowed the undertow to perceive that he was being abused, that the block was unfair.

In sanctioning me, ArbComm cited preposterous evidence, evidence that would not withstand detailed examination. And then appears to have blocked me based on the fact that I didn't accept this. But how could I accept it? I could accept that I made mistakes. I accepted mentorship, even as the mentorship became more punitive in nature and less supportive. But I couldn't accept that I was what I was not, established based on preposterous evidence that was clearly only accepted because it was convenient. (The arbs who actually studied the evidence didn't generally support it. But they were swept away and ignored. Returning to my original point: from prior behavior of Cararoth and a few others, I assumed that ArbComm had shifted substantially. It hadn't. The same problems remained. ArbComm cannot, at present, be trusted.)

Law and some others have gotten a very raw deal, and the only consolation I can offer is that many others have gotten the same, that it is to be expected and will continue, and that fixing the problems on-wiki is probably impossible. There are forces that may improve the situation, and they are operating off-wiki, for the most part. WR is part of the picture, but WR is simply an open forum, and as traffic here increases, it runs into the same problems as Wikipedia. There is some excellent and cogent comment here. But that exists on Wikipedia as well. (The advantage of WR is that one can encounter, here, the views of those who are blocked and banned, who know the seamy underbelly of Wikipedia, who aren't still drinking the Kool-Aid, but, mixed in, are those who are simply grinding and swinging personal axes.)

[everyking]

I made a few points concerning this nonsense:

Coren says: "ArbCom offers guidance when it sees risky situations, and this is most certainly one case where the community needs a little shove in the right direction to avoid increasing drama."

I think the most risky situation of all—and the one that involves the most drama—is the one involves the continued existence of the ArbCom in its present form, as the ArbCom itself is the drama engine that is undermining the community and ruining the culture of this project. Therefore I propose that the ArbCom vote to dissolve itself and desysop all of its own members.

Stephen Bain says: "An administrator who prefers their own judgment over that of the community cannot be trusted by the community to implement its policies."

I agree with him. The problem is that for years the ArbCom has encouraged admins to ignore and overrule the community and act according to their own discretion. I myself have been subjected to years of sanctions because I urged admins to refrain from excessive use of individual judgment, while admins who have used their powers to lord it over other contributors like petty kings have been consistently rewarded. Why would anyone even believe the ArbCom if it now said that it wanted admins to be responsible to the community?

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Apathetic]

Abd, you may want to conduct a poll to see if anyone here is actually reading your lengthy posts. If the answer is no, you may be able to save yourself some effort.

I know that for my part, I simply scroll past them.

No offense intended. I'm sure there's something insightful in there, but life is too short.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[GlassBeadGame]

Abd, you may want to conduct a poll to see if anyone here is actually reading your lengthy posts. If the answer is no, you may be able to save yourself some effort.

I know that for my part, I simply scroll past them. No offense intended.

I usually stop reading once I encounter the term "cold fusion" unless I expect something about an alternative to PHP.

[CharlotteWebb]

On the contrary, Abd, did you ever consider running for arbcom? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Apathetic]

On the contrary, Abd, did you ever consider running for arbcom? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

But they already have a NewYorkBrad!

[Malleus]

.... Suppose you are a police officer. Attending a function with your sister, you find out that your brother-in-law sometimes smokes marijuana, and in your state, that's a misdemeanor. Do you report him?

Suppose you aren't just an officer, you are a judge. Does the situation change?

I think that's an interesting way of framing the present debate surrounding Law. To answer your question directly, no and yes. To extrapolate from your question though, would I support the promotion of a judge whom I knew to be smoking marijuana? No, because that opens up the office holder to the prospect of blackmail. Same goes for Law's promotion; poor judgement on all sides.

[Peter Damian]

The motion he's commenting on is this one:
Friendship and Wikipedia

5.1 While friendship is a noble trait and attitude engraved into the human nature, it should not be used as a motive behind Wikipedia actions, such as administrative duties or influencing a debate. Due to its subjectivity, personal friendship should not affect Wikipedia rules. The community is encouraged to develop guidelines to avoid any misconception of impartiality.

Is there a smiley for being physically sick? :vomit:

[Noroton]

You owe me your left testicle. And I don't mean while it's still attached to you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

You've created a race condition, and I don't mean anything related to "white pride" or Pimlico.

I'll bite: What does that mean?

[A Horse With No Name]

Stephen Bain says: "An administrator who prefers their own judgment over that of the community cannot be trusted by the community to implement its policies."

Then Stephen Bain cannot be trusted because there is no community consensus calling for a ban of Law/TU or any punishment against Lara, GC or Jayron.

Sorry for the broken record act, but seriously: What "community"? And where are the numbers calling for this action? What, the usual 50 knuckleheads who turn up at every cockfight?

I can't do math -- you can't count fingers when nature gives you hoofs -- but what percent is 50 out of 10.5 million? What kind of a percentage are we talking about there? Is that who is running the show?

[Somey]

I'm sure there's something insightful in there, but life is too short.

I dunno... In some ways it's nice to see folks putting their ideas out there in a highly-detailed, exhaustively complete fashion. Still, the whole thing probably could have been boiled down to one or two paragraphs, and the crucial bit seems to have been this:

By assuming that we don't need to gain the consent of restricted editors, by insisting on exclusion as a simple solution, we create continued disruption...

...which, admittedly, is the same thing people have been saying here on WR for years. But it's something that bears repeating, over and over and over if necessary. People don't magically go away just because you have a ban-button on some website, and are willing to use it.

Meanwhile, the whole question of why Mr. Law receives this treatment, and not others, is being side-stepped - and while that's understandable, the fact that everyone keeps doing it (including me, in this very post you're reading now) is probably the most telling aspect of this whole situation. This certainly has nothing to do with policy, the "banned is banned" principle, Mr. Law's talents as a WP editor, or any ideological agenda he's currently pursuing. They just don't want to be associated with him because of his past, and while that too is understandable, it remains completely hypocritical for WP'ers to pretend otherwise.

The fact remains that they can't stop people who have objectionable pasts from participating - all they can do is raise a lot of drama whenever someone comes along who admits to having one.

[Ahypori]

Someone ask KC why she and her "chat-room buddies" (in Friday's words) still have the tools if "admins are held to a higher level"?

It's because, despite what people say, admins aren't (or don't appear to be) held to a higher standard than non-admins (in fact, without wanting to speak for him, the likes of Malleus will probably tell you that it's non-admins who are held to higher standards), and even if they were, certain admins and their friends would find ways to exempt themselves from the standards.

I am amazed at what certain people have been hauled to ArbCom for and gotten away with. Years of manipulation of the system and abuse of administrative tools and weight that caused great damage to the encyclopedia, other users, and the project as a whole, all detailed by multiple users to a point it cannot be refuted. These cases resulted in admonishments or temporary desysops. I kept a secret that caused no actual damage to the project and I'm about to be stripped of adminstrative tools that I never abused, to a point that no one has even attempted to suggest I may have.

Without wanting to let you down, one user is saying that you did abuse your tools, but they're hardly an uninvolved and objective view. However, the "tool abuse" they mentioned did not cause any damage to the project, and they're clearly looking for more reasons to get you desysopped.

But I'm supposed to drop to my knees and start kissing asses? That's not how I am. That said, there is no precedent for my desysop, so I can only hope it at least serves to set one.

If you're desysopped, then it had better set a precedent that allows us to remove the actual bad admins (starting with the ones who have used the whole event just to get revenge on their enemies, not because they were genuinely concerned about what happened).

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm sure there's something insightful in there, but life is too short.

How tall are you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

It's because, despite what people say, admins aren't (or don't appear to be) held to a higher standard than non-admins

That thud you just heard is A Nobody fainting. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[LaraLove]

Without wanting to let you down, one user is saying that you did abuse your tools, but they're hardly an uninvolved and objective view. However, the "tool abuse" they mentioned did not cause any damage to the project, and they're clearly looking for more reasons to get you desysopped.

Tool abuse my ass. Any admin can grant rollback at their discretion. Did he abuse it? No. Which I knew he wouldn't, considering I know him. She's grasping for anything she can at this point.

Glass houses.

[Somey]

I can't do math -- you can't count fingers when nature gives you hoofs -- but what percent is 50 out of 10.5 million? What kind of a percentage are we talking about there? Is that who is running the show?

I go by the "10 percent cut-down method," personally. I'll admit that it's just a guesstimate based on anecdotal evidence and vague hypothesizing about the typical way in which people become involved with WP, but I'd be willing to say that anywhere from 500K to 1M of those 10M accounts represent actual discrete human beings (the rest being socks, spambots, etc.). Of those, about 10 percent are "participants," meaning they "contribute" in a substantive way, and about 10 percent of those (i.e., roughly 5K-10K) are active participants. A further 10 percent of those (~500-1K) are highly active and probably (or at least potentially) addicted; and 10 percent of those (50-100) are "hopelessly addicted." Among those are the 50 or so individuals you're referring to.

The problem has always been that the roughly 1K users in that second-to-last group believe that WP exists for them (as a social club/self-promotion strategy/game), as opposed to society at large (as an informational reference).

There is probably no realistic way by which that can change.

[A Horse With No Name]

Tool abuse my ass.

You know, you really have to stop tempting me this way. I'm trying to turn over a new leaf and this isn't helping my cause. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

There is probably no realistic way by which that can change.

So when Mr. Bain is talking about community trust -- he doesn't know what he is talking about? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[The Joy]

Dan Tobias has the best commentary of all!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318079603

Of course it's an MMORPG, and the person who started this RFAr is a highly skilled player at it.

[Abd]

I am amazed at what certain people have been hauled to ArbCom for and gotten away with. Years of manipulation of the system and abuse of administrative tools and weight that caused great damage to the encyclopedia, other users, and the project as a whole, all detailed by multiple users to a point it cannot be refuted. These cases resulted in admonishments or temporary desysops. I kept a secret that caused no actual damage to the project and I'm about to be stripped of adminstrative tools that I never abused, to a point that no one has even attempted to suggest I may have.

But I'm supposed to drop to my knees and start kissing asses? That's not how I am. That said, there is no precedent for my desysop, so I can only hope it at least serves to set one.

I use Wikipedia all the time, and that should be recognized and appreciated. However, it's also true that the articles I actually use frequently don't satisfy the "rules" that the screaming mob demands. They often aren't sourced at all, or are very weakly sourced. But they are accurate, reasonably. The screaming mob is not creating these articles, they are the ones working, usually, to "clean up" the project. I.e., force sourcing, which is great, in itself, except that the practice is often to delete what they don't like, leaving what they like. The project is what it is because of the work of many thousands of editors, maybe even millions, but these editors have no voice, except in theory. Each of them has low edit count, they may, indeed, have edited only one article, something they knew and cared about.

Lara, your comment here is right on. Yes. That's the way it is. Raul654 might as well have dropped his pants and made a big dump right in front of the Committee, and nothing happened, he is still a checkuser and oversighter. WMC was blatantly violating recusal policy for years, yet the Committee was still dithering about whether there was anything worth examining, after all, he wasn't "involved" in Cold fusion to any serious degree. What it took to get their attention was a decision by me to ignore his ban; the community ban had expired and I was only voluntarily continuing to respect a ban claimed by WMC to be in effect. So I declared my intention, waiting a bit, and edited the Talk page and, as he had promised and affirmed (before the committee!) that he would do, he blocked me and reverted my harmless edit. During the case. Nothing had really changed, WMC didn't do something that anyone paying attention would have considered surprising. There was a move to immediately desysop, but it failed. Arbs were still wondering if this was an isolated incident or not! But there were arbs who were quite aware that it was not. They do read Wikipedia Review! WMC was desysopped, but only because I basically threw myself on the tracks in front of his freight train. Way in front, so that he could have easily stopped if he'd wanted to, and his friends could have stopped him as well.

Previously, JzG had blatantly violated recusal policy, it wasn't at all marginal. I presented the evidence, concisely! -- I can do it, it's easier when I'm not involved -- in the preceding RfC, (and this is why the Cab was out to get me banned.) JzG stonewalled, basically did not respond and disappeared for some months before the voting on the case. They only admonished him. I argued that ArbComm should suspend, not revoke, admin privileges immediately upon a reasonable showing of failure to understand and follow recusal policy, and then look for evidence that a hazard no longer existed. They have ignored this advice, which would be protective, not punitive. As it is, JzG is free to continue to believe that he was right and he merely suffered some kind of political loss. WMC believes the same, it's obvious.

Lara, you did not abuse tools, and the kind of offense you allegedly committed, by omission, is trumped, by several orders of magnitude, by behavior that the Committee sees in its "court" practically every day. ArbComm could fix this. Any individual arbitrator could stand for fixing it, and implement aspects of the solutions unilaterally. But I see no sign that any arbitrator, including the best, have what it takes to do it, it takes not only wisdom, but courage, the kind of courage that will lead someone to stand up and stand firm, against a screaming crowd.

If it were really true that the crowd represented the community, i.e., what the community would decide after deliberation, if somehow the process could be arranged, then, of course, yielding to the crowd would be proper and right. But very often, way too often, that's not the case. The mob is reflecting the bias of the heavily involved, and is thus incompetent to judge, and all the arbitrators are, as well, involved, making recusal a bit of a quirky weirdness, where, sometimes, the best and most cogent and most ethical of the arbitrators step aside. What does that leave behind?

If the goal were consensus, it would not matter whether an arbitrator recused. If the goal were consensus, the screaming of the mob wouldn't matter. Temporary desysops, pending careful deliberation, would be harmless. Frankly, if the mob is screaming about an admin, a rapid, non-punitive suspension would probably be a good idea, to avoid a perception of bias. I argued, indeed, that any admin should recuse from a particular case upon request (and of course, someone who kept requesting this again and again would come under special scrutiny and probably would not last long! "Recusal" does not mean "unblock." It means standing aside, doing nothing more, and, preferably, not even arguing for one's position besides providing the initial evidence, assuming that one wasn't actually involved). That view was rejected by the cabal as preposterous, with the usual arguments.

Explicitly, a suspension would not be punitive, but protective, until ArbComm -- and the community, which ArbComm should be leading, not following -- can be satisfied that there is no hazard and clearly so state, restoring the bit. Or, perhaps, finding the opposite and desysopping, if, say, it finds that the admin doesn't understand recusal policy and isn't getting it.

It's also quite possible to suspend without actually removing the bit, ArbComm simply requests the admin to stop using the tools pending, which is more respectful. This, then, allows the admin to act with exceptions under IAR, knowing that an error in this would result in prompt actual removal of tools. It also would allow continued access to deleted edits, etc.

I've argued similarly that banned editors should be allowed to make self-reverted edits, acknowledging the ban in the edit and the revert, i.e., "Will revert per ban," and "Revert per ban." Again, it would show mutual respect, that the editor is trusted to at least make suggestions that require no action, and, in the other direction, that the ban is acknowledged. I came up with this suggestion during the flap over SA making harmless edits while topic banned by ArbComm. It was a way for him to make those spelling corrections without, in substance, violating the ban. SA rejected the idea, contemptuously, but Carcharoth had approved it; SA's rejection was because his intention was disruption, not the spelling corrections. When I made a harmless edit during my one-month community ban from Cold fusion, sincerely attempting to fix a reference error, not testing the ban (I naively expected that it wouldn't be taken as a violation), and I self-reverted, and though WMC had previously said that blocking someone for making a harmless edit was "stupid", he blocked me for violating his ban. He never did acknowledge the community ban as having any substance at all, probably because the community ban had a set expiration and his did not.

I had previously suggested self-reversion to another topic banned editor, and he had adopted it, and the result was quite salutary: cooperation between that editor and the editor who had asked for him to be banned! Self-reverted edits provide an opportunity for that kind of cooperation to arise. If I were to make self-reverted edits that were contentious, say, they would be ignored! I'd be wasting my time. And if I made ones that were uncivil, they would be treated as violations.

Consider if a site-banned and blocked editor, say it is Scibaby (who isn't actually banned, technically, there never was a ban discussion, and he was blocked by a COI admin, WMC), makes a spelling correction to an article, or makes some other good edit, with the summary, say, "Sp, will revert per ban of Scibaby"). And he's using a sock account, and this account is not used for any unreverted edits. It's easy, then, to identify and watch such an account, no checkuser or other fuss involved. What if we never blocked such an account for "ban evasion," on the theory that self-reverted edits, unless intrinsically disruptive -- it's possible -- were not harmful? A banned editor could build up a history of constructive edits!

(It is really, really easy to check spelling corrections in self-reverted edits and to make sure that they aren't sneaking in something else; a diff will show the full extent of the edit, and also show that the reversion was complete, so it is quite easy to enforce. The suggestion commonly made, that a topic-banned editor may suggest a correction is utterly impractical. A self-reverted edit, though, is a suggestion, one that can be quickly and easily identified and implemented or not.)

But, no, that's not what would happen now. Because finding true consensus is not valued. If consensus is valued, every editor is important and will be given due consideration. That's possible with a structure that distributes the communication load; the open, single-level, everyone-sees-everything model is the problem. (It really means "most people see almost nothing.") It's fine if Wikipedia itself is open, but the community communication process must be more sophisticated, or it will continue to be unable to handle the scale involved.

Good luck, Lara. I do think the problems can be fixed, but it will take time. I'm now off-wiki, and not just because of the block that will expire in a bit more than two months. I'm off-wiki because it keeps me from getting involved, and the work that I see as needed doesn't involve my needing to make a single edit to Wikipedia. It's about the community.

[Peter Damian]

Just spotted this strange rather contradictory statement. Yes, there was a cabal, and they all support one another in dubious elections. And yes, that's OK because they are all upstanding members of the project. That's OK then.

Statement by Will Beback
The Bathrobe Cabal (BRC), despite its casual name, is a rather formal group with membership rules which has had a domain name, a Facebook page, a Yahoo group, an IRC channel, and even a recent meetup. Only admins were allowed to join at first and it may have had a dozen or two members in all. At least seven BRC members !voted in support of Law's RfA: LaraLove (who founded the BRC together with The undertow and a third user), GlassCobora, Jayron32, user:Ched Davis, user:Hmwith, user:Iridescent, and user:Pedro. Another member, user:EVula, edited the RfA without voting. Looking back, The undertow !voted to support the RfAs of Hmwith, Pedro, Iridescent, GlassCobra, LaraLove, and Jayron32, and for EVuala's second RfB. Law also !voted in EVula's Oversight election.

The scope of this case is larger than the four people named as parties. I gather that Law has stated that several dozen people knew of his previous identity. It is reasonable to surmise that more members of the Bathrobe Cabal, and more participants in the RFA, knew than just the three who've come forward. Clearly, this is not a band of vandals or POV pushers — these are functionaries, admins, and other valued community members: good people who contribute positively to the project. The ArbCom should seek remedies that address the past problematic behavior without discouraging future participation. Will Beback talk 08:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._by_Will_Beback

[lone-wolf]

The motion he's commenting on is this one:
Friendship and Wikipedia

5.1 While friendship is a noble trait and attitude engraved into the human nature, it should not be used as a motive behind Wikipedia actions, such as administrative duties or influencing a debate. Due to its subjectivity, personal friendship should not affect Wikipedia rules. The community is encouraged to develop guidelines to avoid any misconception of impartiality.

Is there a smiley for being physically sick? :vomit:

A very dangerous path to start down.

[Gazimoff]

Does the Undertow have proof of the deal he agreed with Arbcom? If so, publishing it would probably be useful. Not that I'm in favour of embarrassing Arbs, but you would at least expect their word to be trusted.

[Somey]

So when Mr. Bain is talking about community trust -- he doesn't know what he is talking about? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Well, as Mr. Abd has so exhaustively stated above, people at his level of WP involvement think of the "community" as being composed only of people who are at that same level (or greater) of involvement. But this has always been the case, on WP and almost any other large participatory website. If you accept that the "community" is just the active regulars, and everyone else is peripheral, then he actually does know what he's talking about, because those are the people for whom "trust issues" are going to be paramount, as opposed to everything else (i.e., talent, experience, pleasant attitude, etc.).

And it isn't that people like Mr. Bain don't care about content; it's that they don't care about it in the same way as most people - they see it the way a World of Warcraft player would see a pot of "gold" being guarded by a large pixel-rendered beast whom they might get points for "killing," as opposed to the way the reader or casual WP user sees it, i.e., basic information.

[CharlotteWebb]

I dunno... In some ways it's nice to see folks putting their ideas out there in a highly-detailed, exhaustively complete fashion. Still, the whole thing probably could have been boiled down to one or two paragraphs, and the crucial bit seems to have been...

Indeed.
I don't suppose can we persuade Abd to use bold text for his key points. That would help folks decide at a glance whether they'd like to read the entire tome.

Without wanting to let [Lara] down, one user is saying that you did abuse your tools, but they're hardly an uninvolved and objective view. However, the "tool abuse" they mentioned did not cause any damage to the project, and they're clearly looking for more reasons to get you desysopped.

Yeah:

...actually, as only admins can grant rollback, and [Lara] did so, granting [User:Law whom she knew to be teh_undertow] rollback less than a month after account creation, tools were abused. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small>^{[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]}[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a small beer as the average reasonable admin (read "not Aitias") would have done the same thing upon request... even being ignorant of the user's former identity but with all other factors equal.

It's a trivial feature anyway. Might as well make it available to everyone on the user-prefs screen, right next to all the javascript gadgets which less efficiently will do exactly the same thing.

[Abd]

.... Suppose you are a police officer. Attending a function with your sister, you find out that your brother-in-law sometimes smokes marijuana, and in your state, that's a misdemeanor. Do you report him?

Suppose you aren't just an officer, you are a judge. Does the situation change?

I think that's an interesting way of framing the present debate surrounding Law. To answer your question directly, no and yes. To extrapolate from your question though, would I support the promotion of a judge whom I knew to be smoking marijuana? No, because that opens up the office holder to the prospect of blackmail. Same goes for Law's promotion; poor judgement on all sides.

I don't agree that a judge has an obligation to report any more than a police officer, or, indeed, any citizen. And in actual practice, such reports are rare.

The problem of a judge smoking marijuana is interesting, though, because the conflict is clearer. Yes, there is the possibility of blackmail. However, an admin on Wikipedia isn't a judge, and is more like a police officer, and some police, in fact, smoke pot, it's not uncommon. And they don't rat on each other. They will not get in trouble for failure to report an offense, unless there was some forseeable damage. Like a police officer seeing a fellow officer drinking and then driving.... in that case, there might be a problem. In this case, Lara did not forsee any damage, and "blackmail" isn't an issue, admins simply don't have enough power and someone like Law has too much self-respect to allow blackmail to function.

Absolutely, in hindsight there was tremendous damage, but not direct damage. The damage was from the flap. And who is responsible for that? In my view, it's a collective responsibility, and this kind of flap will arise until and unless mechanisms are in place to deal with controversies like this. How about an injunction against discussing a matter, except as participating in a managed process, anywhere but on case pages or off-wiki? That would take a bold ArbComm, eh? Talk about Law, Lara, Casliber, etc., in reference to this flap, immediate block per ArbComm discretionary sanctions.

Topic ban the entire community. Why not?

Sensible editors understand restrictions, particularly when it's clear that the restrictions aren't to censor or prevent consideration, but only to channel discontent into orderly process. And, of course, this would require ArbComm to become much more functional in its own process. There are less than 15 arbitrators, and they have practically complete freedom as to how to structure their own deliberation, and they appear to be completely helpless. Unless, I suppose, they like it as it is, as some here theorize ("They like the drama.")

Either the community will organize itself, off-wiki, or ArbComm will organize itself, on and off-wiki. Or, less likely, Jimbo will put it together, not imposing it, but seeding what is needed. It could be surprisingly simple. Any Arbitrator could begin the process, and I suspect, would probably be successful, though there would be plenty of screaming. None of which would have any sound basis, unless the arbitrator was actually abusive.

[A Horse With No Name]

Daniel Case to Lara: curse you, she-demon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFA...ved_Daniel_Case

[Malleus]

Lara, you did not abuse tools, and the kind of offense you allegedly committed, by omission, is trumped, by several orders of magnitude, by behavior that the Committee sees in its "court" practically every day. ArbComm could fix this. Any individual arbitrator could stand for fixing it, and implement aspects of the solutions unilaterally. But I see no sign that any arbitrator, including the best, have what it takes to do it, it takes not only wisdom, but courage, the kind of courage that will lead someone to stand up and stand firm, against a screaming crowd.

Lara didn't abuse tools, she abused trust. Which is worse? Only the baying crowd will decide, as I agree with you that very few of the arbitrators have yet displayed any kind of wisdom or courage in their pronouncements. Particularly courage.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Random832]

How about an injunction against discussing a matter, except as participating in a managed process, anywhere but on case pages or off-wiki?

If they were to actually make such a crazy move, do you really think the "or off-wiki" part would fly?

someone like Law has too much self-respect to allow blackmail to function.

This. Didn't this whole thing start because someone was blackmailing him, he didn't give in, and they followed through on the threat?

This post has been edited by Random832:

[A Horse With No Name]

Lara didn't abuse tools, she abused trust. Which is worse? Only the baying crowd will decide, as I agree with you that very few of the arbitrators have yet displayed any kind of wisdom or courage in their pronouncements. Particularly courage.

Hey, Malley, in less than two months, you'll be an admin and you can unblock half of WR! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Random832]

I've never seen a recusal where the recused party openly and repeatedly calls into question the integrity of someone in the spotlight. I always thought "recused" means no involvement, usually due to a conflict of interest.

Not really. A conflict of interest (in this case, he considers himself to have been personally wronged by Law/UT) means he is involved (and thus cannot act as an impartial judge).

[Malleus]

.... Suppose you are a police officer. Attending a function with your sister, you find out that your brother-in-law sometimes smokes marijuana, and in your state, that's a misdemeanor. Do you report him?

Suppose you aren't just an officer, you are a judge. Does the situation change?

I think that's an interesting way of framing the present debate surrounding Law. To answer your question directly, no and yes. To extrapolate from your question though, would I support the promotion of a judge whom I knew to be smoking marijuana? No, because that opens up the office holder to the prospect of blackmail. Same goes for Law's promotion; poor judgement on all sides.

I don't agree that a judge has an obligation to report any more than a police officer, or, indeed, any citizen. And in actual practice, such reports are rare.

The problem of a judge smoking marijuana is interesting, though, because the conflict is clearer. Yes, there is the possibility of blackmail. However, an admin on Wikipedia isn't a judge, and is more like a police officer, and some police, in fact, smoke pot, it's not uncommon. And they don't rat on each other. They will not get in trouble for failure to report an offense, unless there was some forseeable damage. Like a police officer seeing a fellow officer drinking and then driving.... in that case, there might be a problem. In this case, Lara did not forsee any damage, and "blackmail" isn't an issue, admins simply don't have enough power and someone like Law has too much self-respect to allow blackmail to function.

Then we will have to agree to disagree, as I see a very clear distinction between police and judges. And in any event, administrators on wikipedia are much more like judges than policemen (obviously I ignore that risible "janitor" analogy) .

Policemen don't have the authority to pass sentence; wikipedia administrators do.

Lara didn't abuse tools, she abused trust. Which is worse? Only the baying crowd will decide, as I agree with you that very few of the arbitrators have yet displayed any kind of wisdom or courage in their pronouncements. Particularly courage.

Hey, Malley, in less than two months, you'll be an admin and you can unblock half of WR! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

No, recent events have made me think about this again. I wont be going for RfA in the present climate of distrust of administrators. I'd feel embarrassed to be one of them.

I've never seen a recusal where the recused party openly and repeatedly calls into question the integrity of someone in the spotlight. I always thought "recused" means no involvement, usually due to a conflict of interest.

Not really. A conflict of interest (in this case, he considers himself to have been personally wronged by Law/UT) means he is involved (and thus cannot act as an impartial judge).

You seem to have missed the point.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[LaraLove]

Tool abuse my ass.

You know, you really have to stop tempting me this way. I'm trying to turn over a new leaf and this isn't helping my cause. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I didn't realize how dirty that read until now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Daniel Case to Lara: curse you, she-demon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFA...ved_Daniel_Case

I don't know what he's going on about. His examples don't seem to point anything out to me. Someone please explain where I misbehaved in his examples.

The article he is speaking of is Jennifer Fitzgerald (now deleted, but admins can view it). I originally posted this thread to get opinions. It was a horribly written "biography" that was almost entirely negative, containing sensationalized tabloid garbage, rumor, and innuendo. It was immediately clear that I was not alone in my opinion of the article.

It was taken to AFD by Kevin and the delete votes began to pile in. DGG and JoshuaZ make their typical appearances to try and keep it, but in the end it was deemed wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia.

This is where Joy pointed out that he'd moved it to http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Jennifer_Fitzgerald. The main page of this site reads:
Welcome to the dKosopedia, a collaborative project of the DailyKos community to build a political encyclopedia. The dKosopedia is written from a left/progressive/liberal/Democratic point of view while also attempting to fairly acknowledge the other side's take.

In moving the article there, it showed not only why he had written such a negative and slanted piece, but also (I believe, someone correct me if I'm wrong) he broke the GDFL because now the original authors are left uncredited.

He used his adminstrative privileges to see the deleted content of an article that was deleted for basically being an attack piece, and he then posted it to a liberal political wiki without giving attribution to the editors who wrote it, but I misbehaved? Right.

[LaraLove]

Does the Undertow have proof of the deal he agreed with Arbcom? If so, publishing it would probably be useful. Not that I'm in favour of embarrassing Arbs, but you would at least expect their word to be trusted.

I've never known him to log, but I'll ask. I'll have to pull up mine and see how far it goes. I know I was told that a ban was unlikely. And, obviously, the original motion said he could continue on as the_undertow. So them now putting forth a motion to ban him is a new development.

How about an injunction against discussing a matter, except as participating in a managed process, anywhere but on case pages or off-wiki?

If they were to actually make such a crazy move, do you really think the "or off-wiki" part would fly?

someone like Law has too much self-respect to allow blackmail to function.

This. Didn't this whole thing start because someone was blackmailing him, he didn't give in, and they followed through on the threat?

1. They can't mandate that there be no-off-wiki discussion of the matter.

2. No. He refused to do the move, an argument followed after some unnecessary poking from Ironholds and Daniel and that led Ironholds to send logs to Daniel who, in turn, sent them to the AC. That's my understanding. The only possible error being that Ironholds may have forwarded them himself after showing them to Daniel.

[The Joy]

Motions work by simple majority, right?

If there are 9 active arbitrators, you need at least 5 to make a decision.

Well, 5 have opted to desysop GlassCobra. So once the motion is officially passed, he will be desysoped. It looks like Jayron32 will get by, but desysoping Lara could still happen. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Ahypori]

Yeah:

...actually, as only admins can grant rollback, and [Lara] did so, granting [User:Law whom she knew to be teh_undertow] rollback less than a month after account creation, tools were abused. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small>^{[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]}[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a small beer as the average reasonable admin (read "not Aitias") would have done the same thing upon request... even being ignorant of the user's former identity but with all other factors equal.

It's a trivial feature anyway. Might as well make it available to everyone on the user-prefs screen, right next to all the javascript gadgets which less efficiently will do exactly the same thing.

Here was me thinking that Aitias wouldn't get mentioned at all in this thread. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Oh, and note this.

I don't know what he's going on about. His examples don't seem to point anything out to me. Someone please explain where I misbehaved in his examples.

I was baffled by this too: a lot of it seems to be completely irrelevant to recent issues. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Friday]

The undertow has an undisputed history of acting like a total kook, right?

I'd say sneaking him back into the project and giving him admin tools under false pretenses was indeed damaging to the project. Yes, it sounds like the only obviously bad thing he did was a bad unblock, but is it possible for any reasonable person to consider him a healthy addition to the project? The facts of his original ban are now well known and not disputed, right?

There's a lot of political nonsense going around, and finger pointing at unrelated people, but at the core of this case, there was a very real and really stupid breach of trust.

[The Joy]

The undertow has an undisputed history of acting like a total kook, right?

I'd say sneaking him back into the project and giving him admin tools under false pretenses was indeed damaging to the project. Yes, it sounds like the only obviously bad thing he did was a bad unblock, but is it possible for any reasonable person to consider him a healthy addition to the project? The facts of his original ban are now well known and not disputed, right?

There's a lot of political nonsense going around, and finger pointing at unrelated people, but at the core of this case, there was a very real and really stupid breach of trust.

It's not like Lara let Osama bin Laden seek onto the wiki. There are far worse people who she could have helped back. No one has provided any evidence that Law broke any policies except coming back without ArbCom's permission. It's not the end of the world or the wiki.

[Abd]

Then we will have to agree to disagree, as I see a very clear distinction between police and judges. And in any event, administrators on wikipedia are much more like judges than policemen (obviously I ignore that risible "janitor" analogy) .

Policemen don't have the authority to pass sentence; wikipedia administrators do.

I suggest, Malleus, that you have forgotten or overlooked the reality of both police work and administrative function on Wikipedia.

Real police have discretion. They can warn, and they can arrest. "Arrest" is quite equivalent to "block." My case led to a community decision clarifying that administrators cannot "ban." Only ArbComm or the community can ban. When an admin closes a community discussion, in that case, an administrator is acting as a judge. That is a place where the roles cross over, and it is immediately appealable to ArbComm (a ban, that is. No-ban is not necessarily appealable in that way, depends.)

Some admins function as janitors, some as police, and those who function as primarily judges are probably the worst, from which I will conditionally exempt the arbitrators, who are elected for that purpose.

Now, in the case I postulated, a judge doesn't learn of the marijuana smoking in his capacity as a judge, but as a relative, and as a friend would be the same basic situation. The relationship would require the judge to recuse from any case involving the brother-in-law. The judge is not a judge for that person and is really just another officer of the court, like any attorney. It's clear to me that there is no obligation to disclose, except as needed to prevent serious harm to others (which is a general obligation, not unique to judges or police, but more often enforced with them).

Police officers, and judges, have discretion, the concept of IAR, as I've written, isn't unique to Wikipedia, it is a common-law rule. Officers are not required to arrest for every violation of the law, they may use discretion. The officer who stops you for speeding can let you go with a warning, issue a ticket, or, if concerned about possible continued danger, actually arrest you.

Now, there is a question to which I don't have an answer yet. Granted, Law/Undertow violated a ban. Did Lara or Caslliber (or anyone else) encourage him to do that? If a judge encourages someone to break the law, this does cross a boundary. However, simply knowing that a new editor is an old friend doesn't cross that boundary; one might encourage the friend to "come clean," but not punish the friend for failing to do so, and only if there were serious ongoing damage, not merely a technical violation of a ban, would an obligation to do something arise. And one might still, then, "recuse." I.e., not take responsibility, and the judgment is a matter of discretion, where to draw the line.

However, nominating the friend for adminship is trickier, and, to a lesser extent, so is supporting the candidacy. If Law was still blocked when the nomination was made, I say that is, at least, on the edge. There are two arguments: one, it is a form of encouragement to violate a ban, and in the other direction, one can believe that the project will benefit.

But later, after the block has expired, to support adminship, I find the level of "dishonesty" involved to be trivial and purely formal. I find that I'd be more offended by someone revealing what was revealed to them in confidence, than by someone declining to reveal. So what some in the community are claiming was reprehensible, "failure to disclose personal knowledge," I find laudable. And thus I condemn the response, when accompanied by more than ordinary argument, but, instead, radically uncivil polemic and accusations of moral reprehensibility, tendentiously levelled.

[Friday]

The undertow has an undisputed history of acting like a total kook, right?

I'd say sneaking him back into the project and giving him admin tools under false pretenses was indeed damaging to the project. Yes, it sounds like the only obviously bad thing he did was a bad unblock, but is it possible for any reasonable person to consider him a healthy addition to the project? The facts of his original ban are now well known and not disputed, right?

There's a lot of political nonsense going around, and finger pointing at unrelated people, but at the core of this case, there was a very real and really stupid breach of trust.

It's not like Lara let Osama bin Laden seek onto the wiki. There are far worse people who she could have helped back. No one has provided any evidence that Law broke any policies except coming back without ArbCom's permission. It's not the end of the world or the wiki.

Well, sure, compared to real-life bad people, it's nothing. But this isn't real life we're talking about.

As far as the Wiki goes.. creating a POINTy BLP on an editor he had a disagreement with, making legal threats... These are examples of kooky behavior. Kooks should not be welcome at the Wiki, no matter who their best buddy is.

[The Joy]

The undertow has an undisputed history of acting like a total kook, right?

I'd say sneaking him back into the project and giving him admin tools under false pretenses was indeed damaging to the project. Yes, it sounds like the only obviously bad thing he did was a bad unblock, but is it possible for any reasonable person to consider him a healthy addition to the project? The facts of his original ban are now well known and not disputed, right?

There's a lot of political nonsense going around, and finger pointing at unrelated people, but at the core of this case, there was a very real and really stupid breach of trust.

It's not like Lara let Osama bin Laden seek onto the wiki. There are far worse people who she could have helped back. No one has provided any evidence that Law broke any policies except coming back without ArbCom's permission. It's not the end of the world or the wiki.

Well, sure, compared to real-life bad people, it's nothing. But this isn't real life we're talking about.

As far as the Wiki goes.. creating a POINTy BLP on an editor he had a disagreement with, making legal threats... These are examples of kooky behavior. Kooks should not be welcome at the Wiki, no matter who their best buddy is.

If Wikipedian banned all the kooks, who would be left to edit?

[A Horse With No Name]

Yes, it sounds like the only obviously bad thing he did was a bad unblock, but is it possible for any reasonable person to consider him a healthy addition to the project?

Oh, I don't know. He appears to be in fine shape -- lean, muscular, low-body fat. Seems healthy to me.


And now, here's our friend Luke serenading Law/TU with his own special version of that Jacques Brel classic, "Ne me quitte pas": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318199859

[Gazimoff]

The undertow has an undisputed history of acting like a total kook, right?

I'd say sneaking him back into the project and giving him admin tools under false pretenses was indeed damaging to the project. Yes, it sounds like the only obviously bad thing he did was a bad unblock, but is it possible for any reasonable person to consider him a healthy addition to the project? The facts of his original ban are now well known and not disputed, right?

There's a lot of political nonsense going around, and finger pointing at unrelated people, but at the core of this case, there was a very real and really stupid breach of trust.

Please explain, using diagrams where appropriate, where the project came to harm. You may include in your explanation references to damaged articles or links to external reliable sources.

Also, someone should tell Luke that flogging a dead horse can earn oneself a reputation. We wouldn't want to earn an image of tenacity, would we?

[RMHED]

If Wikipedian banned all the kooks, who would be left to edit?

The pre-teens?

[Friday]

The undertow has an undisputed history of acting like a total kook, right?

I'd say sneaking him back into the project and giving him admin tools under false pretenses was indeed damaging to the project. Yes, it sounds like the only obviously bad thing he did was a bad unblock, but is it possible for any reasonable person to consider him a healthy addition to the project? The facts of his original ban are now well known and not disputed, right?

There's a lot of political nonsense going around, and finger pointing at unrelated people, but at the core of this case, there was a very real and really stupid breach of trust.

Please explain, using diagrams where appropriate, where the project came to harm. You may include in your explanation references to damaged articles or links to external reliable sources.

Also, someone should tell Luke that flogging a dead horse can earn oneself a reputation. We wouldn't want to earn an image of tenacity, would we?

See, I don't buy into this "nothing that's not an article can be important" line of reasoning.

Sure, articles are more important than most other things. But who writes the articles? Some poor sap of an editor, right? So, when you have an editor harassing another editor, that is a problem that needs fixed. The fix in this case was a ban on the harassing editor. Some people took it upon themselves to help undo that fix. I understand there's not really a way to enforce a ban, but that's no reason to go around intentionally help people circumvent a ban, when they were banned for good cause.

[everyking]

The undertow has an undisputed history of acting like a total kook, right?

I'd say sneaking him back into the project and giving him admin tools under false pretenses was indeed damaging to the project. Yes, it sounds like the only obviously bad thing he did was a bad unblock, but is it possible for any reasonable person to consider him a healthy addition to the project? The facts of his original ban are now well known and not disputed, right?

There's a lot of political nonsense going around, and finger pointing at unrelated people, but at the core of this case, there was a very real and really stupid breach of trust.

What on earth? You can just review his edits. You don't have to take anyone's word for it, just review the edits. Do you see "kookery" in there?

[Friday]

The undertow has an undisputed history of acting like a total kook, right?

I'd say sneaking him back into the project and giving him admin tools under false pretenses was indeed damaging to the project. Yes, it sounds like the only obviously bad thing he did was a bad unblock, but is it possible for any reasonable person to consider him a healthy addition to the project? The facts of his original ban are now well known and not disputed, right?

There's a lot of political nonsense going around, and finger pointing at unrelated people, but at the core of this case, there was a very real and really stupid breach of trust.

What on earth? You can just review his edits. You don't have to take anyone's word for it, just review the edits. Do you see "kookery" in there?

I suspect the legal threat and POINTy BLP are not edits I can see. Are you asserting that these things did not happen? This is the first I've heard anyone disputing the facts of the ban.

[IN278S]

Motions work by simple majority, right?

If there are 9 active arbitrators, you need at least 5 to make a decision.

Well, 5 have opted to desysop GlassCobra. So once the motion is officially passed, he will be desysoped. It looks like Jayron32 will get by, but desysoping Lara could still happen. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Based on the numbering, I read the motions to admonish as alternatives to the motions to desysop. If both alternatives have sufficient support to pass, some calculation is made based on number of supports, first/second choices, and (if necessary) number of opposes. So it appears to me that admonishments will be handed down.

[RMHED]

Does anybody really give a fuck about all this bullshit?

If you aren't directly involved then why do you care?

Haven't you got anything better to do?

If the answer is no, then please do consider suicide, as you are clearly surplus to requirements.

[LaraLove]

The arbitrary nine-month ban was excessive. When he appealed after three months, it was looking as if he was going to have his appeal accepted and be unbanned. We, of course, did not find this out until this week, because the thread went silent and fell unanswered into archives, but had the AC fulfilled their side of the deal, he would have been unbanned and all this would have been averted.

So does this fall solely on the AC for failing to do their elected job? No. They surely deserve some of the blame, though. Sure, we broke a policy (whether the letter or the spirit) and that has stirred up a shitstorm of drama, but you're going on and on about what the_undertow did, completely disregarding what led up to it, completely ignoring the failure of ArbCom, and completely devaluing his positive contributions as Law which began after making peace with Swatjester.

[Gazimoff]

See, I don't buy into this "nothing that's not an article can be important" line of reasoning.

Sure, articles are more important than most other things. But who writes the articles? Some poor sap of an editor, right? So, when you have an editor harassing another editor, that is a problem that needs fixed. The fix in this case was a ban on the harassing editor. Some people took it upon themselves to help undo that fix. I understand there's not really a way to enforce a ban, but that's no reason to go around intentionally help people circumvent a ban, when they were banned for good cause.

I don't think that anyone can call Swatjester "some poor sap of an editor". Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, I find this nugget interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318275949

So, is it accepted wisdom that if an editor wants to contribute to the project and has attempted to communicate with arbcom and been summarily ignored, is left with no other choice? Is tabula rasa the recommended course here? Certainly looks like it

[Malleus]

Then we will have to agree to disagree, as I see a very clear distinction between police and judges. And in any event, administrators on wikipedia are much more like judges than policemen (obviously I ignore that risible "janitor" analogy) .

Policemen don't have the authority to pass sentence; wikipedia administrators do.

I suggest, Malleus, that you have forgotten or overlooked the reality of both police work and administrative function on Wikipedia.

Real police have discretion. They can warn, and they can arrest. "Arrest" is quite equivalent to "block." My case led to a community decision clarifying that administrators cannot "ban." Only ArbComm or the community can ban. When an admin closes a community discussion, in that case, an administrator is acting as a judge. That is a place where the roles cross over, and it is immediately appealable to ArbComm (a ban, that is. No-ban is not necessarily appealable in that way, depends.)

