David Gerard's misguided tweets..., Is he really that free and loose on Twitter? Options

[the fieryangel]

This looks like a tasty morsel for all of you drama hounds....

Does anybody know what this is all about?

[Cedric]

This looks like a tasty morsel for all of you drama hounds....

Does anybody know what this is all about?

Nothing much evidently. Andrew Landeryou apparently is a right-leaning political blogger from Australia. He has a BLP, which some IP editor vandalized on November 21 to state that Landeryou was "Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". The IP resolves to Australia. Another IP editor (resolving to the US) reverted the vandalism and prodded the entire article for deletion yesterday, some hours after Landeryou sent Gerard his "threat".

Another Australian IP had showed up on November 9 and removed or toned down some of the more controversial material in the article, but I cannot tell if that has anything to do with the "sockpuppet investigation" that Gerard refers to or not. Gerard being Gerard, instead of laughing off Landeryou's agitated email, he has to go blogging about it. Sheesh!

It appears to me that these two twits deserve one another.

[Jon Awbrey]

david gerard is a wasted skinhead …

Does anybody know what this is all about?

(IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/avtrs94dv219q5/giveadamn.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

Be that as it may, I removed some dreadful stuff from the article under BLP.

This won't end well.

[carbuncle]

Be that as it may, I removed some dreadful stuff from the article under BLP.

This won't end well.

It will if the article gets deleted.

[GlassBeadGame]

Maybe Kelly or some old timer could tell us more about DG and CoS. It always seemed strange to me that an ex-CoSer (I assume that is what DG is, but not certain) would take on such an aberrant appearance/style and cult-like involvement in another project. Seem to me fleeing into the ordinary would be more expected. Please, tell more.

[Doc glasgow]

"@jeamland mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet investigation.)"

Where goes the WMF privacy policy? Checkusers blogging and bragging about their investigations?

I'm going to look at the history of this further.

[Somey]

Maybe Kelly or some old timer could tell us more about DG and CoS. It always seemed strange to me that an ex-CoSer (I assume that is what DG is, but not certain) would take on such an aberrant appearance/style and cult-like involvement in another project...

I'm quite certain that Dave has never been a Scientologist. If I looked hard enough, I could probably find something linkable somewhere in which he explains his motivations - Dave wanted to be a rock journalist back during the Usenet days, and apparently participated in several band-related newsgroups... at some point he noticed that the CoS was basically trying to "take over" Usenet via large-scale spamming and disinformation campaigns (and you're right, KM could tell us more about this). To some extent they succeeded, and they (along with numerous other groups and spammers in general) actually made Usenet largely worthless for people who just wanted to chat about things that interested them.

Essentially, he transferred his loyalties to Wikipedia fairly early on, and began to develop an almost hypervigilant mindset towards CoS activity on WP - I think the quote I saw went something like "I'll be damned if we're going to let them do to Wikipedia what they did to Usenet," or something to that effect.

Anyway, as a result of all that he was labeled a "suppressive person" by the CoS, which is ironic, since he actually is sort of suppressive, generally speaking.

[GlassBeadGame]

Maybe Kelly or some old timer could tell us more about DG and CoS. It always seemed strange to me that an ex-CoSer (I assume that is what DG is, but not certain) would take on such an aberrant appearance/style and cult-like involvement in another project...

I'm quite certain that Dave has never been a Scientologist. If I looked hard enough, I could probably find something linkable somewhere in which he explains his motivations - Dave wanted to be a rock journalist back during the Usenet days, and apparently participated in several band-related newsgroups... at some point he noticed that the CoS was basically trying to "take over" Usenet via large-scale spamming and disinformation campaigns (and you're right, KM could tell us more about this). To some extent they succeeded, and they (along with numerous other groups and spammers in general) actually made Usenet largely worthless for people who just wanted to chat about things that interested them.

Essentially, he transferred his loyalties to Wikipedia fairly early on, and began to develop an almost hypervigilant mindset towards CoS activity on WP - I think the quote I saw went something like "I'll be damned if we're going to let them do to Wikipedia what they did to Usenet," or something to that effect.

Anyway, as a result of all that he was labeled a "suppressive person" by the CoS, which is ironic, since he actually is sort of suppressive, generally speaking.