Some admins function as janitors, some as police, and those who function as primarily judges are probably the worst, from which I will conditionally exempt the arbitrators, who are elected for that purpose.

But that's the precisely the point. How many have you seen opposed at RfA because they haven't spent enought time at XfD for instance, or because they gave the wrong answer to a question about acceptable usernames?

The administrator function should clearly be split, with different tools allocated to different functionaries, but that equally clearly won't happen. Wikipedia is suffocating under its own dead weight.

I don't think that anyone can call Swatjester "some poor sap of an editor". Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I certainly would.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[LaraLove]

I don't think that anyone can call Swatjester "some poor sap of an editor". Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I certainly would.

Would you mind elaborating on this position a bit?

[lone-wolf]

Yes, it sounds like the only obviously bad thing he did was a bad unblock, but is it possible for any reasonable person to consider him a healthy addition to the project?

Ummm NO .. what he did was UN-do a bad block.

[Somey]

Also, I find this nugget interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318275949

So, is it accepted wisdom that if an editor wants to contribute to the project and has attempted to communicate with arbcom and been summarily ignored, is left with no other choice? Is tabula rasa the recommended course here?

In the case of a user like Gbrener (T-C-L-K-R-D) , that would have been not only simple, but appropriate - he apparently contributed to an article about someone named "Mark Levin," which seems to have been deleted. His only other "mainspace" edits were two made on the article Midget (T-H-L-K-D), the first to add a name, the second six minutes later to remove it. So yes, it's a deletable user account.

However, if what you're really asking is whether someone who has gotten into "trouble" with admins (or the ArbCom) should abandon their account, start over, and never admit to having been associated with the earlier account in any way, then yes, that's the recommended course - assuming you want to become an admin someday yourself, that is.

[Malleus]

I don't think that anyone can call Swatjester "some poor sap of an editor". Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I certainly would.

Would you mind elaborating on this position a bit?

Would there be any point? Swatjester blocked me for upsetting one of his friends. Not that I'm bitter or anything you understand, just that I don't like corruption.

However, if what you're really asking is whether someone who has gotten into "trouble" with admins (or the ArbCom) should abandon their account, start over, and never admit to having been associated with the earlier account in any way, then yes, that's the recommended course - assuming you want to become an admin someday yourself, that is.

Absolutely right.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Mathsci]

Elonka is back in action on the motions talk page

She has also prepared a fairly accurate summary of what happened here

[LaraLove]

I don't think that anyone can call Swatjester "some poor sap of an editor". Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I certainly would.

Would you mind elaborating on this position a bit?

Would there be any point? Swatjester blocked me for upsetting one of his friends. Not that I'm bitter or anything you understand, just that I don't like corruption.

I think there are two different interpretations of "some poor sap of an editor" here.

Your original comment seemed to suggest you were sympathetic toward him. I take it to mean some editor who doesn't know the ropes, so to speak. Edits articles, gets caught up in the politics without realizing or understanding what's going on and ends up blocked or topic banned or whatever because they couldn't play the game.

Swat obviously doesn't fall into that group. He's got years on the project, adminship and has run for the board a few times. He knows what's up.

[One]

I'm recused on undertow. Besides, it'll probably go to the whole committee.

If we could resolve his accusations, I'll be taking a much-needed break anyway.

Lara: any word on why The_undertow can't or won't answer your reasonable question?

I'll ask him if I get a chance to talk to him tonight. He was taking a break from the intrawebs this weekend and I've spent so much time dealing with this drama that I've been catching up with my course load and haven't taken the time to call.

Thanks!

I'm recused on undertow.

I've never seen a recusal where the recused party openly and repeatedly calls into question the integrity of someone in the spotlight. I always thought "recused" means no involvement, usually due to a conflict of interest. This is closer to "I am not going to judge that deceitful liar" as opposed to "I would prefer not to participate, due to personal considerations."

I agree.

Luke, I've found your recusal in this case to be a strange one. Although there's not contribution to the tallies, there sure is a lot of opinion/judgment being given. Is that normal?

Are you referring to my public defense of the June 2008 block which I was uninvolved with, or my public and private opposition to the proposed October 2009 block (both before and after The_undertow's fabricated FUD)? I'm striving to cease all involvement in this mess, and I will drop from the site altogether once the attack on me is set straight.

At any rate, you're mistaken if you think I'm leading the pitchforks.

[Noroton]

Oh, thanks a lot. Several people spent some time on that one, and now you're wasting it. So it was all for drama purposes? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

If you go back to the beginning of this detour: I wrote an article for a half-joking Luke on a subject that was absent from Wikipedia. I could have just as easily created a new account to put it online -- and please do not use the word "sockpuppet," because I don't have Shari Lewis' hand up my ass. Instead, I sent it to him for posting, which didn't happen. Rather than waste the article (which took me 20 minutes to write), I posted it here and clearly stated that anyone who wanted to post it on WP could do it with my permission.

Instead of being pissed off with me for refusing to repeat myself for the sake of those who cannot comprehend basic English, why don't you raise a hue and cry against a system that blacklists writers? I don't think the sandbox crowd at WP would be very comfortable if they substituted the word "blacklisted" for "banned."

And, by the way, when was the last time anyone at Arbcom actually wrote an original article? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Guido gets a slurpy homoerotic kiss. I get bupkis. You owe me your left testicle. And I don't mean while it's still attached to you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

You wouldn't know what to do with my left testicle if I gave you an instructional manual and a DVD with Rip Taylor offering step-by-step procedures. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I'd have it with fava beans and ... what would be appropriate? Grappa.

Were you being disingenuous here:

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

Or here:

Humor me? You know "the forms must be obeyed"... say "I release the text under the GFDL" and THEN be sympathetic.

It'd be a shame to have that article go away on a technicality (unless you were going for the Peter Damian maneuver? )

I am not doing any maneuver. I am genuinely astonished that alleged "editors" cannot read plain English.

And the only genuine shame is a web site where people need a "front" in order to get their writing published. If you cannot appreciate the utter stupidity of that, then we're in parallel conversations.

Besides, the article isn't going away -- it is already on Wikisage. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

First you encourage someone here to post, then don't lift a finger so that the people who took you up on it will have wasted their time.

Nice to know that about you.

[LaraLove]

Are you referring to my public defense of the June 2008 block which I was uninvolved with, or my public and private opposition to the proposed October 2009 block (both before and after The_undertow's fabricated FUD)? I'm striving to cease all involvement in this mess, and I will drop from the site altogether once the attack on me is set straight.

At any rate, you're mistaken if you think I'm leading the pitchforks.

I don't think you're leading the pitchforks. I'm talking about your extended commentary on the request itself. Is that normal? That's all I'm asking.

[Malleus]

Elonka is back in action on the motions talk page

She has also prepared a fairly accurate summary of what happened here

It does seem like a pretty accurate account.

I'm both puzzled and worried about the events of July 12 though. I didn't ask for those rights, I didn't want those rights, and several administrators arrived pretty sharpish to take them away. Who were they watching? Law or me?

I believe that what Lara did, for instance, is probably consistent with wikipidea's broken idea of honesty, or even worse wikipedia's disregard for honesty. I'm waiting to see what happens next; right now I'm seriously pissed off with the project.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[MBisanz]

Are you referring to my public defense of the June 2008 block which I was uninvolved with, or my public and private opposition to the proposed October 2009 block (both before and after The_undertow's fabricated FUD)? I'm striving to cease all involvement in this mess, and I will drop from the site altogether once the attack on me is set straight.

At any rate, you're mistaken if you think I'm leading the pitchforks.

I don't think you're leading the pitchforks. I'm talking about your extended commentary on the request itself. Is that normal? That's all I'm asking.

I have seen Raul and David give such lengthy commentary before, and I believe Mack and Gordon also have presented along such lines.

[Malleus]

I don't think that anyone can call Swatjester "some poor sap of an editor". Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I certainly would.

Would you mind elaborating on this position a bit?

Would there be any point? Swatjester blocked me for upsetting one of his friends. Not that I'm bitter or anything you understand, just that I don't like corruption.

I think there are two different interpretations of "some poor sap of an editor" here.

Your original comment seemed to suggest you were sympathetic toward him. I take it to mean some editor who doesn't know the ropes, so to speak. Edits articles, gets caught up in the politics without realizing or understanding what's going on and ends up blocked or topic banned or whatever because they couldn't play the game.

Swat obviously doesn't fall into that group. He's got years on the project, adminship and has run for the board a few times. He knows what's up.

Swatjester doesn't even know which way is up in my opinion. He's a self-important clown.

[One]

Are you referring to my public defense of the June 2008 block which I was uninvolved with, or my public and private opposition to the proposed October 2009 block (both before and after The_undertow's fabricated FUD)? I'm striving to cease all involvement in this mess, and I will drop from the site altogether once the attack on me is set straight.

At any rate, you're mistaken if you think I'm leading the pitchforks.

I don't think you're leading the pitchforks. I'm talking about your extended commentary on the request itself. Is that normal? That's all I'm asking.

I've never seen one this year, and some people did think it was approaching--if not over--the limit.

I suppose I had conceived these as two different cases. I knew from the outset that I would be recused from anything about you, but I felt unbiased for The_undertow case proper, which was not formally brought as the case against you and GC was. The commentary was directed at the underlying issue in The_undertow, which I was not then recused from (I didn't express any opinion about you, GC, or Jehochman's claims, just the underlying events as I reconstructed them). It would have been better to place that commentary in relation to The_undertow motions. But now that I'm recused from both, it's moot; I won't be making that kind of commentary anywhere.

If I were to do it again, I would recuse in a terse note, and make a heading in the request with my additional comments.

Anyhow, just make sure your best friend explains why he decided to attack me. Thanks.


CORRECTION: I have said that The_undertow did not seek an unban until User:Law was already running. I based this conclusion on a review of arbcom-l. It now appears to me that I was mistaken. I don't want to comment on this case, but I feel obliged to correct my own mistake. Cf.

For future reference, if anyone would like to send something to arbcom, please use the arbcom-l lists.wikimedia.org email address so that all members are apprised. Talking through individual arbitrators seems to have caused some confusion at multiple points in this saga.

This post has been edited by One:

[LaraLove]

Elonka is back in action on the motions talk page

She has also prepared a fairly accurate summary of what happened here

It does seem like a pretty accurate account.

I'm both puzzled and worried about the events of July 12 though. I didn't ask for those rights, I didn't want those rights, and several administrators arrived pretty sharpish to take them away. Who were they watching? Law or me?

I believe that what Lara did, for instance, is probably consistent with wikipidea's broken idea of honesty, or even worse wikipedia's disregard for honesty. I'm waiting to see what happens next; right now I'm seriously pissed off with the project.

Elonka's evidence is very basic and leaves out a lot of context.

# 04:45 Jennavecia deletes User:XF Law page [28]
# 04:46: Jennavecia (talk · contribs) deletes Law's userpage[29]

Those, by the way, were one edit. I didn't realize that User:FX Law was a redirect to User:Law, but that edit was automatic with TW.

Also, I didn't know who Chip was (user name) until after he had changed it to Law. I didn't recall giving him rollback, so I just clicked through the various histories to get the timeline. I figured out who he was after this edit to my talk page on December 5. A weird message that at first made no sense to me at all. A short time later I realized it seemed very reminiscent of the_undertow's drunk dials to my talk page. The next day I confirmed it with him. I don't think it matters either way, though. It's rollback.

Anyway, I just talked to Chip. He was in the middle of a family dinner and only had a minute to talk, but he said he's done with Wikipedia and doesn't want to talk about the drama anymore. Posting a link to WR on his talk page probably didn't help anything, but that's just my personal opinion from having noticed it during my diff-digging. Hopefully he'll make another appearance here after the dust has settled.

[thekohser]

Are you referring to my public defense of the June 2008 block which I was uninvolved with, or my public and private opposition to the proposed October 2009 block (both before and after The_undertow's fabricated FUD)? I'm striving to cease all involvement in this mess, and I will drop from the site altogether once the attack on me is set straight.

At any rate, you're mistaken if you think I'm leading the pitchforks.

I don't think you're leading the pitchforks. I'm talking about your extended commentary on the request itself. Is that normal? That's all I'm asking.

I've never seen one this year, and some people did think it was approaching--if not over--the limit.

I suppose I had conceived these as two different cases. I knew from the outset that I would be recused from anything about you, but I felt unbiased for The_undertow case proper, which was not formally brought as the case against you and GC was. The commentary was directed at the underlying issue in The_undertow, which I was not then recused from (I didn't express any opinion about you, GC, or Jehochman's claims, just the underlying events as I reconstructed them). It would have been better to place that commentary in relation to The_undertow motions. But now that I'm recused from both, it's moot; I won't be making that kind of commentary anywhere.

If I were to do it again, I would recuse in a terse note, and make a heading in the request with my additional comments.

Anyhow, just make sure your best friend explains why he decided to attack me. Thanks.

If an alien were to come down tonight and read the above quoted text, they would have absolutely no idea -- NO IDEA -- that this discussion centers on a project to write a free encyclopedia of human knowledge.

If you think Wikipedia, at this point, is anything but an elaborate, mismanaged joke of an intellectual project, you are a fool.

And, if you want a blueprint for how it came to this nonsense about "underlying issues" and "recused arbitrators" and "commentary in motions", you need go no further than the ridiculous mantra at the top of the main page:

"...that anyone can edit."

Hardly any of you (or me) has any business near an encyclopedia. You are pissing on the 2,000-year legacy of encyclopedias.

[Moulton]

I move for a vote of No Confidence in Wikipedia's governance regime.

[A Horse With No Name]

Also, someone should tell Luke that flogging a dead horse can earn oneself a reputation. We wouldn't want to earn an image of tenacity, would we?

Can we get another image, please? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

First you encourage someone here to post, then don't lift a finger so that the people who took you up on it will have wasted their time.

Nice to know that about you.

Considering the article is still on Wikipedia, I assume you are prolonging this detour in order to get another view of my left testicle. If so, you have to come back tomorrow -- viewing hours are from 9am to 6pm EDT.

Swatjester doesn't even know which way is up in my opinion. He's a self-important clown.

Malley, you are talking about the greatest warrior to come out of Florida since Osceola! Why, it is because of Dan's brilliant military duties that Iraq is a free, democratic, safe and prosperous...

Okay, that's not going to work. Let's try another approach....

Malley, you are talking about an editor who is responsible for bringing a new environment of emotional maturity, intellectual power, sincerity and good humor to Wiki...

No, that's even worse. One more approach...

Malley, you are talking about one of the great legal minds in U.S. judicial studies...

Oh, f**k it.

Malley, you're 100% right! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

At any rate, you're mistaken if you think I'm leading the pitchforks.

Do you consider yourself a leader or a follower? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Malleus]

Elonka's evidence is very basic and leaves out a lot of context.

Whatever. I'm disappointed and disillusioned.

You pursued Horsey for his bad judgement and behaviour, for which he's had the good sense to apologise, yet you're unable to see that what you colluded in is in a sense far worse, as it affects the whole project. A project that I did once believe in.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Kelly Martin]

For future reference, if anyone would like to send something to arbcom, please use the arbcom-l lists.wikimedia.org email address so that all members are apprised. Talking through individual arbitrators seems to have caused some confusion at multiple points in this saga.

People don't like to use the arbcom-l address because email to that address seems to go unanswered on a regular basis, to the point that many people believe that it is being overly-aggressively moderated by whoever does that. Also, when you email an individual arbitrator you can later blame that arbitrator for not taking action; it's much harder to do so for email sent to a collective list.

Blame your fellow arbitrators for giving that address such a bad reputation, if you must blame anyone.

[Cla68]

For future reference, if anyone would like to send something to arbcom, please use the arbcom-l lists.wikimedia.org email address so that all members are apprised. Talking through individual arbitrators seems to have caused some confusion at multiple points in this saga.

People don't like to use the arbcom-l address because email to that address seems to go unanswered on a regular basis, to the point that many people believe that it is being overly-aggressively moderated by whoever does that. Also, when you email an individual arbitrator you can later blame that arbitrator for not taking action; it's much harder to do so for email sent to a collective list.

Blame your fellow arbitrators for giving that address such a bad reputation, if you must blame anyone.

I sent an email to the ArbCom mailing list couple of months ago that wasn't answered. I saw recently that it was probably because emails from Yahoo! (I used Yahoo!) were being filtered out. My question is moot now so I don't need to resend it.

I would suggest sending an email to the ArbCom mailing list then leaving a note (if you aren't banned) on one arbitrator's user talk page asking if it was received.

[victim of censorship]

If Wikipedian banned all the kooks, who would be left to edit?

The pre-teens?

Only the basement dwelling Phat PHucks like Raul (Mark) 654.

[LaraLove]

Elonka's evidence is very basic and leaves out a lot of context.

Whatever. I'm disappointed and disillusioned.

You pursued Horsey for his bad judgement and behaviour, for which he's had the good sense to apologise, yet you're unable to see that what you colluded in is in a sense far worse, as it affects the whole project. A project that I did once believe in.

I get it Malleus, and I'm sorry.

It's best that Elonka's ... timeline or whatever it is doesn't include context. Adding it would just open old wounds, restart resolved drama, and cause more problems.

[Edit] Woah, that's expanded beyond what it said when I first clicked edit.

Yea, I don't find it comparable. He contacted someone's boss and attempted to get him fired. I trusted my best friend to do well with adminship, and he did. So no, I don't see what I did as being far worse. And its affects on the whole project ... yea, this glorious project that is so moral and ethical that it can't fix it's own issues with biographies of living people.

[victim of censorship]

If Wikipedian banned all the kooks, who would be left to edit?

The pre-teens?

Only the basement dwelling Phat PHucks like Raul (Mark) 654.

BTW, its a scream to see the wikpediot leet argue over minutia in this thread - when the concept of truth, fairness, rule of laws is just punch line in a raging cyber simulation of a kafka drama, as rolling gangs of pin dicked ratfucking admins thugs flex the Nietzschean idea " That which does not kill us makes us stronger." in a blaze of nihilistic orgy.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Malleus]

Yea, I don't find it comparable. He contacted someone's boss and attempted to get him fired. I trusted my best friend to do well with adminship, and he did. So no, I don't see what I did as being far worse. And its affects on the whole project ... yea, this glorious project that is so moral and ethical that it can't fix it's own issues with biographies of living people.

It's not comparable, no. What Horsey did was unforgivable, but it affected only one person. What you did has jeopardised the entire project, which I had naively supposed had the goal of building a free encyclopedia.

More fool me. You've made me feel so stupid for believing in that dream.

[LaraLove]

Yea, I don't find it comparable. He contacted someone's boss and attempted to get him fired. I trusted my best friend to do well with adminship, and he did. So no, I don't see what I did as being far worse. And its affects on the whole project ... yea, this glorious project that is so moral and ethical that it can't fix it's own issues with biographies of living people.

It's not comparable, no. What Horsey did was unforgivable, but it affected only one person. What you did has jeopardised the entire project, which I had naively supposed had the goal of building a free encyclopedia.

More fool me. You've made me feel so stupid for believing in that dream.

What?

You know, Mal. I wish you could get adminship (and OTRS) so you could see just how busted and disgusting this project can really be. If you could see the horrible stuff that goes on in this project... but that's fine. I kept a secret and the community is up in arms over it. Granted, I did no actual damage to the encyclopedia, but I've caused anguish in the egalitarian utopia we lovingly refer to as the "community."

[victim of censorship]

Yea, I don't find it comparable. He contacted someone's boss and attempted to get him fired. I trusted my best friend to do well with adminship, and he did. So no, I don't see what I did as being far worse. And its affects on the whole project ... yea, this glorious project that is so moral and ethical that it can't fix it's own issues with biographies of living people.

It's not comparable, no. What Horsey did was unforgivable, but it affected only one person. What you did has jeopardised the entire project, which I had naively supposed had the goal of building a free encyclopedia.

More fool me. You've made me feel so stupid for believing in that dream.

What?

You know, Mal. I wish you could get adminship (and OTRS) so you could see just how busted and disgusting this project can really be. If you could see the horrible stuff that goes on in this project... but that's fine. I kept a secret and the community is up in arms over it. Granted, I did no actual damage to the encyclopedia, but I've caused anguish in the egalitarian utopia we lovingly refer to as the "community."

BURN IT!!! Burn the wiki servers and when the servers are a melted heap, then dump a load of salt and lye on that heap, so as to stop any evil and sanitize the ground.

[Sarcasticidealist]

BURN IT!!! Burn the wiki servers and when the servers are a melted heap, then dump a load of salt and lye on that heap, so as to stop any evil and sanitize the ground.

Wait, I thought you wanted to sell the servers, and donate the proceeds to educational institutions? If you don't get your story straight, there's a very real danger that I'll stop taking you seriously.

[victim of censorship]

BURN IT!!! Burn the wiki servers and when the servers are a melted heap, then dump a load of salt and lye on that heap, so as to stop any evil and sanitize the ground.

Wait, I thought you wanted to sell the servers, and donate the proceeds to educational institutions? If you don't get your story straight, there's a very real danger that I'll stop taking you seriously.

There is to much bad karma associated with the servers, considering the constant drama, day in day out on them.

[Malleus]

You know, Mal. I wish you could get adminship (and OTRS) so you could see just how busted and disgusting this project can really be. If you could see the horrible stuff that goes on in this project... but that's fine. I kept a secret and the community is up in arms over it. Granted, I did no actual damage to the encyclopedia, but I've caused anguish in the egalitarian utopia we lovingly refer to as the "community."

I will never get any of that stuff, and neither do I want it. I already know how disgusting the project is anyway.

[the_undertow]

just cas and luke

Thanks. But Luke says he knew nothing about it until four days before it broke. Is this just a confusion over dates, or did Luke know something before the time he claims he did?

Updated list here

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...ator_connivance

Four so far, including Davis who said he heard it on IRC. That means a lot of people knew. And proves that IRC is just as bad as it ever was, in spite of those who claim I am flogging a dead horse.

Luke sent me an email weeks ago asking if I was the 'reincarnate of a user who was previously banned by Arbcom.' In that sense, one would have to gather that he knew. How long he knew is of no import to me given the fact that he has been a great instigator by virtue of the fact that he tried to get out from under this by actually getting in front of it.

Unless he routinely sends out these boilerplate emails to all editors, he was in the know.

I was an admin as the_undertow.
I unblocked Moulton.
Raul took me straight to Rfar.
The AC, who did not want to deal with ID Cab, asked me to give up the tools, with the promise that I could have them back upon asking.
4 days later, I asked for them back - they refused.
During my Rfar, SWATjester, who is now OK with me, posted no less than 4 times that I was a white supremacist, during my Rfar and correlating ANI.
I had my lawyer draw up a lawsuit. No action was taken.
My impression at the time was that SWAT was a BLP inclusionist, so I decided to created an article on him.
He agreed the article was fine and NPOV.
I dropped the suit against SWAT and told the (then current) AC that the suit would be attached to them for allowing such libel to occur. Allowing such libel is not acceptable for Arbcon, or ConArbists or Arbitrary Committee. (all trademarked (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif))
Raul, the admin who took me to Rfar, blocked (not banned) for nine months, on behalf of AC.
AC never told me why, but said it was for disruption.
I dropped all suits and created Law. Never told anyone until months later.
I was tired of fucking around with my 'friends' so I unburdened myself by telling them.
All were surprised. So here we are. This is the whole story. The real story. Not much room for speculation. So I would ask the speculation stops with the_undertow/Law shit.

However, I did confide in nearly 3 dozen editors. My remorse is beyond regret. But those who knew are now falling on their swords; except for a few higher-ups. At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up. That is all my fault. One Arb, is still not coming clean and chastising me. I get it - it's your life bro. I never wished anyone would admit to my selfish actions by forcing this information on them. All my fault. I've see enough people go down for my actions.

But Luke, you were the first to know. You want everyone else to fall, when you were the first person I told. You called me a liar for defending Cas - hell yeah, I defend my friends until I die. But you knew first and what's worse, you watched as your AC brother made an example of himself. You are the biggest rat I've ever seen. What did you gain by that? One less AC member to contend with? I fucked up, but I'm here to admit it.

Just to be clear, was any action ever actually filed in any court? If so, was anyone ever served? If so, did they ever answer or defend?

The motion was drafted but quashed when I decided that damages would be an arbitrary amount. Since then, SWAT and I have made nice.

And when did you tell Luke? And why?

Good question.

And what the hell? I had just moved past this crap.

Look undertow, you told me one lie and I flipped out. I'm sorry for that. You don't need to live up to being a liar because it's not part of your person. That is, it's not something that should define you. You need to be your own person.

Thanks. But Luke says he knew nothing about it until four days before it broke. Is this just a confusion over dates, or did Luke know something before the time he claims he did?

For clarity, the first I knew was the forwarded IRC log about four days ago.

"You got your mind right, Luke?" is a quote from the movie I named myself after. This was a lighthearted warning for The_undertow's apparently uncivil statement in the middle of our Cool Hand Luke jokes on CoM's talk page. I wasn't sure whether Law meant it as cruelly as it seemed, so I thought asking the same question as the boss in Cool Hand Luke would be a good way to express my uncertain civility warning (note the link to NPA). In the movie, the boss is asking Luke whether he's got his "mind right" meaning that he won't try to escape again.

Perhaps you haven't seen the film The_undertow? You should. I obviously think highly of it. It would also help defy Horse's prejudice that young people don't watch made before they were born.

I flat out lied to you. I told you Cas had no involvement in this whatsoever. I lied to protect. You responded by saying I couldn't be trusted with anything that I said from that time. I was trying to protect Cas.

[the_undertow]

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Of the two of you, which one do you think has more credibility with most of the people reading this? Provide proof. Put up or shut up.

There is no way to discern this. I have no credibility on this board - as I came here guns a'blazing.
But Luke needs to admit that his knowledge of my existence well, existed. He did, in fact, know first. He defended CoM and gave me a pseudo-admonishment at one point. I liked Luke as TU, so I had no problem confiding in him.

So basically this whole tragedy summed up is:

-----

Swatjester: "You're a Nazi, The Undertow!"
The Undertow: "I am not! I'll sue and make a BLP of you to show how much that hurt me!"

Moulton: "Jimbo has created an environment in violation of accepted learning principles."
The Undertow: "I'll unblock you, Moulton!"
Raul: "You're going to ArbCom, Undertow."
Arbcom: "Banned for 9 months. Don't get your bits back without consulting us."

Later.

The Undertow: "Guys? Can I come back? Maybe get the bits back?"
Arbcom: "GAH! FT2 has lost his mind! Get back, FT2! Leave Orangemarlin alone!"
The Undertow: "Guys?"
Arbcom: "Stop it, Giano! For the love of... NO, FT2! Don't block him! Oh, sh...!"
The Undertow: "Guys?"
Arbcom: "Can't talk now. We're in disarray more so than ever before!"
The Undertow: "..."

Later.

The Undertow: "Screw this! I'm becoming Law!"

The Undertow becomes Law.

Law: "Now I can edit peacefully. Oh, but I feel bad about coming back without telling my friends."

Law tells his friends that he is The Undertow and his friends rejoice.

Later

Some of Law's Friends: "You'd make a great admin!"
Law: "Ok."

Law becomes an admin.

Later.

Law unblocks ChildofMidnight. Angers Sandstein and others.

Later on IRC.

Ironholds: "Help me with something, Law."
Law: "No."
Ironholds: "You're stupid."
Law: "No. Won't do it."
Daniel: "Stupid Law!"
Ironholds: "Oh, I hear a little birdie saying you're The Undertow. Naughty! Naughty!"
Daniel: "Ha, ha! You're The Undertow!"

Keegan alerts Arbcom.

Casliber, maybe Luke, and others: "Oh, great. We're screwed."

Slim Virgin, ChildofMidnight, Giano, Mattisse, and many more come on scene.

Them: "Get the Arbcom!"

Others come and form mob.

Mob: "Hang the deceivers! Hang the Arbcom! Hang Law! We need trust!"

Rlevse: "I'll hang everyone who knew about this. If you don't believe me, here's my Eagle badge."
Mob: "That's a Girl Scout badge."
Rlevse: "Never you mind that."

Some rational Wikipedians: "Can't we just forgive and forget?"
Mob and Rlevse: "Never!"

The Undertow: "I know that Luke and Casliber knew of my identity."
Luke: "Liar!"
The Undertow: "Liar!"
Luke: "Liar!"

Et cetera.

Moulton: "I am still blocked. Hello?"

-----

Is this the gist of what all happened?

No. It was an accusation of 'white supremacy.' It was an accusation of being a Nazi that came AFTER unblocking Moulton. Moulton, who is Jewish. That makes me one shitty white supremacist to commit wiki-suicide, knowing full well what would happen.

Daniel, the Arbcom clerk whose off-Wiki harassment of Law triggered this event, obviously knew of the Law/TU connection prior to his role in outing Law -- but said nothing. He was briefly blocked, but was then unblocked because of his alleged invaluable role in "clerking" the Piotrus-based Eastern European snoozefest.

Actually from the logs I've been given Daniel was unaware of the fact beforehand. Ironholds told him with the intention of having it reported and...it was reported.

Nor did the unblock have anything to do with the Arbitration case he was assigned to at the time.

That should also be noted. AC said if I took the fall for unblocking ChildofMidnight, it would be wrapped up in a tight little package. I wasn't going to be a martyr for admins who wheel-war. I fucked up, but I wasn't going to let it be attached to this incident. I insisted it was attached to being a sock.

Daniel has never acknowledged, one way or the other, whether he was aware of Law/TU before Ironholds went to town. Knowing IRC is logged and that logs get passed around, I wouldn't put it past him to play dumb. Of course, he may not be playing dumb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I didn't know until the evening that the issue broke. I informed the Committee within an hour of me finding out. I didn't know prior to that, nor did I even suspect it.

And that's about all I'll be saying on the matter. Well, except for the fact that already-lengthened-by-Labour-Day-on-Monday-public-holiday weekends are smashing when they start Thursday morning. Future blocks or not (hopefully the latter), I think I might do that more often.

Now, back to watching the Aussies play in the champions trophy final...

The issue broke because you performed an admin action for Ironholds that I refused to do. Ironholds threatened to go to AC if I did not. Ironically, it was against policy. You are a meatpuppet and the only admin I have seen who got blocked for dancing on another's grave. Graceful.

[Deodand]

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Of the two of you, which one do you think has more credibility with most of the people reading this? Provide proof. Put up or shut up.

There is no way to discern this. I have no credibility on this board - as I came here guns a'blazing.
But Luke needs to admit that his knowledge of my existence well, existed. He did, in fact, know first. He defended CoM and gave me a pseudo-admonishment at one point. I liked Luke as TU, so I had no problem confiding in him.

So basically this whole tragedy summed up is:

-----

Swatjester: "You're a Nazi, The Undertow!"
The Undertow: "I am not! I'll sue and make a BLP of you to show how much that hurt me!"

Moulton: "Jimbo has created an environment in violation of accepted learning principles."
The Undertow: "I'll unblock you, Moulton!"
Raul: "You're going to ArbCom, Undertow."
Arbcom: "Banned for 9 months. Don't get your bits back without consulting us."

Later.

The Undertow: "Guys? Can I come back? Maybe get the bits back?"
Arbcom: "GAH! FT2 has lost his mind! Get back, FT2! Leave Orangemarlin alone!"
The Undertow: "Guys?"
Arbcom: "Stop it, Giano! For the love of... NO, FT2! Don't block him! Oh, sh...!"
The Undertow: "Guys?"
Arbcom: "Can't talk now. We're in disarray more so than ever before!"
The Undertow: "..."

Later.

The Undertow: "Screw this! I'm becoming Law!"

The Undertow becomes Law.

Law: "Now I can edit peacefully. Oh, but I feel bad about coming back without telling my friends."

Law tells his friends that he is The Undertow and his friends rejoice.

Later

Some of Law's Friends: "You'd make a great admin!"
Law: "Ok."

Law becomes an admin.

Later.

Law unblocks ChildofMidnight. Angers Sandstein and others.

Later on IRC.

Ironholds: "Help me with something, Law."
Law: "No."
Ironholds: "You're stupid."
Law: "No. Won't do it."
Daniel: "Stupid Law!"
Ironholds: "Oh, I hear a little birdie saying you're The Undertow. Naughty! Naughty!"
Daniel: "Ha, ha! You're The Undertow!"

Keegan alerts Arbcom.

Casliber, maybe Luke, and others: "Oh, great. We're screwed."

Slim Virgin, ChildofMidnight, Giano, Mattisse, and many more come on scene.

Them: "Get the Arbcom!"

Others come and form mob.

Mob: "Hang the deceivers! Hang the Arbcom! Hang Law! We need trust!"

Rlevse: "I'll hang everyone who knew about this. If you don't believe me, here's my Eagle badge."
Mob: "That's a Girl Scout badge."
Rlevse: "Never you mind that."

Some rational Wikipedians: "Can't we just forgive and forget?"
Mob and Rlevse: "Never!"

The Undertow: "I know that Luke and Casliber knew of my identity."
Luke: "Liar!"
The Undertow: "Liar!"
Luke: "Liar!"

Et cetera.

Moulton: "I am still blocked. Hello?"

-----

Is this the gist of what all happened?

No. It was an accusation of 'white supremacy.' It was an accusation of being a Nazi that came AFTER unblocking Moulton. Moulton, who is Jewish. That makes me one shitty white supremacist to commit wiki-suicide, knowing full well what would happen.

Daniel, the Arbcom clerk whose off-Wiki harassment of Law triggered this event, obviously knew of the Law/TU connection prior to his role in outing Law -- but said nothing. He was briefly blocked, but was then unblocked because of his alleged invaluable role in "clerking" the Piotrus-based Eastern European snoozefest.

Actually from the logs I've been given Daniel was unaware of the fact beforehand. Ironholds told him with the intention of having it reported and...it was reported.

Nor did the unblock have anything to do with the Arbitration case he was assigned to at the time.

That should also be noted. AC said if I took the fall for unblocking ChildofMidnight, it would be wrapped up in a tight little package. I wasn't going to be a martyr for admins who wheel-war. I fucked up, but I wasn't going to let it be attached to this incident. I insisted it was attached to being a sock.

Daniel has never acknowledged, one way or the other, whether he was aware of Law/TU before Ironholds went to town. Knowing IRC is logged and that logs get passed around, I wouldn't put it past him to play dumb. Of course, he may not be playing dumb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I didn't know until the evening that the issue broke. I informed the Committee within an hour of me finding out. I didn't know prior to that, nor did I even suspect it.

And that's about all I'll be saying on the matter. Well, except for the fact that already-lengthened-by-Labour-Day-on-Monday-public-holiday weekends are smashing when they start Thursday morning. Future blocks or not (hopefully the latter), I think I might do that more often.

Now, back to watching the Aussies play in the champions trophy final...

The issue broke because you performed an admin action for Ironholds that I refused to do. Ironholds threatened to go to AC if I did not. Ironically, it was against policy. You are a meatpuppet and the only admin I have seen who got blocked for dancing on another's grave. Graceful.

Please try not to speak shit. I have the message logs from that PM conversation, and I know (and have already posted in this thread) how it went off. There was no threat to bust your ass if you didn't move a page; indeed, the conversation started with him pinging you that there was a move discussion being set up on-wiki. I also have forwarded emails in which you essentially say that you know half the shit against Ironholds is bullshit, but don't care because at the end of the day "you're not a rat". What's it like to dance on somebody's grave?

[the_undertow]

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

'''Law of the Horse''' is a ...

Done. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Interesting that the definition given in the article is a particular instance, and not a general one invoking unifying principles, and thus itself violates the principle being expressed. The definition (according to the description in the body of the article) should really be


"Law of the Horse is an imaginary counter-example to the argument or position that laws can be made be collecting strands of information or cases together, without regard to unifying principles. It was first used in the mid-1990s to define the state of cyberlaw during the nascent years of the Internet."

Changing the subject:

The idea of a three month or six month ban is ridiculous. The three months term is arbitrary. I know that my Master's in Taxation may give me an upper hand on the mathematical skills, but I don't think it was really required to figure out that if I was banned for six months, that has a high percentage that the six months includes three months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318196836

He may have an upper hand in mathematical skills, but his English could do with some improvement. No loss to the project, in my view. Never understood what the fuss was about.

My response was as well as the prose were meant to be as confusing as the arbitrary motions. If you are going to dissect my grammatical skills, you belong back in the day when those in chat rooms would chastise others for simple spelling mistakes. It is bad form and while I don't need to adhere to 'good grammar,' you should be smart enough to sift through any post, in order to get the gist, without resorting to juvenile attacks on grammar and diction. That is bad form. I publicly apologized for my block that I imposed upon you - I would not have done such again. But don't dissect my writing skills. It's sophomoric.

You owe me your left testicle. And I don't mean while it's still attached to you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

You've created a race condition, and I don't mean anything related to "white pride" or Pimlico.

You wouldn't know what to do with my left testicle if I gave you an instructional manual...

Neither would you.

ArbCom isn't the community's moral compass...

Unless you mean the tool one uses to draw a perfect circle. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

My be the most clever post I have seen, given my username. Nice work.

[Daniel]

I flat out lied to you. I told you Cas had no involvement in this whatsoever. I lied to protect. You responded by saying I couldn't be trusted with anything that I said from that time. I was trying to protect Cas.

Who were you lying to protect when you accused Jimbo Wales of knowing and approving of your use of Law?

[the_undertow]

Does the Undertow have proof of the deal he agreed with Arbcom? If so, publishing it would probably be useful. Not that I'm in favour of embarrassing Arbs, but you would at least expect their word to be trusted.

I regret using Limechat, which does not use logs. However, Risker immediately started a motion to allow me to edit as the_undertow, which was my suggestion. I also urged Risker to block Law, as I felt that Law may imply to new users that I had more clout than was deserved. It's hard to believe that such a liar and racially-charged individual as myself would have any ethics left.

The undertow has an undisputed history of acting like a total kook, right?

I'd say sneaking him back into the project and giving him admin tools under false pretenses was indeed damaging to the project. Yes, it sounds like the only obviously bad thing he did was a bad unblock, but is it possible for any reasonable person to consider him a healthy addition to the project? The facts of his original ban are now well known and not disputed, right?

There's a lot of political nonsense going around, and finger pointing at unrelated people, but at the core of this case, there was a very real and really stupid breach of trust.

A kook? Your actions that I have witnessed in my time here as both admins clearly connote that you are and continue to be an admin that acts way off the mark.

I flat out lied to you. I told you Cas had no involvement in this whatsoever. I lied to protect. You responded by saying I couldn't be trusted with anything that I said from that time. I was trying to protect Cas.

Who were you lying to protect when you accused Jimbo Wales of knowing and approving of your use of Law?

Nobody. That would never happen. Jimbo despised me for my unblock of Moulton, and there is no way I alerted him.

[Daniel]

I flat out lied to you. I told you Cas had no involvement in this whatsoever. I lied to protect. You responded by saying I couldn't be trusted with anything that I said from that time. I was trying to protect Cas.

Who were you lying to protect when you accused Jimbo Wales of knowing and approving of your use of Law?

Nobody. That would never happen. Jimbo despised me for my unblock of Moulton, and there is no way I alerted him.

May I ask why you name-checked him as knowing and implicitly approving of your use of Law, then? You suggested that Wales, as well as the arbitrators and the bureaucrats "all [knew]".

[the_undertow]

And as a caveat, the way the software works here is a disadvantage to me and anyone who still cares. It's far too much, too long, and boring. However, as much as I realize that when I unbookmark WR and WP, that you cease to exist, I was asked to read through 30+ pages and at least try and make clear and concise statements that would answer several questions.

Would I like to log out and move on to fresh air and the pretension of living in Orange County, along with plastic surgery, tiny dogs, and Trader Joe's? Of course. I tried that for a few days. But only at request did I decide to re-involve myself here and on WP, just so there could be some semblance of an effort to refocus on the fact that I fucked this all up and bullshit motions about friendship and trust could be dispelled.

This is my deal. I fucked up. Put the spotlight back on me, but fucking everyone else over because I unethically burdened them with me being the_undertow is a witch hunt. It's not like I enjoy reading 30+ pages about how evil I am. I wish AC would refocus and realize that they are legislating - which is not their job.

I'm an open book at this point. But once this is cleared up, I'm done.

Addiction is a funny thing. It goes beyond substance abuse, but into one of Internet delving. That's my onus. Why anyone else has to pay for this is outrageous.

The Law Affair? Come on. I'm tired, I'm emotional, and I have my regrets. I'll stick around to take my due and proper, but only until this is resolved.

I flat out lied to you. I told you Cas had no involvement in this whatsoever. I lied to protect. You responded by saying I couldn't be trusted with anything that I said from that time. I was trying to protect Cas.

Who were you lying to protect when you accused Jimbo Wales of knowing and approving of your use of Law?

Nobody. That would never happen. Jimbo despised me for my unblock of Moulton, and there is no way I alerted him.

May I ask why you name-checked him as knowing and implicitly approving of your use of Law, then? You suggested that Wales, as well as the arbitrators and the bureaucrats "all [knew]".

I believe you mean 'explicit.' Show where I said this?

[Daniel]

The Law Affair? Come on. I'm tired, I'm emotional, and I have my regrets. I'll stick around to take my due and proper, but only until this is resolved.

I flat out lied to you. I told you Cas had no involvement in this whatsoever. I lied to protect. You responded by saying I couldn't be trusted with anything that I said from that time. I was trying to protect Cas.

Who were you lying to protect when you accused Jimbo Wales of knowing and approving of your use of Law?

Nobody. That would never happen. Jimbo despised me for my unblock of Moulton, and there is no way I alerted him.

May I ask why you name-checked him as knowing and implicitly approving of your use of Law, then? You suggested that Wales, as well as the arbitrators and the bureaucrats "all [knew]".

I believe you mean 'explicit.' Show where I said this?

No, I meant 'implicit'; you never directly stated that he approved, only that he knew. You then repeated that he knew a second time when you were asked to clarify by repetition.

Lets go with these two lines for starters:

[12:35] <The_Law> you dont think wales knows about this?
[12:35] <The_Law> yer clearly mistaken

[12:38] <The_Law> brother, try it. the arbs, the wales, the crats, they all know

[the_undertow]

No, I meant 'implicit'; you never directly stated that he approved, only that he knew. You then repeated that he knew a second time when you were asked to clarify by repetition.

Lets go with these two lines for starters:

[12:35] <The_Law> you dont think wales knows about this?
[12:35] <The_Law> yer clearly mistaken

[12:38] <The_Law> brother, try it. the arbs, the wales, the crats, they all know
[/quote]


Moderator note: removed potentially false and libelous material. GBG

Additional moderator's note: Members are, as always, asked to avoid posting gratuitous or insulting false IRC log entries regarding other thread participants' parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, spouses, siblings, uncles, aunts, and first or second cousins. If such material must be posted, please restrict the targets to third (or higher) cousins, ex-spouses, half-brothers (but not half-sisters) and step-parents, and ex-boyfriends or ex-girlfriends who are now dating unemployed drug addicts ONLY. Failure to adhere to reasonable standards of gratuitous-insult avoidance may result in your being mistaken for someone else, and we all know who, so let's just try to be careful out there ladies and gentlemen.

[Daniel]

No, I meant 'implicit'; you never directly stated that he approved, only that he knew. You then repeated that he knew a second time when you were asked to clarify by repetition.

Lets go with these two lines for starters:

[12:35] <The_Law> you dont think wales knows about this?
[12:35] <The_Law> yer clearly mistaken

[12:38] <The_Law> brother, try it. the arbs, the wales, the crats, they all know

You're kidding, right?
<snip forged logs, as admitted by The undertow

Wait, what? Now you're forging logs to try and demonstrate, using some kind of circular logic, that I forged them? Shit, your argument really has gone down the drain then.

This post has been edited by Daniel:

[the_undertow]

[quote name='Daniel' post='198423' date='Tue 6th October 2009, 11:22pm']
[quote name='the_undertow' post='198422' date='Wed 7th October 2009, 5:51pm']
[quote name='Daniel' post='198421' date='Wed 7th October 2009, 5:45pm']
No, I meant 'implicit'; you never directly stated that he approved, only that he knew. You then repeated that he knew a second time when you were asked to clarify by repetition.

Lets go with these two lines for starters:

[12:35] <The_Law> you dont think wales knows about this?
[12:35] <The_Law> yer clearly mistaken

Moderator note: Removed potential false and libelous material.
[12:38] <The_Law> brother, try it. the arbs, the wales, the crats, they all know
[/quote]



Wait, what? Now you're forging logs to try and demonstrate, using some kind of circular logic, that I forged them? Shit, your argument really has gone down the drain then.
[/quote]

Logic. Meaning one could possibly forge logs? How dare I insinuate such. You have me pinned.

[Daniel]

No, I meant 'implicit'; you never directly stated that he approved, only that he knew. You then repeated that he knew a second time when you were asked to clarify by repetition.

Lets go with these two lines for starters:

[12:35] <The_Law> you dont think wales knows about this?
[12:35] <The_Law> yer clearly mistaken

[12:38] <The_Law> brother, try it. the arbs, the wales, the crats, they all know

You're kidding, right?
<snip forged logs, as admitted by The undertow>

Wait, what? Now you're forging logs to try and demonstrate, using some kind of circular logic, that I forged them? Shit, your argument really has gone down the drain then.

Logic. Meaning one could possibly forge logs? How dare I insinuate such. You have me pinned.

You know they're not forged. You've got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and it's about time you admitted it.

PS: The moderators of this forum could do far worse than edit Chip's comment to remove the unsavoury lines he has deliberately forged.

This post has been edited by Daniel:

[the_undertow]

No, I meant 'implicit'; you never directly stated that he approved, only that he knew. You then repeated that he knew a second time when you were asked to clarify by repetition.

Lets go with these two lines for starters:

[12:35] <The_Law> you dont think wales knows about this?
[12:35] <The_Law> yer clearly mistaken

[12:38] <The_Law> brother, try it. the arbs, the wales, the crats, they all know

Naughty section removed

Wait, what? Now you're forging logs to try and demonstrate, using some kind of circular logic, that I forged them? Shit, your argument really has gone down the drain then.

Logic. Meaning one could possibly forge logs? How dare I insinuate such. You have me pinned.

You know they're not forged. You've got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and it's about time you admitted it.

The wanna-be arb, who was blocked for dancing on my grave, is going to actually use the words 'hand in the cookie jar'? Let's get real brother. You have to be kidding me.

[Peter Damian]

He may have an upper hand in mathematical skills, but his English could do with some improvement. No loss to the project, in my view. Never understood what the fuss was about.

My response was as well as the prose were meant to be as confusing as the arbitrary motions. If you are going to dissect my grammatical skills, you belong back in the day when those in chat rooms would chastise others for simple spelling mistakes. It is bad form and while I don't need to adhere to 'good grammar,' you should be smart enough to sift through any post, in order to get the gist, without resorting to juvenile attacks on grammar and diction. That is bad form. I publicly apologized for my block that I imposed upon you - I would not have done such again. But don't dissect my writing skills. It's sophomoric.

Sorry I thought this was something to do with writing encyclopedias. But as someone else has pointed out on this thread, that was a mistake.

[Daniel]

I really didn't want to post any more of the log than the few lines I did previously, but oh well, here goes:

[12:34] <The_Law> i like AC
[12:34] <The_Law> they have been kind to me
[12:34] <Ironholds> oh, I'm sure
[12:35] <Ironholds> and if this kindness involves, say, them knowing about your new account
[12:35] <Ironholds> then they'll have to explain that to the community. Cue more dramah.
[12:35] <Ironholds> and if it doesn't, you're just fucked
[12:35] <The_Law> you dont think wales knows about this?
[12:35] <The_Law> yer clearly mistaken
[12:35] <The_Law> however i am more malicious than you.
[12:35] <The_Law> try it
[12:36] <Ironholds> I'm sure you are. You're missing out two important points, here, though
[12:36] <Ironholds> well, three, effectively
[12:36] <Ironholds> firstly, if Wales knows about this he again, has to explain to the community
[12:36] <Ironholds> secondly, I don't start off malicious. I only become malicious when forced to by some dickwad not acting reasonably
[12:37] <Ironholds> thirdly, I have no. fucking. soul. No qualms, no second thoughts.
[12:37] <Ironholds> so what you're talking about is somebody who has no qualms about taking this as far as it can go, and by now is in a situation where he's been pushed to the edge anyway.
[12:38] <The_Law> brother, try it. the arbs, the wales, the crats, they all know
[12:38] <Ironholds> again, they can explain
[12:38] <The_Law> but in real life, i'll keep this going
[12:38] <Ironholds> whut?
[12:38] <The_Law> ask lara or john, i won't stop. i'm funny that way.
[12:39] <Ironholds> oh, I know
[12:39] <The_Law> do you?
[12:39] <Ironholds> I just didn't get the "in real life" comment
[12:39] <Ironholds> given that you live thousands of miles away
[12:40] <The_Law> one of the benefits i have is unlimited airline usage.
[12:40] <Ironholds> ooh, real life threats now? God, I'm terrified
[12:40] <Ironholds> if only you knew where I lived! Wait, you do, London!
[12:40] <Ironholds> god, only twelve million people there to churn through
[12:41] <Ironholds> I'm sure you'll be here lickety-quick
[12:41] <The_Law> you realize this is pointless
[12:41] <Ironholds> so Arbcom knows that you're Undertow returned, then? Or just that you had a prior account?
[12:41] <The_Law> do what you feel you have to do
[12:42] <Ironholds> or is it Wales that knows?
[12:42] <Ironholds> c'mon there Undertow, don't make me guess! I'm awful at these games
[12:42] <Ironholds> five words, first word "I"?
[12:42] <The_Law> of course he does. i keep his books
[12:42] <The_Law> brother, if you want to drop the dime to AC, do it
[12:43] <The_Law> but i have no respect for pussies
[12:43] <Ironholds> you seem remarkably self-confident about this. Do they know, not care, or do you just have another sock somewhere?
[12:43] <Ironholds> says the man too pussified to start a move discussion
[12:43] <The_Law> you really have no idea who you are dealing with
[12:43] <The_Law> on wiki or off
[12:43] <The_Law> but ill let that pass

This post has been edited by Daniel:

[TungstenCarbide]

He may have an upper hand in mathematical skills, but his English could do with some improvement. No loss to the project, in my view. Never understood what the fuss was about.

My response was as well as the prose were meant to be as confusing as the arbitrary motions. If you are going to dissect my grammatical skills, you belong back in the day when those in chat rooms would chastise others for simple spelling mistakes. It is bad form and while I don't need to adhere to 'good grammar,' you should be smart enough to sift through any post, in order to get the gist, without resorting to juvenile attacks on grammar and diction. That is bad form. I publicly apologized for my block that I imposed upon you - I would not have done such again. But don't dissect my writing skills. It's sophomoric.

Sorry I thought this was something to do with writing encyclopedias. But as someone else has pointed out on this thread, that was a mistake.

haha

[the_undertow]

He may have an upper hand in mathematical skills, but his English could do with some improvement. No loss to the project, in my view. Never understood what the fuss was about.

My response was as well as the prose were meant to be as confusing as the arbitrary motions. If you are going to dissect my grammatical skills, you belong back in the day when those in chat rooms would chastise others for simple spelling mistakes. It is bad form and while I don't need to adhere to 'good grammar,' you should be smart enough to sift through any post, in order to get the gist, without resorting to juvenile attacks on grammar and diction. That is bad form. I publicly apologized for my block that I imposed upon you - I would not have done such again. But don't dissect my writing skills. It's sophomoric.

Sorry I thought this was something to do with writing encyclopedias. But as someone else has pointed out on this thread, that was a mistake.

My prose in my article writing are spot-on. If not, they are corrected by those with better grammatical skills. My responses to AC's motions need not be so. They are emotional. With that, they are most-likely flawed.

[TungstenCarbide]

bla bla bla

bla bla bla

get a life

[MBisanz]

Luke sent me an email weeks ago asking if I was the 'reincarnate of a user who was previously banned by Arbcom.' In that sense, one would have to gather that he knew. How long he knew is of no import to me given the fact that he has been a great instigator by virtue of the fact that he tried to get out from under this by actually getting in front of it.

Unless he routinely sends out these boilerplate emails to all editors, he was in the know.

Well, I send out emails like that about twice a year when I notice odd new accounts, I'm right about 50% of the time, and usually the 50% I'm wrong about appreciate I approached them privately.

[the_undertow]

I really didn't want to post any more of the log than the few lines I did previously, but oh well, here goes:

[12:34] <The_Law> i like AC
[12:34] <The_Law> they have been kind to me
[12:34] <Ironholds> oh, I'm sure
[12:35] <Ironholds> and if this kindness involves, say, them knowing about your new account
[12:35] <Ironholds> then they'll have to explain that to the community. Cue more dramah.
[12:35] <Ironholds> and if it doesn't, you're just fucked
[12:35] <The_Law> you dont think wales knows about this?
[12:35] <The_Law> yer clearly mistaken
[12:35] <The_Law> however i am more malicious than you.
[12:35] <The_Law> try it
[12:36] <Ironholds> I'm sure you are. You're missing out two important points, here, though
[12:36] <Ironholds> well, three, effectively
[12:36] <Ironholds> firstly, if Wales knows about this he again, has to explain to the community
[12:36] <Ironholds> secondly, I don't start off malicious. I only become malicious when forced to by some dickwad not acting reasonably
[12:37] <Ironholds> thirdly, I have no. fucking. soul. No qualms, no second thoughts.
[12:37] <Ironholds> so what you're talking about is somebody who has no qualms about taking this as far as it can go, and by now is in a situation where he's been pushed to the edge anyway.
[12:38] <The_Law> brother, try it. the arbs, the wales, the crats, they all know
[12:38] <Ironholds> again, they can explain
[12:38] <The_Law> but in real life, i'll keep this going
[12:38] <Ironholds> whut?
[12:38] <The_Law> ask lara or john, i won't stop. i'm funny that way.
[12:39] <Ironholds> oh, I know
[12:39] <The_Law> do you?
[12:39] <Ironholds> I just didn't get the "in real life" comment
[12:39] <Ironholds> given that you live thousands of miles away
[12:40] <The_Law> one of the benefits i have is unlimited airline usage.
[12:40] <Ironholds> ooh, real life threats now? God, I'm terrified
[12:40] <Ironholds> if only you knew where I lived! Wait, you do, London!
[12:40] <Ironholds> god, only twelve million people there to churn through
[12:41] <Ironholds> I'm sure you'll be here lickety-quick
[12:41] <The_Law> you realize this is pointless
[12:41] <Ironholds> so Arbcom knows that you're Undertow returned, then? Or just that you had a prior account?
[12:41] <The_Law> do what you feel you have to do
[12:42] <Ironholds> or is it Wales that knows?
[12:42] <Ironholds> c'mon there Undertow, don't make me guess! I'm awful at these games
[12:42] <Ironholds> five words, first word "I"?
[12:42] <The_Law> of course he does. i keep his books
[12:42] <The_Law> brother, if you want to drop the dime to AC, do it
[12:43] <The_Law> but i have no respect for pussies
[12:43] <Ironholds> you seem remarkably self-confident about this. Do they know, not care, or do you just have another sock somewhere?
[12:43] <Ironholds> says the man too pussified to start a move discussion
[12:43] <The_Law> you really have no idea who you are dealing with
[12:43] <The_Law> on wiki or off
[12:43] <The_Law> but ill let that pass

so you are a meatpuppet! and I'm pretty sure those are tertiary logs? meatpuppet. the only admin i've ever seen blocked by other admins. was that your log? i don't see your name there.

I really didn't want to post any more of the log than the few lines I did previously, but oh well, here goes:

[12:34] <The_Law> i like AC
[12:34] <The_Law> they have been kind to me
[12:34] <Ironholds> oh, I'm sure
[12:35] <Ironholds> and if this kindness involves, say, them knowing about your new account
[12:35] <Ironholds> then they'll have to explain that to the community. Cue more dramah.
[12:35] <Ironholds> and if it doesn't, you're just fucked
[12:35] <The_Law> you dont think wales knows about this?
[12:35] <The_Law> yer clearly mistaken
[12:35] <The_Law> however i am more malicious than you.
[12:35] <The_Law> try it
[12:36] <Ironholds> I'm sure you are. You're missing out two important points, here, though
[12:36] <Ironholds> well, three, effectively
[12:36] <Ironholds> firstly, if Wales knows about this he again, has to explain to the community
[12:36] <Ironholds> secondly, I don't start off malicious. I only become malicious when forced to by some dickwad not acting reasonably
[12:37] <Ironholds> thirdly, I have no. fucking. soul. No qualms, no second thoughts.
[12:37] <Ironholds> so what you're talking about is somebody who has no qualms about taking this as far as it can go, and by now is in a situation where he's been pushed to the edge anyway.
[12:38] <The_Law> brother, try it. the arbs, the wales, the crats, they all know
[12:38] <Ironholds> again, they can explain
[12:38] <The_Law> but in real life, i'll keep this going
[12:38] <Ironholds> whut?
[12:38] <The_Law> ask lara or john, i won't stop. i'm funny that way.
[12:39] <Ironholds> oh, I know
[12:39] <The_Law> do you?
[12:39] <Ironholds> I just didn't get the "in real life" comment
[12:39] <Ironholds> given that you live thousands of miles away
[12:40] <The_Law> one of the benefits i have is unlimited airline usage.
[12:40] <Ironholds> ooh, real life threats now? God, I'm terrified
[12:40] <Ironholds> if only you knew where I lived! Wait, you do, London!
[12:40] <Ironholds> god, only twelve million people there to churn through
[12:41] <Ironholds> I'm sure you'll be here lickety-quick
[12:41] <The_Law> you realize this is pointless
[12:41] <Ironholds> so Arbcom knows that you're Undertow returned, then? Or just that you had a prior account?
[12:41] <The_Law> do what you feel you have to do
[12:42] <Ironholds> or is it Wales that knows?
[12:42] <Ironholds> c'mon there Undertow, don't make me guess! I'm awful at these games
[12:42] <Ironholds> five words, first word "I"?
[12:42] <The_Law> of course he does. i keep his books
[12:42] <The_Law> brother, if you want to drop the dime to AC, do it
[12:43] <The_Law> but i have no respect for pussies
[12:43] <Ironholds> you seem remarkably self-confident about this. Do they know, not care, or do you just have another sock somewhere?
[12:43] <Ironholds> says the man too pussified to start a move discussion
[12:43] <The_Law> you really have no idea who you are dealing with
[12:43] <The_Law> on wiki or off
[12:43] <The_Law> but ill let that pass

so you are a meatpuppet! and I'm pretty sure those are tertiary logs? meatpuppet. the only admin i've ever seen blocked by other admins. was that your log? i don't see your name there.

so if these *bullshit* logs are true, Ironholds knew who I was? Can we agree to add him to the motion?

[Daniel]

so you are a meatpuppet! and I'm pretty sure those are tertiary logs? meatpuppet. the only admin i've ever seen blocked by other admins. was that your log? i don't see your name there.

Meatpuppet? Hilarious. This is very rich coming from the sockpuppeteer.

Oh, and if I'm the only administrator who you've ever seen blocked, you better get down to your optometrist quick smart. Not to mention the block was roundly opposed by a consensus of administrators and removed not one-quarter of the way through, even without me asking for an unblock.

Your arguments are disintegrating around you.

So, back to my original question:

Why did you lie to name-drop Jimmy Wales as knowing that you operated an alternate account, a declaration which is unambiguously false?

[Deodand]

Secondary logs, surely. Ironholds forwarded them to me, I assume he (also) gave them to Daniel. Yes, we can't confirm that they're correct, but if Ironholds himself was presenting them you'd still claim they were bullshit. Short of having a forensic computer specialist go over the files, please explain what could be done?

[Peter Damian]

My prose in my article writing are spot-on.

Your proses, perhaps? I looked at your edit history and the first two edits I found which were not mere formatting changes or reversions both had mistakes

comma use
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=182625373

redundant 'and'
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=182629634
not removed until several months later
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=275305103

[edit] Oh my mistake. It wasn't a few months. It was more than a year. The careless mistake you introduced in January 2008 was not corrected until March 2009 - by someone else.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Gazimoff]

Is it me, or does it read as if Ironholds is trying to blackmail the Undertow there?

[Deodand]

Is it me, or does it read as if Ironholds is trying to blackmail the Undertow there?

Blackmail into doing what? This is after the move discussion - indeed, the log started with Ironholds indicating to Law/Undertow that a move discussion was being set up, and would he like to participate. I read his comments about arbcom and the like as a counter to Law's assertion that nobody would do anything because "they all knew", not as an attempt at blackmail. Besides, what would he even blackmail him to do?

[Casliber]

Editing on other projects s an option for The Undertow...I wonder if the unified log in will make the userID 'El Undertow' on the spanish wikipedia (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[the_undertow]

so you are a meatpuppet! and I'm pretty sure those are tertiary logs? meatpuppet. the only admin i've ever seen blocked by other admins. was that your log? i don't see your name there.

Meatpuppet? Hilarious. This is very rich coming from the sockpuppeteer.

Oh, and if I'm the only administrator who you've ever seen blocked, you better get down to your optometrist quick smart. Not to mention the block was roundly opposed by a consensus of administrators and removed not one-quarter of the way through, even without me asking for an unblock.

Your arguments are disintegrating around you.

So, back to my original question:

Why did you lie to name-drop Jimmy Wales as knowing that you operated an alternate account, a declaration which is unambiguously false?

listen, arb-quirk. no such declaration was made. i realize that by the emails that you and ironholds are as he put it 'Mudd,' but thats only because you sold me out for < 30 pieces of silver. It's a free position.

My prose in my article writing are spot-on.

Your proses, perhaps? I looked at your edit history and the first two edits I found which were not mere formatting changes or reversions both had mistakes

comma use
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=182625373

redundant 'and'
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=182629634
not removed until several months later
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=275305103

[edit] Oh my mistake. It wasn't a few months. It was more than a year. The careless mistake you introduced in January 2008 was not corrected until March 2009 - by someone else.

I'm actually flattered you have that much time to find my inaccuracies. Yes, I fuck up. What did you have to offer? I forget.

Editing on other projects s an option for The Undertow...I wonder if the unified log in will make the userID 'El Undertow' on the spanish wikipedia (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I refuse to press 1 for English. Haha. Que te vaya bein, mi amigo. Lo siento. Tengo la culpa, totalmente.

Is it me, or does it read as if Ironholds is trying to blackmail the Undertow there?

Irony is sockpuppeting as a banned user, refusing to make a page move against consensus, finding Danny to do it, and then throwing a rat on me.

[Peter Damian]

I'm actually flattered you have that much time to find my inaccuracies. Yes, I fuck up. What did you have to offer? I forget.

You should know this, but here it is again

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...mian_Background

Now permanently banned for some pointed criticism of a senior Wikipedian which was termed 'harassment'.

[the_undertow]

so you are a meatpuppet! and I'm pretty sure those are tertiary logs? meatpuppet. the only admin i've ever seen blocked by other admins. was that your log? i don't see your name there.

Meatpuppet? Hilarious. This is very rich coming from the sockpuppeteer.

Oh, and if I'm the only administrator who you've ever seen blocked, you better get down to your optometrist quick smart. Not to mention the block was roundly opposed by a consensus of administrators and removed not one-quarter of the way through, even without me asking for an unblock.

Your arguments are disintegrating around you.

So, back to my original question:

Why did you lie to name-drop Jimmy Wales as knowing that you operated an alternate account, a declaration which is unambiguously false?

Again, refer to your parents' wedding photos.

I'm actually flattered you have that much time to find my inaccuracies. Yes, I fuck up. What did you have to offer? I forget.

You should know this, but here it is again

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...mian_Background

Now permanently banned for some pointed criticism of a senior Wikipedian which was termed 'harassment'.

I have apologized 2x on this board for blocking you. WTF do you want?

[Deodand]

"Irony is sockpuppeting as a banned user" - who? I'd be interested to see any kind of evidence you have.

[the_undertow]

"Irony is sockpuppeting as a banned user" - who? I'd be interested to see any kind of evidence you have.

Me, jackass. Look at the thread name.

[the_undertow]

Luke sent me an email weeks ago asking if I was the 'reincarnate of a user who was previously banned by Arbcom.' In that sense, one would have to gather that he knew. How long he knew is of no import to me given the fact that he has been a great instigator by virtue of the fact that he tried to get out from under this by actually getting in front of it.

Unless he routinely sends out these boilerplate emails to all editors, he was in the know.

Well, I send out emails like that about twice a year when I notice odd new accounts, I'm right about 50% of the time, and usually the 50% I'm wrong about appreciate I approached them privately.

You really admit your hunches are spot on with the probability of a coin toss? Thinking about my occupation, if I was right half the time, given my clientele, I'd probably end my life out of respect.

Yeah, new hobby needed.

This post has been edited by the_undertow:

[Deodand]

Undertow: My apologies. "Irony is socking as a banned user" - I thought you were referring to Ironholds, sometimes called "irony" over IRC. You've yet to explain - why are you repeatedly lying over logs that can't get you in any deeper shit than you already are?

[the_undertow]

Undertow: My apologies. "Irony is socking as a banned user" - I thought you were referring to Ironholds, sometimes called "irony" over IRC. You've yet to explain - why are you repeatedly lying over logs that can't get you in any deeper shit than you already are?

I'm pretty quick to admit when I fuck up. Produce the entire logs and I'll endorse them. Especially the part on en when I refused to make the page move. Especially the part to Ironholds when I gave him permission to 'turn me in' given ethical concerns. Each and every person I have told about my identity has been aware of the same speech - if you have an ethical or moral concern, please feel free to do what you need to in order to insure that you can maintain your ethical character and forgive my for the position I have put you in.

I don't remember seeing that part of the logs.

[Guido den Broeder]

For future reference, if anyone would like to send something to arbcom, please use the arbcom-l lists.wikimedia.org email address so that all members are apprised. Talking through individual arbitrators seems to have caused some confusion at multiple points in this saga.

People don't like to use the arbcom-l address because email to that address seems to go unanswered on a regular basis, to the point that many people believe that it is being overly-aggressively moderated by whoever does that. Also, when you email an individual arbitrator you can later blame that arbitrator for not taking action; it's much harder to do so for email sent to a collective list.

Blame your fellow arbitrators for giving that address such a bad reputation, if you must blame anyone.

I used to send mail to an individual arbitrator (mr. One, for instance) but cc to the list. Not that it helped. Sometimes I received a mail back, eventually, but never a reply to my questions. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Deodand]

Undertow: My apologies. "Irony is socking as a banned user" - I thought you were referring to Ironholds, sometimes called "irony" over IRC. You've yet to explain - why are you repeatedly lying over logs that can't get you in any deeper shit than you already are?

I'm pretty quick to admit when I fuck up. Produce the entire logs and I'll endorse them. Especially the part on en when I refused to make the page move. Especially the part to Ironholds when I gave him permission to 'turn me in' given ethical concerns. Each and every person I have told about my identity has been aware of the same speech - if you have an ethical or moral concern, please feel free to do what you need to in order to insure that you can maintain your ethical character and forgive my for the position I have put you in.

I don't remember seeing that part of the logs.

So if I produce a section of a log vindicating you, it's endorseable, but if I provide a section that makes you look like a colossal dick it's obviously faked? What wonderful logic you operate under, dear. When I get permission to provide the full logs and the elements you considered "bullshit" and "faked" are still in there, will you admit they are the truth? And if so, why haven't you done so already?

Give me the addy of a third party I can ping the full logs to. They can verify that they haven't been edited since the convo, end of problem.

[LaraLove]

I'm pretty quick to admit when I fuck up. Produce the entire logs and I'll endorse them. Especially the part on en when I refused to make the page move. Especially the part to Ironholds when I gave him permission to 'turn me in' given ethical concerns. Each and every person I have told about my identity has been aware of the same speech - if you have an ethical or moral concern, please feel free to do what you need to in order to insure that you can maintain your ethical character and forgive my for the position I have put you in.

I don't remember seeing that part of the logs.

So if I produce a section of a log vindicating you, it's endorseable, but if I provide a section that makes you look like a colossal dick it's obviously faked? What wonderful logic you operate under, dear. When I get permission to provide the full logs and the elements you considered "bullshit" and "faked" are still in there, will you admit they are the truth? And if so, why haven't you done so already?

Give me the addy of a third party I can ping the full logs to. They can verify that they haven't been edited since the convo, end of problem.

Don't bother. No one could technically verify that, but from what I was originally told by Ironholds literally minutes after it happened and then Chip later, the logs are probably not altered. They are, however, more embarrassing and stupid than either of them had suggested to me.

[One]

Thanks. But Luke says he knew nothing about it until four days before it broke. Is this just a confusion over dates, or did Luke know something before the time he claims he did?

Updated list here

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...ator_connivance

Four so far, including Davis who said he heard it on IRC. That means a lot of people knew. And proves that IRC is just as bad as it ever was, in spite of those who claim I am flogging a dead horse.

Luke sent me an email weeks ago asking if I was the 'reincarnate of a user who was previously banned by Arbcom.' In that sense, one would have to gather that he knew. How long he knew is of no import to me given the fact that he has been a great instigator by virtue of the fact that he tried to get out from under this by actually getting in front of it.

Unless he routinely sends out these boilerplate emails to all editors, he was in the know.

Thank you.

I know it seems like it's been a long time, but that email was sent for the benefit of ArbCom on September 29, hours after receiving the IRC logs--it was forwarded to ArbCom, because at the time no one seemed to be doing anything with the information (inaction is a problem on arbcom-l). You will note that this is in fact one week ago. Go ahead and post this email in full with headers and boilerplate.

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Of the two of you, which one do you think has more credibility with most of the people reading this? Provide proof. Put up or shut up.

There is no way to discern this. I have no credibility on this board - as I came here guns a'blazing.
But Luke needs to admit that his knowledge of my existence well, existed. He did, in fact, know first. He defended CoM and gave me a pseudo-admonishment at one point. I liked Luke as TU, so I had no problem confiding in him.

You did not confide in me until after September 29. Actually, you didn't confide in me then either. The next email I got from you was from The_undertow account, and not responding to my questions to Law. Instead, you sent this message Sep 30, 2009 at 8:30 AM my time, with the additional false statement that Cas didn't know, "You think I would tell an Arb?" This would be a very strange question to ask if--as you claim--you had already "confided" in me.

Moreover, I did not defend CoM. In fact, if you look at it, we were actually chatting because of a disagreement. I did not give you a pseudo-admonishment for socking. I gave you a civility warning (note the clever use of NPA) because you said "That's cuz yer really not that smart" in the middle of our Cool Hand Luke jokes on CoM's talk page. I didn't know you from a hole in the ground, and I certainly wasn't waiting around for you to interject rudely on the talk page of a third party in order to give you some sooper sekrit encoded warning that I knew about your socking.

I first knew on September 29 with the forwarded IRC logs.

This post has been edited by One:

[Kelly Martin]

(inaction is a problem on arbcom-l)

And yet you want us to send all communications related to arbcommy things to that list, presumably so they can be unacted upon.

This thread has been painful to read for the past couple of pages; it's devolved into stupid people yelling at each other for being mutual shitheads. Thanks, we got the point, please take that to email or something, or Wikipedia talk pages or something.

[Casliber]

(inaction is a problem on arbcom-l)

And yet you want us to send all communications related to arbcommy things to that list, presumably so they can be unacted upon.

This thread has been painful to read for the past couple of pages; it's devolved into stupid people yelling at each other for being mutual shitheads. Thanks, we got the point, please take that to email or something, or Wikipedia talk pages or something.

So don't read it Kelly. When one is bombarded with 100 emails a day, and has to prioritise things, then obviously certain tasks get left on the backburner.

[Friday]

The undertow has an undisputed history of acting like a total kook, right?

I'd say sneaking him back into the project and giving him admin tools under false pretenses was indeed damaging to the project. Yes, it sounds like the only obviously bad thing he did was a bad unblock, but is it possible for any reasonable person to consider him a healthy addition to the project? The facts of his original ban are now well known and not disputed, right?

There's a lot of political nonsense going around, and finger pointing at unrelated people, but at the core of this case, there was a very real and really stupid breach of trust.

A kook? Your actions that I have witnessed in my time here as both admins clearly connote that you are and continue to be an admin that acts way off the mark.

This seems very typical of many people's responses to the debacle. No disputing of any facts, no sensible response- merely assertions that other people are Very Bad in unspecified ways. And I used to wonder why rational discourse was so difficult at Wikipedia.

[One]

Don't bother. No one could technically verify that, but from what I was originally told by Ironholds literally minutes after it happened and then Chip later, the logs are probably not altered. They are, however, more embarrassing and stupid than either of them had suggested to me.

True that. I wonder why then The_undertow refuses to acknowledge stuff that doesn't even matter.

Does he still have your trust? If so, why?

[A Horse With No Name]

Yea, I don't find it comparable. He contacted someone's boss and attempted to get him fired. I trusted my best friend to do well with adminship, and he did. So no, I don't see what I did as being far worse.

Hold on -- let me unzip this horse's costume and just get one thing settled, once and for all.

I have NEVER made any public comment that detailed the incident that you are referring to. The only version of what transpired is the one put forward by the other party involved in this case. This version has been embroidered upon over time by several malicious people, who turned it into a thoroughly ridiculous escapade that would rival the best of J.K. Rowling for sheer fantasy.

One reason why I have never made a public comment was because no one ever bothered to get my side of the story. A second reason was that the versions being circulated were so astonishing that refuting them at length would be the Wikipedia equivalent of refuting arguments that colonies of Sasquatch are running around in the Pacific Northwest.

Without going into full detail of what transpired, since no one is even curious about the entire sorry affair, I will refute Lara's comment here and now: I have never attempted to get any person fired from their place of employment, nor would I ever dream of attempting such an obnoxious act. My conversation with that "someone's boss" was not planned with the attempt of ending anyone's employment, nor was the question of pursuing such action ever raised in the flow of our relatively brief talk.

The conversation in question was very, very different from the versions that have become popular Wikipedia legend. At some point, in the event there is an audience that is willing to listen to what I have to say, I will gladly speak at length. But at this point in time, I am just sick and tired that this garbage is still being recycled.

I will now get back into my horse costume and get ready for my race tomorrow at Belmont Park.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[One]

If you wanna do that where people can see it, start a new thread, Horse. At almost 40 pages, this thread is inside baseball.

[A Horse With No Name]

If you wanna do that where people can see it, start a new thread, Horse. At almost 40 pages, this thread is inside baseball.

Please, you realize that many members of the WR audience come from countries where baseball is not played. For those who are unfamiliar with baseball, this video provides an idea of what the sport is all about:

[LaraLove]

Don't bother. No one could technically verify that, but from what I was originally told by Ironholds literally minutes after it happened and then Chip later, the logs are probably not altered. They are, however, more embarrassing and stupid than either of them had suggested to me.

True that. I wonder why then The_undertow refuses to acknowledge stuff that doesn't even matter.

Does he still have your trust? If so, why?

No.

Yea, I don't find it comparable. He contacted someone's boss and attempted to get him fired. I trusted my best friend to do well with adminship, and he did. So no, I don't see what I did as being far worse.

Hold on -- let me unzip this horse's costume and just get one thing settled, once and for all.

I have NEVER made any public comment that detailed the incident that you are referring to.

<snip>

I have never attempted to get any person fired from their place of employment, nor would I ever dream of attempting such an obnoxious act. My conversation with that "someone's boss" was not planned with the attempt of ending anyone's employment, nor was the question of pursing such action ever raised in the flow of our relatively brief talk.

The conversation in question was very, very different from the versions that have become popular Wikipedia legend. At some point, in the event there is an audience that is willing to listen to what I have to say, I will gladly speak at length. But at this point in time, I am just sick and tired that this garbage is still being recycled.

I will now get back into my horse costume and get ready for my race tomorrow at Belmont Park.

Start a new thread. I would very much like to know what happened. In that you never refuted it (even when the other editor was participating here, right? I could be recalling that incorrectly), it seemed as though you had nothing to refute. Or, perhaps, you just didn't want Horsey's identity known. Either way, give your side. We want to know.

[One]

Don't bother. No one could technically verify that, but from what I was originally told by Ironholds literally minutes after it happened and then Chip later, the logs are probably not altered. They are, however, more embarrassing and stupid than either of them had suggested to me.

True that. I wonder why then The_undertow refuses to acknowledge stuff that doesn't even matter.

Does he still have your trust? If so, why?

No.

Thank you, Lara, for drawing the line somewhere.

If the mods can redact his bullshit attack on Daniel, I would appreciate it.

[Deodand]

I'd be interested to hear Horse's "side of the story", as it were. I do wonder why he didn't bring some big vindicating tale out when the "victim" first went on about it, but given ANI's very nature I can understand why it would've got lost.

[A Horse With No Name]

Start a new thread. I would very much like to know what happened. In that you never refuted it (even when the other editor was participating here, right? I could be recalling that incorrectly), it seemed as though you had nothing to refute. Or, perhaps, you just didn't want Horsey's identity known. Either way, give your side. We want to know.

Lara, you had previously remarked about an inquiry I made to Arbcom relating to the possibility of reversing the official disabling of an earlier Wikipedia account. That is correct -- I made an inquiry and, for the first and only time, I gave an in-depth account of what transpired and the reasons behind what took place. I received word back that the Arbcom people reacted with hostility, particularly in regard to my pointing out some fairly obvious inconsistencies in the other editor's version of the event. My pointing out of the fraying of policy guidelines that resulted in my account being disabled wasn't exactly well-received, either.

My support of Law/TU and both you and GC is based in large part on my own misadventures -- the truth gets kicked aside and mashed up into something very entertaining. I know that neither you nor GC like me and Law doesn't know me, but I do know what injustice looks like and I am not going to be quiet while other people get hurt.

Ultimately, this is all ancient history -- or at least ancient by WP standards. If anyone is curious, I will discuss further in private. If I can determine that there is a serious audience, I will be glad to go forward.

Though, seriously, I doubt anyone cares. This reminds me of the line from the John Wayne film "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance": When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

[LaraLove]

I know that neither you nor GC like me . . .

I never had much interaction with you as Ecoleetage, but what little there was was positive. I always liked your horse persona, even when people were asking me why I wasn't offended by some of your comments. In that you had apparently attempted to get someone fired from their job because they didn't support your RFA... that was too much. Because you didn't refute it, it seemed that you had no defense. Wiki-crimes are one thing, but when you bring it into the "real world" and make it personal, that's when it gets scary. It leads one to question what you might do in other situations where someone pissed you off, ya know? If that's not what happened, I'd be relieved to say the least.

So, if you would, pm me your side of the story; although, I think a public thread would be better.

[CharlotteWebb]

ArbCom isn't the community's moral compass...

Unless you mean the tool one uses to draw a perfect circle. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

My be the most clever post I have seen, given my username. Nice work.

What? Somebody gets my jokes? I must remember to be more obscure.

I refuse to press 1 for English. Haha. Que te vaya bein, mi amigo. Lo siento. Tengo la culpa, totalmente.

Yeah, appealing a ban via the arbcom-l mailing list is about as productive as calling the LAMC.

Considering the article is still on Wikipedia, I assume you are prolonging this detour in order to get another view of my left testicle.

Einige mitglieder der arbkom backen ihre kuchen ohne pferdhoden... vielleicht sollten wir ihnen zu erpressen.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Achromatic]

I really didn't want to post any more of the log than the few lines I did previously, but oh well, here goes:

[12:34] <The_Law> i like AC
[12:34] <The_Law> they have been kind to me
[12:34] <Ironholds> oh, I'm sure
[12:35] <Ironholds> and if this kindness involves, say, them knowing about your new account
[12:35] <Ironholds> then they'll have to explain that to the community. Cue more dramah.
[12:35] <Ironholds> and if it doesn't, you're just fucked
[12:35] <The_Law> you dont think wales knows about this?
[12:35] <The_Law> yer clearly mistaken
[12:35] <The_Law> however i am more malicious than you.
[12:35] <The_Law> try it
[12:36] <Ironholds> I'm sure you are. You're missing out two important points, here, though
[12:36] <Ironholds> well, three, effectively
[12:36] <Ironholds> firstly, if Wales knows about this he again, has to explain to the community
[12:36] <Ironholds> secondly, I don't start off malicious. I only become malicious when forced to by some dickwad not acting reasonably
[12:37] <Ironholds> thirdly, I have no. fucking. soul. No qualms, no second thoughts.
[12:37] <Ironholds> so what you're talking about is somebody who has no qualms about taking this as far as it can go, and by now is in a situation where he's been pushed to the edge anyway.
[12:38] <The_Law> brother, try it. the arbs, the wales, the crats, they all know
[12:38] <Ironholds> again, they can explain
[12:38] <The_Law> but in real life, i'll keep this going
[12:38] <Ironholds> whut?
[12:38] <The_Law> ask lara or john, i won't stop. i'm funny that way.
[12:39] <Ironholds> oh, I know
[12:39] <The_Law> do you?
[12:39] <Ironholds> I just didn't get the "in real life" comment
[12:39] <Ironholds> given that you live thousands of miles away
[12:40] <The_Law> one of the benefits i have is unlimited airline usage.
[12:40] <Ironholds> ooh, real life threats now? God, I'm terrified
[12:40] <Ironholds> if only you knew where I lived! Wait, you do, London!
[12:40] <Ironholds> god, only twelve million people there to churn through
[12:41] <Ironholds> I'm sure you'll be here lickety-quick
[12:41] <The_Law> you realize this is pointless
[12:41] <Ironholds> so Arbcom knows that you're Undertow returned, then? Or just that you had a prior account?
[12:41] <The_Law> do what you feel you have to do
[12:42] <Ironholds> or is it Wales that knows?
[12:42] <Ironholds> c'mon there Undertow, don't make me guess! I'm awful at these games
[12:42] <Ironholds> five words, first word "I"?
[12:42] <The_Law> of course he does. i keep his books
[12:42] <The_Law> brother, if you want to drop the dime to AC, do it
[12:43] <The_Law> but i have no respect for pussies
[12:43] <Ironholds> you seem remarkably self-confident about this. Do they know, not care, or do you just have another sock somewhere?
[12:43] <Ironholds> says the man too pussified to start a move discussion
[12:43] <The_Law> you really have no idea who you are dealing with
[12:43] <The_Law> on wiki or off
[12:43] <The_Law> but ill let that pass

Apropos of anything else, am I the only one that noticed that while many of Ironholds lines in the log are prefixed with the 'nonprinting' character code '', not all are? Odd that whatever was logging was inconsistent about that.

[No one of consequence]

Yeah, appealing a ban via the arbcom-l mailing list is as about productive as calling the LAMC.

There have been a number of successful appeals this year. I think that delegating it to 3 people who are specifically responsible for ban appeals works better then broadcasting it to 15 people, each of whom can tell him or herself that it's somebody else's problem.

[A Horse With No Name]

I really didn't want to post any more of the log than the few lines I did previously, but oh well, here goes:

[12:34] <The_Law> i like AC
[12:34] <The_Law> they have been kind to me
[12:34] <Ironholds> oh, I'm sure
[12:35] <Ironholds> and if this kindness involves, say, them knowing about your new account
[12:35] <Ironholds> then they'll have to explain that to the community. Cue more dramah.
[12:35] <Ironholds> and if it doesn't, you're just fucked
[12:35] <The_Law> you dont think wales knows about this?
[12:35] <The_Law> yer clearly mistaken
[12:35] <The_Law> however i am more malicious than you.
[12:35] <The_Law> try it
[12:36] <Ironholds> I'm sure you are. You're missing out two important points, here, though
[12:36] <Ironholds> well, three, effectively
[12:36] <Ironholds> firstly, if Wales knows about this he again, has to explain to the community
[12:36] <Ironholds> secondly, I don't start off malicious. I only become malicious when forced to by some dickwad not acting reasonably
[12:37] <Ironholds> thirdly, I have no. fucking. soul. No qualms, no second thoughts.
[12:37] <Ironholds> so what you're talking about is somebody who has no qualms about taking this as far as it can go, and by now is in a situation where he's been pushed to the edge anyway.
[12:38] <The_Law> brother, try it. the arbs, the wales, the crats, they all know
[12:38] <Ironholds> again, they can explain
[12:38] <The_Law> but in real life, i'll keep this going
[12:38] <Ironholds> whut?
[12:38] <The_Law> ask lara or john, i won't stop. i'm funny that way.
[12:39] <Ironholds> oh, I know
[12:39] <The_Law> do you?
[12:39] <Ironholds> I just didn't get the "in real life" comment
[12:39] <Ironholds> given that you live thousands of miles away
[12:40] <The_Law> one of the benefits i have is unlimited airline usage.
[12:40] <Ironholds> ooh, real life threats now? God, I'm terrified
[12:40] <Ironholds> if only you knew where I lived! Wait, you do, London!
[12:40] <Ironholds> god, only twelve million people there to churn through
[12:41] <Ironholds> I'm sure you'll be here lickety-quick
[12:41] <The_Law> you realize this is pointless
[12:41] <Ironholds> so Arbcom knows that you're Undertow returned, then? Or just that you had a prior account?
[12:41] <The_Law> do what you feel you have to do
[12:42] <Ironholds> or is it Wales that knows?
[12:42] <Ironholds> c'mon there Undertow, don't make me guess! I'm awful at these games
[12:42] <Ironholds> five words, first word "I"?
[12:42] <The_Law> of course he does. i keep his books
[12:42] <The_Law> brother, if you want to drop the dime to AC, do it
[12:43] <The_Law> but i have no respect for pussies
[12:43] <Ironholds> you seem remarkably self-confident about this. Do they know, not care, or do you just have another sock somewhere?
[12:43] <Ironholds> says the man too pussified to start a move discussion
[12:43] <The_Law> you really have no idea who you are dealing with
[12:43] <The_Law> on wiki or off
[12:43] <The_Law> but ill let that pass

Apropos of anything else, am I the only one that noticed that while many of Ironholds lines in the log are prefixed with the 'nonprinting' character code '', not all are? Odd that whatever was logging was inconsistent about that.

I take it that Ironholds will not be performing the Bobby Fuller Four pop classic "I Fought The Law (And The Law Won)?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[carbuncle]

I haven't been following the saga as closely as I might have, so would somebody kindly clue me in as to what this means:

[12:42] <Ironholds> or is it Wales that knows?
[12:42] <Ironholds> c'mon there Undertow, don't make me guess! I'm awful at these games
[12:42] <Ironholds> five words, first word "I"?
[12:42] <The_Law> of course he does. i keep his books

Keeps his books?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Keeps his books?

Law/the_undertow is an accountant. I assume he's making a joke about being Jimbo's accountant.

[LaraLove]

I really didn't want to post any more of the log than the few lines I did previously, but oh well, here goes:

[logs]

Apropos of anything else, am I the only one that noticed that while many of Ironholds lines in the log are prefixed with the 'nonprinting' character code '', not all are? Odd that whatever was logging was inconsistent about that.

Hmm, I hadn't noticed that. I still doubt it's been altered, but that is an interesting point.

[Kelly Martin]

When one is bombarded with 100 emails a day, and has to prioritise things, then obviously certain tasks get left on the backburner.