Ahhh. A dark Ziggy Stardust defending rock and roll against an evil cult. Makes some sense really. Was that one of subplots of Heavy Metal?

[Somey]

Ahhh. A dark Ziggy Stardust defending rock and roll against an evil cult. Makes some sense really. Was that one of subplots of Heavy Metal?

You're probably thinking of the far more Gerardian Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park (T-H-L-K-D)...

Many aspects of Dave Gerard's WP history are actually ironic, even going beyond what he did in my own case. For example, one of the Aussie rock bands Dave was interested in back in the 90's was The Church (T-H-L-K-D), who you'll recall had a fairly big hit with a song called "Under the Milky Way." The Church were fronted by Steve Kilbey (T-H-L-K-D), and if you search the WR archives on the word "Kilbey" you'll find that the only two admitted fans of his around here are me and the now-inactive Piperdown. But Piperdown would never have joined WR if he hadn't been erroneously indef-blocked as an "overstock.com meatpuppet" by... you guessed it, Dave Gerard!

I'm sure there are other examples, but that one always gives me a chuckle for some reason.

[TungstenCarbide]

Maybe Kelly or some old timer could tell us more about DG and CoS. It always seemed strange to me that an ex-CoSer (I assume that is what DG is, but not certain) would take on such an aberrant appearance/style and cult-like involvement in another project...

I'm quite certain that Dave has never been a Scientologist. If I looked hard enough, I could probably find something linkable somewhere in which he explains his motivations - Dave wanted to be a rock journalist back during the Usenet days, and apparently participated in several band-related newsgroups... at some point he noticed that the CoS was basically trying to "take over" Usenet via large-scale spamming and disinformation campaigns (and you're right, KM could tell us more about this). To some extent they succeeded, and they (along with numerous other groups and spammers in general) actually made Usenet largely worthless for people who just wanted to chat about things that interested them.

Essentially, he transferred his loyalties to Wikipedia fairly early on, and began to develop an almost hypervigilant mindset towards CoS activity on WP - I think the quote I saw went something like "I'll be damned if we're going to let them do to Wikipedia what they did to Usenet," or something to that effect.

Anyway, as a result of all that he was labeled a "suppressive person" by the CoS, which is ironic, since he actually is sort of suppressive, generally speaking.

I seem to recall more of his personal history on his user page, but it seems to be deleted now, or i just missed it. He had a big long spiel about being run out of Australia, or something like that, after giving an obnoxious speech at an awards ceremony while a rock journalist.

[Kelly Martin]

David Gerard was a second-wave anti-Scientologist, as i recall: he got involved when Helena Kobrin attempted to rmgroup alt.religion.scientology. At the time, he was living in Australia. My mental classification for him at the time was "gadfly critic": he rarely had much to say that was worth saying, and seem mainly to be involved for the fun of it rather than out of any real concern for Scientology's social impacts. I think his present dislike of Scientology is almost entirely founded in their "attack on the Internet" rather than any deeper concern for the need to defend against manipulative cults. He is also clearly a shock counterculturist (as his involvement in the operation of several well-known shock websites attests), and being anti-Scientology is viewed as "edgy" by some people, so that probably also added to the appeal.

One of the things I noticed when I was involved in the anti-Scientology movement was the tendency of anti-Scientologists to become cultish themselves. This isn't surprising since so many of them are ex-Scientologists, which means they've already demonstrated a susceptibility for cult behavior. Gerard, however, has no documented history of cult involvement, other than Wikipedia. I doubt he would become involved in a cult at the lower levels, but his clear predilection for being a behind-the-scenes manipulator makes him a prime candidate for high-level membership of a cult that he helped start.

Ironically it's David that put me on to Jo Freeman's essay about structurelessness, which is so clearly applicable to Wikipedia, yet David has on several occasions moved to block changes that would remediate these problems. David knows that Wikipedia has governance problems and clearly has some sense of how to cure them; but he also knows that the cure would deprive him of the emotional fix he gets from the current state of affairs. And there is no way he's going to put his personal predilection for drama ahead of Wikipedia's long-term interests, about which he has very little, if any, concern.

[Jon Awbrey]

"@jeamland mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet investigation.)"

Where goes the WMF privacy policy? Checkusers blogging and bragging about their investigations?

I'm going to look at the history of this further.