Sounds like y'all need to find a way to manage your workload better, then. Because the way you're doing it just makes y'all look to be incompetent at best, and maliciously nasty at worst.

But wait, didn't you resign? Why are you still reading the arbcom's emails, then?

[trenton]

Wow, this all so pathetically hilarious.

Law / undertow kinda reminds me of Mercury / Nonvocal scream. Kinda the same level of maturity, and the same type of transparent lies.

The wikipedia admin corpse certainly seems to have more than it's fair share of mental defectives.

[Kelly Martin]

Apropos of anything else, am I the only one that noticed that while many of Ironholds lines in the log are prefixed with the 'nonprinting' character code '', not all are? Odd that whatever was logging was inconsistent about that.

Hmm, I hadn't noticed that. I still doubt it's been altered, but that is an interesting point.

Could indicate that those lines were colored or highlighted for some reason. What client was used to write these logs? mIRC?

[Abd]

I wonder why then The_undertow refuses to acknowledge stuff that doesn't even matter.

Context is everything, Luke. When the context is combat, people will do or say anything, literally, in real life they will chop babies to pieces, and simply not saying something ("refuses to acknowledge") is saying nothing. If it "doesn't even matter," why, then, is Law being badgered, with demands that he respond?

Yeah, that log is embarrassing. Luke, I'm not sure there is any value in communication with Law, it may be that, for him, the best thing is to move on with his life, hopefully with some lessons learned, but he did trust you at one time, almost certainly. On a human level, if you care about that, I'd recommend directly communicating with him, see if you can find an agreement. If you need a facilitator, find one, I'd serve confidentially. It's this public show that's such a problem, and I say this here, instead of privately, because that is the point I most want to make. Wikipedia turns small disagreements into huge battles and large disagreements into impossible snarled traffic jams.

One of the worst aspects of this affair has been an impeachment of confidential communication with arbitrators, accompanied with the argument that "friendship" should have no place in Wikipedia process, which makes "the project" into an inhuman monster that eats the humanity of the participants.

In reality, there is no project, it doesn't objectively exist, it's a fantasy, and the eating is done by those who immerse themselves in this fantasy. There is only the collective activity of the community, and when you have a community of humans that disallows their humanity, you have what, in real life, can become Cambodia or other places where ideals, apparently noble goals, were raised above human connection, leading to conditions much worse than mere selfishness.

[Friday]

After reading that alleged log.. All I can say is wow. This is really how this dude behaves? If those logs are legit, clearly this person has not gotten over their behavioral issues. He's what you'd call a high-drama personality, and anyone with an ounce of sense avoids people like that.

[A Horse With No Name]

In reality, there is no project, it doesn't objectively exist, it's a fantasy, and the eating is done by those who immerse themselves in this fantasy.

Phooey, that's not my idea of a fantasy! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

This is my idea of a fantasy:

[carbuncle]

After reading that alleged log.. All I can say is wow. This is really how this dude behaves? If those logs are legit, clearly this person has not gotten over their behavioral issues. He's what you'd call a high-drama personality, and anyone with an ounce of sense avoids people like that.

I think I would apply that to both parties.

[Deodand]

Friday: Attitude displayed in the full log does rather worry me. Switching from "I'm a well-adjusted person" in #wikipedia-en to "I'm a fucking maniac" and then on to a personality best described as "emo kid" at the end.

Others: afaik it's mIRC, yes. When I've /versioned him in #wikipedia-en (one occasionally gets bored, surprise surprise) it's been mIRC. No reason to suggest he's randomly switched for a single convo. I'm not a big logging person (I don't keep them myself) so I have no idea if the little screwy characters are normal or not. Anyone better qualified than I to comment?

[One]

I wonder why then The_undertow refuses to acknowledge stuff that doesn't even matter.

Context is everything, Luke. When the context is combat, people will do or say anything, literally, in real life they will chop babies to pieces, and simply not saying something ("refuses to acknowledge") is saying nothing. If it "doesn't even matter," why, then, is Law being badgered, with demands that he respond?

Dunno, because it was clear to me that the Jimbo comment was a joke/idle intimidation. Rather than admit that he said a lot of stupid things in the IRC chat, he attacked Daniel and made assertions that it's a fake--even though many other people (including LaraLove) know better. I can't explain why some people are brittle--they just are.

Oh, and Law didn't trust me with anything, Abd. His first message to me contained a lie, and he played dumb about it until he realized that Casliber had been significantly more honest than he was. He's repeatedly attacked me here, and until he drops all of his lies about me, I don't want to speak to him in any private forum.

[LaraLove]

Friday: Attitude displayed in the full log does rather worry me. Switching from "I'm a well-adjusted person" in #wikipedia-en to "I'm a fucking maniac" and then on to a personality best described as "emo kid" at the end.

Others: afaik it's mIRC, yes. When I've /versioned him in #wikipedia-en (one occasionally gets bored, surprise surprise) it's been mIRC. No reason to suggest he's randomly switched for a single convo. I'm not a big logging person (I don't keep them myself) so I have no idea if the little screwy characters are normal or not. Anyone better qualified than I to comment?

Chatzilla doesn't do that. Logs I've seen from whatever that Mac IRC client is also don't do that.

Chip had been drinking at the time that shamefulness occurred. A lot of boys will be boys immaturity all around. I don't know why he's claiming the logs are forged, though. I asked him to come answer Luke's question. I read the new posts this morning and then asked him to walk away from all of it and not turn back.

This whole thing is a mess and it just keeps getting messier.

[Random832]

When one is bombarded with 100 emails a day, and has to prioritise things, then obviously certain tasks get left on the backburner.

But wait, didn't you resign? Why are you still reading the arbcom's emails, then?

Is there any reason he should believe that the volume of material sent to the list has significantly changed since his recent resignation?

[Abd]

In reality, there is no project, it doesn't objectively exist, it's a fantasy, and the eating is done by those who immerse themselves in this fantasy.

Phooey, that's not my idea of a fantasy! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

This is my idea of a fantasy:

Not much different, as far as I can tell, only the mud on Wikipedia is more like an avalanche of shit. You can become accustomed to anything.

Abd: The avalanche of shit in this case stinks.
Arbitrators: Abd has failed to prove his allegations, There Is No Smell.

Good Cop Arbitrator: Abd, what have you learned from this, what would you do differently?
Abd: I'd point out the smell more quickly, if permitted by my mentor, so that the mess can be cleaned up before it spreads.
Arbitrators: He hasn't learned his lesson, it is Not Permitted to mention the -- what was it he said? Never mind, doesn't matter, ban him!

Good Cop Arbitrator: I don't necessarily agree with this ban, but since some perfectly clean and uninvolved editors may be offended by the allegations in this case, I'm blanking the case pages and the evidence files.
Screaming Mob: No! Yes! Never! Now! Resign! Conspiracy! Delete! Revert! AN/I! Look! Law is a sock puppet! Who knew? When? You! Him! Her! Them! Wrong! Lies! Throw them all out! Humiliate them!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

Bad dream! It's over now. The radiation detectors should arrive from France by the beginning of next week, and I need to order palladium chloride and deuterium oxide and there are hundreds of details to work out. It's easier to explain this to my kids than that "encyclopedia project." At least I'll make some money at this, I expect, though probably not much.

I'm preferring real knowledge to tertiary reporting of secondary reporting of primary reporting of knowledge, direct experience to dreaming about dreaming about someone else's experience, who said what to whom, when? And what did it all mean?

All I can say about it now is, thanks, ArbComm, for being so collectively stupid. Sincerely. If you'd been a little smarter, if you had listened to Carcharoth or bainer, I might still be trapped by my sense of obligation, sucking me back into the maelstrom, and a "little smarter" isn't enough to actually address the problems so that the community becomes functional.

I've taken this thread off my "subscription list" here. Wikipedia is addicting because there is always something to distract, to react to. Same here.

[GlassBeadGame]

In reality, there is no project, it doesn't objectively exist, it's a fantasy, and the eating is done by those who immerse themselves in this fantasy.

Phooey, that's not my idea of a fantasy! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

This is my idea of a fantasy:

Not much different, as far as I can tell, only the mud on Wikipedia is more like an avalanche of shit. You can become accustomed to anything.

Abd: The avalanche of shit in this case stinks.
Arbitrators: Abd has failed to prove his allegations, There Is No Smell.

Good Cop Arbitrator: Abd, what have you learned from this, what would you do differently?
Abd: I'd point out the smell more quickly, if permitted by my mentor, so that the mess can be cleaned up before it spreads.
Arbitrators: He hasn't learned his lesson, it is Not Permitted to mention the -- what was it he said? Never mind, doesn't matter, ban him!

Good Cop Arbitrator: I don't necessarily agree with this ban, but since some perfectly clean and uninvolved editors may be offended by the allegations in this case, I'm blanking the case pages and the evidence files.
Screaming Mob: No! Yes! Never! Now! Resign! Conspiracy! Delete! Revert! AN/I! Look! Law is a sock puppet! Who knew? When? You! Him! Her! Them! Wrong! Lies! Throw them all out! Humiliate them!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

Bad dream! It's over now. The radiation detectors should arrive from France by the beginning of next week, and I need to order palladium chloride and deuterium oxide and there are hundreds of details to work out. It's easier to explain this to my kids than that "encyclopedia project." At least I'll make some money at this, I expect, though probably not much.

I'm preferring real knowledge to tertiary reporting of secondary reporting of primary reporting of knowledge, direct experience to dreaming about dreaming about someone else's experience, who said what to whom, when? And what did it all mean?

All I can say about it now is, thanks, ArbComm, for being so collectively stupid. Sincerely. If you'd been a little smarter, if you had listened to Carcharoth or bainer, I might still be trapped by my sense of obligation, sucking me back into the maelstrom, and a "little smarter" isn't enough to actually address the problems so that the community becomes functional.

I've taken this thread off my "subscription list" here. Wikipedia is addicting because there is always something to distract, to react to. Same here.

I guess the Noble Prize season is always a tough time of the year...

[A Horse With No Name]

Not much different, as far as I can tell

Hmmm...Abd cannot tell the difference between Ann-Margret and the average arbitrator. Is there an optometrist in the house? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Achromatic]

Apropos of anything else, am I the only one that noticed that while many of Ironholds lines in the log are prefixed with the 'nonprinting' character code '', not all are? Odd that whatever was logging was inconsistent about that.

Hmm, I hadn't noticed that. I still doubt it's been altered, but that is an interesting point.

Could indicate that those lines were colored or highlighted for some reason. What client was used to write these logs? mIRC?

Absolutely possible, though what's of interest to me is that they're the only lines that specifically make claims of a new account, and (though I'm hardly qualified to know what would be worthy of highlighting to the person where the log originated) nothing in those lines seems worthy of highlight (except 'drama', we all know how WPers love drama...).

ObDisclaimer: I have not formed an opinion on this entire mess, either way.

I respect Lara's decision to stand by her friend, though I do disagree with some elements of how she chose to do it. No more, no less. Nothing that hasn't been discussed to death already.

[Random832]

The character  is the IRC code for color (not relevant to text that appears outside a message, but in theory some IRC clients may use it internally for formatting, or include it when copying to the clipboard to allow easy pasting of logs to IRC itself.). When it appears by itself (not followed by a number), it changes the color state back to the default.

I have no idea what this means beyond this, or why it would appear on some but not all of the lines (especially as there are no color codes in the text itself)

[Noroton]

First you encourage someone here to post, then don't lift a finger so that the people who took you up on it will have wasted their time.

Nice to know that about you.

Considering the article is still on Wikipedia,

From the talk page of that article:

Agree that there's no haste, prepared to wait for clarification. Skomorokh, barbarian 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That guy thinks it should probably be deleted, I guess as some kind of copyvio. Granted, Lar disagrees. I certainly wouldn't lift a finger either way.

And it wasn't looking at your testicle but crushing it that I was joking about. Get the joke right.

I read the new posts this morning and then asked him to walk away from all of it and not turn back.

DAMN good advice.

After reading that alleged log.. All I can say is wow. This is really how this dude behaves? If those logs are legit, clearly this person has not gotten over their behavioral issues. He's what you'd call a high-drama personality, and anyone with an ounce of sense avoids people like that.

I think I would apply that to both parties.

Yeah, if that means undertow (one party), Ironholds and Daniel (the other party).

And yeah, part of that needs to be removed by mods.

[Casliber]

When one is bombarded with 100 emails a day, and has to prioritise things, then obviously certain tasks get left on the backburner.

But wait, didn't you resign? Why are you still reading the arbcom's emails, then?

Is there any reason he should believe that the volume of material sent to the list has significantly changed since his recent resignation?

Precisely. I asked to be unsubscribed from the arb- and func- list straight after posting that I was over and out on the arbcom noticeboard and thus have not received emails since

[A Horse With No Name]

That guy thinks it should probably be deleted, I guess as some kind of copyvio. Granted, Lar disagrees. I certainly wouldn't lift a finger either way.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr. Okay, for the second time: you have my permission to post it. The article is public domain. Happy? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

FYI -- I just banged out the article in 20 minutes. I spent more time talking about it than writing it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

And it wasn't looking at your testicle but crushing it that I was joking about. Get the joke right.

You couldn't crush it -- I am a hard nut to crack. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[SB_Johnny]

When one is bombarded with 100 emails a day, and has to prioritise things, then obviously certain tasks get left on the backburner.

Sounds like y'all need to find a way to manage your workload better, then. Because the way you're doing it just makes y'all look to be incompetent at best, and maliciously nasty at worst.

But wait, didn't you resign? Why are you still reading the arbcom's emails, then?

Maybe they need another 20 arbs or so. Might help with the whole recluse thing as well, but probably not.

[Appleby]

Might help with the whole recluse thing as well, but probably not.

Unfortunately, ArbCom members tend not to be recluses, at least online. Maybe some are IRL.


This post has been edited by Appleby:

[Daniel]

I really didn't want to post any more of the log than the few lines I did previously, but oh well, here goes:

[logs]

Apropos of anything else, am I the only one that noticed that while many of Ironholds lines in the log are prefixed with the 'nonprinting' character code '', not all are? Odd that whatever was logging was inconsistent about that.

Hmm, I hadn't noticed that. I still doubt it's been altered, but that is an interesting point.

The logs I had came with an annoying > in front of it (plus the non-breaking character), which for some reason when I copied to this forum changed into a "01". I started manually removing them by hand (ie. deleting both the NBS and the 01), but in the end got terribly bored of doing so, copied it to Textedit, and find-replaced the "01" with nothing. There should be a clear point, about x amount of the way down, where the non-breaking spaces start appearing every time (which is where I started using Textedit); before that point, it'll likely be a mixture of some with NBS and some without, depending on whether I managed to backspace out the NBS when deleting the 01.

Hope this clears it up, and apologies for the confusion.

This post has been edited by Daniel:

[Achromatic]

The logs I had came with an annoying > in front of it (plus the non-breaking character), which for some reason when I copied to this forum changed into a "01". I started manually removing them by hand (ie. deleting both the NBS and the 01), but in the end got terribly bored of doing so, copied it to Textedit, and find-replaced the "01" with nothing. There should be a clear point, about x amount of the way down, where the non-breaking spaces start appearing.

Hope this clears it up.

WP doesn't do due process, and we don't do good faith (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) All kidding aside, for reference, you may wish in future to consider the "ramifications" of "boredom" when it comes to tidying up logs where there are accusations of context bias, if not outright forgery (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Daniel]

WP doesn't do due process, and we don't do good faith (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) All kidding aside, for reference, you may wish in future to consider the "ramifications" of "boredom" when it comes to tidying up logs where there are accusations of context bias, if not outright forgery (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

"Ramifications" of "mild ocdness", maybe (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Further clarification to what I wrote above: the ">"s (and hence the "01"s) were in front of every line written by IH, because they are his logs. They were obviously not in front of what Chip wrote.

This post has been edited by Daniel:

[Apathetic]

Looks like Wizardman just sealed Lara's fate.

[Gazimoff]

Looks like Wizardman just sealed Lara's fate.

Well, the Arbcom wants their pound of flesh. Can't go through all this drama without it.

Kinda glad I'm still retired, to be honest.

[Ahypori]

Looks like Wizardman just sealed Lara's fate.

It was KillerChihuahua's evidence that appears to have swung it in favor of Lara's desysopping, and if Lara is desysopped, it'll be the first time that a rollback granting helped contribute to someone's desysopping.

There's no acknowledgement whatsoever by ArbCom of Jehochman's appalling behavior at all throughout all of this, nor any mention of him and his friends pushing hard to get their enemies desysopped...and at this rate they'll end up getting away with all of this without even a mention by ArbCom, let alone an admonishment or a desysopping.

This post has been edited by Ahypori:

[Floydsvoid]

Wikipedia turns small disagreements into huge battles and large disagreements into impossible snarled traffic jams.

Wikipedia is played like a MMORPG but I think the real life emotional intensity there exceeds that of most MMORPGs. I got dibs on eMMORPG.

Emotional investment in online relationships has increased a lot since I was a young buck (actually back then there was no online). We did have Ann Landers and Dear Abbey in the newspapers to titillate our voyeuristic fantasies but that was about it (yeah, we used to get two newspapers a day, morning & afternoon).

What boggles me most is the spark that ignited this entire train wreck. A dispute over renaming some obscure (to me) bio from 3 names to 2? And presumably fix the redirects? Excuse me for not being a WP editor, but was this as big a deal as it escalated into?

Makes me think that some editors will seize any opportunity to stab their so-called opponents in the back.

Meanwhile, save your emotions for real people, not virtual people, and while you're at it, get the fuck off my lawn (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[The Joy]

Don't bother. No one could technically verify that, but from what I was originally told by Ironholds literally minutes after it happened and then Chip later, the logs are probably not altered. They are, however, more embarrassing and stupid than either of them had suggested to me.

True that. I wonder why then The_undertow refuses to acknowledge stuff that doesn't even matter.

Does he still have your trust? If so, why?

No.

Thank you, Lara, for drawing the line somewhere.

If the mods can redact his bullshit attack on Daniel, I would appreciate it.

Mod Note: I see nothing that requires redacting. Could you specify via PM to me or another mod/staff?

Mod Note to All: Given the length of this thead, PMing mods/staff for any requested action would be best rather than asking for mod action within the thread. Thank you for your cooperation. -The Joy

[One]

Mod Note: I see nothing that requires redacting. Could you specify via PM to me or another mod/staff?

Mod Note to All: Given the length of this thead, PMing mods/staff for any requested action would be best rather than asking for mod action within the thread. Thank you for your cooperation. -The Joy

I know, I know. It can only be redacted if it's about mod/staff.

[Mr. Mystery]

Belatedly concur with Daniel. EPIC WIN, totally.

[The Joy]

Mod Note: I see nothing that requires redacting. Could you specify via PM to me or another mod/staff?

Mod Note to All: Given the length of this thead, PMing mods/staff for any requested action would be best rather than asking for mod action within the thread. Thank you for your cooperation. -The Joy

I know, I know. It can only be redacted if it's about mod/staff.

Mod Note: Another mod has redacted the material. Problem solved. -The Joy

[Somey]

I know, I know. It can only be redacted if it's about mod/staff.

Now, that's just not fair. Not only did we redact the offending material before you posted the above comment, we did it without adding a snarky comment of my own, just so it would get done quicker.

People have to understand that when threads get out of control like this, us mods tend not to read them. This is because we wish to retain some semblance of personal sanity. It's important that member particpating in train-wreck threads like this one understand that, and use the "Report This Post" button rather than simply trust us to do these things on our own, or even in response to posts later in the thread.

Anyway, I'd better get back to the post in question and add that snarky comment... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Looks like Wizardman just sealed Lara's fate.

It was KillerChihuahua's evidence that appears to have swung it in favor of Lara's desysopping, and if Lara is desysopped, it'll be the first time that a rollback granting helped contribute to someone's desysopping.

There's no acknowledgement whatsoever by ArbCom of Jehochman's appalling behavior at all throughout all of this, nor any mention of him and his friends pushing hard to get their enemies desysopped...and at this rate they'll end up getting away with all of this without even a mention by ArbCom, let alone an admonishment or a desysopping.

Arbcom reminds me of a famous Abbott and Costello exchange:

Abbott: Just remember - I'm the boss and you're nothing.
Costello: How do you like that -- boss over nothing!

[One]

I know, I know. It can only be redacted if it's about mod/staff.

Now, that's just not fair. Not only did we redact the offending material before you posted the above comment, we did it without adding a snarky comment of my own, just so it would get done quicker.

People have to understand that when threads get out of control like this, us mods tend not to read them. This is because we wish to retain some semblance of personal sanity. It's important that member particpating in train-wreck threads like this one understand that, and use the "Report This Post" button rather than simply trust us to do these things on our own, or even in response to posts later in the thread.

Anyway, I'd better get back to the post in question and add that snarky comment... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Thanks. GBG is mensch.

I clicked the link a few minutes before my post and found that it was still there. Glad it was fixed expeditiously.

[Somey]

It was KillerChihuahua's evidence that appears to have swung it in favor of Lara's desysopping, and if Lara is desysopped, it'll be the first time that a rollback granting helped contribute to someone's desysopping.

I'm having trouble finding the "evidence page" in question - all I'm seeing are a bunch of vituperative comments from Ms. Chihuahua about their all being deceived and betrayed, yada yada yada, plus a little backtracking where she says they should stop using terms like "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" here, and suggesting that "Watergate" is the more appropriate analogy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

I think we should all be clear on one thing: Despite her past associations, Jennavecia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is, or rather was, in many ways one of the most conscientious and ethical administrators Wikipedia has ever had. This has little to do with her presumed decision to "value personal friendship over Wikipedia policy," as if such a decision would even be an issue for a sane person. To revoke her admin rights in response to such a trivial situation is just further proof that Wikipedia's dominant core group hasn't really changed significantly in the past 3-4 years, even if the majority of users have somehow managed to develop a more realistic view of Wikipedia's place in the world, and (hopefully) what its problems are.

Did that sound too soap-boxy? If so, sorry.

[GlassBeadGame]

I know, I know. It can only be redacted if it's about mod/staff.

Now, that's just not fair. Not only did we redact the offending material before you posted the above comment, we did it without adding a snarky comment of my own, just so it would get done quicker.

People have to understand that when threads get out of control like this, us mods tend not to read them. This is because we wish to retain some semblance of personal sanity. It's important that member particpating in train-wreck threads like this one understand that, and use the "Report This Post" button rather than simply trust us to do these things on our own, or even in response to posts later in the thread.

Anyway, I'd better get back to the post in question and add that snarky comment... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Thanks. GBG is mensch.

I clicked the link a few minutes before my post and found that it was still there. Glad it was fixed expeditiously.

Well, remember this is just a thread about Wikipedians doing Wikipedian shit. I thought that this was some other much more significant "Daniel" until someone disabused me. So, I guess we will never know if I'd extend the same courtesy to this Wikipedian guy.

[A Horse With No Name]

The fact that the Arbcom members have completely lost touch with all tenets of reality can be confirmed in this statement by Rlvese: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318383889

"Let's use an extreme real world example, if you commit murder and then do lots of good community service, does that make the the murder okay?"

All kidding aside, what kind of moron equates the taking of another person's life with making edits on a web site? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[LaraLove]

I'm getting desysopped for granting rollback to an account that had qualifying contributions, and for keeping a secret that did no damage to the encyclopedia. Damn straight I don't get it.

If this doesn't set a precedent to get out the truly bad admins, what a waste.

All the shit people get away with and I get desysopped for this? By ... oh, man... Some of the worst editors took me out. That's a harsh reality. The loss of tools doesn't really matter and ArbCom knows why, but damn... to know I got taken out by these hypocrites. Mm. Bullshit. Politics, man.

Anyway, why some people act the way they do on this website has suddenly become extremely clear.

[Cedric]

The fact that the Arbcom members have completely lost touch with all tenets of reality can be confirmed in this statement by Rlvese: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318383889

"Let's use an extreme real world example, if you commit murder and then do lots of good community service, does that make the the murder okay?"

All kidding aside, what kind of moron equates the taking of another person's life with making edits on a web site? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

If, as is so often stated, the Arbs "don't do due process", why should we expect them to have any understanding of proportionality either?

[LaraLove]

The fact that the Arbcom members have completely lost touch with all tenets of reality can be confirmed in this statement by Rlvese: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318383889

"Let's use an extreme real world example, if you commit murder and then do lots of good community service, does that make the the murder okay?"

All kidding aside, what kind of moron equates the taking of another person's life with making edits on a web site? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Unreal. These people are unbelievable. And this is with whom my wiki-fate rests. Clearly, I'm fucked.

It was KillerChihuahua's evidence that appears to have swung it in favor of Lara's desysopping, and if Lara is desysopped, it'll be the first time that a rollback granting helped contribute to someone's desysopping.

I'm having trouble finding the "evidence page" in question - all I'm seeing are a bunch of vituperative comments from Ms. Chihuahua about their all being deceived and betrayed, yada yada yada, plus a little backtracking where she says they should stop using terms like "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" here, and suggesting that "Watergate" is the more appropriate analogy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

I think we should all be clear on one thing: Despite her past associations, Jennavecia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is, or rather was, in many ways one of the most conscientious and ethical administrators Wikipedia has ever had. This has little to do with her presumed decision to "value personal friendship over Wikipedia policy," as if such a decision would even be an issue for a sane person. To revoke her admin rights in response to such a trivial situation is just further proof that Wikipedia's dominant core group hasn't really changed significantly in the past 3-4 years, even if the majority of users have somehow managed to develop a more realistic view of Wikipedia's place in the world, and (hopefully) what its problems are.

Did that sound too soap-boxy? If so, sorry.

Thank you, Somey.

I'm being taken out by my enemies without a case. They get rid of me without having their own actions reviewed. Powerful politics in action here.

[trenton]

I think we should all be clear on one thing: Despite her past associations, Jennavecia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is, or rather was, in many ways one of the most conscientious and ethical administrators Wikipedia has ever had.

Nope, sorry have to disagree. BLP is not the problem. It is a symptom of a larger problem, and swatting at "BLP" problems is about as useful, in the long term, as vandal fighting. You'll do more good by just leaving and letting the place rot. After all "BLP" was only invented after the Jimbeau got embarrassed by the Seigenthaler incident.

Frankly, those who have adopted current BLP meme are about as naive as the previous generation of NPOVers. In this particular case, it seems to have been used as a backdrop to a social club.

Also doesn't it seem kinda weird to allow back a buddy who two and a half months earlier created an attack article on an enemy if you're so concerned about BLP? As demonstrated here, this buddy's mental stability doesn't seem to have increased a whole lot since then.

Jayron32 (T-C-L-K-R-D) seems to have escaped relatively unscathed, even though he didn't really do anything fundamentally different from Jennavecia. The whole rollbacker thing is just a triviality. The take home lesson is to basically shut up and take a break when involved in controversy.

And I totally called the drunken idiot thing a month back. I feel like I deserve a cookie or something.

[Rhindle]

Instead of a sphere, the wikipedia logo should be a cube.

[Somey]

BLP is not the problem. It is a symptom of a larger problem, and swatting at "BLP" problems is about as useful, in the long term, as vandal fighting. You'll do more good by just leaving and letting the place rot. After all "BLP" was only invented after the Jimbeau got embarrassed by the Seigenthaler incident.

Well... in principle I would probably agree with this, except that "letting the place rot" usually means that the actual articles just get worse. BLP is definitely a half-measure meant to give Jimbo, etc., a convenient means of evading responsibility, but it's still better than nothing whatsoever. The ultimate goal of most WP diehards is probably to eliminate all such restrictions on their revenge-grabbing activities, and clearly that means placing silly sanctions on anyone who gets in the way, criticizes, or generally takes them to task. Allowing oneself to be driven off only emboldens them.

Also doesn't it seem kinda weird to allow back a buddy who two and a half months earlier created an attack article on an enemy if you're so concerned about BLP?

Yes, but if the buddy in question is a Wikipedian in his own right, you can always use the "turnabout is fair play" excuse, I suppose. Still, that was dicey, no question about it. Just remember when I say "ethical and conscientious," it should be implied that this is relative to other Wikipedia admins.

The take home lesson is to basically shut up and take a break when involved in controversy.

It's the only way to make them feel sufficiently small and petty that it can actually hurt their feelings. Whether it's good or bad that so few people understand that is anyone's guess...

And I totally called the drunken idiot thing a month back. I feel like I deserve a cookie or something.

As I recall, wikipediareview.com actually requires logged-in members to accept cookies. So by all means, enjoy yours! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[InkBlot]

After a couple of days observing Jennavecia's actions and thoughts I believe she still couldn't get it. Continuing to believe in something problematic as if it were something for the benefit of the encyclopedia is not a positive trait and that doesn't need a precedent. Per Vassyana.

And here's why AGF should be struck from Wikipedia's pillars entirely. Because, "I don't agree with them but I'm sure they meant well" is no substitute for honestly trying to give a damn about someone else's point of view.

[everyking]

I'm getting desysopped for granting rollback to an account that had qualifying contributions, and for keeping a secret that did no damage to the encyclopedia. Damn straight I don't get it.

If this doesn't set a precedent to get out the truly bad admins, what a waste.

All the shit people get away with and I get desysopped for this? By ... oh, man... Some of the worst editors took me out. That's a harsh reality. The loss of tools doesn't really matter and ArbCom knows why, but damn... to know I got taken out by these hypocrites. Mm. Bullshit. Politics, man.

Anyway, why some people act the way they do on this website has suddenly become extremely clear.

Anyone prepared to consider the matter honestly and intelligently would have to see that Law's contributions were beneficial to the encyclopedia and would start from that point in evaluating how the current situation should be handled. As the ArbCom conducts itself in a manner that is neither honest nor intelligent, it chooses to see things from an entirely different perspective: what it sees is a violation of authority, an affront to the power structure. The encyclopedia is never even considered as a factor in the equation.

In any case, I hope this ridiculous situation has disabused you of the idea that the ArbCom could ever be a positive force for project reform.

[SB_Johnny]

Anyway, why some people act the way they do on this website has suddenly become extremely clear.

It's becoming more and more clear to me, even without being personally desysopped. Sorry it went this way for you, Lara.

You have to wonder though: will Act III be a witch hunt for the witch hunters? This kind of thing leaves open sores.

[maggot3]

After a couple of days observing Jennavecia's actions and thoughts I believe she still couldn't get it. Continuing to believe in something problematic as if it were something for the benefit of the encyclopedia is not a positive trait and that doesn't need a precedent. Per Vassyana.

hahaha what the hell? I'm hoping he just used the wrong words or something because this is exactly what AGF is all about and why lots of disruptive users get dozens of second chances, especially disruptive admins. See: Betacommand, Ryulong etc

I just checked the motions page, although I tend to agree that it was a stupid thing to do this is a few times worse. How ridiculous. Especially that they'll do all that and then not "encourage mandatory reporting of users seeking positions of trust when issues affecting that trust are not known to the community at large

This post has been edited by maggot3:

[Gazimoff]

Exactly.Like I said on the Case page, this set of motions prove that they don't want people, they want robots.

Meanwhile, taking a quick glance at the number of active admins, I notice it's been in steady decline for a while. Looking at the RfA pages and people are beign actively discouraged from becoming an admin.

Cause - effoect anyone?

[SB_Johnny]

Exactly.Like I said on the Case page, this set of motions prove that they don't want people, they want robots.

Meanwhile, taking a quick glance at the number of active admins, I notice it's been in steady decline for a while. Looking at the RfA pages and people are beign actively discouraged from becoming an admin.

Cause - effoect anyone?

I think the "cause" is more or less just the erosion of WP:DEAL, which was one of the most sensible Jimbo declarations.

[No one of consequence]

After a couple of days observing Jennavecia's actions and thoughts I believe she still couldn't get it. Continuing to believe in something problematic as if it were something for the benefit of the encyclopedia is not a positive trait and that doesn't need a precedent. Per Vassyana.

hahaha what the hell? I'm hoping he just used the wrong words or something because this is exactly what AGF is all about and why lots of disruptive users get dozens of second chances, especially disruptive admins. See: Betacommand, Ryulong etc

I don't think he is a native English speaker.

Anyone prepared to consider the matter honestly and intelligently would have to see that Law's contributions were beneficial to the encyclopedia and would start from that point in evaluating how the current situation should be handled.

His contributions were beneficial (except when he went off the rails and decided to sue Swatjester and make an article about him) but his adminship was not.

[Guido den Broeder]

I'm getting desysopped for granting rollback to an account that had qualifying contributions, and for keeping a secret that did no damage to the encyclopedia. Damn straight I don't get it.

If this doesn't set a precedent to get out the truly bad admins, what a waste.

All the shit people get away with and I get desysopped for this? By ... oh, man... Some of the worst editors took me out. That's a harsh reality. The loss of tools doesn't really matter and ArbCom knows why, but damn... to know I got taken out by these hypocrites. Mm. Bullshit. Politics, man.

Anyway, why some people act the way they do on this website has suddenly become extremely clear.

If only you had understood before your desysop... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Peter Damian]

His contributions were beneficial (except when he went off the rails and decided to sue Swatjester and make an article about him) but his adminship was not.

I have argued that even the contributions were not beneficial. As I pointed out earlier in this thread (in response to his claim that he checked his mainspace contributions carefully) the first two non-revert edits I came to had errors, one of which was significant and which persisted for more than a year.

How much longer do I have to insist that basic literacy and grammatical ability is a minimum requirement for anyone working on a comprehensive and accurate reference work?

[Cedric]

Exactly.Like I said on the Case page, this set of motions prove that they don't want people, they want robots.

Not robots exactly, but mummers. That was the point I was trying to make with this cartoon and the caption I wrote for it, which I posted nearly a year ago. It's never about what is best for a general use encyclopedia (which Wikipedia isn't anyway), but rather about which side puts on the best demonstration of fealty to the Arbs and their peculiar conception of what Wikipedia is about. The side that puts on the best mummery wins; it is just that simple. It is when neither side's mummery is particularly impressive to the Arbs that the parties are both able to get away with no more than a "caution" or "admonishment".

Or putting it even more bluntly, ArbCom is a pretend court for a pretend encyclopedia. Period.

[LaraLove]

hahaha what the hell? I'm hoping he just used the wrong words or something because this is exactly what AGF is all about and why lots of disruptive users get dozens of second chances, especially disruptive admins. See: Betacommand, Ryulong etc

I just checked the motions page, although I tend to agree that it was a stupid thing to do this is a few times worse. How ridiculous. Especially that they'll do all that and then not "encourage mandatory reporting of users seeking positions of trust when issues affecting that trust are not known to the community at large

AGF and IAR are not applicable in this case.

[Kelly Martin]

All the shit people get away with and I get desysopped for this? By ... oh, man... Some of the worst editors took me out. That's a harsh reality. The loss of tools doesn't really matter and ArbCom knows why, but damn... to know I got taken out by these hypocrites. Mm. Bullshit. Politics, man.

Anyway, why some people act the way they do on this website has suddenly become extremely clear.

And people still wonder why I left. You won't be left alone, either. Odds are one of the same people, or someone connected with them, will start stalking you now, and before long you'll be implicated in some grave WikiCrime and banned. Give it six months, a year tops.

Exactly.Like I said on the Case page, this set of motions prove that they don't want people, they want robots.

And yet when people make proposals to transfer administrative functions to robots, they scream and bitch.

[Friday]

The fact that the Arbcom members have completely lost touch with all tenets of reality can be confirmed in this statement by Rlvese: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318383889

"Let's use an extreme real world example, if you commit murder and then do lots of good community service, does that make the the murder okay?"

All kidding aside, what kind of moron equates the taking of another person's life with making edits on a web site? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Nobody. Nobody is equating the two. Did you even read the bit you quoted? It's an "extreme real world example" as the words say.. they're not being equated at all. Have people never heard of analogies? This is a significant point- there are tons of Wikipedians who tend to think that x weeks of useful edits without causing problems somehow _cancels out_ problems that people cause. I think this is a very stupid way to look at it. People who repeatedly cause problems ought not to be welcome at the wiki, _even if_ they also do useful work.

And yeah, citing rollback is a very lame thing to include in the reasons for desysopping. I think they should chalk it up to continuous and unrepentant cluelessness, but I'm not sure it's fashionable for them to be so blunt.

This post has been edited by Friday:

[A Horse With No Name]

Exactly.Like I said on the Case page, this set of motions prove that they don't want people, they want robots.

Meanwhile, taking a quick glance at the number of active admins, I notice it's been in steady decline for a while. Looking at the RfA pages and people are beign actively discouraged from becoming an admin.

Cause - effoect anyone?

Achieving adminship is the ultimate anti-climax -- once you get the "tools," you have fun for a couple of days with deletions, closures and blocks. But for anyone with a working brain, it becomes monotonous very quickly -- and for those with intellectual sensitivity, it is thoroughly depressing to consider the amount of crap that is put forth in the guise of academic scholarship. (The vandalism is even more jolting -- you realize that too many people have absolutely nothing better to do with their time!)

And unless you enjoy receiving daily complaints about why your judgment is wrong, it is a thoroughly thankless duty. I can understand why Iridescent was able to give back the tools with barely a shrug -- the only thing you lose is a headache.

As for new RfA candidates -- really, who wants to subject themselves to hostile comments and "gotcha" surprises? Granted, there are the Oppose section regulars who export their embittered personalities against anyone that is viewed with a modicum of respect -- it is easy enough to shrug them off as sour and jealous people (Ironholds falls into this category, I am sorry to say). But as time goes on, the level of negative commentary has become much more personal and far less constructive; the excuses used to humiliate people are also becoming more desperate. You'd have to be made of stone not to be impacted by the severity of these comments.

But beyond RfA, I think that Wikipedia's culture of deliberate cruelty is driving away people who want to make a positive contribution. The name-calling, fault-finding, drama-mongering and stress-generating antics have gone into overdrive in almost every corner of the web site. The level of sarcasm at the AN/I forum is nauseating, and the overkill in handling of the "incidents" (particularly the Giano blocks) is tiresome. AfD is even worse -- there is no intelligent debate, but a lot of putdowns and agitation (and I blame the Article Rescue Squadron for taking this stuff much, much too seriously). And actions by idiot admins who repeatedly misapply blocks against new editors is effectively discouraging new people from making themselves at home.

The Law/TU situation at RfArb is probably going to be the last straw for some people, with Jehochman doing his own remake of "Witchfinder General" and Rlvese making the utterly astonishing comparison between maintaining an alternative account and murder.

If the old saying about judging people by the company they keep is correct, you can understand why more people are either leaving Wikipedia or are dramatically reducing their input.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Apathetic]

Jayron32 (T-C-L-K-R-D) seems to have escaped relatively unscathed, even though he didn't really do anything fundamentally different from Jennavecia. The whole rollbacker thing is just a triviality. The take home lesson is to basically shut up and take a break when involved in controversy.

Jayron indicated that he realized why he should not have done what he did.

edit: actually I guess he didn't. There is this, which is a slight admission.

Lara, on the other hand, stuck to her guns and defended her actions. I don't think she gave an indication that she wouldn't repeat the same error in judgment.

That's why she was defrocked and Jayron wasn't. (edit: You're right, it's probably because she vociferously defended her actions.)

(FTR I haven't formed a firm opinion on whether the desysop was needed, I am leaning towards not.)

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[A Horse With No Name]

The fact that the Arbcom members have completely lost touch with all tenets of reality can be confirmed in this statement by Rlvese: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318383889

"Let's use an extreme real world example, if you commit murder and then do lots of good community service, does that make the the murder okay?"

All kidding aside, what kind of moron equates the taking of another person's life with making edits on a web site? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Nobody. Nobody is equating the two. Did you even read the bit you quoted? It's an "extreme real world example" as the words say.. they're not being equated at all. Have people never heard of analogies?

Yes, chubby, I read it -- and I stand by my earlier statement. Alternative Wikipedia accounts...murder...in the same sentence? As an analogy, it is stupid. The statement shows that Rlvese is either out of touch with reality or he has a significant punishment fetish that only Wikipedia can satisfy.

[Kelly Martin]

Jayron indicated that he realized why he should not have done what he did.

Lara, on the other hand, stuck to her guns and defended her actions. I don't think she gave an indication that she wouldn't repeat the same error in judgment.

In other words, Jayron groveled on the floor before the tyrants, while Lara did not. That's really the only thing ArbCom respects these days.

[Apathetic]

Jayron indicated that he realized why he should not have done what he did.

Lara, on the other hand, stuck to her guns and defended her actions. I don't think she gave an indication that she wouldn't repeat the same error in judgment.

In other words, Jayron groveled on the floor before the tyrants, while Lara did not. That's really the only thing ArbCom respects these days.

Sorry, I was wrong, he didn't go so far as to do that. Edited original.

This may have been enough to tip the scales though:

As I stated, I am neither embarassed nor ashamed of what I did. I do see the consequences of what has happened ''now''. Had I had the forsight to see the problems this has caused, I probably would not have voted in Law's RFA at all. (...)

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[Friday]

Jayron indicated that he realized why he should not have done what he did.

Lara, on the other hand, stuck to her guns and defended her actions. I don't think she gave an indication that she wouldn't repeat the same error in judgment.

In other words, Jayron groveled on the floor before the tyrants, while Lara did not. That's really the only thing ArbCom respects these days.

Now, since I haven't made an effort to hang out in chat rooms, I don't know these people. So it's possible that they all have this personality defect you're describing here.

But, given the facts at hand, it's _also possible_ that they don't care about grovelling. It could be that
when someone makes an egregious mistake, they simply want this person to understand why it was a mistake, to cut down on the chances of it being repeated.

You don't have to assume egotistical personalities to explain this. Then again, some people see everything in terms of personalities and emotions, with little regard for simple reasoning.

[Kelly Martin]

I don't think it's anything about the difference in Jayron's and Lara's comments specifically. It's, fundamentally, that Jayron has submitted himself to the will of the ArbCom (by not defending himself, basically), while Lara (by arguing her case) has not done so. The ArbCom doesn't like uppityness, except within itself.

Part of me wonders if there's some latent sexism at work here, too.

[A Horse With No Name]

"The one risk to the project, that an improperly sysopped administrator may be disruptive, was addressed within 24 hours of the Arbitration Committee being advised." Risker (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh...I thought that John V. was told six weeks earlier but conveniently "forgot" the message. And Risker seems to forget that one of her ex-teammates admitted to being aware of Law/TU for some time before this whole thing broke -- others on Arbcom may have been aware, but they have refused to confirm or deny their knowledge.

And when was Law disruptive? Outside of reversing a spiteful bad block by the always-inept Sandstein, I am unaware of how Law disrupted Wikipedia.

This kind of rewriting of the facts is the perfect post-script to the incompetence and venality of Arbcom.

[Apathetic]

And when was Law disruptive? Outside of reversing a spiteful bad block by the always-inept Sandstein, I am unaware of how Law disrupted Wikipedia.

Checking every box he could on Malleus' userrights screen wasn't the brightest...

Oh and who could forget the Kegel incident?

[Gazimoff]

I now notice that Wkiproject Administrator has sprung up as an effort to "address the role of administrators and their interaction with other editors by consolidating discussion of relevant issues." Now, it may be too quick for me to judge, but I can't see this proposal being much more than a talking shop that once again exhausts the minds of people.

I'm amazed that a far bolder approach to the problem isn't used, namely "If we had to design a collaborative encyclopedia from scratch, how would we do it?" Then look at the differences between the new ideal and the current project and work out how to get there.

Of course, something like this can only really be performed by either WMF or someone seeking to compete with them/provide an alternative.

[A Horse With No Name]

And when was Law disruptive? Outside of reversing a spiteful bad block by the always-inept Sandstein, I am unaware of how Law disrupted Wikipedia.

Checking every box he could on Malleus' userrights screen wasn't the brightest...

And that crashed the servers? Hardly "disruptive."

Oh and who could forget the Kegel incident?

What is the Kegel incident? I forgot about it. (No joke - I have no idea what that is.)

[Malleus]

And when was Law disruptive? Outside of reversing a spiteful bad block by the always-inept Sandstein, I am unaware of how Law disrupted Wikipedia.

Checking every box he could on Malleus' userrights screen wasn't the brightest...

I'm still puzzled as to why he did that.

[Friday]

And when was Law disruptive? Outside of reversing a spiteful bad block by the always-inept Sandstein, I am unaware of how Law disrupted Wikipedia.

Checking every box he could on Malleus' userrights screen wasn't the brightest...

I'm still puzzled as to why he did that.

He's a kook. Kooks act kooky. This isn't hard to figure out. The good news in this case is that he was noticed before he did anything particularly bad.

[Apathetic]

Checking every box he could on Malleus' userrights screen wasn't the brightest...

And that crashed the servers? Hardly "disruptive."

Yea, my two examples were more of a slight supporting of the position that his adminship on the whole wasn't that bad.

Oh and who could forget the Kegel incident?

What is the Kegel incident? I forgot about it. (No joke - I have no idea what that is.)

I guess you didn't really review my RFB as exhaustively I thought you did... For shame - seeing as how you voted twice =) (See Q10 and the discussion linked)

Am I allowed to proxy here for banned users?

== Note ==

I didn't see this mentioned - Law blocked PeterDamian with Geogre unblocking. That was one of Law's and Geogre's last acts. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 13:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[InkBlot]

After a couple of days observing Jennavecia's actions and thoughts I believe she still couldn't get it. Continuing to believe in something problematic as if it were something for the benefit of the encyclopedia is not a positive trait and that doesn't need a precedent. Per Vassyana.

hahaha what the hell? I'm hoping he just used the wrong words or something because this is exactly what AGF is all about and why lots of disruptive users get dozens of second chances, especially disruptive admins. See: Betacommand, Ryulong etc

I don't think he is a native English speaker.

Oh, I read it to say he's assuming all sorts of good faith. I also read it to say he's voting to desysop someone simply because she's wrong, even though nothing bad happened, people might get the idea she was right, and that's wrong!

Never mind that, just possibly, she's right. Oh, we could stand her up for reconfirmation at RFA and let the community decide! No, no, wait a second...

They might get it wrong too.

Thank God for arbitrators who believe in what's good.

[Malleus]

I don't think it's anything about the difference in Jayron's and Lara's comments specifically. It's, fundamentally, that Jayron has submitted himself to the will of the ArbCom (by not defending himself, basically), while Lara (by arguing her case) has not done so. The ArbCom doesn't like uppityness, except within itself.

Part of me wonders if there's some latent sexism at work here, too.

I suspect you may be right, at least on the issue of Lara not being seen as sufficiently penitent. Demands for wikiheretics to confess and repent before being granted absolution have become all too common. I'm very much afraid that she's going to be hung out to dry, as an example pour encorager les autres.

I've said several times that I wouldn't have done what she, and especially GlassCobra did, but I've no reason to believe that they were not acting with the best of intentions, however misguided I may believe them to have been.

The only good thing that could possibly come out of this now is a clear and unambiguous statement about the use of undisclosed sockpuppet accounts, and a clearing out of those administrators like Chillum who refuse to disclose such accounts, demanding instead to be trusted.

[Apathetic]

Checking every box he could on Malleus' userrights screen wasn't the brightest...

I'm still puzzled as to why he did that.

Me too, you made it no secret that you wanted no rights.

[A Horse With No Name]

I guess you didn't really review my RFB as exhaustively I thought you did... For shame - seeing as how you voted twice =)

Naive imp - since when do people review any candidate who is up RfAs and RfBs? It's all about oh-he-is-my-friend or oh-I-can't-stand-him. Doing in-depth RfA/RfB reviews went out with the 56k modem, fuzzy head! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Malleus]

And when was Law disruptive? Outside of reversing a spiteful bad block by the always-inept Sandstein, I am unaware of how Law disrupted Wikipedia.

Checking every box he could on Malleus' userrights screen wasn't the brightest...

I'm still puzzled as to why he did that.

He's a kook. Kooks act kooky. This isn't hard to figure out. The good news in this case is that he was noticed before he did anything particularly bad.

... or I did anything particularly bad with all those bright shiny userrights, half of which I'd never even heard of before. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[A Horse With No Name]

Thank God for arbitrators who believe in what's good.

I will thank God when He delivers them to Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Apathetic]

... or I did anything particularly bad with all those bright shiny userrights, half of which I'd never even heard of before. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

In that 25 minute window, you could have really thrown a spanner in the works.

However, I doubt you have the inclination for such a thing and possess the good sense not to fool about with the abuse filter (and I suspect you have not the technical knowledge even if you wanted to).

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[A Horse With No Name]

Nonetheless, I am still wondering how Risker can possibly claim that knowledge of Law/TU "was addressed within 24 hours of the Arbitration Committee being advised" when it was proven that one arbitrator had known this for some time and one was alerted six weeks earlier, but (for whatever reason) did not act on it. Her statement is completely bogus -- and the fact that half of Arbcom refused to acknowledge or deny being aware of Law/TU is not addressed.

The shamelessness of this rewriting of facts is fascinating.

[One]

Yea, my two examples were more of a slight supporting of the position that his adminship on the whole wasn't that bad.

I think the theory about desysopping him was that his RFA shouldn't count because he had failed to disclose significant, etc, etc.

Anyhow, now that we've reached the standard conclusion that ArbCom is lazy, incompetent, and evil, I think I can drop from this site for a while. Being attacked by Lara's best friend rather makes me not want to talk to anyone in either place for some time. Need a break from this garbage.

[Apathetic]

Nonetheless, I am still wondering how Risker can possibly claim that knowledge of Law/TU "was addressed within 24 hours of the Arbitration Committee being advised" when it was proven that one arbitrator had known this for some time and one was alerted six weeks earlier, but (for whatever reason) did not act on it. Her statement is completely bogus -- and the fact that half of Arbcom refused to acknowledge or deny being aware of Law/TU is not addressed.

The shamelessness of this rewriting of facts is fascinating.

I suppose she's referring to the commitee in toto

(aside: I wonder how many Wikipedians actually have a grasp of Latin and how many use this handy cheat sheet I've just found)

[A Horse With No Name]

I suppose she's referring to the commitee in toto

I didn't know the committee was in Toto. I used to love that group!

[Random832]

Never mind that, just possibly, she's right. Oh, we could stand her up for reconfirmation at RFA and let the community decide! No, no, wait a second...

They might get it wrong too.

Arbcom doesn't actually have the power to prevent the community from holding an RFA. (They can forbid someone from nominating him- or her- self, but that's not really the same thing).

I've noticed that in this case the desysop motions don't even purport to do so - that's definitely an improvement from a year ago.

[InkBlot]

Nonetheless, I am still wondering how Risker can possibly claim that knowledge of Law/TU "was addressed within 24 hours of the Arbitration Committee being advised" when it was proven that one arbitrator had known this for some time and one was alerted six weeks earlier, but (for whatever reason) did not act on it. Her statement is completely bogus -- and the fact that half of Arbcom refused to acknowledge or deny being aware of Law/TU is not addressed.

The shamelessness of this rewriting of facts is fascinating.

I suppose she's referring to the commitee in toto

(aside: I wonder how many Wikipedians actually have a grasp of Latin and how many use this handy cheat sheet I've just found)

Stercus accidit.

[Malleus]

... or I did anything particularly bad with all those bright shiny userrights, half of which I'd never even heard of before. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

However, I doubt you have the inclination for such a thing and possess the good sense not to fool about with the abuse filter, (and I suspect you have not the technical knowledge even if you wanted to).

You could hardly be more wrong. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Apathetic]

... or I did anything particularly bad with all those bright shiny userrights, half of which I'd never even heard of before. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

However, I doubt you have the inclination for such a thing and possess the good sense not to fool about with the abuse filter, (and I suspect you have not the technical knowledge even if you wanted to).

You could hardly be more wrong. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Which part am I wrong about, the struck or the unstruck? (I'd guess the struck, but I put childish stuff like that above you.)

[Malleus]

... or I did anything particularly bad with all those bright shiny userrights, half of which I'd never even heard of before. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

However, I doubt you have the inclination for such a thing and possess the good sense not to fool about with the abuse filter, (and I suspect you have not the technical knowledge even if you wanted to).

You could hardly be more wrong. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Which part am I wrong about, the struck or the unstruck? (I'd guess the struck, but I put childish stuff like that above you.)

Wrong that I don't have the technical knowledge etc. I was a Unix system administrator for years.

[Apathetic]

(and I suspect you have not the technical knowledge even if you wanted to).

You could hardly be more wrong. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Which part am I wrong about (...) ?

Wrong that I don't have the technical knowledge etc. I was a Unix system administrator for years.

Gotcha. My apologies for assuming.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[Somey]

Anyhow, now that we've reached the standard conclusion that ArbCom is lazy, incompetent, and evil, I think I can drop from this site for a while.

But you recused! That means it's only the rest of the ArbCom that's lazy, incompetent, and evil, right?

Personally, I don't think those epithets apply in this case - those who didn't recuse themselves were clearly pressured by long-term vested players (such as KillerChihuahua and SV) to apply the principle of unbending rule-obedience over common sense, in order to sanction an admin they didn't like who had been doing things in support of someone else they didn't like. The correct term is "manipulable," if you don't have the time to write out "overly susceptible to pressure."

(This is also one of the reasons why WR has fewer explicit rules, so that we can more easily use common sense when it's called for - I'm not saying that makes us better, or even more ethical, but it does make us far more flexible.)

Need a break from this garbage.

Perfectly understandable, but I (and I believe many others) hope you return - unless you ultimately decide to take the medicine and quit the interwebs altogether, of course.

[Malleus]

(and I suspect you have not the technical knowledge even if you wanted to).

You could hardly be more wrong. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Which part am I wrong about (...) ?

Wrong that I don't have the technical knowledge etc. I was a Unix system administrator for years.

Gotcha. My apologies for assuming.

No need to apologise. It seems to be a very common misconception that nobody over the age of 30 understands anything about computers, or in this case regular expressions. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Need a break from this garbage.

Risker sort of said the same thing in a surplus of verbiage: "Personally, I would like everyone to take a week or two off on discussing all of the questions and concerns that have arisen from this case. There are many valid and valuable thoughts amongst our broad editorship about ways to improve RFA, clarify the alternate account policy, and re-examine expectations of the Arbitration Committee. Right now, though, the wounds are still fresh and raw, and many ideas have not been fully considered or well discussed."

The translation: everyone shut up.

But, of course, this doesn't answer a lot of the problems that were raised here: arbitrators who condone sockpuppetry (except when it involves someone who is not one of their friends), arbitrators who won't answer direct questions asked of them by the "community," arbitrators who feel it is necessary to punish some people but turn a blind eye to others, arbitrators who retain their position after acknowledging blatant incompetence, arbitrators who admit they often ignore the comments posted by the "community" in the RfArb forums...I'm not certain what is gained by having a week or two of quiet time, because that is not going to solve what this situation has magnified.

This is what happens when stupid people are put in positions of responsibility.

[LaraLove]

Jayron indicated that he realized why he should not have done what he did.

Lara, on the other hand, stuck to her guns and defended her actions. I don't think she gave an indication that she wouldn't repeat the same error in judgment.

In other words, Jayron groveled on the floor before the tyrants, while Lara did not. That's really the only thing ArbCom respects these days.

Sorry, I was wrong, he didn't go so far as to do that. Edited original.

This may have been enough to tip the scales though:

As I stated, I am neither embarassed nor ashamed of what I did. I do see the consequences of what has happened ''now''. Had I had the forsight to see the problems this has caused, I probably would not have voted in Law's RFA at all. (...)

I don't think that has anything do to with it. I said basically the same thing in my wall of text, but he's not a wiki-political target. They're using this rollback, which I granted by request on my talk page before I found out that it was him, as "tool abuse," which is a crock of shit either way. Grasping.

I'm out because of who wants me out. Jayron is in because he wasn't the target. Considering I'm getting desysopped while ArbCom overlooks others who committed the same "crime" as me, it shows that they clearly are not making preventative actions here. And it makes Jehochman's calls of nepotism a little more applicable.

I don't think it's anything about the difference in Jayron's and Lara's comments specifically. It's, fundamentally, that Jayron has submitted himself to the will of the ArbCom (by not defending himself, basically), while Lara (by arguing her case) has not done so. The ArbCom doesn't like uppityness, except within itself.

Part of me wonders if there's some latent sexism at work here, too.

I don't understand why they requested a public statement from me as if I hadn't already sent them a private one. Much like RFA, defending yourself will bury you, but I'm not one to sit quietly while people spew bullshit. Nor am I one to drop to my knees to kiss anyone's ass.

== Note ==

I didn't see this mentioned - Law blocked PeterDamian with Geogre unblocking. That was one of Law's and Geogre's last acts. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 13:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha. Ah, man. Ah. Dude. That's too much. Hold on. I really need to make an image out of this. To show the circle. Who's coming after me, who's got his boxers in a bunch here, and what happened with the dueling sockpuppeting admins on WP. Geogre's buddies coming after me. Hahaha. Ah, it's too sweet. Too bad it'll be completely disregarded by anyone on-wiki.

That'll be swept under the rug. I mean, I granted Chip rollback. He never misused it, mind you, but that's not the point. Who cares how obviously fucked up the other side of this case is? No one in a position of authority, that's who.

I'm not certain what is gained by having a week or two of quiet time, because that is not going to solve what this situation has magnified.

That's the point. People walk away for a week and move on to other things, get over it, forget about it. Whatever. They lose interest, at least to a point. They're not all fired up and gunning for a fight.

This is why a lot of the recall procedures have a breathe week. Because when you dive right into situations while emotions are high, along with the potential for mistakes to be made and stupid shit to happen, there's also the potential for problems to be corrected. If people don't shut up and take a breather, an actual problem may be fixed, and that's not what Wikipedia wants. Obviously.

[Peter Damian]

No need to apologise. It seems to be a very common misconception that nobody over the age of 30 understands anything about computers, or in this case regular expressions. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I am over 30 and I understand nothing about computers. (Though to be fair, your argument is proven so long as someone over 30 understands).

[Sarcasticidealist]

So suppose it was discovered that SlimVirgin had nominated a new account that she knew to be FeloniusMonk for adminship, and that Arb Comm subsequently decided to desysop her. Can I assume that WR would be full of howls of outrade about the injustice of it all?* Of course, that case can be distinguished from this one on the basis that Law was also a block-evading sock, which this hypothetical FeloniusMonk reincarnation wouldn't be.

I like the work Lara did as an admin, though I agree with the assessment that it's pissing in the wind. I like the work Casliber did as an arb. I'm sorry that both showed sufficient disregard for Wikipedia's rules as to make their respective positions untenable.

One of the more accurate complaints made at WR about Wikipedia is that there's no accountability; the buck stops with nobody. Insofar as this represents an increased expectation of accountability and the emergence of a belief that rules are meant to be followed, it's a very good thing.



*You don't need to answer that, since in most cases if you say "yes" I'll just assume you're lying or deluding yourself anyway.

[CharlotteWebb]

I like the work Lara did as an admin, though I agree with the assessment that it's pissing in the wind. I like the work Casliber did as an arb. I'm sorry that both showed sufficient disregard for Wikipedia's rules as to make their respective positions untenable.

s/showed/acknowledged/

There's a slight distinction to be made here.

[LaraLove]

So suppose it was discovered that SlimVirgin had nominated a new account that she knew to be FeloniusMonk for adminship, and that Arb Comm subsequently decided to desysop her.

That's a good point. Puts things in an interesting perspective.

[Somey]

One of the more accurate complaints made at WR about Wikipedia is that there's no accountability; the buck stops with nobody. Insofar as this represents an increased expectation of accountability and the emergence of a belief that rules are meant to be followed, it's a very good thing.

The problem is that there's no accountability for content. There's all sorts of internal accountability for position, if you define accountability so as to exclude the need to know people's identities and backgrounds. (There's no external accountability whatsoever, of course.) When people's identities and backgrounds are known, as in this case, they often seem more likely to become targets than otherwise.

IMO, one might also argue that more stringent rules-obedience does not increase the accountability of the website in general - it only increases conformity/uniformity. (In most cases that's probably good, though, under the circumstances.)

As for SV hypothetically nominating an alternate FeloniousMonk account for adminship, again, you have to remember that SV's past actions on Wikipedia prevent people from giving her the benefit of the doubt, whereas most of Lara's past actions do not, other than The Thing Nobody Mentions™. There's also a big difference between an RfA nomination and merely granting "rollback" rights - the latter apparently does little beyond giving the person a means of reverting with just one mouse-click instead of two. If I didn't know any better, and I don't, I'd say it was just an artificial "added level" implemented to create a more logical move-up path within the WP hierarchical promotion game.

[CharlotteWebb]

I'd say it was just an artificial "added level" implemented to create a more logical move-up path within the WP hierarchical promotion game.

On the contrary I think it's more like a consolation prize for people unexpected to ever pass RFA.

[Malleus]

I'd say it was just an artificial "added level" implemented to create a more logical move-up path within the WP hierarchical promotion game.

On the contrary I think it's more like a consolation prize for people unexpected to ever pass RFA.

It's an entirely useless bauble in any event.

[Appleby]

Arbcom doesn't actually have the power to prevent the community from holding an RFA. (They can forbid someone from nominating him- or her- self, but that's not really the same thing).

I suppose they could forbid someone from accepting the nomination.

[Gazimoff]

No need to apologise. It seems to be a very common misconception that nobody over the age of 30 understands anything about computers, or in this case regular expressions. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I am over 30 and I understand nothing about computers. (Though to be fair, your argument is proven so long as someone over 30 understands).

I'm over 30 and work with them daily. Mind you, I still got accused of being a teen when I edited, mainly due to my chosen field.

[Malleus]

Arbcom doesn't actually have the power to prevent the community from holding an RFA. (They can forbid someone from nominating him- or her- self, but that's not really the same thing).

I suppose they could forbid someone from accepting the nomination.

What must by now be blindingly obvious to everyone is that they could do no such thing. All they could do is forbid a user account from accepting a nomination. That it's one thing to have anonymous editors, but quite a different kettle of fish to have anonymous functionaries ought to have been the lesson drawn from this sorry incident.

[Noroton]

It could be that when someone makes an egregious mistake, they simply want this person to understand why it was a mistake, to cut down on the chances of it being repeated.

That's it. Lara continues to maintain that if her friends do something against Wikipedia rules, she'd still cover for them (I'm sure not in all circumstances, but at least in similar circumstances). When you occupy a position of responsibility in any organization and state that you'll look the other way when your friends do something against the rules, the organization has the duty to clip your wings in some way. ArbCom's best justification for desysopping could simply be stated as "conduct unbecoming", which this certainly was on the part of an admin, although it's more specifically a kind of rebellion on Lara's part.

Remember when Jimbo desysopped whatshisname for some sexist comments about Wikipedia admins? The reason was "conduct unbecoming". That can only be a judgment call each time, so you can't fault ArbCom for not citing some broken policy on Lara's part. ArbCom members referring to Lara's one admin action are just clouding the real, actionable issue here.

A statement from Lara that she'd done the wrong thing and wouldn't look the other way when she saw WP rules broken in the future would have made the difference. It would've been a reasonable thing to do, and you can't fault ArbCom for desysopping her when she wouldn't do it.

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[A Horse With No Name]

I like the work Lara did as an admin, though I agree with the assessment that it's pissing in the wind. I like the work Casliber did as an arb. I'm sorry that both showed sufficient disregard for Wikipedia's rules as to make their respective positions untenable.

But there is the inconsistency in the prosecution: Casliber acknowledged knowing about Law/TU prior to the Ironholds/Daniel shenanigans and resigned from Arbcom, but there was no official admonishment of him. John V. had the information for six weeks before this broke, but there is no official admonishment of him for completely dropping the ball. Instead, there was the self-serving statement that Arbcom acted on this within 24 hours of the Ironholds/Daniel action -- without any mention that at least two arbitrators already had this information weeks in advance.

When Luke posted the DYK poll question after DuncanHill's inquiry was pointed out, the first thing Risker did was delete it - under the non-excuse that Luke recused himself. The poll eventually got back online, albeit buried on a talk page, and Risker and half of the arbitrators refused to answer the direct, straightforward yes-or-no question of whether they were also aware of Law/TU.

GC and Lara were aware of Law/TU. However, they were clearly not the only ones. They were, however, the only ones who are being punished for this.

[Ahypori]

They're using this rollback, which I granted by request on my talk page before I found out that it was him, as "tool abuse," which is a crock of shit either way. Grasping.

Hang on (I somehow missed this)...has this (the fact you didn't know Law was The undertow when he requested rollback from you) been mentioned on the motions talk page or mentioned to the arbitrators? If so, then the statements saying you "granted rollback to an account that 'you knew' was a sock" are clearly false, and any arbitrator voting to desysop you on that is voting to desysop you on a false basis. Unless I've misunderstood something?

This post has been edited by Ahypori:

[Abd]

I'm amazed that a far bolder approach to the problem isn't used, namely "If we had to design a collaborative encyclopedia from scratch, how would we do it?" Then look at the differences between the new ideal and the current project and work out how to get there.

Yeah. And we'd have the benefit of the Wikipedia experience, if the "we" doing the job is inclusive enough. It could be done.

Of course, something like this can only really be performed by either WMF or someone seeking to compete with them/provide an alternative.

No, it could be done by the Wikipedia community, at least in theory.

Suppose a core group of users worked on this. They might even start out with some agenda, or at least some internal compatibility, but as long as their own project was focused on finding a truly maximized consensus of participants, designed to scale if the number of participants became large -- which is the common oversight when projects start -- and as long as it was open, using the minimum level of exclusion necessary for noise control -- and this is not difficult to do, it just has be clear, from the start, what the goal is. If the design is right, the goal can even change. It's also not necessary to find a single consensus, especially not in-process. The critical characteristic is that full agreement is considered valuable and worthwhile pursuing. Majority rule, if that goal is understood and accepted, is perfectly fine for temporary decisions, and if this is a voluntary, independent project, not subject to the jurisdiction of the Wikipedia oligarchy, if there is serious disagreement within it, and, again, the design is right, it can easily fork and work on factional consensus, while full consensus is still sought. The higher the level of consensus, the more powerful the group formed will be, so consensus isn't just a nice ideal, it is a practical tool.

If we simplify issues and consider that there are only two major factions in opposition, and that strength of opinion is equally strong, the power of a position will be the percentage of agreement it enjoys, minus the percentage of opposition, times the number of participants. So a bare majority has hardly any power at all, and even a two-thirds majority has only 1/3 the implementation power of a full consensus.

The real question, and the real obstacle, is a lack of understanding of how to handle the noise problem with large-scale debate. That is, a lack of understanding on Wikipedia. Organizations such as the U.S. Congress know full well that almost nothing can be done by open debate on the floor, the real work happens in committee. Breaking down discussion into small groups is essential if seeking true consensus is desired. Otherwise discussions become posturing and shouting and a collection of attempts to design victorious sound-bites. That works if the goal is to win, but not if the goal is consensus.

And if I say, this, I know that many readers, if they even get this far, will think, even if they don't say it, "but Congress appoints committee members, this couldn't possibly work on Wikipedia." In order to understand part A of the concept, it's necessary to understand part B, and in order to understand part B, it's necessary to understand part A. Most people want to know where an idea is going before they will even consider it, and, while that makes sense, it's also fatal to truly new ideas that move outside of a single narrow change. However ... if people who didn't get it would assign trust to some who would investigate even whacko, off-the-wall, fringe ideas, and then listen if those they trusted come back and say, "Hey, this might be worth looking at...." then it is possible to move beyond the normal practical limitations.

I explicitly addressed this issue of the value of consensus in the RfAr that banned me, and it attracted a little head-scratching attention from one or two arbitrators, and firm and vigorous opposition from the Cab. That's a sign of how bad the situation is, just as with the drama-of-the-week here.

ArbComm, as an example of good structure, assigns a drafting responsibility to one or two arbitrators. That doesn't prevent others from participating, but it does set up some level of responsibility to investigate. I'm not following the Law/etc. RfAr much, but in my RfAr, bainer was assigned to investigate, and what bainer came up with was, relative to what came after, excellent. I didn't agree with everything, but ... I don't expect everything, I'm accustomed, not just on Wikipedia, to being some years ahead of the consensus. But then FloNight popped in and swept aside bainer's proposed decision. Carcharoth spent quite a bit of time, asking both me and WMC about what we had learned. WMC essentially blew Carcharoth off, continuing the stonewalling that had worked before. I responded, quite openly, and it was that response that totally blew ArbComm's fuses. Obviously, from their point of view, I "hadn't learned anything."

The same with Lara. What Jennavecia did was probably what many Wikipedians and administrators might have done, maybe even a majority. Loyalty to friends is a higher value, I'd say, for most, than an encyclopedia, so a functional project should avoid requiring that people give up what is more important for what is less. And I really worry about those for whom questionable value in creating an abstraction is a higher value than real consideration of human beings. There is a name for those who are in that condition: "fanatic."

There is no consistency, for sure. JzG blatantly disregarded recusal policy, repeatedly, he was famous for it. But he wasn't desysopped, even though a good case could be made for very substantial harm resulting. WMC probably would have gotten away with the same if not for his blatantly stubborn insistence on not letting go, even during the RfAr. JzG let go and vanished. WMC made himself visbile. JzG never did acknowledge having made any mistake at all.

ArbComm is interested, way too much, in punishment. It views desysopping as punishment, in fact. If it would simply suspend a privilege whenever it was reasonably called into question, then restore if it finds "no hazard." This would shift. It's obvious. Jennavecia, if the desysopping goes through -- last I looked it might not -- would be punished. There is no actual risk to the project from what she did, even if she did it again. If she were to nominate someone for admin, well, you can be sure, some pointed questions would be asked. So what is the reason for the removal of tools.

The telling accusation seems to be that she granted rollback. There was no abuse of rollback, and rollback is pretty difficult to abuse anyway, it's pretty silly, all rollback does is to speed up vandalism reversion, it has almost no effect on anything of weight, except as a handy charge to toss at someone: "Hey, you used rollback for a controversial revert. Abuse! AN/I!"

If an admin knew who the worst vandal and puppet master was, and that this person had returned with a good hand account, and felt, for some reason, that revealing this was a personal ethical violation, and knew that the intentions of this otherwise horrible editor were to keep the good hand account clean and only use it for helpful work, and believed that successful performance on this intention was likely, what, exactly, would be wrong with granting that account rollback? If this admin's actions in some way were to encourage or facilitate the return of vandalism or other serious offense, sure.

What I see is that this would be considered offensive, by ArbComm and those pushing for blood. The reason would be that the vandal must be punished. Orders must be respected and followed, if we order you not to edit, you must not edit, and we'd do more to you than block you if it were practical. Even if the edits are helpful, and that's where IAR gets tossed out the window, and no good deed goes unpunished.

Lara's error was a political one, and the punishment is political. She considered the project and her friend, and saw the interests as aligned. Her friend is probably an alcoholic, my guess, and may not even remember exactly what happened, say, with Luke. That's common. I hope the best for Law, from what I've seen, he needs to focus on his own life and Wikipedia is not a good place for him to do it, so the outcome isn't bad for himi; he'll have much larger obstacles to overcome. But I don't see that he was a hazard to the wiki, in himself, and the flap is only over how to punish those who break rules. None of this excuses Law for his off-wiki conduct recently, nor for certain conduct in the past. But it's not the community's business, beyond protecting itself and the project.

Lara did err, as well, in trusting her friend. He's unstable, and it was that instability that led to the off-wiki incident that led to the on-wiki flap. So the lesson for the future would be not to trust that unstable people will be able to keep a secret, and not do anything secretly that, if revealed, would be disruptive. Unless it's really important! Tricky, though, and not necessarily as easy and obvious as the screaming mob seems to think. But the idea that Lara or GlassCobra "snuck in" Law is preposterious. They merely didn't reveal something they knew. Now, if they actively concealed evidence, that would be another matter.... that crosses a much clearer boundary.

[Apathetic]

They're using this rollback, which I granted by request on my talk page before I found out that it was him, as "tool abuse," which is a crock of shit either way. Grasping.

Hang on (I somehow missed this)...has this (the fact you didn't know Law was The undertow when he requested rollback from you) been mentioned on the motions talk page or mentioned to the arbitrators? If so, then the statements saying you "granted rollback to an account that 'you knew' was a sock" are clearly false, and any arbitrator voting to desysop you on that is voting to desysop you on a false basis. Unless I've misunderstood something?

I don't think this would change anything. Noroton has it right here -

A statement from Lara that she'd done the wrong thing and wouldn't look the other way when she saw WP rules broken in the future would have made the difference. It would've been a reasonable thing to do, and you can't fault ArbCom for desysopping her when she wouldn't do it.

[Abd]

If so, then the statements saying you "granted rollback to an account that 'you knew' was a sock" are clearly false, and any arbitrator voting to desysop you on that is voting to desysop you on a false basis. Unless I've misunderstood something?

What! Surely it is impossible that an arbitrator would vote for something not supported by clear and established evidence! Has this ever happened before?

[Somey]

On the contrary I think it's more like a consolation prize for people unexpected to ever pass RFA.

Quite possibly, or more likely both - but since the feature was implemented, has anyone passed an RfA without already having been granted "rollbacker" rights? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

If it isn't seen as a step in the promotion (i.e., level-solution) process, then taking it as seriously as it has been in this case makes even less sense, at least internally.

Mind you, I'm not really trying to make these people look all that venal. IMO it's perfectly reasonable for them to assume that eventually, User:Law would have lost his shit over some drama-fest or other, thus upsetting various people in some way. As he himself admits, he's an "emotional guy." It's just worth remembering that they don't do these things because they have to, for the "good of the encyclopedia" or some other such nonsense - they do it because it's fun for them to throw their self-appointed weight around. And it's not just the ArbCom, it's all of them - if anything, the ArbCom has been victimized here as well, just not in the same way.

[Apathetic]

If so, then the statements saying you "granted rollback to an account that 'you knew' was a sock" are clearly false, and any arbitrator voting to desysop you on that is voting to desysop you on a false basis. Unless I've misunderstood something?

What! Surely it is impossible that an arbitrator would vote for something not supported by clear and established evidence! Has this ever happened before?

^ compromised account? ;>

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[CharlotteWebb]

any arbitrator voting to desysop you on that is voting to desysop you on a false basis.

...as if that's ever stopped them before. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Abd]

A statement from Lara that she'd done the wrong thing and wouldn't look the other way when she saw WP rules broken in the future would have made the difference. It would've been a reasonable thing to do, and you can't fault ArbCom for desysopping her when she wouldn't do it.

Except that in much worse situations, where admins have flagrantly violated recusal rules in quite damaging ways, ArbComm has sometimes eked out a reminder or admonishment, and stopped short of desysopping. But, yes, if an admin acknowledges error, immediately, desysopping is usually avoided.

Problem is, were I Lara, I'd not make such an agreement or promise, because it would make me into a rat. I'd rather not be an admin, and, my guess is she agrees. What ArbComm is doing is straining at a gnat, while it routinely swallows camels. It tolerates blatant policy violation taking place right in front of it, and then invents a policy (obligatory disclosure, not of personal involvement, but of some violation, substantial or not, by another) in order to punish. Lara isn't the loser, Wikipedia is.

I haven't lost by being banned; indeed, I've gained half my life back, and it's getting interesting indeed. If I were actually a POV-pusher, trying to use Wikipedia for some outside purpose, I'd simply have lied, I knew very well how to avoid ArbComm sanctions, I'd watched quite a few arbitrations, it was obvious. So what ArbComm does is to leave in place the liars and hipocrites, while banning the honest, or the clumsy and therefore not as seriously harmful as those who know how to avoid sanctions, who have learned how to play the system. Slowly, the project tips over, tilting from the weight, and the atmosphere becomes more and more poisonous.

One of the more accurate complaints made at WR about Wikipedia is that there's no accountability; the buck stops with nobody. Insofar as this represents an increased expectation of accountability and the emergence of a belief that rules are meant to be followed, it's a very good thing.

Sure, but with rule of law comes rules against ex-post-facto laws. Further, Wikipedia doesn't have any law, or clearly known rules, it's entirely fluid and subject to shifting interpretations based on the objective-du-jour, and various parts of the guidelines and policies conflict with other parts, because there is no coherent rule-making process. With rule of law, as well, goes "equality under the law," and that requires process which isn't vulnerable to shouting mobs.

[A Horse With No Name]

Problem is, were I Lara...

Indeed, if you were Lara, it would be a problem. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Lara may not have the "tools," but she's still got the "stuff"! Ooooooo, baby, and that ain't something that Arbcom can snatch away! You keep shaking it, mama! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Gazimoff]

They're using this rollback, which I granted by request on my talk page before I found out that it was him, as "tool abuse," which is a crock of shit either way. Grasping.

Hang on (I somehow missed this)...has this (the fact you didn't know Law was The undertow when he requested rollback from you) been mentioned on the motions talk page or mentioned to the arbitrators? If so, then the statements saying you "granted rollback to an account that 'you knew' was a sock" are clearly false, and any arbitrator voting to desysop you on that is voting to desysop you on a false basis. Unless I've misunderstood something?

If they didn't know before, they do now "on-wiki".

[LaraLove]

They're using this rollback, which I granted by request on my talk page before I found out that it was him, as "tool abuse," which is a crock of shit either way. Grasping.

Hang on (I somehow missed this)...has this (the fact you didn't know Law was The undertow when he requested rollback from you) been mentioned on the motions talk page or mentioned to the arbitrators? If so, then the statements saying you "granted rollback to an account that 'you knew' was a sock" are clearly false, and any arbitrator voting to desysop you on that is voting to desysop you on a false basis. Unless I've misunderstood something?

I didn't bother to make a statement on it. I may have mentioned it on the talk page. I don't remember and it doesn't matter. This isn't really about rollback. I mean, really. It's rollback.

SI made a good point though. I'm trying to consider, if it had been KC or SV who supported FM under another name and didn't reveal it, how would I have viewed that. I think I would have been disgusted. Now, if he'd not gotten back into his old habits and was a good editor/admin, what action would I support against the involved? That's a good question. I don't know if I can answer it. I certainly wouldn't have gone digging through contribs, though. I don't care enough... and I'm lazy about that sort of stuff.

Now, what if it were someone who didn't have a rocky history who supported a banned and/or desysopped user who wasn't someone whom I'd had a bunch of negative interactions with... I think I'd have a completely different opinion depending on who was involved. I'd be much less likely to care, I think.

Makes a lot more sense in this perspective. Thank you, SI, for pointing out the obvious. I totally missed it in all the fuss.

[Ahypori]

...as if that's ever stopped them before. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This is the first time I've seen it actually happen with something I've been watching. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

If they didn't know before, they do now "on-wiki".

Good, thanks.

I didn't bother to make a statement on it. I may have mentioned it on the talk page. I don't remember and it doesn't matter. This isn't really about rollback. I mean, really. It's rollback.

I didn't think it would be a big deal either when KillerChihuahua brought it up, but it seems to have convinced some arbitrators. It would be nice to think that bringing this up might help.

[Random832]

So suppose it was discovered that SlimVirgin had nominated a new account that she knew to be FeloniusMonk for adminship, and that Arb Comm subsequently decided to desysop her. Can I assume that WR would be full of howls of outrade about the injustice of it all?* Of course, that case can be distinguished from this one on the basis that Law was also a block-evading sock, which this hypothetical FeloniusMonk reincarnation wouldn't be.

They've already won by making you play the game they want you to play.

The desysop is political, and transparently so. If someone else were desysopped for such a thing, the reason would be every bit as much bullshit as in this case, but that doesn't mean they hadn't done something to deserve being desysopped in a way that Lara has not.

[A Horse With No Name]

They've already won by making you play the game they want you to play.

Well, it is only a game. And as with any game, you win some and you lose some.

[LaraLove]

I didn't think it would be a big deal either when KillerChihuahua brought it up, but it seems to have convinced some arbitrators. It would be nice to think that bringing this up might help.

This was beyond saving a while ago.

[LaraLove]

I resigned.

It took SarcasticIdealist's question for the gravity of it all to hit me, and it's been bugging me all day.

I'm still salty about some aspects of this, but I fucked myself over.

[Milton Roe]

They've already won by making you play the game they want you to play.

Well, it is only a game. And as with any game, you win some and you lose some.

And as with any game, the only loses worth sweating much are the ones that fatal, permanently crippling, or in some other way put some sort of sand in the gears of your life that you can't fix with time. These are not too common. They don't include anything related to Wikipedia, unless you give the damn thing permission to eat your soul (not recommended (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) )

Everything ELSE (pace Nietszche) just makes you stronger. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[The Joy]

I resigned.

It took SarcasticIdealist's question for the gravity of it all to hit me, and it's been bugging me all day.

I'm still salty about some aspects of this, but I fucked myself over.

My commiserations.

Good luck to you and your future endeavors.

The Joy

[the_undertow]

His contributions were beneficial (except when he went off the rails and decided to sue Swatjester and make an article about him) but his adminship was not.

I have argued that even the contributions were not beneficial. As I pointed out earlier in this thread (in response to his claim that he checked his mainspace contributions carefully) the first two non-revert edits I came to had errors, one of which was significant and which persisted for more than a year.

How much longer do I have to insist that basic literacy and grammatical ability is a minimum requirement for anyone working on a comprehensive and accurate reference work?

Good God. Show where my literacy was compromised. I'm still under the assumption that my grammatical skills rival even the great PD. At least MF was gracious enough to correct my minor mistakes. I'd implore you to do the same, but alas...you and I are are both banned users. We must leave our contributions and their possible inaccuracies to the rest of the world, IP, or God forbid, a registered user.

[A Horse With No Name]

I'd implore you to do the same, but alas...you and I are are both banned users. We must leave our contributions and their possible inaccuracies to the rest of the world, IP, or God forbid, a registered user.

I don't see banned users. All I see are good people whose accounts were disabled by a dozen hypocrites. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[thekohser]

I resigned.

It took SarcasticIdealist's question for the gravity of it all to hit me, and it's been bugging me all day.

I'm still salty about some aspects of this, but I fucked myself over.

Congratulations, Lara! If you want any tips on how using sockpuppets can liberate your available options on Wikipedia, or if you simply wish to explore the possibilities on alternate wiki sites -- or both -- just let me know.

You're free at last!

Oh, wait. You probably only resigned the admin bit, but are still planning on toiling for BLPs on the big wiki. If that's the case, you're still not home free. We're rooting for you, though!

Greg

[LaraLove]

I resigned.

It took SarcasticIdealist's question for the gravity of it all to hit me, and it's been bugging me all day.

I'm still salty about some aspects of this, but I fucked myself over.

Congratulations, Lara! If you want any tips on how using sockpuppets can liberate your available options on Wikipedia, or if you simply wish to explore the possibilities on alternate wiki sites -- or both -- just let me know.

You're free at last!

Oh, wait. You probably only resigned the admin bit, but are still planning on toiling for BLPs on the big wiki. If that's the case, you're still not home free. We're rooting for you, though!

Greg

Ah, hahaah. Uhm, I'll pass on the sockpuppet training. I already have about half a dozen, three of them admins.



















I'm seriously kidding. I'll be banned before I finish my homework, though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Ah, yea, I just resigned my admin bit. I have BLP work to continue with. And my plans in AFD are shot because I can't delete pages now. That blows.

Thanks for the support! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

And my plans in AFD are shot because I can't delete pages now. That blows.

Well, you ought to hook up with those wacky sons o' fun, the Article Rescue Squadron, and help to crash the servers by saving every single article in AfD.

Actually, that combo would be pure money! I can see Lara and the Article Rescue Squadron as the Wiki equivalent of Penelope Pitstop and the Ant Hill Mob. Lord knows there are plenty of Paul Lynde wannabes on Wikipedia that could play The Hooded Claw.

[SDJ]

I know that neither you nor GC like me . . .

I never had much interaction with you as Ecoleetage, but what little there was was positive. I always liked your horse persona, even when people were asking me why I wasn't offended by some of your comments. In that you had apparently attempted to get someone fired from their job because they didn't support your RFA... that was too much. Because you didn't refute it, it seemed that you had no defense. Wiki-crimes are one thing, but when you bring it into the "real world" and make it personal, that's when it gets scary. It leads one to question what you might do in other situations where someone pissed you off, ya know? If that's not what happened, I'd be relieved to say the least.

So, if you would, pm me your side of the story; although, I think a public thread would be better.

I just sent you a PM about this, Lara.

[Milton Roe]

I'm still salty about some aspects of this, but I fucked myself over.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif) That doesn't sound half-bad. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[The Adversary]

<snip> IMO it's perfectly reasonable for them to assume that eventually, User:Law would have lost his shit over some drama-fest or other, thus upsetting various people in some way. As he himself admits, he's an "emotional guy."

Yupp, I think unconditional support of User:Law/undertow is obviously something akin to an extreme sport. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Sooner or later you will have in vino veritas...and then some stercus accidit.

It took SarcasticIdealist's question for the gravity of it all to hit me, and it's been bugging me all day.

Good that someone got through to you, and very sorry about all of this..

It´s not nice to see someone you like shooting themself in the foot. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[The Joy]

I know that neither you nor GC like me . . .

I never had much interaction with you as Ecoleetage, but what little there was was positive. I always liked your horse persona, even when people were asking me why I wasn't offended by some of your comments. In that you had apparently attempted to get someone fired from their job because they didn't support your RFA... that was too much. Because you didn't refute it, it seemed that you had no defense. Wiki-crimes are one thing, but when you bring it into the "real world" and make it personal, that's when it gets scary. It leads one to question what you might do in other situations where someone pissed you off, ya know? If that's not what happened, I'd be relieved to say the least.

So, if you would, pm me your side of the story; although, I think a public thread would be better.

I just sent you a PM about this, Lara.

I don't think Gordon Brown can help her now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm still salty about some aspects of this, but I fucked myself over.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif) That doesn't sound half-bad. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Milton...you're stealing my shtick! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Apathetic]

I'm still salty about some aspects of this, but I fucked myself over.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif) That doesn't sound half-bad. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Milton...you're stealing my shtick! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

heh, to the point that I didn't even realize it wasn't you who posted it...

[Milton Roe]

I'm still salty about some aspects of this, but I fucked myself over.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif) That doesn't sound half-bad. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Milton...you're stealing my shtick! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

A hard job, but somebody has to do it if you don't!

[LaraLove]

Where does this rank in the list of largest threads? 45 pages in what? Five days? Wild.

[EricBarbour]

Sorry you got tossed, Lara. I suspect you'll eventually realize that being an admin wasn't a public service--it is more like self-abuse with a little tiny bit of public recognition. (But do keep a couple of socks. Never know.)

I do believe this mess has become the longest WR thread of all time.
(And reading all the way back, it made me want to put my hands over my eyes and scream at the top of my lungs. May Bob curse Master Everette and KillerChihuahua unto infinite damnation. And may both Undertow and Ironholds have long and miserable lives. That place is getting MORE fucked-up, after becoming less so for a while.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[A Horse With No Name]

I do believe this mess has become the longest WR thread of all time.

And it just got longer! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

I do believe this mess has become the longest WR thread of all time.

And it just got longer! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

If it reaches 1,000, will the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse arrive? And will they bring extra oats for our Horsey?

[A Horse With No Name]

I do believe this mess has become the longest WR thread of all time.

And it just got longer! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

If it reaches 1,000, will the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse arrive? And will they bring extra oats for our Horsey?

Damn right they better -- if I am contributing to the decline and fall of Wikipedia, then I should get a free meal. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Somey]

If it reaches 1,000, will the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse arrive?

They've been here for a while now...