Oh good, the Big Bad Internet Highway Cop hiding behind the Internet Billboard pulls his nose out of his Internet Dough-Net long enough to go chase 1 out of a thousand speeders, and Justice Prevails in Wikiland.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[LessHorrid vanU]

"@jeamland mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet investigation.)"

Where goes the WMF privacy policy? Checkusers blogging and bragging about their investigations?

I'm going to look at the history of this further.

Not that it will get you anywhere, in truth. DG is old school, which means there is enough kudos in the WMF to allow DG to get away with what would have you and me banned from Wikipedia. Mind you, it would be ironic if thee and me got into some sort trouble with ArbCom for dissing DG on an off-Wiki site. I would invite it, in truth.

[GlassBeadGame]

which means there is enough kudos in the WMF to allow DG to get away with what would have you and me banned from Wikipedia.

I can't imagine that Sue Gardner is pleased that the likes of DG are rattling around out there acting as "spokespersons."

[LessHorrid vanU]

David Gerard was a second-wave anti-Scientologist, as i recall: he got involved when Helena Kobrin attempted to rmgroup alt.religion.scientology. At the time, he was living in Australia. My mental classification for him at the time was "gadfly critic": he rarely had much to say that was worth saying, and seem mainly to be involved for the fun of it rather than out of any real concern for Scientology's social impacts. I think his present dislike of Scientology is almost entirely founded in their "attack on the Internet" rather than any deeper concern for the need to defend against manipulative cults. He is also clearly a shock counterculturist (as his involvement in the operation of several well-known shock websites attests), and being anti-Scientology is viewed as "edgy" by some people, so that probably also added to the appeal.

One of the things I noticed when I was involved in the anti-Scientology movement was the tendency of anti-Scientologists to become cultish themselves. This isn't surprising since so many of them are ex-Scientologists, which means they've already demonstrated a susceptibility for cult behavior. Gerard, however, has no documented history of cult involvement, other than Wikipedia. I doubt he would become involved in a cult at the lower levels, but his clear predilection for being a behind-the-scenes manipulator makes him a prime candidate for high-level membership of a cult that he helped start.

Ironically it's David that put me on to Jo Freeman's essay about structurelessness, which is so clearly applicable to Wikipedia, yet David has on several occasions moved to block changes that would remediate these problems. David knows that Wikipedia has governance problems and clearly has some sense of how to cure them; but he also knows that the cure would deprive him of the emotional fix he gets from the current state of affairs. And there is no way he's going to put his personal predilection for drama ahead of Wikipedia's long-term interests, about which he has very little, if any, concern.

DG not into cults? Well, I would certainly suggest with those "goff" piccies that people are careless enough to keep posting, that he was most likely into Southern Death Cult, The Cult, and even perhaps Cult Hero. Although, of course, being a wannabe music critic he may not even have been aware of these groups...

[MZMcBride]

He is also clearly a shock counterculturist (as his involvement in the operation of several well-known shock websites attests), and being anti-Scientology is viewed as "edgy" by some people, so that probably also added to the appeal.

lemonparty.org is his, right? What are the others?

[everyking]

"So your spokesman is an internet troll? Is that right?"

"Well, yes."

"But is he at least a nice troll?"

"Well, no..."

[GlassBeadGame]

"So your spokesman is an internet troll? Is that right?"

"Well, yes."

"But is he at least a nice troll?"

"Well, no..."

"How about this Mr. Kohs then...he looks nice."

"Well you see he doesn't always agree with us. Mr. Gerard is really very loyal to WMF, once you get past the first few impressions...and those nasty websites of his...and all that Skull-Dancing."

[Somey]

He is also clearly a shock counterculturist (as his involvement in the operation of several well-known shock websites attests), and being anti-Scientology is viewed as "edgy" by some people, so that probably also added to the appeal.

lemonparty.org is his, right? What are the others?

It was discussed in this thread, but the three mentioned at that time were thewillpower.org, yourmom.org and k-k-k.com. All are NSFW, of course... I vaguely recall that the latter is an attempt to embarrass the Ku Klux Klan by hosting interracial gay porn as if it were their idea of a good time, which I suppose makes it an admirable endeavor in a way. The others, ehhh, maybe not so much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[Nerd]

ArbCom have revoked his checkuser and oversight privs.

[cyofee]

ArbCom have revoked his checkuser and oversight privs.

Owned.

Something tells me they've been waiting to do this for a long time.

This post has been edited by cyofee:

[Cedric]

ArbCom have revoked his checkuser and oversight privs.

Owned.

Something tells me they've been waiting to do this for a long time.

Too much skulldancing, I reckon. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

ArbCom have revoked his checkuser and oversight privs.

Owned.

Something tells me they've been waiting to do this for a long time.

Do I remember incorrectly or didn't the privacy policy made this the domain of "the ombudsperson," who seemed to have no other responsibilities other than enforce this policy for the board? The current policy seems to make no reference to this actor. I think letting Arbcom handle this instead of a person directly answerable to the board of trustees is a step in the wrong direction.

[the fieryangel]

ArbCom have revoked his checkuser and oversight privs.

Owned.

Something tells me they've been waiting to do this for a long time.

Do I remember incorrectly or didn't the privacy policy made this the domain of "the ombudsperson," who seemed to have no other responsibilities other than enforce this policy for the board? The current policy seems to make no reference to this actor. I think letting Arbcom handle this instead of a person directly answerable to the board of trustees is a step in the wrong direction.

Yes, but something clearly needed to be done. The fact that something has been done is a clear message to those who have access to private data: if you abuse it, you're going to suffer the consequences.

I say that the Arbcom did the right thing here.

[Doc glasgow]

ArbCom have revoked his checkuser and oversight privs.

Tee hee, and I was the only one here who saw that he might be in trouble over this. /smug

[No one of consequence]

Do I remember incorrectly or didn't the privacy policy made this the domain of "the ombudsperson," who seemed to have no other responsibilities other than enforce this policy for the board? The current policy seems to make no reference to this actor. I think letting Arbcom handle this instead of a person directly answerable to the board of trustees is a step in the wrong direction.

It's cloudy. The Ombudsman Commission does not consider itself empowered to deal with situations that are unseemly but that do not actually disclose private information (such as when Jayjg disclosed that CharlotteWebb used tor).

The Foundation Ombudsman Commission was indeed created to respond to complaints of privacy policy violations, but there is some doubt about what it's role should be on wikis that have strong Arbitration Committees that dispense (and theoretically review) checkuser and oversight permissions. It's also not clear in this case that the statement "You were socking on Wikipedia 3 years ago" actually violates the privacy policy, since it does not discuss IPs or other protected information and the policy itself is fairly vague.


This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[GlassBeadGame]

ArbCom have revoked his checkuser and oversight privs.

Owned.

Something tells me they've been waiting to do this for a long time.

Do I remember incorrectly or didn't the privacy policy made this the domain of "the ombudsperson," who seemed to have no other responsibilities other than enforce this policy for the board? The current policy seems to make no reference to this actor. I think letting Arbcom handle this instead of a person directly answerable to the board of trustees is a step in the wrong direction.

Yes, but something clearly needed to be done. The fact that something has been done is a clear message to those who have access to private data: if you abuse it, you're going to suffer the consequences.

I say that the Arbcom did the right thing here.

Yes the right thing as far as it goes even if done by the wrong people. This whole task (Checkuser) ought to conducted by agents answerable to the B/T. Loss of employment should be the least of consequences with some prospect for further liability.

There seemed to the beginning of recognizing this with: 1) a board level policy, and; 2) a special person(s) selected by the board to carry it out. Even then the actual task was handed out willy-nilly to "community members." But giving the job to ArbCom seems to me to be a retreat from even this passing nod to responsibility.

[the fieryangel]

Do I remember incorrectly or didn't the privacy policy made this the domain of "the ombudsperson," who seemed to have no other responsibilities other than enforce this policy for the board? The current policy seems to make no reference to this actor. I think letting Arbcom handle this instead of a person directly answerable to the board of trustees is a step in the wrong direction.

It's cloudy. The Ombudsman Commission does not consider itself empowered to deal with situations that are unseemly but that do not actually disclose private information (such as when Jayjg disclosed that CharlotteWebb used tor).

The Foundation Ombudsman Commission was indeed created to respond to complaints of privacy policy violations, but there is some doubt about what it's role should be on wikis that have strong Arbitration Committees that dispense (and theoretically review) checkuser and oversight permissions. It's also not clear in this case that the statement "You were socking on Wikipedia 3 years ago" actually violates the privacy policy, since it does not discuss IPs or other protected information and the policy itself is fairly vague.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the privacy violations happened offwiki (on Twitter), although I haven't read DG's Twitter page. Did anybody else get this impression?