Anyway, we've got about 16 or 17 pages to go before this thread hits the Number One spot on the charts. I expect we're going to see this any time a respected WR "regular" is embroiled in a lengthy WP controversy - and to be fair, there are a number of larger issues involved (such as the "friendship vs. rule-obedience" question), along with a great deal of confusion early on about just what was happening over there.

However, at the risk of appearing sexist (when my intent is precisely the opposite), IMO the main issue here as far as thread-length is concerned is, as Mr. Horse will surely agree, the fact that Ms. Lara is an attractive young female, and verifiably so. If the WP admin(s) supporting Mr. Law/Undertow had been male, I expect the thread would be about 6 pages at this point, and no more than 8 pages.

[LaraLove]

Sorry you got tossed, Lara. I suspect you'll eventually realize that being an admin wasn't a public service--it is more like self-abuse with a little tiny bit of public recognition. (But do keep a couple of socks. Never know.)

I do believe this mess has become the longest WR thread of all time.
(And reading all the way back, it made me want to put my hands over my eyes and scream at the top of my lungs. May Bob curse Master Everette and KillerChihuahua unto infinite damnation. And may both Undertow and Ironholds have long and miserable lives. That place is getting MORE fucked-up, after becoming less so for a while.)

Thanks, Eric. I wasn't an admin for public recognition by any means. I am noticing my loss of the bit now, though. OTRS is a bitch without the admin bit. It's going to be an interesting transition, figuring out how to do what I do efficiently while relying on others to take care of administrative stuff.

If it reaches 1,000, will the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse arrive?

They've been here for a while now...

Anyway, we've got about 16 or 17 pages to go before this thread hits the Number One spot on the charts. I expect we're going to see this any time a respected WR "regular" is embroiled in a lengthy WP controversy - and to be fair, there are a number of larger issues involved (such as the "friendship vs. rule-obedience" question), along with a great deal of confusion early on about just what was happening over there.

However, at the risk of appearing sexist (when my intent is precisely the opposite), IMO the main issue here as far as thread-length is concerned is, as Mr. Horse will surely agree, the fact that Ms. Lara is an attractive young female, and verifiably so. If the WP admin(s) supporting Mr. Law/Undertow had been male, I expect the thread would be about 6 pages at this point, and no more than 8 pages.

Glad my looks (Proabivouac says I'm a 7) could make this thread so successful. I hadn't considered that. Haha.

[A Horse With No Name]

However, at the risk of appearing sexist (when my intent is precisely the opposite), IMO the main issue here as far as thread-length is concerned is, as Mr. Horse will surely agree, the fact that Ms. Lara is an attractive young female, and verifiably so. If the WP admin(s) supporting Mr. Law/Undertow had been male, I expect the thread would be about 6 pages at this point, and no more than 8 pages.

Mr. Horse is in 100% agreement. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[everyking]

Lara's resignation caused me to have a look at WP:FORMER for the first time in recent memory. It's interesting to see some of those names--many of them flew high for a while. When I was desysopped in September 2006, I was apparently only the 12th person to ever be involuntarily desysopped, but since then 34 others have been added to the list (it's worth reflecting that in the project's first five years, from January 2001 to January 2006, only six people suffered that indignity). Also at the time of my desysopping, there were only 23 users in the "resigned" category; now there are 108.

In any case, I welcome Lara to the former admin club, even though she'd probably rather not share my company. I also caution her to be careful not to step on many toes now, because it's much harder to survive one of Wikipedia's incessant political and personality feuds without the armor of adminship (while also noting that the armor isn't nearly as strong as it used to be).

[CharlotteWebb]

Mr. Horse is in 100% agreement. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Dude, just shut the hell up.

[A Horse With No Name]

Mr. Horse is in 100% agreement. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Dude, just shut the hell up.

I love it when you are hostile to me. Grrrrrrrrrrr! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

Lara's resignation caused me to have a look at WP:FORMER for the first time in recent memory. It's interesting to see some of those names--many of them flew high for a while.

How come Lara is on the list but not GlassCobra?

[Malleus]

I also caution her to be careful not to step on many toes now, because it's much harder to survive one of Wikipedia's incessant political and personality feuds without the armor of adminship (while also noting that the armor isn't nearly as strong as it used to be).

Tell me about it.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

If it reaches 1,000, will the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse arrive? And will they bring extra oats for our Horsey?

The thread already brought one Wiki Witch riding a Hoover vacuum cleaner.

Repent! The end days are near...

And Lara: welcome to the ex-admin corps. Fly the skull and crossmops proudly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[Mr. Mystery]

If it reaches 1,000, will the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse arrive? And will they bring extra oats for our Horsey?

It seems at least a third of the posts here are of the horse talking to himself.

[trenton]

If the WP admin(s) supporting Mr. Law/Undertow had been male, I expect the thread would be about 6 pages at this point, and no more than 8 pages.

Because they would have acknowledged the mistake a long time ago? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[the_undertow]

If it reaches 1,000, will the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse arrive? And will they bring extra oats for our Horsey?

The thread already brought one Wiki Witch riding a Hoover vacuum cleaner.

Repent! The end days are near...

And Lara: welcome to the ex-admin corps. Fly the skull and crossmops proudly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Fucking Durova. This shit cracks me up. The irony is that you are the ONE person I was advised against sharing this open secret, and you've been nothing but supportive. Now Elonka, who has been a friend for nearly 3 years, and had an open crush, has taken it upon herself to figure out the pieces of this puzzle. There is nothing to figure out. I socked. I didn't tell Lara until after it was too late. Why the fuck does a cryptologist need to break a code that is not a code at all? Her admonishment has been the worst: "Chip, you lied to the community!"

Fuck yeah I did. I lied to everyone on WP and here. Then I grew tired, so I talked. My only regret is that I burdened anyone with who I was. It came to a point to where I told anyone who would listen. the_undertow, regardless of the wild and some mild accusations is me - Chip. I didn't want to hold it in anymore.

I never wanted to go out like this. In real life, I was taught a few things by my Father, a former cop - don't rat out your friends. Don't rat out your enemies. Rats are rats.

But those who assert that I am mentally unstable, who think that I am a cyber-bully, or think that that I have gamed the system have no fucking idea the exhaustion that goes into pretending. I'm pretty content knowing that I drink too much, smoke too much, and have an IQ that affords me the luxury of being such a shit-creature that is as manipulative that I have been, and will most likely be.

I crawl away knowing that I never intentionally manipulated anyone I cared about in real life. Never asked anyone to fall on their own sword. Never thought that I'd see those sell me out when the knife began to twist. I am truly sorry for the damage that I have caused.

But there is no fucking way I'm going to regret what has occurred at this point. I got fired from a job that didn't pay shit. In return, there are articles that were improved, created, and expanded. So my IP is sniped. Big fucking deal. This is when it actually gets interesting. It's a plaything, and since I really don't have to work, I've got a new hobby (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

So my IP is sniped. Big fucking deal. This is when it actually gets interesting. It's a plaything, and since I really don't have to work, I've got a new hobby (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

That was cute! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

It seems at least a third of the posts here are of the horse talking to himself.

Hey, I've got to play to my favorite audience! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)


Also, nice to see Risker is meddling on Law/TU's talk page and that she is still trying to censor things that she doesn't want other people to consider, especially when it relates to her openly admitting that it is okay to sock: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319182763

That broad needs help. Any of you guys want to help her? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[the_undertow]

Of all people this is shit.

It's one thing to eat a bullet, it's quite another to decide half-way through that it's time to start playing by the rules. It's no secret that Keegan is someone who I have daily convos with, but like so many that I've seen, so willing to take their 'medicine' how the fuck did everyone forget that I told everyone to deny, deny, deny, and when they didn't, they ran and asked for contrition?

Same guy who called me a month ago on a suspicion, and then confirmed, and talks to me on a regular basis, and now wants to save face?

I never denied anything. I never wanted anyone to admit to knowing. I asked that if this went down, I'd take it all on my own. But so many people admitting to 'wrongdoing' or 'mistakes' or 'bad judgment' after defending their position.

Sorry if I sound jaded. This shit has got to stop.

Of all people this is shit.

It's one thing to eat a bullet, it's quite another to decide half-way through that it's time to start playing by the rules. It's no secret that Keegan is someone who I have daily convos with, but like so many that I've seen, so willing to take their 'medicine' how the fuck did everyone forget that I told everyone to deny, deny, deny, and when they didn't, they ran and asked for contrition?

Same guy who called me a month ago on a suspicion, and then confirmed, and talks to me on a regular basis, and now wants to save face?

I never denied anything. I never wanted anyone to admit to knowing. I asked that if this went down, I'd take it all on my own. But so many people admitting to 'wrongdoing' or 'mistakes' or 'bad judgment' after defending their position.

Sorry if I sound jaded. This shit has got to stop.

Every person I told was given a moral out - if you feel I'm fucking with your ethical standards - drop the dime. That includes Ironholds, who finally did. Albeit for reasons which I don't find in line with that ethos. Nevertheless, I am only to blame.

[Deodand]

" I never denied anything" - bullshit. You've spent the last few days claiming that you're the innocent party and that any logs that say otherwise are forged, right up until the point that even your strongest supporter confirms the logs and admits she no longer has faith in you. That counts as "denial" in my books. Stop bleating about how incorrect comments and "shit" made by others has to stop when you spent a large chunk of the last week spouting similar crap.

[the_undertow]

" I never denied anything" - bullshit. You've spent the last few days claiming that you're the innocent party and that any logs that say otherwise are forged, right up until the point that even your strongest supporter confirms the logs and admits she no longer has faith in you. That counts as "denial" in my books. Stop bleating about how incorrect comments and "shit" made by others has to stop when you spent a large chunk of the last week spouting similar crap.

i said i would cosign the irc logs in their entirety. however, i meant, i never denied i was Law. my supporters, save two, didn't understand what they were in for, and rightly so. you really know nothing.

[Deodand]

" I never denied anything" - bullshit. You've spent the last few days claiming that you're the innocent party and that any logs that say otherwise are forged, right up until the point that even your strongest supporter confirms the logs and admits she no longer has faith in you. That counts as "denial" in my books. Stop bleating about how incorrect comments and "shit" made by others has to stop when you spent a large chunk of the last week spouting similar crap.

i said i would cosign the irc logs in their entirety. however, i meant, i never denied i was Law. my supporters, save two, didn't understand what they were in for, and rightly so. you really know nothing.

No, you impliedly and expressly claimed that the snippets given by Daniel were bullshit. That's... well, bullshit in itself. As for the other people, Ironholds may have pulled the trigger but you were the one handing guns out. If, as you say, you got so world-weary that you were telling EVERYONE in the hopes that it would eventually come out and you could go back to editing as the undertow, did you not for a moment consider those who you'd placed trust in? If it had come out via you telling X and X immediately telling ArbCom for the good of the community, would that have saved Lara and the rest?

And if you did want to come back as Undertow, that bit of socking earlier was particularly moronic. Well done. If socking is your game plan it leads to exactly the same result you previously dealt with - constantly having to hide your identity.

[Grep]

Perhaps the_undertow should start contributing some "special" articles to WP. For example, the Royston diplomatic incident (when the mayor of Royston found out what King Ludwig II of Bavaria meant by calling him "a bigger sheisskopf than the mayor of Baldock"); the Cutteslowe Walls incident (when the mayor of Oxford ordered the city surveyor to use the municipal steam-roller to knock down a brick wall build across a road); or the project by the Brussels city government to build an interstellar hyperdrive engine. We need more of that kind of contribution.

Note to the reader -- not all of these are true.

Further note -- not all of these are false.

[LaraLove]

In any case, I welcome Lara to the former admin club, even though she'd probably rather not share my company. I also caution her to be careful not to step on many toes now, because it's much harder to survive one of Wikipedia's incessant political and personality feuds without the armor of adminship (while also noting that the armor isn't nearly as strong as it used to be).

And Lara: welcome to the ex-admin corps. Fly the skull and crossmops proudly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Thanks for the welcomes.

How come Lara is on the list but not GlassCobra?

I resigned. The motions are just being closed. He'll be desysopped soon.

So my IP is sniped. Big fucking deal. This is when it actually gets interesting. It's a plaything, and since I really don't have to work, I've got a new hobby (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I lose my bit and this is what you do. We need an eye-rolling smiley that doesn't have a smile on its face. An eye-rolling frowney?

This shit has got to stop.

The shit had stopped. The shit was dealt with for a week while you were breaking from the internet, and now it's over save for what you're doing. Don't perpetuate the drama.

Walk away, Chip. You wanted to be outed, you got outed, it's done. Accept the consequences and walk away. Go breathe in the the California air and enjoy something other than Wikipedia.

[One]

" I never denied anything" - bullshit. You've spent the last few days claiming that you're the innocent party and that any logs that say otherwise are forged, right up until the point that even your strongest supporter confirms the logs and admits she no longer has faith in you. That counts as "denial" in my books. Stop bleating about how incorrect comments and "shit" made by others has to stop when you spent a large chunk of the last week spouting similar crap.

i said i would cosign the irc logs in their entirety. however, i meant, i never denied i was Law. my supporters, save two, didn't understand what they were in for, and rightly so. you really know nothing.

Someone told me you were back. Would you mind responding to this? It's not too late to show some scintilla of character.

[A Horse With No Name]

It's not too late to show some scintilla of character.

Scintilla? How quotidian. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Milton Roe]

It's not too late to show some scintilla of character.

Scintilla? How quotidian. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

A scintilla is what results when your emotional defence screen is struck by a quantum of solace. Watch carefully or you'll miss it.

[A Horse With No Name]

It's not too late to show some scintilla of character.

Scintilla? How quotidian. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

A scintilla is what results when your emotional defence screen is struck by a quantum of solace. Watch carefully or you'll miss it.

I watched "Quantum of Solace." Eh, I prefer the Sean Connery 007 films. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[the_undertow]

04:52 Ironholds: apologies if I have trouble believing that good intentions can come from a user who has been threatening to quote "bury me"
04:52 The_Law: i won't fight it
04:53 The_Law: i'm being very serious right now, bring it up at rfar, and i wont deny
04:53 The_Law: i dont want to polarize wiki over this
04:53 Ironholds: polarise wiki? pfft
04:53 The_Law: yer a good kid. i admire you.
04:53 Ironholds: yes, these logs getting out would certainly polarise the wiki
04:54 Ironholds: what a chasm you'll have between the people who think that on-wiki, off-wiki and real life threats are acceptable and uhm, the real world
04:54 Ironholds: god, that dispute could destroy the community
04:54 The_Law: i admire you for taking a stand against me
04:54 The_Law: you have to realize one thing about me
04:54 The_Law: i respect balls
04:54 Ironholds: you're prone to needless threats?
04:54 Ironholds: oh, that
04:54 Ironholds: I did say you were gay
04:55 Ironholds: first you threaten to drill me, then you say you like my balls
04:55 The_Law: no, i mean, i want you do follow through
04:55 The_Law: im tired of hiding
04:55 The_Law: it sucks
04:55 Ironholds: it would be easier to have just taken Durova's standard offer
04:55 Ironholds: this method has actually harmed you in the long-term, because a lot of people who were taken in wont have the time of day for you
04:56 The_Law: mate, keep your promise
04:56 The_Law: bring it to AC
04:56 Ironholds: not to cheat on my girlfriend at uni, or not to do weed?
04:56 Ironholds: oh, that
04:56 The_Law: i hold no ill will
04:56 Ironholds: ehh, may as well. I still think you've probably got something planned, but I'm a good ol' fashioned cynic
04:56 The_Law: you will finally put an end to my hiding
04:57 The_Law: i am on the fucking level right now
04:57 Ironholds: fair enough
04:57 Ironholds: anyway, I've had the logs pinged to a friend of a friend who happens to be an arb for an initial looksee
04:57 The_Law: i am the undertow, i have done bad things, i have socked
04:57 The_Law: so be it
04:58 The_Law: better to be brought down by a friend than any enemy
04:58 The_Law: assail away brother. i am too tired.
04:59 The_Law: i just want you to know that i will never blame you for what is to come
05:00 The_Law: night brother.

[[logs that never were published]]

[Apathetic]

Thanks for reminding why I never use IRC except when I want to poke or prod an AWB dev or bother MZMcBride/bjweeks for regex advice.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[LaraLove]

Why is this still being discussed? It's been over for a week.

[Apathetic]

Probably because One hasn't got his apology-on-demand yet.

[One]

Probably because One hasn't got his apology-on-demand yet.

I don't even want an apology; I'd just like him to admit that he didn't tell me. Or he could post my alleged email from "weeks ago" (actually, September 29), ect.

If everyone already believes he's lying, then I guess this can drop.

[Kelly Martin]

Because the undertow isn't done having people look at him yet.

[Friday]

Thanks for reminding why I never use IRC except when I want to poke or prod an AWB dev or bother MZMcBride/bjweeks for regex advice.

Oh noes! You just lost 50 cabal points for badmouthing the Awesome IRC.

[A Horse With No Name]

Why is this still being discussed? It's been over for a week.

We really need a new Wikipedia scandal. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[Sxeptomaniac]

Why is this still being discussed? It's been over for a week.

We really need a new Wikipedia scandal. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

There's always one in the works, so I doubt you'll have to wait long.

[everyking]

We really need a new Wikipedia scandal. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Someone should unblock Moulton again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Moulton]

Teh intarwebs is not yet ready for the likes of me.

[Abd]

If everyone already believes he's lying, then I guess this can drop.

It's fine if it drops, but these exchanges show me why Wikipedia is in such deep doo-doo. It's an essential aspect of common law, and of dispute resolution, to assume that testimony is true unless controverted, and it requires little imagination to be able to see both the "testimony" of Luke ("One") and Law ("the undertow"), as true. If I call you a "liar," that's not testimony, ordinarily, it's conclusion, the result of a series of steps and, sometimes, assumptions. When I see that editors can't handle the situation where, sometimes, the record is plain and obvious, such as statements about what people did on-wiki, normally all visible, I know, then, that they probably can't handle real-world evidence which is much less conclusive.

In this case, if we accept all the testimony, Law remembers telling Luke. Luke does not remember that. It is that simple. Where is the conflict? In order to take this to a conclusion of "lying," we'd have to have far more evidence than what we have seen, or make assumptions about memory, in one direction or another. Each of these two may have their own reasons for making assumptions about the other. Suppose that, to make it more extreme, Law has a mail to Luke, but can't disclose it for some reason, but perhaps, as well, he's jumped to conclusions from this. We do have something, Law put it up at one point, where Luke makes a comment, on-wiki, that Law apparently interpreted as revealing knowledge of who he was. But it was easy to read that comment in the other direction.

Law has his own and obvious problems, as I'm sure he knows. What I find offensive about One's position is that there is no need for him to claim that Law is "lying." And he, for one, should know better. As the more responsible party here, the one generally more trusted, he should apologize, it's pretty simple and would be -- or should be -- easy.

Now, if anyone here actually said what they know not to be true, actually "lied," which requires more than falsity but deceptive intention, apology for that could be more difficult, but would be even more important. Liars are in deep trouble, and the fast way out is to stop, admit it, do whatever it takes to stay stopped, and move on. If you can't admit it publicly, for some reason, at least admit it privately, to someone who can and will give good counsel. If you don't, it will poison your life, it isn't harmless, the damage will not go away. This isn't true, necessarily, for lies that only protect others, and to a lesser extent for lies that only protect oneself, but the latter is a really slippery slope, and often the "self" that is protected is one which must be transcended.

[A Horse With No Name]

Probably because One hasn't got his apology-on-demand yet.

I don't even want an apology; I'd just like him to admit that he didn't tell me. Or he could post my alleged email from "weeks ago" (actually, September 29), ect.

If everyone already believes he's lying, then I guess this can drop.

What if one person says "I don't think he's lying"? Does that mean you will keep the Javert act going? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

In this case, if we accept all the testimony, Law remembers telling Luke. Luke does not remember that. It is that simple. Where is the conflict?

Yeah, you guys need to kiss and make up -- and if we can get Michael Lucas to videotape it, then we'll have a killer DVD! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[RMHED]

What if one person says "I don't think he's lying"? Does that mean you will keep the Javert act going? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

You've managed to answer your own question, albeit completely unrelated.

[A Horse With No Name]

What if one person says "I don't think he's lying"? Does that mean you will keep the Javert act going? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

You've managed to answer your own question, albeit completely unrelated.

Don't get it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Whatever...let's officially bring this discussion to an end. If no one else has anything to say:

THE END (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Guido den Broeder]

We really need a new Wikipedia scandal. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Election fraud on nl:Wikipedia, would that count?
Or is that too commonplace?

[Apathetic]

Whatever...let's officially bring this discussion to an end. If no one else has anything to say:

THE END (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Nonsense. We can easily stretch this out to 50 pages.

We really need a new Wikipedia scandal. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Election fraud on nl:Wikipedia, would that count?
Or is that too commonplace?

Too dutch imo.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[TungstenCarbide]

Whatever...let's officially bring this discussion to an end. If no one else has anything to say:

THE END (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Nonsense. We can easily stretch this out to 50 pages.

We really need a new Wikipedia scandal. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Election fraud on nl:Wikipedia, would that count?
Or is that too commonplace?

Too dutch imo.

Hell no, bring it on !

[LaraLove]

If everyone already believes he's lying, then I guess this can drop.

It's fine if it drops
<snip>

In this case, if we accept all the testimony, Law remembers telling Luke. Luke does not remember that. It is that simple.

<snip>

Suppose that, to make it more extreme, Law has a mail to Luke

<snip>

What I find offensive about One's position is that there is no need for him to claim that Law is "lying." And he, for one, should know better. As the more responsible party here, the one generally more trusted, he should apologize

<snip>

If it's fine to let it drop, then let it drop. You shouldn't be accepting all testimony, because it's already been established that some testimony has been false. Law didn't tell Luke. He claimed it to attempt to discredit Luke. That considered, Luke has nothing to apologize for as his claim seems valid.

God, what a clusterfuck.

[Abd]

You shouldn't be accepting all testimony, because it's already been established that some testimony has been false. Law didn't tell Luke. He claimed it to attempt to discredit Luke. That considered, Luke has nothing to apologize for as his claim seems valid.

God, what a clusterfuck.

It's a mess, all right. Lara, has Law told you, personally, that he knew his claim about Luke was false? Are you angry about the betrayal of trust you've seen, or do you know more than you've said, or perhaps than I've noticed? Again, even if Law were lying, and unless Luke has clear evidence of that -- that he doesn't remember any communication is not clear evidence -- Luke should still apologize, and I say that as his friend, I'm not condemning him at all, nor will I hold it against him if he doesn't apologize; it's merely an opportunity for him to elevate himself above the mess.

What testimony has been false? Even if some has been shown to be such, and while it certainly deprecates other evidence, the presumption remains, "controverted" actually refers to conclusions from evidence or a demonstration that the evidence itself is false. Often in discussing evidence, the separation between possible error and deceptive falsehood gets blurred, and "that's a lie" gets easily said instead of "That's false." In the case of the alleged disclosure, even "that's false" isn't actually necessary.

"I told him! I don't know why he's lying about it!"

"Well, if he did tell me, I don't remember it. Could he remind me of when and how? Perhaps it will jog my memory, but I can say this for a fact: until a few days ago, I was unaware of it."

To say back, "He's the one lying!" is to gratuitously escalate, and one would think a skilled Wikipedian would get this immediately. Sigh. Apparently not.

I can say this much: I find it very hard to believe that Luke is lying (plus there isn't any reason to conclude that he was lying from the evidence). But I also don't see any reason for Law to lie, either. I don't know him well enough to have much opinion about his character, but from what I've seen in this sequence, lying about a thing like this also seems quite unlikely. That's why I suggest the harmonization of the testimony, which should be a well-known concept in any community that seeks consensus. It's part of real dispute resolution, and "Liar!" is about the opposite. Too often, the community is content to pin "Liar" or "Troll" or whatever on editors, to dispose of the necessity to actually seek true resolution of disputes; even when people lie, they do it for reasons, and sometimes the reasons are even legitimate, even if the methods were defective or reprehensible.

[LaraLove]

It's a mess, all right. Lara, has Law told you, personally, that he knew his claim about Luke was false?

<snip>

Luke should still apologize

<snip>

What testimony has been false?

<snip>

To say back, "He's the one lying!" is to gratuitously escalate, and one would think a skilled Wikipedian would get this immediately. Sigh. Apparently not.

<snip>

But I also don't see any reason for Law to lie, either. I don't know him well enough to have much opinion about his character, but from what I've seen in this sequence, lying about a thing like this also seems quite unlikely.

<snip>

I'm not sure what betrayal of trust you're talking about, perhaps I've missed something here, but this has nothing to do with anger. Chip told me the same thing he posted here. Clearly his words "You were the first to know" were not true. It seems obvious to me that he said that in an attempt to discredit Luke. Consider who this information is coming from. Someone who has considered herself a close friend to Chip for two years (three by his calendar) and who has had more than one heated disagreement with Luke. The fact of the matter is that I know Chip, and I know his claim is not true. I knew it as soon as I read it, which is why I responded the way I did. "When did you tell Luke, and why?" The nicest way I could call bullshit.

I can't answer your second question, really, because I don't know yet, but one example would be the denial wrt the authenticity of the logs here.

Now, I agree, the throwing about of the words "lying" and "liar" are unnecessarily provocative. I certainly don't appreciate being called a liar, because while I may keep secrets at times, I'm not one to lie. So I can understand people being upset by having those words thrown at them, I'll give you that. But I still don't believe Luke has anything to apologize for here.

Some things may never be clear, but this seems obvious. Maybe it's because I know him that I can see so clearly why he made this claim when it's clearly untrue (it's usually the other way around, where my friendship prevents me from being objective). Or maybe I've just finally woken up. Either way, the claim was not true. I don't know who all was aware of the Law/undertow secret, but I know for damn sure Luke wasn't in on it.

[thekohser]

The site was solely founded by a liar.

What's the big deal?

[LaraLove]

The site was solely founded by a liar.

What's the big deal?

I see what you did there. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

The fact of the matter is that I know Chip, and I know his claim is not true. I knew it as soon as I read it, which is why I responded the way I did. "When did you tell Luke, and why?"

Okay, did you ever ask him when he told Casliber, and why?

[A Horse With No Name]

This instructional video offers the Wikipedia crowd expert tips on martyrdom with style:





This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Guido den Broeder]

Hell no, bring it on !

During the yearly re-elections, Mrs. MoiraMoira, considered by some to be the mother of nl:Wikipedia, and loathed by others for her harsh treatment of newbies, many mistakes and refusal to give straight answers, needs 75% of the votes to keep her sysop bit.

This is after the admin community already voted against her for bureaucrat (but she still has the bit, somehow).

Let's skip for a moment the reportedly aggressive canvassing by MM herself on IRC, and the reappearence of users that had left but now return to support her adminship and oppose a rival.

Suddenly two no-votes get struck, swinging the balance from desysop to keep. It is claimed that a user has committed sockpuppetry and voted twice. The two accounts have coexisted alongside each other for quite a while, working on different topics; it seems that they simply have the same (large?) employer, as do several other accounts. In a similar case, evidence was eventually provided that the suspects were not the same person at all, but that's not stopping the CU.

They all get blocked, as well as the IP address, so they are left with no way to protest.

And so a new drama begins... questions asked and not answered, unblock requests filed by other users, etc.

The current vote is 107-35, instead of 107-37. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Soap! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

No way for me to know who is right, of course.

[Deodand]

Hell no, bring it on !

During the yearly re-elections, Mrs. MoiraMoira, considered by some to be the mother of nl:Wikipedia, and loathed by others for her harsh treatment of newbies, many mistakes and refusal to give straight answers, needs 75% of the votes to keep her sysop bit.

This is after the admin community already voted against her for bureaucrat (but she still has the bit, somehow).

Let's skip for a moment the reportedly aggressive canvassing by MM herself on IRC, and the reappearence of users that had left but now return to support her adminship and oppose a rival.

Suddenly two no-votes get struck, swinging the balance from desysop to keep. It is claimed that a user has committed sockpuppetry and voted twice. The two accounts have coexisted alongside each other for quite a while, working on different topics; it seems that they simply have the same (large?) employer, as do several other accounts. In a similar case, evidence was eventually provided that the suspects were not the same person at all, but that's not stopping the CU.

They all get blocked, as well as the IP address, so they are left with no way to protest.

And so a new drama begins... questions asked and not answered, unblock requests filed by other users, etc.

The current vote is 107-35, instead of 107-37. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Soap! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

No way for me to know who is right, of course.

Thank you for that pertinent and relevant addition to this conversation about confirmed sockpuppetry on en.wiki that wasn't used to swing any votes. It's certainly good that you brought false sockpuppetry allegations on a different wiki that were used to allegedly do something completely different to our attention.

Srsly, though. "new drama" doesn't mean "new drama in this thread". "new topic" isn't hard to find; it's right next to the reply button.

[Guido den Broeder]

You're welcome. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I suggest reading this thread in full, btw.

[TungstenCarbide]

You're welcome. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I suggest reading this thread in full, btw.

haha
howabout just this

[The Joy]

You're welcome. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I suggest reading this thread in full, btw.

King Lear:
O, that way madness lies; let me shun that;
No more of that.

[LaraLove]

The fact of the matter is that I know Chip, and I know his claim is not true. I knew it as soon as I read it, which is why I responded the way I did. "When did you tell Luke, and why?"

Okay, did you ever ask him when he told Casliber, and why?

He was friends with Cas when he was the_undertow.

[victim of censorship]

This instructional video offers the Wikipedia crowd expert tips on martyrdom with style:

I wonder if smores were invented in France?


On a more lighter note, I'm now in process of "planting" and "Ripening up" a new batch of
puppets for a fresh attack on the combo of

Goethean - An aggressive self righteous Christian hater, south of Avenue North., and Propol - sockee of Goethean.. , and The Grand Gamaliell, lord protector all that is lies, hate, and liberalism on wikpeidia - friend and protected of the group.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Deodand]

This instructional video offers the Wikipedia crowd expert tips on martyrdom with style:

I wonder if smores were invented in France?


On a more lighter note, I'm now in process of "planting" and "Ripening up" a new batch of
puppets for a fresh attack on the combo of

Goethean - An aggressive self righteous Christian hater, south of Avenue North., and Propol - sockee of Goethean.. , and The Grand Gamaliell, lord protector all that is lies, hate, and liberalism on wikpeidia - friend and protected of the group.

So remind me, are you:
1) a fake Christian, who likes having a way to feel superior to the rest of us atheists, heretics and apostates
2) a bible-thumping maniac who's happy to interpret the bible in any way that gives him an excuse to feel superior to.. (see above)
3) a mindless, raving violent, conniving underhanded little prick who uses Jizzus and his teachings as an excuse for aformentioned mindless, raving, violent, conniving and underhanded tendencies.

I assume you can't be a real Christian, because turn the other cheek does still apply, y'know. And do you not see the irony of being aggressive and self-righteous with an "aggressive self-righteous christian hater" to show how much better you are than him? But then, I've spoken to you before. Logical thought processes are really too much to expect.

[Guido den Broeder]

Cool, we have our own troll. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Cool, we have our own troll. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

We just call them "Wikipedians" around here.

[Lar]

Cool, we have our own troll. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

We just call them "Wikipedians" around here.

Right, because anyone who contributes to Wikipedia is uniformly evil, and if they come here, it's to troll, not to contribute.

Got it.

(edit: typo fix)

[LaraLove]

Cool, we have our own troll. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

We just call them "Wikipedians" around here.

Right, because anyone who contributes to Wikipedia is uniformly evil, and if they come here, it's to troll, not to contribute.

Got it.

(edit: typo fix)

Speak easy around the natives.

[A Horse With No Name]

I assume you can't be a real Christian, because turn the other cheek does still apply, y'know.

Of course, in "Men of Israel," turn the other cheek has a very different meaning. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[thekohser]

Cool, we have our own troll. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

We just call them "Wikipedians" around here.

Right, because anyone who contributes to Wikipedia is uniformly evil, and if they come here, it's to troll, not to contribute.

Got it.

(edit: typo fix)

See, this is why I find it useful to distinguish between "Wikipedians" and "Wikipediots".

[GlassBeadGame]

Cool, we have our own troll. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

We just call them "Wikipedians" around here.

Right, because anyone who contributes to Wikipedia is uniformly evil, and if they come here, it's to troll, not to contribute.

Got it.

(edit: typo fix)

See, this is why I find it useful to distinguish between "Wikipedians" and "Wikipediots".

When addressing a group of people I tend to not be particularly favorably disposed toward the gracious thing to do is to adopt the term they use for themselves. I prefer this to gratuitous insults, which of course I can always add later at my leisure.

[A Horse With No Name]

Are we really going to squeeze 50 pages out of this topic? I think Law/TU got off the train several stops back -- not that it really matters, at this point.

However, I must say that I admire his comment on some imbecile who referred to the TU account as "disgraced": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319201292

[victim of censorship]

This instructional video offers the Wikipedia crowd expert tips on martyrdom with style:

I wonder if smores were invented in France?


On a more lighter note, I'm now in process of "planting" and "Ripening up" a new batch of
puppets for a fresh attack on the combo of

Goethean - An aggressive self righteous Christian hater, south of Avenue North., and Propol - sockee of Goethean.. , and The Grand Gamaliell, lord protector all that is lies, hate, and liberalism on wikpeidia - friend and protected of the group.

So remind me, are you:
1) a fake Christian, who likes having a way to feel superior to the rest of us atheists, heretics and apostates
2) a bible-thumping maniac who's happy to interpret the bible in any way that gives him an excuse to feel superior to.. (see above)
3) a mindless, raving violent, conniving underhanded little prick who uses Jizzus (SIC) and his teachings as an excuse for aformentioned (SIC) mindless, raving, violent, conniving and underhanded tendencies.

I assume you can't be a real Christian, because turn the other cheek does still apply, y'know. And do you not see the irony of being aggressive and self-righteous with an "aggressive self-righteous christian hater" to show how much better you are than him? But then, I've spoken to you before. Logical thought processes are really too much to expect.

I hate self righteous bigots pushing th'er belief systems... see the MO of Mr Goethean and
you will see the work of a true religious bigot.

But your putting words in my mouth and assuming that I'm "better them him" is
indicative of your bias. I don't know what I think, other then what I write and say.

How dare you to assume.

Cool, we have our own troll. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

We just call them "Wikipedians" around here.

Right, because anyone who contributes to Wikipedia is uniformly evil, and if they come here, it's to troll, not to contribute.

Got it.

(edit: typo fix)

NO, not evil, a human can feel good/ bad /evil... A Wikipeida is not human, only a soul less robot, fueled on Jimbo juice and the wacky wiki way of thinking.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Deodand]

NO, not evil, a human can feel good/ bad /evil... A Wikipeida is not human, only a soul less robot, fueled on Jimbo juice and the wacky wiki way of thinking.

"I don't know what I think" - that sums you up quite nicely, I think. You're an ass. Face it: when even Wikipedia Review considers you little more than a pain in the backside, you've hit a special kind of low. Please learn how to spell "Wikipedian", "fuelled" and similar. Oh, and "soulless" is one word. You set such a good example for non-wikipedians! My, if your crusade succeeds we'll all be brainless, barely literate nutjobs like yourself. Quite a thing to aim for.

[A Horse With No Name]

NO, not evil, a human can feel good/ bad /evil...

You are feeling up good, bad and evil? Hmmm...which one feels the best? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[victim of censorship]

Deodand, you're a smug, little fuckface.


You and your wikipediot kind are a scourge on the internet. You and your kind are responsible for
a great deal of hurt, damage and pain, which though the Wikipedia you and your kind created.

The world have no respect for the basement dwelling little man rats, like your self, who ply their trade on the Slander farm of Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[LaraLove]

See, this is why I find it useful to distinguish between "Wikipedians" and "Wikipediots".

6. wikipedia 782 up, 171 down

The world's largest forum for anonymous arguments. Argue with everyone in the world on any topic imaginable. You may be Stephen Hawking, so-called "expert", but you need to reconcile your views on black holes with Bob from Idaho who thinks they are portals to Narnia and find some neutral point of view that you can both agree on.

I wanted to find a place to argue about Bruce Jenner's Wheaties boxes and found Wikipedia.

by Cunningest Linguist May 7, 2006

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
Brilliant.

Are we really going to squeeze 50 pages out of this topic? I think Law/TU got off the train several stops back -- not that it really matters, at this point.

However, I must say that I admire his comment on some imbecile who referred to the TU account as "disgraced": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319201292

I'm going for 100. #1, aim high. Not really.

More pointless drama-stirring. Law is disgraced. the_undertow is disgraced. Jennavecia and GlassCobra are disgraced. If you get desysopped, you're a disgraced admin. To claim to be more offended by someone pointing out that your Wikipedia account is disgraced than by someone referring to you as "mentally unstable" is disturbing.

[Abd]

Good stuff.

See, this is why I find it useful to distinguish between "Wikipedians" and "Wikipediots".

6. wikipedia 782 up, 171 down

The world's largest forum for anonymous arguments. Argue with everyone in the world on any topic imaginable. You may be Stephen Hawking, so-called "expert", but you need to reconcile your views on black holes with Bob from Idaho who thinks they are portals to Narnia and find some neutral point of view that you can both agree on.

I wanted to find a place to argue about Bruce Jenner's Wheaties boxes and found Wikipedia.

by Cunningest Linguist May 7, 2006

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
Brilliant.

This is a double-edged axe that doesn't just cut down Stephen Hawking from the irritation of dealing with Bob, for Bob will have little support higher up the defacto structure, but it also cuts him down if he's dealing with ignorant but established editors who tag his articles, AfD them, and edit war with him if he writes something they don't understand, and Hawking stands a good chance of being blocked, especially if anonymous. Those arrogant experts tend to have strong POVs, imagining that they understand a subject better than average, and strong POV is what gets most easily sanctioned. It even happens if the expert only advises in Talk, you'd think ArbComm would get this. They don't.

Are we really going to squeeze 50 pages out of this topic? I think Law/TU got off the train several stops back -- not that it really matters, at this point.

However, I must say that I admire his comment on some imbecile who referred to the TU account as "disgraced": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319201292

I'm going for 100. #1, aim high. Not really.

We are likely to make a thousand comments, it's at 971 now.

More pointless drama-stirring. Law is disgraced. the_undertow is disgraced. Jennavecia and GlassCobra are disgraced. If you get desysopped, you're a disgraced admin. To claim to be more offended by someone pointing out that your Wikipedia account is disgraced than by someone referring to you as "mentally unstable" is disturbing.

Lost performative. (Linguistic term that might betray some of my background). Disgraced by whom, in whose eyes? Lara, this is what's in my eyes:

Lara Love, AKA Jennavecia: A former Wikipedia administrator who, in 2008, identified and confronted abuse by William M. Connolley, confirming Abd in his understanding of the situation, an understanding that carried him through to the RfAr that resulted not only in Abd's ban, but also WMC's loss of his admin bit.

Lara Love was condemned by many for standing by her friend, for assuming good faith, for supporting him in his positive work on the project and not revealing the secret she kept. Friends sometimes don't live up to the trust placed in them, and if we remained in fear of this, we'd never trust anyone. In order to avoid further disruption, Lara resigned her administrative privileges.

Who would I rather sit down and talk with, in person, Lara or one of those who condemned her? Hint: that she's beautiful isn't relevant. So who is "disgraced"?

Law, okay. He really screwed up, but he's got his own real-life problems, I'm quite sure, and Wikipedia wasn't about to help him resolve them. If he manages to get a grip, to become rigorously honest (with himself and with those he trusts, not with "Wikipedia,"), he, also, would probably make for a deeper conversation.

[A Horse With No Name]

Who would I rather sit down and talk with, in person, Lara or one of those who condemned her? Hint: that she's beautiful isn't relevant.

Yes it is! How can we possibly have a serious discussion if you are going to make a statement like that? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[LaraLove]

Lost performative. (Linguistic term that might betray some of my background). Disgraced by whom, in whose eyes? Lara, this is what's in my eyes:

Lara Love, AKA Jennavecia: A former Wikipedia administrator who, in 2008, identified and confronted abuse by William M. Connolley, confirming Abd in his understanding of the situation, an understanding that carried him through to the RfAr that resulted not only in Abd's ban, but also WMC's loss of his admin bit.

Lara Love was condemned by many for standing by her friend, for assuming good faith, for supporting him in his positive work on the project and not revealing the secret she kept. Friends sometimes don't live up to the trust placed in them, and if we remained in fear of this, we'd never trust anyone. In order to avoid further disruption, Lara resigned her administrative privileges.

Who would I rather sit down and talk with, in person, Lara or one of those who condemned her? Hint: that she's beautiful isn't relevant. So who is "disgraced"?

Law, okay. He really screwed up, but he's got his own real-life problems, I'm quite sure, and Wikipedia wasn't about to help him resolve them. If he manages to get a grip, to become rigorously honest (with himself and with those he trusts, not with "Wikipedia,"), he, also, would probably make for a deeper conversation.

Most Wikipedians would disagree; otherwise, I would not be a disgraced former admin.

Granted, I did resign, but I was a day or two away from desysop, so whether people refer to it as a resignation under a cloud or a desysop really makes no difference to me. They're technically the same. I resigned to end the drama and suspense. That's it.

Wikipedia is a special place. Well, actually it's not. This same sort of shit happens "in real life" too. Popular actors or politicians do or say something stupid and the media and the public (see community) are all over them. Whatever they were beloved for is pushed aside and all focus is on the fuck-up. It's pretty much the same thing on Wikipedia. I got caught with a hooker in my car, drama ensued, I'll go make another blockbuster and all will be right in the world again... just gotta wait for everyone to realize that my sexual deviance isn't really a big deal and it didn't break the universe.

I get that's not an apt analogy, but at least I didn't say I got caught with a dead body in my car and the smoking gun in my hand. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Abd]

Who would I rather sit down and talk with, in person, Lara or one of those who condemned her? Hint: that she's beautiful isn't relevant.

Yes it is! How can we possibly have a serious discussion if you are going to make a statement like that? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Well, it's relevant, but to what? The fact is that the implied statement about preference would hold true even if not for the "image," so to speak. And that was half my point. The other half is, of course, something else, WR behavior. But I've been known to get into quite a bit of trouble (like marriages) from saying stuff like that in person.

On the other hand, she's way too young.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Most Wikipedians would disagree; otherwise, I would not be a disgraced former admin.

That doesn't follow. With perhaps one or two minor quibbles, I'd agree with what Abd said above, but I still thought you should be desysopped, even while there are many other admins who I respect less for whose bits I am not calling. In the same way, I can be comfortable that there are good people (who committed crimes) in jail, while there are much worse people (who did not commit crimes) still on the streets.

[Random832]

In the same way, I can be comfortable that there are good people (who committed crimes) in jail, while there are much worse people (who did not commit crimes) still on the streets.

Are you equally as comfortable with there being good people who did not commit crimes in jail with much worse people who did commit crimes on the streets?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Are you equally as comfortable with there being good people who did not commit crimes in jail with much worse people who did commit crimes on the streets?

No.* Analogously speaking, however, I think Lara committed a crime. As for the admins who are still admins and who did commit crimes, I would like to see their bits removed as well. I'm not aware of very many such admins, no doubt mostly because I don't pay much attention.

*In fact, wrongful convictions are something of a passion of mine. I'm currently participating in a workshop put on by a prof at my law school in conjunction with the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted. It has been, to say the least, eye-opening.

[Abd]

Most Wikipedians would disagree; otherwise, I would not be a disgraced former admin.

Actually, my constant point is that we have no way of knowing what "most Wikipedians" would say, if informed. We only know, to a quite erratic and unreliable extent, what most of the available and motivated actually commented, often with inadequate knowledge, plus a few with some knowledge and understanding mixed in.

And what people will say off the top of their heads tells us something, but it's quite different, often, from what they will say if informed and with time to reflect. One of the clues that a "pile-on" is happening is the multiplicity of outraged and very certain comments very early in a discussion, long before it would have been possible for anyone neutral to actually become informed.

Granted, I did resign, but I was a day or two away from desysop, so whether people refer to it as a resignation under a cloud or a desysop really makes no difference to me. They're technically the same. I resigned to end the drama and suspense. That's it.

Yes, that's what you did. Durova did the same. I likewise accepted a community ban at AN/I when there was a cabal pile-on, because the cabal, I could see, was big enough that the best that could be done was to prevent a ban consensus, and a likely 30-day ban close, single article, simply wasn't enough of a problem to be worth the disruption. Again, fat lot of good it did me, if I were to get stuck on "good" as meaning "not banned"!

Wikipedia is a special place. Well, actually it's not. This same sort of shit happens "in real life" too.

Yes. Big surprise. The solutions I'm suggesting for Wikipedia were worked out, years back, for generic application.

[LaraLove]

Most Wikipedians would disagree; otherwise, I would not be a disgraced former admin.

That doesn't follow. With perhaps one or two minor quibbles, I'd agree with what Abd said above, but I still thought you should be desysopped, even while there are many other admins who I respect less for whose bits I am not calling. In the same way, I can be comfortable that there are good people (who committed crimes) in jail, while there are much worse people (who did not commit crimes) still on the streets.

Explain to me what doesn't follow, please.

[Lar]

Who would I rather sit down and talk with, in person, Lara or one of those who condemned her? Hint: that she's beautiful isn't relevant.

Yes it is! How can we possibly have a serious discussion if you are going to make a statement like that? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

No one in this conversation saw THAT coming.

[A Horse With No Name]

No one in this conversation saw THAT coming.

Be patient -- I still have my quota of Friday-related fat jokes to get out before the weekend. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

And with this, we hit Page #50! Congrats, everyone, for taking it this far. Shall we aim for 75 or call it a day?

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Milton Roe]

*In fact, wrongful convictions are something of a passion of mine. I'm currently participating in a workshop put on by a prof at my law school in conjunction with the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted. It has been, to say the least, eye-opening.

Not least of which, I will imagine, are cases where the person was clearly wrongly convicted as any idiot could see on later examination, but the prosecutor's office has absolutely no interest in this, and in fact, when necessary, will automatically act to thwart actions which will result in a retrial. Not always, but enough of the time to make you realize that D.A.s are not greatly more moral than defense attornies. In other words, prosecutors don't suddenly lose all conscience when they move to defense, as they usually eventually do. Many of them never had much to begin with. It was just that as prosecutors, they were in command of a lot more power, even at the same time they were paid a lot less to use it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Random832]

In other news,
50 PAGES!
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/letsgetdrunk.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/noooo.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/offtopic.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

[Rhindle]

In other news,
50 PAGES!
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/letsgetdrunk.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/noooo.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/offtopic.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

Congratulations to all those who made it happen!

A Horse With No Name 128 posts
LaraLove 91
One 39
the_undertow 35
Malleus 35
Apathetic 32
Kelly Martin 29
Deodand 29
CharlotteWebb 28
Friday 27
Abd 27
Peter Damian 27
Wiki Witch of the West 25
Sarcasticidealist 21
Noroton 20
The Joy 19
victim of censorship 19
Random832 18
No one of consequence 18
Milton Roe 17
Guido den Broeder 15
Moulton 15
Somey 14
everyking 14
MBisanz 13
Anonymous editor 13
Lar 13
trenton 12
GlassBeadGame 11
Daniel 10
SB_Johnny 10
Gazimoff 9
Appleby 9
Cla68 9
Ahypori 8
RMHED 8
Cedric 8
MZMcBride 7
Jim 7
SirFozzie 7
Casliber 6
lone-wolf 6
Grep 5
TungstenCarbide 5
thekohser 5
Achromatic 4
Tarc 4
Alison 4
Mr. Mystery 3
Cock-up-over-conspiracy 3
carbuncle 3
InkBlot 3
Mathsci 3
Tintomara 2
Doc glasgow 2
nableezy 2
Silverman 2
The Adversary 2
tarantino 2
Newyorkbrad 2
TheySeeMeTrollin 1
maggot3 1
The Wales Hunter 1
SDJ 1
Hell Freezes Over 1
IN278S 1
cyofee 1
Juliancolton 1
JayT 1
EricBarbour 1
Messedrocker 1
Floydsvoid 1
NuclearWarfare 1
Sxeptomaniac 1
Rhindle 1
Law 1
Herschelkrustofsky 1
Obesity 1
Viridae 1

Tell them what they've won Johnny!

[Guido den Broeder]

(Only 15? I must catch up.)

Let's all party on Jimbo's meta talk, now that he abandoned the place. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[LaraLove]

No one in this conversation saw THAT coming.

Be patient -- I still have my quota of Friday-related fat jokes to get out before the weekend. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

And with this, we hit Page #50! Congrats, everyone, for taking it this far. Shall we aim for 75 or call it a day?

It's not over yet. There's an open question.

[Malleus]

Most Wikipedians would disagree; otherwise, I would not be a disgraced former admin.

You're a former admin, not a "disgraced former admin". Most Wikipedians will never have heard of this storm in a teacup, and even fewer will care about it.

The rules about sockpuppeting are unclear, inconsistently applied, and illogical. You made a choice that flew in the face of whatever passes for conventional wisdom on wikipedia. No shame in that; I do something similar almost every day with the equally unclear, inconsistently applied, and illogical civility policy.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[InkBlot]

"I don't know what I think" - that sums you up quite nicely, I think. You're an ass. Face it: when even Wikipedia Review considers you little more than a pain in the backside, you've hit a special kind of low. Please learn how to spell "Wikipedian", "fuelled" and similar. Oh, and "soulless" is one word. You set such a good example for non-wikipedians! My, if your crusade succeeds we'll all be brainless, barely literate nutjobs like yourself. Quite a thing to aim for.

Dude, if you're going to elect yourself the Microsoft Office Assistant*, at least learn to trim quotes. For one thing, I think we've all see that little embedded video by now. For another, we're already wearing out our scroll-wheels on Abd.

Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for my mouse's 30,000 mile tune-up.





*"It looks like you're trying to write a scathing comeback. Would you like a list of third-grade insults?"

[Sarcasticidealist]

Most Wikipedians would disagree; otherwise, I would not be a disgraced former admin.

That doesn't follow. With perhaps one or two minor quibbles, I'd agree with what Abd said above, but I still thought you should be desysopped, even while there are many other admins who I respect less for whose bits I am not calling. In the same way, I can be comfortable that there are good people (who committed crimes) in jail, while there are much worse people (who did not commit crimes) still on the streets.

Explain to me what doesn't follow, please.

I'm evidence that it's possible to agree with Abd and still support the desysop. It's possible (though unlikely) that all Wikipedians are like me, meaning that it would be possible that most Wikipedians agree with Abd, still leaving you as a disgraced former admin.

Not least of which, I will imagine, are cases where the person was clearly wrongly convicted as any idiot could see on later examination, but the prosecutor's office has absolutely no interest in this, and in fact, when necessary, will automatically act to thwart actions which will result in a retrial. Not always, but enough of the time to make you realize that D.A.s are not greatly more moral than defense attornies.

Well, we have Crown prosecutors up here, not D.A.s, and I have the impression that they're somewhat better (I don't think I'd expect prosecutors in either country to be *any* more moral, on average, than defense lawyers, though, and I'm not sure where you get that). The most common villain in wrongful convictions up here is the police, though prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges often come in for a share of the blame as well. Generally, though, prosecutors and defense lawyers up here get along pretty well, united in their contempt (fair or otherwise) for the police.

Sarcasticidealist 21

Well, I certainly hate myself a little bit. More than I did before, I mean.

[everyking]

We can keep this going a little while longer by reflecting and articulating the meaning of all this foolishness and what sort of lessons we've learned along the way. I tried to think up something, but all I could come up with was "ArbCom sucks", and I already knew that.

[The Joy]

We can keep this going a little while longer by reflecting and articulating the meaning of all this foolishness and what sort of lessons we've learned along the way. I tried to think up something, but all I could come up with was "ArbCom sucks", and I already knew that.

The longer a thread about Wikipedia goes, the stupider it gets. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[LaraLove]

I'm evidence that it's possible to agree with Abd and still support the desysop. It's possible (though unlikely) that all Wikipedians are like me, meaning that it would be possible that most Wikipedians agree with Abd, still leaving you as a disgraced former admin.

You lost me. In my opinion, if you've had your bit yanked or you've resigned under a cloud, you (the account) are disgraced.

Now, as far as agreeing with Abd, I don't believe someone could think so highly of me and support my bit getting yanked. I didn't abuse the tools and I need them for the work I do. At least to be efficient. If you think so highly of me, you should trust me with the tools. And if you do trust me with the tools, but you support them being taken as a means to teach me a lesson, then keep your support because I don't want it.

[Sarcasticidealist]

You lost me. In my opinion, if you've had your bit yanked or you've resigned under a cloud, you (the account) are disgraced.

I wasn't disagreeing with that bit; it's semantics, and I could go either way on it (are martyrs necessarily disgraced?).

Now, as far as agreeing with Abd, I don't believe someone could think so highly of me and support my bit getting yanked. I didn't abuse the tools and I need them for the work I do. At least to be efficient. If you think so highly of me, you should trust me with the tools. And if you do trust me with the tools, but you support them being taken as a means to teach me a lesson, then keep your support because I don't want it.

As it happens, I do trust you with the tools. And I trust Casliber as an Arb. But I think there's such a thing as conduct unbecoming, and I think you and Cas both engaged in it. That I trust and respect (present tense - and, I emphasize, distinct from like) both of you is what upset me, actually--if it'd had been a really lousy admin, one who shows no sensitivity towards the BLP issue, who pulled that, I'd probably have been glad that Arb Comm had a reason to pull the bit.

With regards to the last bit, it's not about teaching you a lesson. I can't imagine that you'll learn one from this, at least not what I'd consider the right one, so if that was it I'd suggest that you just keep the bit and continue the BLP stuff, and save us all some time. It's about accountability: if you fuck up seriously enough, you resign, even if your not resigning would appear to be a net benefit to the project (or the country, or whatever it is you're helping run), and even if there's no chance that you'd fuck up in a related way again (as I think is certainly true of Cas, at least).

And I don't make a habit of letting people accept or reject my support.

[Somey]

It's about accountability: if you fuck up seriously enough, you resign, even if your not resigning would appear to be a net benefit to the project... and even if there's no chance that you'd fuck up in a related way again...

Isn't this just another way of saying "community over content"? If it's demonstrably beneficial to the so-called "project" in terms of article quality that she remain an admin, and the only real reason to take away those access privileges is her having made a social-networking mistake in the eyes of the other admins/users...?

I realize we see this sort of thing all the time, but that doesn't make it right - on the contrary, it's just as wrong every time it happens. Wikipedia should be fighting its own tendency towards inflexibility, bureaucratization, and petty personal infighting, not rewarding it.

[Malleus]

It's about accountability: if you fuck up seriously enough, you resign, even if your not resigning would appear to be a net benefit to the project... and even if there's no chance that you'd fuck up in a related way again...

Isn't this just another way of saying "community over content"? If it's demonstrably beneficial to the so-called "project" in terms of article quality that she remain an admin, and the only real reason to take away those access privileges is her having made a social-networking mistake in the eyes of the other admins/users...?

I realize we see this sort of thing all the time, but that doesn't make it right - on the contrary, it's just as wrong every time it happens. Wikipedia should be fighting its own tendency towards inflexibility, bureaucratization, and petty personal infighting, not rewarding it.

Well put. The "community" demands blood, so the community must have blood. Doesn't much matter whose blood it is.

[Abd]

[...] we're already wearing out our scroll-wheels on Abd.

Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for my mouse's 30,000 mile tune-up.

I'm glad to be of service testing your scroll-wheel and exercising your wheeling skills. For those who don't want to do this, there is a nifty tool here that allows you to ignore any editor's posts, it gets replaced by a little message that you have elected to ignore this editor's writing, and then you can click a link to see it if you want. I was a little disappointed that it didn't truly ignore an editor's posts, the message is pretty obtrusive, but at least that endless scrolling problem would go away.

Of course, then comes along another editor who quotes the whole damn thing.... That's part of the fun here; write a long post, and some idiot quotes the whole thing, commenting tl;dr at the end. Like, six billion people didn't read it, did we need to know about you? I surely don't mind, though, there was another opportunity created for someone to stumble across my priceless prose. I only need one reader to be happy as a clam.

I think there's such a thing as conduct unbecoming, and I think you and Cas both engaged in it.

Problem is, SI, very high standards of conduct are being applied, unrealistic standards for volunteers, whereas routine behavior is well below this standard. I see egregious "conduct unbecoming" taking place in the open, before ArbComm, and nothing is done, not to mention what I saw every time I read AN/I. I'm not convinced that Lara did anything wrong, and what Law did has actually been encouraged at points; the community has been ambiguous about it.

If the community or ArbComm want to tighten up on the rules, that's fine, but do it in a way that people will know that what they are doing is against the rules, make it clear, and only sanction behavior that takes place after it's clear. But ArbComm has declared that decisions aren't precedents, so ... there are no standards, SI, and it's hipocrisy to sanction one and tolerate worse, straining at a gnat and swallowing flies. Nasty, biting flies.

[A Horse With No Name]

I realize we see this sort of thing all the time, but that doesn't make it right - on the contrary, it's just as wrong every time it happens. Wikipedia should be fighting its own tendency towards inflexibility, bureaucratization, and petty personal infighting, not rewarding it.

But it won't happen because the talent and brainpower is not there. Intelligent change requires intelligent leadership, and the people with their hands on the steering wheel have shit between their ears.

Plus, the culture is so toxic that anyone with a sensitive disposition and genuine creative skills will seek out more rewarding environments where they can work without the harassment from the endless parade of clowns, hotheads and insecure fools that raise the stress levels on Wikipedia to the scalding point.

I only need one reader to be happy as a clam.

Are clams really happy? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

I'm not convinced that Lara did anything wrong, and what Law did has actually been encouraged at points; the community has been ambiguous about it.

And the "community" wasn't exactly calling for their hides, either. In fact, Arbcom intentionally ignored "community" consensus, which never called for anyone to be desysopped.

[LaraLove]

You lost me. In my opinion, if you've had your bit yanked or you've resigned under a cloud, you (the account) are disgraced.

I wasn't disagreeing with that bit; it's semantics, and I could go either way on it (are martyrs necessarily disgraced?).

Now, as far as agreeing with Abd, I don't believe someone could think so highly of me and support my bit getting yanked. I didn't abuse the tools and I need them for the work I do. At least to be efficient. If you think so highly of me, you should trust me with the tools. And if you do trust me with the tools, but you support them being taken as a means to teach me a lesson, then keep your support because I don't want it.

As it happens, I do trust you with the tools. And I trust Casliber as an Arb. But I think there's such a thing as conduct unbecoming, and I think you and Cas both engaged in it. That I trust and respect (present tense - and, I emphasize, distinct from like) both of you is what upset me, actually--if it'd had been a really lousy admin, one who shows no sensitivity towards the BLP issue, who pulled that, I'd probably have been glad that Arb Comm had a reason to pull the bit.

With regards to the last bit, it's not about teaching you a lesson. I can't imagine that you'll learn one from this, at least not what I'd consider the right one, so if that was it I'd suggest that you just keep the bit and continue the BLP stuff, and save us all some time. It's about accountability: if you fuck up seriously enough, you resign, even if your not resigning would appear to be a net benefit to the project (or the country, or whatever it is you're helping run), and even if there's no chance that you'd fuck up in a related way again (as I think is certainly true of Cas, at least).

And I don't make a habit of letting people accept or reject my support.

Martyrdom wouldn't count as disgraced, but it'd be damn difficult to be a martyr on that project.

Thank you for elaborating and confirming that I'd rather not have your support. That's the sort of bullshit that leaves me salty about losing my bit. Consider:

I lost my bit because people were so upset that I would put a friendship before the well-being of the project. HOWEVER, the reality is that's not what I did nor would I ever. I kept a secret based on a belief that the project would benefit. AND IT DID.

So, now, what we have is the hypocritical decision to remove my admin bit--which is to no benefit to the project whatsoever, whereas me as an admin is a benefit--not because I cannot be trusted with the tools, but because people don't agree with my personal choices that had no affect on the encyclopedia... save the improvements made by Law, of course.

From day one I've done what I think is best for the project. Some people choose to Assume Bad Faith that I put Chip before the well-being of the project, and the decision was to put the well-being of the project to the side and yank my bit.

God, the irony.

I get now that it was a bad call, for a lot of reasons, but the fact remains that I had good intentions AND I was right about him doing well.

Hot damn, someone give me a cupcake.

[Milton Roe]

I get now that it was a bad call, for a lot of reasons, but the fact remains that I had good intentions AND I was right about him doing well.

Hot damn, someone give me a cupcake.

Here you go. Dunno if it will help.

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/CupcakeBeyonceStyle.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Hot damn, someone give me a cupcake.

[LaraLove]

1,000th post.

I prefer chocolate cupcakes, but Beyonce isn't really what I had in mind.

[Krimpet]

1,000th post.

1001st. Beaten by the Stooges, it seems (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Abd]

Hot damn, someone give me a cupcake.

You don't need a cupcake, Lara, you are a cupcake.

The sad thing is that you are absolutely right, and it's not likely to make any difference at all. Not immediately, anyway. Come the revolution....

[Moulton]

Wikipedia should be fighting its own tendency towards inflexibility, bureaucratization, and petty personal infighting, not rewarding it.

Well put. The "community" demands blood, so the community must have blood. Doesn't much matter whose blood it is.

WikiCulture thrives on scandals, alienation, scapegoating, and the kill.

That's because WikiCulture is the culture of dramaturgy, and dramaturgy reaches its pinnacle with stories that parallel the classical passion stories that undergird, divide, inspire, and inflame the history of humankind.

[A Horse With No Name]

Hot damn, someone give me a cupcake.

You don't need a cupcake, Lara, you are a cupcake.

Now tell me something that I don't know! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Guido den Broeder]

In other news, nl:Wikipedia admins come a-tumbling down, now that the accusation of sockpuppetry was demonstrated to be unfounded...





)

[Guido den Broeder]

... a conclusion that is now once again questioned.


All ready for round 2.

[Apathetic]

These yearly reconfirmation RFAs seem like a rife garden bed for drama and disruption.

Surprising no one on en.wiki wants them =]

[Guido den Broeder]

It's a great method to guarantee full-blown drama, especially since the ballots are not secret.

And if you ever vote 'no' to someone belonging to the inner circle, you're doomed. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Is this the end of the discussion? Can I turn off the lights, close the door and officially declare TU to be a good-natured, fun-loving guy who fell victim of a cruel bureaucracy? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[victim of censorship]

Wikipedia is a special place. Well, actually it's not. This same sort of shit happens "in real life" too. Popular actors or politicians do or say something stupid and the media and the public (see community) are all over them. Whatever they were beloved for is pushed aside and all focus is on the fuck-up. It's pretty much the same thing on Wikipedia. I got caught with a hooker in my car, drama ensued, I'll go make another blockbuster and all will be right in the world again... just gotta wait for everyone to realize that my sexual deviance isn't really a big deal and it didn't break the universe.

"Like real life" That's a real HOOT.... If Wikipedia worked like real life, most of the Wikipidiot Admins would be in jail for host of crimes.

[A Horse With No Name]

"God help us if someone marches to the beat of a different drummer." -- Protonk (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[victim of censorship]

"God help us if someone marches to the beat of a different drummer." -- Protonk (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On wikipeidia, all have to march to one drummer, or else!

[A Horse With No Name]

"God help us if someone marches to the beat of a different drummer." -- Protonk (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On wikipeidia, all have to march to one drummer, or else!

Then, by all means, let the drummer be Olodum: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x13ux1_th...us-child_dating

Why deny the obvious, child? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[LaraLove]

Wikipedia is a special place. Well, actually it's not. This same sort of shit happens "in real life" too. Popular actors or politicians do or say something stupid and the media and the public (see community) are all over them. Whatever they were beloved for is pushed aside and all focus is on the fuck-up. It's pretty much the same thing on Wikipedia. I got caught with a hooker in my car, drama ensued, I'll go make another blockbuster and all will be right in the world again... just gotta wait for everyone to realize that my sexual deviance isn't really a big deal and it didn't break the universe.

"Like real life" That's a real HOOT.... If Wikipedia worked like real life, most of the Wikipidiot Admins would be in jail for host of crimes.

Shut up already, nutter.

[victim of censorship]

Wikipedia is a special place. Well, actually it's not. This same sort of shit happens "in real life" too. Popular actors or politicians do or say something stupid and the media and the public (see community) are all over them. Whatever they were beloved for is pushed aside and all focus is on the fuck-up. It's pretty much the same thing on Wikipedia. I got caught with a hooker in my car, drama ensued, I'll go make another blockbuster and all will be right in the world again... just gotta wait for everyone to realize that my sexual deviance isn't really a big deal and it didn't break the universe.

"Like real life" That's a real HOOT.... If Wikipedia worked like real life, most of the Wikipidiot Admins would be in jail for host of crimes.

Shut up already, nutter.

Don't like the truth, so you have to resort to name calling. LL, your the one in the world of make believe. Your the one that's the NUTTER.

So, why don't you crawl back under the wikirock with the other pill bugs that infest the dank, moist wikipedian slander hell.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Deodand]

Wikipedia is a special place. Well, actually it's not. This same sort of shit happens "in real life" too. Popular actors or politicians do or say something stupid and the media and the public (see community) are all over them. Whatever they were beloved for is pushed aside and all focus is on the fuck-up. It's pretty much the same thing on Wikipedia. I got caught with a hooker in my car, drama ensued, I'll go make another blockbuster and all will be right in the world again... just gotta wait for everyone to realize that my sexual deviance isn't really a big deal and it didn't break the universe.

"Like real life" That's a real HOOT.... If Wikipedia worked like real life, most of the Wikipidiot Admins would be in jail for host of crimes.

Shut up already, nutter.

Don't like the truth, so you have to resort to name calling. LL, your the one in the world of make believe. Your the one that's the NUTTER.

So, why don't you crawl back under the wikirock with the other pill bugs that infest the dank, moist wikipedian slander hell.

"Don't like the truth, so you have to resort to name calling." and then you call her a "pill bug" that "infests" wikipedia. Don't see any hypocrisy there? In any case, you ARE a nut. What crimes have Wikipedia admins committed, then, other than offending your nutty right-wing sensibilities and not listening to Your View.

[Moulton]

What crimes have Wikipedia admins committed?

The crime of endless recriminations.

[Deodand]

What crimes have Wikipedia admins committed?

The crime of endless recriminations.

Oh, how witty! Thankfully that's a crime in the real world, so your attempt at humour totally lines up with Victim of Censorship's comment. Hang on...

[Moulton]

It's actually a defining feature of a dysfunctional community.

Rod Serling probably did the best treatment of this observation on the classic episode of Twilight Zone, The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street.

In the MMPORG of Wikipedia, recriminations are the bread and butter of the game — ginning up some plausible interpretation of some random rule to use as a club against one's adversary in the game.

[LaraLove]

Don't like the truth, so you have to resort to name calling. LL, your the one in the world of make believe. Your the one that's the NUTTER.

So, why don't you crawl back under the wikirock with the other pill bugs that infest the dank, moist wikipedian slander hell.

Haha. Did you really just accuse me of "resorting" to name calling? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Don't like the truth, Vic?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Deodand]

Indeed! Next A Horse will be complaining of sexual harassment, Moulton will be complaining of somebody bringing their singularly irritating views to unrelated threads and Broeder will be accusing me of nattering away about irrelevancies.

[LaraLove]

Indeed! Next A Horse will be complaining of sexual harassment, Moulton will be complaining of somebody bringing their singularly irritating views to unrelated threads and Broeder will be accusing me of nattering away about irrelevancies.

Backwards day isn't until January 31. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Deodand]

January 31, hmn. Is it dated such because 1/31 comes out the same in reverse, or is that a mere coinkydink?

[LaraLove]

January 31, hmn. Is it dated such because 1/31 comes out the same in reverse, or is that a mere coinkydink?

Good question. No idea.

[CharlotteWebb]

January 31, hmn. Is it dated such because 1/31 comes out the same in reverse, or is that a mere coinkydink?

Seems rather arbitrary as thirty-three calendar days share this peculiarity when written in that format, that is, with no leading zeroes.

Some prefer the ISO 8601 date format, which allows only six candidates, two of which are present in both systems (but usually conflict with Veterans' Day and the winter solstice).

The next eight-digit "backwards day" is not too far off either: 2010-01-02 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Funny thing, Wikipedia had an article about "backwards day" until January 31, 2007, and I'm guessing it explained all these things.

[victim of censorship]

Wikipedia is a special place. Well, actually it's not. This same sort of shit happens "in real life" too. Popular actors or politicians do or say something stupid and the media and the public (see community) are all over them. Whatever they were beloved for is pushed aside and all focus is on the fuck-up. It's pretty much the same thing on Wikipedia. I got caught with a hooker in my car, drama ensued, I'll go make another blockbuster and all will be right in the world again... just gotta wait for everyone to realize that my sexual deviance isn't really a big deal and it didn't break the universe.

"Like real life" That's a real HOOT.... If Wikipedia worked like real life, most of the Wikipidiot Admins would be in jail for host of crimes.

Shut up already, nutter.

Don't like the truth, so you have to resort to name calling. LL, your the one in the world of make believe. Your the one that's the NUTTER.

So, why don't you crawl back under the wikirock with the other pill bugs that infest the dank, moist wikipedian slander hell.

"Don't like the truth, so you have to resort to name calling." and then you call her a "pill bug" that "infests" wikipedia. Don't see any hypocrisy there? In any case, you ARE a nut. What crimes have Wikipedia admins committed, then, other than offending your nutty right-wing sensibilities and not listening to Your View.

I love Wikipedia adims and apologist. You forget, the Wikirulez don't work here, the wiki "words of art" don't work and are not recognized.

Here it's the arena of ideas and you and your wikipediots don't have "TOOLZ" to cop out and lord over the argument.

This is the whole point, Wikipedia has little respect for those outside the cult. Wikipedia is never to be relied on, due to fact any article may be the local turf of some wikipediot warlord and his/her gang of punks... example

Harry McCarthy Ulster Born Irishman

but in the Wacky world of the wiki... The Irishmen Harry McCarthy, man who wrote the civil war song "Bonnie blue flag" was born in "Brussels, Belgium"
Wacky wiki reality...
Now this will cause some ignorant kid writing a paper to relies on this and get hurt with an FAT F on his/her school paper...

More proof and top of proof that Wikipedia is evil, causes hurt and his hateful of the truth.

[SB_Johnny]

Tell them what they've won Johnny!

Maybe a commemorative beer stein? Or maybe one of those beer bong hats with the styrofoam boobs?

I lost my bit because people were so upset that I would put a friendship before the well-being of the project. HOWEVER, the reality is that's not what I did nor would I ever. I kept a secret based on a belief that the project would benefit. AND IT DID.

Would probably have went better if you had said so in that concise way on the wiki at the time, eh?

[Somey]

but in the Wacky world of the wiki... The Irishmen Harry McCarthy, man who wrote the civil war song "Bonnie blue flag" was born in "Brussels, Belgium"...

I have to admit, despite it being a rather trivial example, Mr. Victim appears to be right about this.

Wikipedia is, indeed, hateful.

[Mr. Mystery]

More pointless drama-stirring. Law is disgraced. the_undertow is disgraced. Jennavecia and GlassCobra are disgraced. If you get desysopped, you're a disgraced admin. To claim to be more offended by someone pointing out that your Wikipedia account is disgraced than by someone referring to you as "mentally unstable" is disturbing.

Lost performative. (Linguistic term that might betray some of my background). Disgraced by whom, in whose eyes?

@Abd: Would you agree that the quality of "disgrace" in this instance is a function of an illocutionary speech act? (As opposed to a perlocutionary act to desysop with "disgrace" as an external consequence?)

[A Horse With No Name]

Indeed! Next A Horse will be complaining of sexual harassment...

Don't mess with my toot-toot! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[LaraLove]

I lost my bit because people were so upset that I would put a friendship before the well-being of the project. HOWEVER, the reality is that's not what I did nor would I ever. I kept a secret based on a belief that the project would benefit. AND IT DID.

Would probably have went better if you had said so in that concise way on the wiki at the time, eh?

Probably. Surrounding it in a wall of explanation seemed to work for some. Perhaps being brief would have pleased more.

[Abd]

Lost performative. (Linguistic term that might betray some of my background). Disgraced by whom, in whose eyes?

@Abd: Would you agree that the quality of "disgrace" in this instance is a function of an illocutionary speech act? (As opposed to a perlocutionary act to desysop with "disgrace" as an external consequence?)

Beats me, for I have no idea what "illocutionary" or "perlocutionary" mean, and I find it impossible to derive them from the context. With "lost performative," I then gave the application, i.e., when there is a lost performative, there is an action which requires an actor, but the usage only tells us the object. Disgraced? in whose eyes? In her own, perhaps, or in the eyes of others, but there is a difference between the two. Am I a "disgraced Wikipedia editor?" In some eyes, perhaps, but certainly not in mine, nor in the eyes of some others. From one of the best Wikipedia writers I know, I got a Barnstar of Integrity for precisely what I was banned for.

As to the terms used in response, perhaps there is are definitions that would provide cogent meaning to the sentence, and I suppose I could try to look it up, but ... I've no motivation at all. I suppose this comment could be the equivalent of tl;dr, it would be to;du,dc. Too obscure, didn't understand, don't care.

On the other hand, what I imagine is that it is some kind of attempt at an insult, to parody what I wrote by using obscure words; but using obscure words just because they are obscure is not what I was doing; the error or device of lost performative is a very important one in understanding deceptive communication, or, similarly, hypnotic technique, which may not be deceptive in intent).

I put my girls to bed and read them to sleep earlier, have I also served others this way tonight?

This post has been edited by Abd:

[victim of censorship]

but in the Wacky world of the wiki... The Irishmen Harry McCarthy, man who wrote the civil war song "Bonnie blue flag" was born in "Brussels, Belgium"...

I have to admit, despite it being a rather trivial example, Mr. Victim appears to be right about this.

Wikipedia is, indeed, hateful.

As you can see, it its... consider this, if wiki is wrong on a trivial, can wikipeidia be trusted on any article considering the "GANG CULTURE" of WIKIPEIDIA and lack of governance or consistent oversight, which has failed. Wikipedia has degenerate and devolved in to a pit of shit.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[SB_Johnny]

I lost my bit because people were so upset that I would put a friendship before the well-being of the project. HOWEVER, the reality is that's not what I did nor would I ever. I kept a secret based on a belief that the project would benefit. AND IT DID.

Would probably have went better if you had said so in that concise way on the wiki at the time, eh?

Probably. Surrounding it in a wall of explanation seemed to work for some. Perhaps being brief would have pleased more.

Well, leaves less to twist for the gamers, at least :-). The problem in those sorts of blowups is that the more reasonable sorts tend to hit the tl;dr buttons pretty quickly, leaving the interpretations to be spun out of context by the members of the inquisition.

But of course then you hit the other wall with those who think validity is measured in kilobytes, and that a concise reply entails something to hide. They tend to have blank looks when asked to curb their dog(ma)s.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

As you can see, it its... consider this, if wiki is wrong on a trivial, can wikipeidia be trusted on any article considering the "GANG CULTURE" of WIKIPEIDIA and lack of governance or consistent oversight, which has failed. Wikipedia has degenerated and devolved in to a pit of shit.

Care to work up some topics on the subject ...? The anthropologists have already arrived: http://scholar.google.com list of Pee-dai papers.

Indeed! Next A Horse will be complaining of sexual harassment...

Don't mess with my toot-toot! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

There is that old saying that "you are never more than 3 people away from someone that knows the Pope" ...
On the Wikipedia, it is more like "you are never more than 3 clicks away from some fairly entertaining filth".

as this topic has kind of petered pass the peak of a thousand pickled posts ... please excuse my indulgences for a moment.

Whereas Zoophilia is surprising modest by Pee-dia standards (and seemingly has plenty of dissatisfied customers), no more than a click or two away you discover one of Jimmy Wales' faithful unpaid Wiki-serfs taking the time and trouble to "Cropped, colour corrected, enhanced" a picture of a Donkey show club in Mexico where drunken tourists are taken to watch hookers mount drugged donkeys ... and not to race on the beach either (they, the donkeys, have to held down by all fours) ... and a link to an entire Mediawiki wiki powered website called Beastwiki.com. Jimbo would be so proud.

Now ... where is this going folks .... yes, you guessed it .... a David Shankbone reference.

Remember the speculation over who 'Carmen Jones' was? Was it David Shankbone or his funding patron and Fire Island porn mogul hang-around Israeli Consulate diplomat David Saranga? Well, it turns out that Karmen Jones is the stage name of a "a trashy hooker from hungary, but she loves to suck animal cock". Funnily enough, I thought it was only Koreans and some Chinese that liked to eat dog.

There is an apocryphal tale form the history of pornography that when the producers went to shoot the first bestiality movie, it took half an hour to find a female "actress" willing to do it ... but two and a half week to find some guy who was willing to let his dog do the dirty. Boy, I have lived a sheltered life ... it appears to have become some kind of rite of passage these days. Suitable for work reference: (link).

Oh ... I see ... Carmen Jones is also the name of Otto Preminger musical. Oh, well, ignore this as original research if you will.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Mr. Mystery]

Lost performative. (Linguistic term that might betray some of my background). Disgraced by whom, in whose eyes?

@Abd: Would you agree that the quality of "disgrace" in this instance is a function of an illocutionary speech act? (As opposed to a perlocutionary act to desysop with "disgrace" as an external consequence?)

Beats me, for I have no idea what "illocutionary" or "perlocutionary" mean, and I find it impossible to derive them from the context. With "lost performative," I then gave the application, i.e., when there is a lost performative, there is an action which requires an actor, but the usage only tells us the object. Disgraced? in whose eyes? In her own, perhaps, or in the eyes of others, but there is a difference between the two. Am I a "disgraced Wikipedia editor?" In some eyes, perhaps, but certainly not in mine, nor in the eyes of some others. From one of the best Wikipedia writers I know, I got a Barnstar of Integrity for precisely what I was banned for.

As to the terms used in response, perhaps there is are definitions that would provide cogent meaning to the sentence, and I suppose I could try to look it up, but ... I've no motivation at all. I suppose this comment could be the equivalent of tl;dr, it would be to;du,dc. Too obscure, didn't understand, don't care.

On the other hand, what I imagine is that it is some kind of attempt at an insult, to parody what I wrote by using obscure words; but using obscure words just because they are obscure is not what I was doing; the error or device of lost performative is a very important one in understanding deceptive communication, or, similarly, hypnotic technique, which may not be deceptive in intent).

I put my girls to bed and read them to sleep earlier, have I also served others this way tonight?

In speech act theory, an illocutionary act is committed by means of a verbal performance of some sort that constitutes the substance or "force" of the act itself. Typical examples in the literature are wedding vows, or christenings. A perlocutionary act is a verbal performance that refers to an extra-linguistic "effect" of some kind, such as a "promise" to do something "concrete." I asked because Lara indicated that her "disgrace" was a consequence of having been desysoped, which would suggest that a perlocutionary act (on someone's part) "to desysop" was "at fault" for the disgrace, whereas if she had said something to the meaningful effect of "I'm disgraced, consequently I was desysoped" we could conclude that the quality of disgrace was illoutionary, that is, a function parcel of her admiting this, (other parcels being earlier speech acts, deceptions etc. constituting the state of disgrace referred to) rather than "disgrace" primarily as a consequence of a procedure to desysop.

Current linguistic performative theory derives from speech acts. "In whose eyes?" you asked: those of the speaking subject, naturally. The performative signifier can seem "lost," as it were, if you take post-modern theory seriously without exposure to modernism, but because interpretations are relative does not mean the signifier is without substance. (The words I used are crucial to the linguistic performative theory you claimed knowledge of; no disrespect was intended, I was simply interested in discovering how deep in the theory you went.)

This post has been edited by Mr. Mystery:

[A Horse With No Name]

Oh ... I see ... Carmen Jones is also the name of Otto Preminger musical. Oh, well, ignore this as original research if you will.

And Dorothy Dandridge was five of the ten most beautiful women in movies!

[Milton Roe]

Lost performative. (Linguistic term that might betray some of my background). Disgraced by whom, in whose eyes?

@Abd: Would you agree that the quality of "disgrace" in this instance is a function of an illocutionary speech act? (As opposed to a perlocutionary act to desysop with "disgrace" as an external consequence?)

Beats me, for I have no idea what "illocutionary" or "perlocutionary" mean, and I find it impossible to derive them from the context. With "lost performative," I then gave the application, i.e., when there is a lost performative, there is an action which requires an actor, but the usage only tells us the object. Disgraced? in whose eyes? In her own, perhaps, or in the eyes of others, but there is a difference between the two. Am I a "disgraced Wikipedia editor?" In some eyes, perhaps, but certainly not in mine, nor in the eyes of some others. From one of the best Wikipedia writers I know, I got a Barnstar of Integrity for precisely what I was banned for.

As to the terms used in response, perhaps there is are definitions that would provide cogent meaning to the sentence, and I suppose I could try to look it up, but ... I've no motivation at all. I suppose this comment could be the equivalent of tl;dr, it would be to;du,dc. Too obscure, didn't understand, don't care.

On the other hand, what I imagine is that it is some kind of attempt at an insult, to parody what I wrote by using obscure words; but using obscure words just because they are obscure is not what I was doing; the error or device of lost performative is a very important one in understanding deceptive communication, or, similarly, hypnotic technique, which may not be deceptive in intent).

I put my girls to bed and read them to sleep earlier, have I also served others this way tonight?

In speech act theory, an illocutionary act is committed by means of a verbal performance of some sort that constitutes the substance or "force" of the act itself. Typical examples in the literature are wedding vows, or christenings. A perlocutionary act is a verbal performance that refers to an extra-linguistic "effect" of some kind, such as a "promise" to do something "concrete." I asked because Lara indicated that her "disgrace" was a consequence of having been desysoped, which would suggest that a perlocutionary act (on someone's part) "to desysop" was "at fault" for the disgrace, whereas if she had said something to the meaningful effect of "I'm disgraced, consequently I was desysoped" we could conclude that the quality of disgrace was illoutionary, that is, a function parcel of her admiting this, (other parcels being earlier speech acts, deceptions etc. constituting the state of disgrace referred to) rather than "disgrace" primarily as a consequence of a procedure to desysop.

Current linguistic performative theory derives from speech acts. "In whose eyes?" you asked: those of the speaking subject, naturally. The performative signifier can seem "lost," as it were, if you take post-modern theory seriously without exposure to modernism, but because interpretations are relative does not mean the signifier is without substance. (The words I used are crucial to the linguistic performative theory you claimed knowledge of; no disrespect was intended, I was simply interested in discovering how deep in the theory you went.)

Oh, man. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

I was going to explain to Abd why quantum electrodynamics is no improvement over ordinary low energy quantum methods in talking about deuteron fusion at room temp. But decided not to, due to the (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) factor. And now you had to go and do this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Abd]

In speech act theory, an illocutionary act is committed by means of a verbal performance of some sort that constitutes the substance or "force" of the act itself. Typical examples in the literature are wedding vows, or christenings. A perlocutionary act is a verbal performance that refers to an extra-linguistic "effect" of some kind, such as a "promise" to do something "concrete." I asked because Lara indicated that her "disgrace" was a consequence of having been desysoped, which would suggest that a perlocutionary act (on someone's part) "to desysop" was "at fault" for the disgrace, whereas if she had said something to the meaningful effect of "I'm disgraced, consequently I was desysoped" we could conclude that the quality of disgrace was illoutionary, that is, a function parcel of her admiting this, (other parcels being earlier speech acts, deceptions etc. constituting the state of disgrace referred to) rather than "disgrace" primarily as a consequence of a procedure to desysop.

Current linguistic performative theory derives from speech acts. "In whose eyes?" you asked: those of the speaking subject, naturally. The performative signifier can seem "lost," as it were, if you take post-modern theory seriously without exposure to modernism, but because interpretations are relative does not mean the signifier is without substance. (The words I used are crucial to the linguistic performative theory you claimed knowledge of; no disrespect was intended, I was simply interested in discovering how deep in the theory you went.)

Thanks for explaining, Mr. Mystery.

I'm an amateur at almost everything, my knowledge will sometimes be far above the knowledge of nonspecialists or other than serious long-term students, but well below that of experts or specialists or even serious students. My knowledge of "lost performative" is not derived from direct study of linguistics, such that I'd have knowledge of the terms now defined by Mr. Mystery, but from Neuro-Linguistic Programming reading (and actual practice, in an amateur sense, i.e, personal experimentation) years ago. As to the actual discussion, I sense two different attitudes on Lara's part. On the one hand, she sensed a personal disgrace, but, dissonant with that, she seems to feel justified in what she did, or that her error was within what should have been considered minor. Did she resign because she felt disgraced, in fact, i.e., because she felt shame, or because she sensed that the community viewed her as disgraced, and she sought to avoid useless struggle? It may have been a bit of both, but I don't know Lara well enough to move beyond this slightly informed speculation, and I'm not sure it matters.

I've said that I don't consider her disgraced at all, but that isn't intended to deny the obvious: some think her disgraced, i.e., that her actions were disgraceful. So, to those people, she's disgraced. To me, not, and to herself, it's up to her. That's what I meant by "lost performative," because the truth of the statement "Lara is a disgraced former administrator" depends on the "performer," i.e., the one who experiences or holds the sense of disgrace. Attributing the adjective disgraced to Lara, as implied in the statement, loses the distinction and implies that it's a quality of Lara, necessarily, instead of one who is cognitive of disgrace. Which might be Lara, indeed, or not.

Linguistic "errors" can be of simple incompleteness;perhaps they aren't errors, but they function as errors when assumptions attach to them because of the omission. The error here, if it is one, would be that disgrace is a quality of Lara's alone.

Mr. Mystery, I hope that your probe was successful, and that you now know precisely how deep my understanding is. My intention, ultimately, is that I appear exactly as I am.

On the substance, however, you wrote, in response to my question about "In whose eyes," "in those of the speaking subject, naturally." That's an incomplete answer, you know, and the conclusion stated is not "natural." "Disgraced" is a passive construction and the "performer" is indeed lost. It may be true that the performer is implied, that the speaker is assumed to agree with the statement and to be responsible for it, but most making such a statement would not be willing, I'd guess, to take responsibility for that, and stating it passively does allow evasion of responsibility.

"I see Lara's actions as disgusting and they are disgraceful, conduct unbecoming an administrator according to my personal standards, she is disgraced in my eyes."

But "Lara is a disgraced former administrator" could be just a neutral statement, made by someone with no interest in condemnation of Lara. From context, though, as I recall, the statement was intended to impugn her integrity, and, if so, the passive construction avoided personal responsibility for that. But maybe I'm all confused to hell and I'm not exercised to look back.

[Abd]

This has nothing to do with the undertow. Be warned. Danger, wild-eyed fringe science, this nut case is going to try to set up a nuclear reaction in his kitchen, some time within the next two months.

Don't worry. The radiation levels are so low and so non-penetrating, most of it, that it takes extreme measures to even detect them. A dosimeter near the experiment would register nothing, you have to put the damn thing right inside the cell, within a millimeter of the cathode where the reaction takes place, to see anything. Except for a few stray neutrons, at levels low enough that with the most sensitive electronic detectors, they had a terrible time showing that it was even above cosmic ray background. Deep in a mine in Italy. That there truly was any neutron radiation at all was only shown conclusively by very recent studies published first in 2008, and that hasn't been widely confirmed. Except for some very low-cost experiments, including some done by amateurs, and only published on-line to my knowledge. That work began in 2007, before the neutron results were known, but ... as the results were being analyzed, and once they knew what to look for, the experimenters looked, and, sure enough, they found some characteristic neutron tracks. Enough to be sure that it was above background? That I don't know, but the SPAWAR work was definitely above background.

Oh, man. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

I was going to explain to Abd why quantum electrodynamics is no improvement over ordinary low energy quantum methods in talking about deuteron fussion at room temp. But decided not to, due to the (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) factor. And now you had to go and do this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

And I thought I was doing you a service by replacing sedatives by something with no hangover. So much for my helpful intentions.

Ahem. "No improvement" is undefined. No improvement in what respect? QED is more accurate, so the issue is quantitative, and the whole point of Fleischmann's work was to test the boundary, the limits of the difference. You are simply repeating, Milton, the assumption he was testing, attempting to falsify. Your assumption was also his, he's reported, he expected to find no difference within his experimental error. He was wrong. Or right, depending on your perspective.

QED is more accurate, but the math, apparently, is horrific.

In any case, Takahashi's Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory, developed out of experimental evidence that multibody fusion, shown in studies of fusion cross-section using deuteron bombardment of palladium deuteride targets, did occur at rates far higher than predicted by "normal low energy quantum methods," involves the use of quantum field theory calculation techniques, and his published work (under peer review, and covered in reliable secondary sources, if anyone cares about WP standards) predicts, from the calculations, that a particular configuration of two deuterium molecules (not "deuterons"), caused by deuterium gas entering solid-state confinement prior to the dissociation into deuterons that takes place in the palladium lattice -- so this only happens at the surface -- would collapse and fuse within a femtosecond to form Be-8, which then immediately fissions to form two energetic helium nuclei. The theory does explain many of the puzzles about cold fusion, but it is only one of many competing theories at this point.

It is obviously a rare configuration! D2 gas survives little beyond the interface, and for two D2 molecules to enter a single cubic confinement space-- which then forces the tetrahedral configuration, would be truly rare (and would have to be quite transient, because the forces will rupture the lattice, a single D2 molecule is tighter than normally allowed. Good thing it's rare! Or else there would be serious meltdowns or worse. Damn! We just built that lab, too!

I really DGAF about the theory. My intention is to demonstrate radiation and other phenomena from a simple chemical process, apparently not difficult once you know how to do it, the formation of a thin layer of palladium deuteride at high deuterium concentration, and, in so doing, I'd only be replicating what's been done already by many researchers. What's actually happening at the atomic and nuclear level, I won't be able to observe; I'm interested in what would be visible with cheap integrating radiation detectors, and a cheap microscope, and a cell design that makes it possible to directly observe the cathode while also monitoring radiation, and with a piezo detector that will generate pressure wave information, i.e., sound. I want to make a video of a reaction taking place, with sound (which may require processing to bring it into the audible, it's high-frequency from the reports I read). From the publications, there are what appear to be melted spots that appear in the deposited palladium, and IR imaging studies, from the back of a foil cathode, show transient spots (winking on for a moment) that are substantially elevated above the general temperature of the electrolyte and the cathode. I've asked researchers, I've found no evidence that anyone has previously looked seriously in visible light, but if palladium gets hot enough to melt a small spot, there should be visible light, a flash, and this should correlate with the pressure waves, quite likely.

I'm not going to be monitoring instantaneous alpha radiation (I would if I could), because it's far more difficult under the conditions, it is such low penetration. I strongly suspect that the alpha radiation would come in bursts correlated with flashes of light, however. Neutrons are detected in these experiments, but the levels are very low, and I'm not going to be running the cells for as long as the runs where they find, with a 1x2 cm detector, about 10 neutron tracks. (Background is about 1 track). However, those are with raw CR-39 detectors. I'm going to try to amplify that neutron signal with a Boron-10 neutron converter screen. Expensive little piece of purified isotope... but I got a donation of enough to do the job.

Think about it. I was studying nuclear physics when I was under twelve years old. I thought I'd be a nuclear physicist. I went to Caltech and sat with Feynman and Pauling. Then I became a musician and did a lot of very different stuff. Here I get to try to do something that may be tantamount to watching and recording tiny thermonuclear explosions. I'm describing what I'm doing to a whole community of experimenters, and it's quite possible someone will do it before I do, but I might be the first person to actually see one of these things. I'd call that fun. Now, what did you do today?

[A Horse With No Name]

What do you say we (finally) close this with a song?

In tribute to the late Al Martino (RIP, Johnny Fontane -- but was the horse's head really necessary?):

[Milton Roe]

This has nothing to do with the undertow. Be warned. Danger, wild-eyed fringe science, this nut case is going to try to set up a nuclear reaction in his kitchen, some time within the next two months.

Don't worry. The radiation levels are so low and so non-penetrating, most of it, that it takes extreme measures to even detect them. A dosimeter near the experiment would register nothing, you have to put the damn thing right inside the cell, within a millimeter of the cathode where the reaction takes place, to see anything. Except for a few stray neutrons, at levels low enough that with the most sensitive electronic detectors, they had a terrible time showing that it was even above cosmic ray background. Deep in a mine in Italy. That there truly was any neutron radiation at all was only shown conclusively by very recent studies published first in 2008, and that hasn't been widely confirmed. Except for some very low-cost experiments, including some done by amateurs, and only published on-line to my knowledge. That work began in 2007, before the neutron results were known, but ... as the results were being analyzed, and once they knew what to look for, the experimenters looked, and, sure enough, they found some characteristic neutron tracks. Enough to be sure that it was above background? That I don't know, but the SPAWAR work was definitely above background.

Why? None of this makes sense. If you're fusing 4 D's into one Be-8 which then fissions, each alpha gets (let me see) something like 23.8 MeV. Which makes them hotter than you'll ever see from alpha decay, and up there with helium nuclei from a small cyclotron. Range in air should be on the order of (let me see) about 26 cm, or 10 inches. More than hot enough to rip through a mica Geiger counter window (which after all is designed let in 4-5 MeV alphas), and to show up in all the ways that alphas show up normally.

But these alphas are partly stopped by paladium, you say! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Well, no. First of all, that's what your fine division treats-- you can even see fission fragment tracks from fissile materials if you spread it out in thin layers THAT way (that was historically how fission was first really truly confirmed, after it was suspected chemically). The other thing is that this theory has essentially all the heat coming from kinetic energy of these alphas, so in that sense there are so many of them that they're thick as flies. A sample of warm paladium should emit roughly as many alphas as the same size sample of plutonium-244, used in radiothermal isotope heat generators because most of its "heat" is from alpha emission. It's plenty alpha-hot anyway. Even the surface generates a lot of alphas at those powers, and here you are postulating alphas of 4 times nomal energy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Let me put it another way: the Americium-241 in your household smoke detector works by ionizing air with 5.4 Mev alphas. It's not hard to detect or make a useful instrument out of, and yet there is only about a quarter of a milligram of Am-241 in there. At 4e4 decays per second that's about 34 nanowatts if I haven't missed a decimal. And your powers are what?

Ahem. "No improvement" is undefined. No improvement in what respect? QED is more accurate, so the issue is quantitative, and the whole point of Fleischmann's work was to test the boundary, the limits of the difference. You are simply repeating, Milton, the assumption he was testing, attempting to falsify. Your assumption was also his, he's reported, he expected to find no difference within his experimental error. He was wrong. Or right, depending on your perspective.

QED is more accurate, but the math, apparently, is horrific.

Yes, but it reduces to simpler math whin the limit of weak fields, which we have here. Special relativity is more accurate than Newtonian mechanics, but there's no point in using it to analyze the impact of a baseball or even rifle bullet. The math is harder, but the differences don't make enough difference that your equipment can see it. So what's the point? Non-use of QED introduces errors of parts per million in spectra, and it isn't even used to analyze "hot fusion," where the energies are far arger and the fields are similar. Paladium has a higher Z, to be sure, but it doesn't matter if has to get out of the way long before D hits D. You can't wave your hands and create an electrostatic screen at distances far smaller than Pd or D atoms...

You will remember the fiasco of Julian Schwinger, who came up with a cold fusion explanation toward the end of his career, and by the time they unpacked all that complicated math, they found out that he had forgotten to include a coulomb potential term. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Yeah, of course fusion goes like shot without that. But it does in ordinary QM also.

In any case, Takahashi's Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory, developed out of experimental evidence that multibody fusion, shown in studies of fusion cross-section using deuteron bombardment of palladium deuteride targets, did occur at rates far higher than predicted by "normal low energy quantum methods," involves the use of quantum field theory calculation techniques, and his published work (under peer review, and covered in reliable secondary sources, if anyone cares about WP standards) predicts, from the calculations, that a particular configuration of two deuterium molecules (not "deuterons"), caused by deuterium gas entering solid-state confinement prior to the dissociation into deuterons that takes place in the palladium lattice -- so this only happens at the surface -- would collapse and fuse within a femtosecond to form Be-8, which then immediately fissions to form two energetic helium nuclei. The theory does explain many of the puzzles about cold fusion, but it is only one of many competing theories at this point.

I'm sorry, but it sounds like pathological science. You should be able to explain (or Takahashi should) in small words why QED is necessary to understand any of this.

I really DGAF about the theory. My intention is to demonstrate radiation and other phenomena from a simple chemical process, apparently not difficult once you know how to do it, the formation of a thin layer of palladium deuteride at high deuterium concentration, and, in so doing, I'd only be replicating what's been done already by many researchers. What's actually happening at the atomic and nuclear level, I won't be able to observe; I'm interested in what would be visible with cheap integrating radiation detectors, and a cheap microscope, and a cell design that makes it possible to directly observe the cathode while also monitoring radiation, and with a piezo detector that will generate pressure wave information, i.e., sound. I want to make a video of a reaction taking place, with sound (which may require processing to bring it into the audible, it's high-frequency from the reports I read). From the publications, there are what appear to be melted spots that appear in the deposited palladium, and IR imaging studies, from the back of a foil cathode, show transient spots (winking on for a moment) that are substantially elevated above the general temperature of the electrolyte and the cathode. I've asked researchers, I've found no evidence that anyone has previously looked seriously in visible light, but if palladium gets hot enough to melt a small spot, there should be visible light, a flash, and this should correlate with the pressure waves, quite likely.

I'm not going to be monitoring instantaneous alpha radiation (I would if I could), because it's far more difficult under the conditions, it is such low penetration.

See discussion above. There is no reason why anything that makes 24 MeV alphas at any point should have low penetration. This amouts to an ad hoc assumption that fusion in Pd does not occur except at an equivalent depth of metal equal to 26 cm of air. Well, why is that? More handwaving about how the lattice has to be JUST thick enough that we never see hardly any of these hot alphas. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) Riiiiight.

If we mix a little beryllium (or less toxic carbon or oxygen) into the Pd, any alphas should give us the standard neutron spallation reaction from these light elements, a reaction used in neutron generators. So you don't have to see the alphas if they're deep. Any impurity from light isotopes and they should be producing neutrons like mad (evenif it's 1 neutron per every 100,000 alphas, if you calculate numbers of alphas from the heat, it's still enough neutrons to fry you, if you have any C-13 or 0-17 in there at all).

I strongly suspect that the alpha radiation would come in bursts correlated with flashes of light, however. Neutrons are detected in these experiments, but the levels are very low, and I'm not going to be running the cells for as long as the runs where they find, with a 1x2 cm detector, about 10 neutron tracks. (Background is about 1 track). However, those are with raw CR-39 detectors. I'm going to try to amplify that neutron signal with a Boron-10 neutron converter screen. Expensive little piece of purified isotope... but I got a donation of enough to do the job.

Think about it. I was studying nuclear physics when I was under twelve years old. I thought I'd be a nuclear physicist. I went to Caltech and sat with Feynman and Pauling. Then I became a musician and did a lot of very different stuff. Here I get to try to do something that may be tantamount to watching and recording tiny thermonuclear explosions. I'm describing what I'm doing to a whole community of experimenters, and it's quite possible someone will do it before I do, but I might be the first person to actually see one of these things. I'd call that fun. Now, what did you do today?

I got a patent granted in Australia for a new self-cleaning cat litterbox. That puts me one step closer to world domination in this field. So be nice. At this rate, I think the world will probably hear about me before it does you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[LaraLove]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[Mr. Mystery]

On the substance, however, you wrote, in response to my question about "In whose eyes," "in those of the speaking subject, naturally." That's an incomplete answer, you know, and the conclusion stated is not "natural." "Disgraced" is a passive construction and the "performer" is indeed lost. It may be true that the performer is implied, that the speaker is assumed to agree with the statement and to be responsible for it, but most making such a statement would not be willing, I'd guess, to take responsibility for that, and stating it passively does allow evasion of responsibility.

"I see Lara's actions as disgusting and they are disgraceful, conduct unbecoming an administrator according to my personal standards, she is disgraced in my eyes."

But "Lara is a disgraced former administrator" could be just a neutral statement, made by someone with no interest in condemnation of Lara. From context, though, as I recall, the statement was intended to impugn her integrity, and, if so, the passive construction avoided personal responsibility for that. But maybe I'm all confused to hell and I'm not exercised to look back.

Lara in this case constituted the "speaking subject," minimally assuming a "natural connection" between the online identity and the person it represents. Her words suggested a state of "disgrace" extant as a sort of social condition pursuant to desysop in general, irrespective of "personal feelings" or local context. I agree with what you said above, that this sentiment could be expressed neutrally, whether i or p. The beauty or the horror, as it were, of speech acts is that the impression conveyed through a verbal performance does not necessarily depend on the cognizance of the performer; i.e. when someone does not know how what they are saying conveys other than the intended meaning, but the terms used to signify any meaning are not "lost" unless they are unheard or unrecognized or somehow forgotten. Even in passive construction, the author, or the speaker, has to assume some minimal responsibility for the meaning of what they express. And where passive voice is used to actively evade moral responsibility, the "show" as it were, goes on.

[the_undertow]

Good stuff.

See, this is why I find it useful to distinguish between "Wikipedians" and "Wikipediots".

6. wikipedia 782 up, 171 down

The world's largest forum for anonymous arguments. Argue with everyone in the world on any topic imaginable. You may be Stephen Hawking, so-called "expert", but you need to reconcile your views on black holes with Bob from Idaho who thinks they are portals to Narnia and find some neutral point of view that you can both agree on.

I wanted to find a place to argue about Bruce Jenner's Wheaties boxes and found Wikipedia.

by Cunningest Linguist May 7, 2006

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
Brilliant.

This is a double-edged axe that doesn't just cut down Stephen Hawking from the irritation of dealing with Bob, for Bob will have little support higher up the defacto structure, but it also cuts him down if he's dealing with ignorant but established editors who tag his articles, AfD them, and edit war with him if he writes something they don't understand, and Hawking stands a good chance of being blocked, especially if anonymous. Those arrogant experts tend to have strong POVs, imagining that they understand a subject better than average, and strong POV is what gets most easily sanctioned. It even happens if the expert only advises in Talk, you'd think ArbComm would get this. They don't.

Are we really going to squeeze 50 pages out of this topic? I think Law/TU got off the train several stops back -- not that it really matters, at this point.

However, I must say that I admire his comment on some imbecile who referred to the TU account as "disgraced": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319201292

I'm going for 100. #1, aim high. Not really.

We are likely to make a thousand comments, it's at 971 now.

More pointless drama-stirring. Law is disgraced. the_undertow is disgraced. Jennavecia and GlassCobra are disgraced. If you get desysopped, you're a disgraced admin. To claim to be more offended by someone pointing out that your Wikipedia account is disgraced than by someone referring to you as "mentally unstable" is disturbing.

Lost performative. (Linguistic term that might betray some of my background). Disgraced by whom, in whose eyes? Lara, this is what's in my eyes:

Lara Love, AKA Jennavecia: A former Wikipedia administrator who, in 2008, identified and confronted abuse by William M. Connolley, confirming Abd in his understanding of the situation, an understanding that carried him through to the RfAr that resulted not only in Abd's ban, but also WMC's loss of his admin bit.

Lara Love was condemned by many for standing by her friend, for assuming good faith, for supporting him in his positive work on the project and not revealing the secret she kept. Friends sometimes don't live up to the trust placed in them, and if we remained in fear of this, we'd never trust anyone. In order to avoid further disruption, Lara resigned her administrative privileges.

Who would I rather sit down and talk with, in person, Lara or one of those who condemned her? Hint: that she's beautiful isn't relevant. So who is "disgraced"?

Law, okay. He really screwed up, but he's got his own real-life problems, I'm quite sure, and Wikipedia wasn't about to help him resolve them. If he manages to get a grip, to become rigorously honest (with himself and with those he trusts, not with "Wikipedia,"), he, also, would probably make for a deeper conversation.

As someone who really gamed the system, I would never consider myself disgraced. Lara, you fell on your sword and for that, I applaud you. However, I resent the notion that you were desysopped because of me. You were admonished because of me - you were desysopped because of hubris. There is a clear cut difference between admitting a fallacy and daring the gods that be to take action.

It's one thing to admit to go along with the notion that I am the Lex Luthor of Wikipedia (23 emails can't be wrong)- it's entirely another to endorse it, to embrace it, and to shove it in the face of the ArbCom. I asked for neither. In fact, I advocated denial. You were reprimanded for knowing who I was; you were de-adminned for being unapologetic.

As shitty as it is, those who admitted it skated. Those who challenged, lost. But to blame me for the fact that you fell on a sword and found it less than comfortable is simply not fair.

[Moulton]

Wikipedia doesn't do fairness.

[A Horse With No Name]

Lara, you fell on your sword and for that, I applaud you.

Ouch! Next time, try falling on Friday -- he is much softer to land upon! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Random832]

tl;dr: "She's disgraced? Says who?"

[LaraLove]

As someone who really gamed the system, I would never consider myself disgraced. Lara, you fell on your sword and for that, I applaud you. However, I resent the notion that you were desysopped because of me. You were admonished because of me - you were desysopped because of hubris. There is a clear cut difference between admitting a fallacy and daring the gods that be to take action.

It's one thing to admit to go along with the notion that I am the Lex Luthor of Wikipedia (23 emails can't be wrong)- it's entirely another to endorse it, to embrace it, and to shove it in the face of the ArbCom. I asked for neither. In fact, I advocated denial. You were reprimanded for knowing who I was; you were de-adminned for being unapologetic.

As shitty as it is, those who admitted it skated. Those who challenged, lost. But to blame me for the fact that you fell on a sword and found it less than comfortable is simply not fair.

You're right, Chip. I wasn't desysopped because of you, and I don't blame you for that. I owned what I did and if I could go back to the night it was announced, I would handle things differently. I'd still admit it, but I'd be much less inclined to defend. I maintain that it was overblown, but I now realize it wasn't worth the fight. As for "shove it," I've got another use for that term.

You're not the Lex Luthor of Wikipeida, Chip. You're just another banned editor turned troll.

[Moulton]

It's possible that banned editors may become undead zombies rather than trolls.

In any event, those left behind do tend to get their brains eaten, bit by bit.

[LaraLove]

It's possible that banned editors may become undead zombies rather than trolls.

In any event, those left behind do tend to get their brains eaten, bit by bit.

It's possible that editors banned for socking not create further sock accounts to shove it in the face of ArbCom that they can't technically stop them.

[Moulton]

It's possible to negotiate mutually agreeable terms of engagement.

But it's not likely.

[LaraLove]

It's possible to negotiate mutually agreeable terms of engagement.

But it's not likely.

All this over an online "encyclopedia."

[Moulton]

It's only incidental that WP purports to be an encyclopedia. It's really an Encounter Group in which people reprise and work through perplexing issues which have troubled them for as long as they can remember.

[Abd]

[Stuff on the topic of cold fusion by someone who obviously has some physics under his belt, if not in his digestive tract.]

I've replied in the thread on the article, Cold fusion, at length, of course. Response in detail

[Random832]

Why not take a page from MMORPG design - introduce a feature that has been known to cut down on competitiveness between players over scarce resources... I am talking, of course, about instanced dungeons.

[A Horse With No Name]

While we are off-topic...I am currently reading a new translation of Solzhenitsyn's "In the First Circle." Fascinating book -- I am truly enjoying it.

Any fans of ol' Aleks out there? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Guido den Broeder]

All I read is Kafka. And I don't need any books to do that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Abd]

It's possible that banned editors may become undead zombies rather than trolls.

In any event, those left behind do tend to get their brains eaten, bit by bit.

It's possible that editors banned for socking not create further sock accounts to shove it in the face of ArbCom that they can't technically stop them.

Sure, it's possible, Lara. But it's also a very normal human response to perceived oppression, especially among Americans, but also many others who have developed some sense of individual freedom, to be defiant. I probably think of creating a sock account once a day or so, but especially if I go back and read the decision that banned me. It's so bad, that decision, that it leaves me so hopeless that I'm not about to ask ArbComm to reconsider, and I'm really persistent with due process. Much, much easier to poke it in their face, it would be.

Editing Wikipedia is highly addictive, for reasons that many here could explain. I'm still bouncing, I'd say. I'd guess that there are a fair number of suicides among banned editors, editors who were using Wikipedia to stave off depression. "Wikipedia is not therapy." Sure. But what this attitude does is to turn Wikipedia editors, theoretically human, into uncaring fascists. Too bad we have to send those [members of a rejected group] into [exile, anywhere but here], but the needs of the [project] demand it.

ArbComm and the community that remain active are reaping what they sow. Most of the active community is blissfully unaware of what happens, or still thinks that the good that is found on Wikipedia outbalances the evil, but it's a difficult moral problem for those who have seen what takes place, and who come to realize that it's not just an occasional quirk or mistake. If it were such, it's a wiki, and it would be easy to fix. It's not easy, not directly, and not alone.

When the community is active and asleep, it's a dangerous monster. I will want to see the community awaken before I return, or I won't return. Off-wiki, I'll help facilitate that process, if others want me to help. Otherwise, the world is full of injustices, so many of them, so little time. I generally put my efforts into places where I think some leverage will help, and I was trying that with Wikipedia, and it had looked like there was some hope, but that was probably because, with the first RfAr, I was dealing with a truly blatant case of admin recusal failure, the burnout of the admin had become obvious to many, both on and off-wiki, and thus the attempts to turn it all against me failed, at least initially. But the community, and ArbComm is more a sample of the community than it is a representative or leader of it, dislikes people who are effective at uncovering the problems of Wikipedia, it makes them uncomfortable. Someone who does that must have some secret, evil agenda, it is easily assumed. Otherwise they would just get along with the rest of us, we are one big happy family, aren't we? All except for the troublemakers, right?

I don't blame the ban evaders one bit. Some of them were doing reprehensible things, some weren't. A few of them might have been banned even from a healthy project. Others had problems that could have been addressed in a healthy community. I suggested at one time that being banned wouldn't mean being blocked. It would mean that a bot would be set up to automatically revert all your edits. Any other editor could then review them and accept them, thus providing an open path to be cooperative, or not. The bot would be programmed with either specific articles, specific categories, or specific namespaces or filespaces. Such a user could edit their own user space, and unless they turned that into a serious problem, no problem. This solution isn't rocket science, and it would turn away from the punitive model into a purely protective one. So why didn't someone implement this years ago? Why when it was suggested recently on-wiki, was it ignored completely?

I can say why. It's because, underneath the covers, people want to punish offenders of the social norms. The old punitive models, known to be ineffective in the long run, are still very, very alive. (They worked, obviously, in certain social contexts which are mostly gone. But these habits are written deeply in us, taught to us by our parents and in schools, more by example than as any kind of theory.)

[A Horse With No Name]

All I read is Kafka. And I don't need any books to do that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

So what is your opinion on the Orson Welles film version of "The Trial," Guido?

ArbComm and the community that remain active are reaping what they sow.

Maybe we should get them to read the WP article on George Washington Carver -- then they could reap a nice peanut harvest. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Abd]

Wikipedia doesn't do fairness.

That's missing from WP:NOT (T-H-L-K-D), and there is a list of essays attached to that page, and I didn't see it there, either. WP:FAIR doesn't exist except as a redirect to the policy on "fair use," i.e., copyright issues. So, perhaps Wikipedia is neither fair nor not-fair. Is stupid unfair?

I'd have to say that it frequently is. It takes intelligence to be fair.

All I read is Kafka. And I don't need any books to do that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

At last, a clear explanation of why my apartment is so messy. I'm instinctively making it suitable for a cockroach. I should just accept it.

[LaraLove]

It's possible that editors banned for socking not create further sock accounts to shove it in the face of ArbCom that they can't technically stop them.

Sure, it's possible, Lara. But it's also a very normal human response to perceived oppression, especially among Americans, but also many others who have developed some sense of individual freedom, to be defiant. I probably think of creating a sock account once a day or so, but especially if I go back and read the decision that banned me. It's so bad, that decision, that it leaves me so hopeless that I'm not about to ask ArbComm to reconsider, and I'm really persistent with due process. Much, much easier to poke it in their face, it would be.

Editing Wikipedia is highly addictive, for reasons that many here could explain. I'm still bouncing, I'd say. I'd guess that there are a fair number of suicides among banned editors, editors who were using Wikipedia to stave off depression.

<snip>

Maaaaan, you talk a lot.

The creation of socks like the one of Chip's linked a few pages back is just juvenile. It was funny when Awbrey did it with some extended sentence, but these cheap knock-offs are just immature bullshit, and it makes all of us who kept Chip's secret because we trusted him look like fools. I mean, at least he waited until he was outed to start acting a mess, but the point is WP is down three good admins and up one troll because Chip got himself outed. Not to mention the animosity it's caused. It's just stupid.

Now, I've said it's highly doubtful that more than a small few banned editors have actually walked away. I don't think it's a realistic expectation for anyone to hold, and as long as they are productive (for the most part, but depending on what they were banned for), it shouldn't really matter. Your opinion that a lot of banned editors kill themselves seems a bit extreme. Do you have any evidence to support that?

I can only recall two suicides on the project that I've heard about. One of which was surely not about Wikipedia, the other there's no way to say for sure, but he had some conflict on Wikipedia that seemed to seriously affect him. Regardless, Wikipedia is not therapy, as you noted. We can't bend the norms of the project to the will of those who may off themselves when sent on for being unable to work within the behavioral standards of the project.

[Moulton]

Wikipedia is a crazy-making culture.

[Abd]

Editing Wikipedia is highly addictive, for reasons that many here could explain. I'm still bouncing, I'd say. I'd guess that there are a fair number of suicides among banned editors, editors who were using Wikipedia to stave off depression.<snip>

Maaaaan, you talk a lot.

Thanks. I try. I also listen really well, at least sometimes. You might be amazed at what i hear.

The creation of socks like the one of Chip's linked a few pages back is just juvenile. It was funny when Awbrey did it with some extended sentence, but these cheap knock-offs are just immature bullshit, and it makes all of us who kept Chip's secret because we trusted him look like fools. I mean, at least he waited until he was outed to start acting a mess, but the point is WP is down three good admins and up one troll because Chip got himself outed. Not to mention the animosity it's caused. It's just stupid.

Chip isn't the cause of Wikipedia's problem, but he's the cause of his own problems, and I'm fairly sure, Wikipedia wasn't good for him.

Now, I've said it's highly doubtful that more than a small few banned editors have actually walked away.

Spoken like a wikipedia administrator who hasn't recovered yet, possibly because she's not blocked.

I don't think it's a realistic expectation for anyone to hold, and as long as they are productive (for the most part, but depending on what they were banned for), it shouldn't really matter. Your opinion that a lot of banned editors kill themselves seems a bit extreme. Do you have any evidence to support that?

I'd suggest rereading what I wrote. You've translated "a fair number of suicides, which could be a handful, another vague term, as "a lot." Given what I know about the human psyche, experience with addicts (you can use *lot* for that because it is truly a lot of experience), and Wikipedia addiction, both in others and in myself, I'll repeat it: I'd expect a fair number of suicides.

I can only recall two suicides on the project that I've heard about. One of which was surely not about Wikipedia, the other there's no way to say for sure, but he had some conflict on Wikipedia that seemed to seriously affect him.

You are assuming that we'd hear about it. Most of them, not. There would not necessarily be anything to connect the suicide with Wikipedia. And I'm not claiming that Wikipedia would be the "cause" of the suicide. But withdrawal from Wikipedia might be a proximate cause, by removing a support that was staving off depression. Addiction is often, maybe even always, self-medication.

Regardless, Wikipedia is not therapy, as you noted. We can't bend the norms of the project to the will of those who may off themselves when sent on for being unable to work within the behavioral standards of the project.

A cold chill passes over me as I realize I' might be talking to one of the walking zombies that resemble human beings but who have lost their humanity to become slaves of the project. Sorry. Never mind. I must have been imagining something different. I'm going to go do something else now.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[LaraLove]

Spoken like a wikipedia administrator who hasn't recovered yet, possibly because she's not blocked.

Riiiight.

I'd suggest rereading what I wrote. You've translated "a fair number of suicides, which could be a handful, another vague term, as "a lot." Given what I know about the human psyche, experience with addicts (you can use *lot* for that because it is truly a lot of experience), and Wikipedia addiction, both in others and in myself, I'll repeat it: I'd expect a fair number of suicides.

For as many words as you use, "vague" should not be one used to describe your points. "A fair number" to me is more than a handful or a few. If that's what you meant, that's what you should have said, but then it is fewer characters.

A cold chill passes over me as I realize I' might be talking to one of the walking zombies that resemble human beings but who have lost their humanity to become slaves of the project. Sorry. Never mind. I must have been imagining something different. I'm going to go do something else now.

Blah, blah, blah. Do you know how many Wikipedians have come to me personally, for whatever reason, to vent their personal woes? More than I remember. At least a dozen in two years. And I don't mean just venting, but the anti-socials who can't gather up the nerve to spark up a conversation with their classmates, who are in therapy but their therapist "doesn't understand," and they're on meds, but "the meds stopped working." I've tried to help these guys, but I'm not trained for that. I don't want that burden. It's not Wikipedia's responsibility either. The purpose is to build an encyclopedia, or compile the sum of all human knowledge for some girl in Africa. Something like that. Do you expect everyone to take timeouts to deal with the issues of the mentally ill? That doesn't make sense.

If that view makes me a cold-hearted bitch, so be it. I never claimed to be anything else.

[Moulton]

Wikipedia wasn't good for him.

WikiCulture is a toxic culture, full stop.

[Malleus]

Blah, blah, blah. Do you know how many Wikipedians have come to me personally, for whatever reason, to vent their personal woes? More than I remember. At least a dozen in two years. And I don't mean just venting, but the anti-socials who can't gather up the nerve to spark up a conversation with their classmates, who are in therapy but their therapist "doesn't understand," and they're on meds, but "the meds stopped working." I've tried to help these guys, but I'm not trained for that. I don't want that burden. It's not Wikipedia's responsibility either. The purpose is to build an encyclopedia, or compile the sum of all human knowledge for some girl in Africa. Something like that. Do you expect everyone to take timeouts to deal with the issues of the mentally ill? That doesn't make sense.

If that view makes me a cold-hearted bitch, so be it. I never claimed to be anything else.

Makes sense to me. I gave up on clinical psychology because I just found the endless whinging and self, self, self, to be excessively tedious, and at the end of the day I just couldn't give a shit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

If that view makes me a cold-hearted bitch, so be it. I never claimed to be anything else.

Nothing wrong there...Joan Collins made a career out of that persona. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Sxeptomaniac]

Editing Wikipedia is highly addictive, for reasons that many here could explain. I'm still bouncing, I'd say. I'd guess that there are a fair number of suicides among banned editors, editors who were using Wikipedia to stave off depression.<snip>

Maaaaan, you talk a lot.

Thanks. I try. I also listen really well, at least sometimes. You might be amazed at what i hear.

I don't think it's a realistic expectation for anyone to hold, and as long as they are productive (for the most part, but depending on what they were banned for), it shouldn't really matter. Your opinion that a lot of banned editors kill themselves seems a bit extreme. Do you have any evidence to support that?

I'd suggest rereading what I wrote. You've translated "a fair number of suicides, which could be a handful, another vague term, as "a lot." Given what I know about the human psyche, experience with addicts (you can use *lot* for that because it is truly a lot of experience), and Wikipedia addiction, both in others and in myself, I'll repeat it: I'd expect a fair number of suicides.

I'd expect just the opposite. You are trying to equate substance addiction with WP addiction, but there is a significant difference. People typically get addicted to WP in part because they believe they can contribute something worthwhile. This is not generally the case with substance abuse. Being banned would not significantly change that self-perception, though it may redirect it in the form of active criticism of the project or finding a different one to contribute to.

I also don't see WP being a significant draw to people dealing with depression severe enough to consider suicide. Those people are generally going to seek something more social than WP, such as a forum or chat room. They're usually seeking people to connect with, not just something to do.

[Abd]

A cold chill passes over me as I realize I' might be talking to one of the walking zombies that resemble human beings but who have lost their humanity to become slaves of the project. Sorry. Never mind. I must have been imagining something different. I'm going to go do something else now.

Blah, blah, blah. Do you know how many Wikipedians have come to me personally, for whatever reason, to vent their personal woes? More than I remember. At least a dozen in two years.

Apparently you think that's a lot. I think that's actually quite few. But to each her own. Wikipedia is, indeed, not therapy, and nobody should be forced to be part of such. Everyone must make their own decisions about priority, and nothing I say should be taken as contradicting that. We are, however, responsible for sins of omission as well as commission, and if we pass by a tragedy in the making and we step over it and fail to help, assuming that helping was within our power, we might be, in the end, accountable for that. It's not for me to judge, as I say, in the end. It's between you and reality.

And I don't mean just venting, but the anti-socials who can't gather up the nerve to spark up a conversation with their classmates, who are in therapy but their therapist "doesn't understand," and they're on meds, but "the meds stopped working."

Happens. Did you have the capacity to help? Maybe. Maybe you actually helped, maybe not. Responsibility for actions is by intention. Easily, with addicts and the like, we can intend well but do harm, so, if we care, we may need to learn to do better. If we don't care, well, that's it, eh? Actions are by intention.

I've tried to help these guys, but I'm not trained for that. I don't want that burden. It's not Wikipedia's responsibility either. The purpose is to build an encyclopedia, or compile the sum of all human knowledge for some girl in Africa. Something like that. Do you expect everyone to take timeouts to deal with the issues of the mentally ill? That doesn't make sense.

I expect human beings to care about each other. Yes, if you see someone lying on the ground, obviously needing help, you may have some obligation. "Do you expect?" I.e., yes, I do. I expect human beings to be human in the best sense, to their capacity. Some have low capacity, it's not their fault, as such, that is, they aren't responsible for it except to the extent that they are actually capable of better, and, again, nobody else can judge them, in reality, i.e., with truth. But they will judge themselves, and they will also suffer the consequences of both their own judgment and that of others, whether it's true or not, and because they will suffer, the ultimate responsibility for change is theirs.

But other humans will help.

Lara, the problem I see is not that you don't want the burden. You are probably right, you are not trained for it. Problems have come before me, frequently, that I can't do anything about except listen. (more like once a week, Lara, or at some points in my life, once a day, and DYK that I was a chaplain at San Quentin State Prison? Talk about problems....) And, in fact, just listening might be the best thing I can do. It's amazing what it can do, in fact. Something happens when someone really listens to a person and the person can tell. They work out their own problems, but it's as if their own capacity has expanded, and that is probably what's happening, perhaps outside of our consciousness. In person, best. On the phone, not as good but better than just on-line. And for very obvious reasons, most of us won't do this with many.

Nobody, certainly not I, should expect you to do what you don't have the capacity for, Lara. But here is what I suspect has happened.

You are not -- or were not -- a "cold hearted bitch." You were sympathetic with Law. And you got burned. So you blame your sympathy, you are now rejecting it, because it got you in trouble with The Community, and hampered your work with The Project. And you are now writing from a position that The Project is more important than people. So, from my POV, you have been lost to the dark side. I can hope not permanently, or I can even hope that I'm just plain wrong. I simply write what I see and think, because I've found that sometimes it helps. Often it doesn't, and, in thankfully rare circumstances, what I say, openly and honestly, has actually done damage. Yes, Lara, two suicides, and that's part of the burden I carry. Sometimes being able to see and say what others don't see and/or won't say is dangerous, there are reasons for the apparent blindness and for the apparent reticence.

On the other hand, aside from the interpretation above, there is another possibility. You weren't sympathetic to Law, you didn't care about him. You thought he was a useful editor and that him being an administrator would benefit the project. Overall, you were wrong, because of the enormous disruption caused when it all came out, the project was damaged, and, for being wrong, in spite of wikitheory -- editors and administrators should be allowed to make mistakes -- the cold, uncaring community chewed on you for a while and spit you out. You experienced just a small taste of what others have experienced in more depth, and you are angry about it, and you blame Law.

Or something else. Text is shallow and much harder to read than people in person, much more prone to error and projection even when the observer is awake.

If that view makes me a cold-hearted bitch, so be it. I never claimed to be anything else.

In fact, haven't you claimed to be cold-hearted? Bitch is not a word I'd use, and I don't think that way. Haven't noticed any actual "bitchiness," though I'm not sure exactly what that word means in this context. Cold-hearted, sure, for the moment, anyway, or in that expression, perhaps, and perhaps not. You can't change what you have done, and you can't actually change what you are, but you can work, a little, on what you will become, which begins where you are. Be sure it's what you want.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

Given what I know about the human psyche, experience with addicts (you can use *lot* for that because it is truly a lot of experience), and Wikipedia addiction, both in others and in myself, I'll repeat it: I'd expect a fair number of suicides.

I'd expect just the opposite. You are trying to equate substance addiction with WP addiction, but there is a significant difference. People typically get addicted to WP in part because they believe they can contribute something worthwhile. This is not generally the case with substance abuse. Being banned would not significantly change that self-perception, though it may redirect it in the form of active criticism of the project or finding a different one to contribute to.

I'm talking about addiction and the function of addiction, not substance abuse, which is simply one example. The parallel between behavioral addictions and substance abuse, however, is much stronger than some believe, and the reason is probably that behavior and the contexts of behavior affect the same endocrine systems that drugs of addiction affect. Basically, someone abruptly forced to go cold turkey on editing Wikipedia may go through withdrawal. Literally. Flu-like symptoms, difficulty sleeping, and a sense, born from some experience, that if they can just get back to editing they will be fine, at least for a while. Sexual addiction and gambling addiction are quite the same.

I'm not writing from abstract book knowledge, folks. This is something I've worked with for years, both with myself and with others. Sxeptomaniac seems to think that a noble purpose protects from addictive behavior, but there are two problems with this: first of all, not all editors begin with a noble purpose, some are just trying stuff, for example, or they have an agenda, or it was a pleasant distraction. Secondly, even if our purpose for taking heroin, say, might be legitimate, the addictive effects are quite the same. Some, indeed, because of various traits, might make it through withdrawal and move on. But it's simply not surprising if some don't. In my experience, "doing good" and "being a doer of good" can be highly addictive; they provide a sense of purpose and prop up self-image, and the improvement is real, unless. Unless we've become attached to it, and that does happen. And when circumstances change, and that modality is no longer available, we may go through withdrawal, and how we handle that varies.

I also don't see WP being a significant draw to people dealing with depression severe enough to consider suicide. Those people are generally going to seek something more social than WP, such as a forum or chat room. They're usually seeking people to connect with, not just something to do.

That's only certain types. There are others, who become involved in abstract activities. They actually need, I'd say, much more human contact, but Wikipedia staves off the crisis.

I actually have someone in mind. Wikipedia editor, banned. Currently in federal prison for doing, in real life, what he did on Wikipedia, which is saying things you aren't supposed to say. I'm told he's on suicide watch. The federal system, in my opinion, treated him more fairly than Wikipedia, but that's another story. They do have the funding for it, to a degree, but he's not getting therapy, though, funding for that kind of thing mostly dried up over the last decade or two, if I'm correct.

[Tower]

Editing Wikipedia is highly addictive, for reasons that many here could explain. I'm still bouncing, I'd say. I'd guess that there are a fair number of suicides among banned editors, editors who were using Wikipedia to stave off depression.<snip>

Maaaaan, you talk a lot.

Thanks. I try. I also listen really well, at least sometimes. You might be amazed at what i hear.

Do please tell us these amazing things then - at great length. Some of us are hoping that this thread can reach 100 pages. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This post has been edited by Tower:

[LaraLove]

You were sympathetic with Law. And you got burned. So you blame your sympathy, you are now rejecting it, because it got you in trouble with The Community, and hampered your work with The Project. And you are now writing from a position that The Project is more important than people. So, from my POV, you have been lost to the dark side. I can hope not permanently, or I can even hope that I'm just plain wrong. <snip>

On the other hand, aside from the interpretation above, there is another possibility. You weren't sympathetic to Law, you didn't care about him. You thought he was a useful editor and that him being an administrator would benefit the project. Overall, you were wrong, because of the enormous disruption caused when it all came out, the project was damaged, and, for being wrong, in spite of wikitheory -- editors and administrators should be allowed to make mistakes -- the cold, uncaring community chewed on you for a while and spit you out. You experienced just a small taste of what others have experienced in more depth, and you are angry about it, and you blame Law.

A lot of speculation. Me having cared about Chip should not be in question. And none of your conclusions are accurate. A combination of them perhaps, as you got points right.

I was sympathetic to Chip. I blame my sympathy, but not because I got burned by "the community." I don't blame Chip for that. I also don't blame him for all the disruption resulting from his Law account. I think the community blew that up. I don't think I was wrong in trusting him to do well as Law. I now know I was wrong about a lot of other things. I blame myself for the things that burden me now, for I brought them upon myself.

[A Horse With No Name]

DYK that I was a chaplain at San Quentin State Prison?

So what was Johnny Cash like? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Apathetic]

Looks like Law's absence is being felt in the DYK queues

[LaraLove]

Looks like Law's absence is being felt in the DYK queues

Take it back! His ban was for the good of the project!

I'd do it, but I'm not an admin. Also for the good of the project, of course.

See how "good" it's working out?

[A Horse With No Name]

Looks like Law's absence is being felt in the DYK queues

Take it back! His ban was for the good of the project!

I'd do it, but I'm not an admin. Also for the good of the project, of course.

See how "good" it's working out?

Considering some of the "hooks" that are hanging in wait, perhaps DYK should be renamed WTHC: Who The Hell Cares? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Looks like Law's absence is being felt in the DYK queues

Funny that you come here to tell us rather than take the initiative to fix the problem. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[LaraLove]

Looks like Law's absence is being felt in the DYK queues

Funny that you come here to tell us rather than take the initiative to fix the problem. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

No has to do any job on WP they don't feel like doing. Personally, I prefer people come point out where the project is failing or has failed.

[A Horse With No Name]

No has to do any job on WP they don't feel like doing. Personally, I prefer people come point out where the project is failing or has failed.

Well, the whole project seems to be held together with spit and safety pins. Have you tried reading the Talk Page for RfA -- those clowns are still bitching about the lack of admins and the inability to convince people to run for adminship.

This past month has become a complete joke -- pretending that Shankbone is worthy of encyclopedic consideration (for what, a single interview set up on an Israeli government-sponsored junket?), the miserable persecuting of A Nobody under the guise of "constructive criticism" (I am glad he ignored that garbage) and the witch hunts against Law/TU-Lara-GC and Piotrus and the Polish editors wiped away the residue of respect I had for the Wikipedia.

While I don't pretend to be anything but cynical, I would genuinely be fascinated to see where WP can make a positive difference in someone's life. There's got to be more to WP than cheap laughs and astonishment at the stupidity of others -- or is there? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)