If this is the case, this also leads to some interesting precedent for WP editors being responsible for their offwiki activities, as they relate to WP itself (at least)...

[Cedric]

Ah. Now I see. He jammed 'is thumb up their collet'ive butt'ole.

(IMG:http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/2761/218y.jpg)

"Oi! They're really pissed off now, by cracky!"

[the fieryangel]

ArbCom have revoked his checkuser and oversight privs.

Owned.

Something tells me they've been waiting to do this for a long time.

Do I remember incorrectly or didn't the privacy policy made this the domain of "the ombudsperson," who seemed to have no other responsibilities other than enforce this policy for the board? The current policy seems to make no reference to this actor. I think letting Arbcom handle this instead of a person directly answerable to the board of trustees is a step in the wrong direction.

Yes, but something clearly needed to be done. The fact that something has been done is a clear message to those who have access to private data: if you abuse it, you're going to suffer the consequences.

I say that the Arbcom did the right thing here.

Yes the right thing as far as it goes even if done by the wrong people. This whole task (Checkuser) ought to conducted by agents answerable to the B/T. Loss of employment should be the least of consequences with some prospect for further liability.

There seemed to the beginning of recognizing this with: 1) a board level policy, and; 2) a special person(s) selected by the board to carry it out. Even then the actual task was handed out willy-nilly to "community members." But giving the job to ArbCom seems to me to be a retreat from even this passing nod to responsibility.

Clearly, you are right about the privacy policy being enforced by an independent entity who answers to the Board/foundation directly. However, since they can ever seem to get around to organizing this (and it will probably take legal action to motivate them to do so....), at least ARBCOM is willing to fill the power vacuum.

If this becomes established precedent, it is indeed a step in the wrong direction...especially since the Arbcom members might have some sort of liability in the case of lawsuits brought by people whose privacy was violated. I don't think that this is quite fair for unpaid volunteers, especially since WMF hasn't actually made any clear statements about what happens when said volunteers are sued...

...but I suppose if people are willing to accept this responsibility, then that becomes their business. I certainly wouldn't.

[dtobias]

Though I don't have the hatred of Gerard some of you do, I'm glad to see an ArbCom that's willing to take action against somebody so entrenched as he is for actions that, in earlier regimes, would be unequally treated depending on whether they were done by people well-connected with the power clique, or "trolls" disliked by the clique.

[the fieryangel]

Though I don't have the hatred of Gerard some of you do, I'm glad to see an ArbCom that's willing to take action against somebody so entrenched as he is for actions that, in earlier regimes, would be unequally treated depending on whether they were done by people well-connected with the power clique, or "trolls" disliked by the clique.

Given DG's rather colourful...um...behavior in the past, one would think that this annoucement would have lead to quite a bit of discussion....but nobody seems to have anything at all to say....

That's rather interesting...

[trenton]

Wow. Good for them. They got rid of the biggest jackass around.

First Jayjg, and now Gerard.

Also, has anyone noticed he doesn't pop up quite as often as an official spokesman? He seems to have been demoted somewhat after he and Forrester ran Wikimedia UK into the ground (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

ArbCom have revoked his checkuser and oversight privs.

At least three years late, but I suppose late is better than never.

It's fairly obvious that Gerard has become bored with Wikipedia, and has been trolling with increasing vigor in an effort to extract some final amusement value out of it. It's ironic in the extreme that he complains about a "lack of adult supervision" in what amounts to his parting shot.

[carbuncle]

It is a rare day when something that happens on WP is so roundly applauded on WR. I'm surprised that David Gerard felt that it was acceptable to do this, but even more surprised that something was actually done about it. I wonder what would have happened if this was a first "strike"? Is this enough to set a precedent, given the history? It would be nice if ARBCOM would send a clear message that actions such as this are unacceptable and will result in revocation of rights.

[Somey]

Wow. Good for them. They got rid of the biggest jackass around.

First Jayjg, and now Gerard.

Well, he's still an administrator, let's not forget that. This revocation of privileges only means that his sockpuppetry-suspicion blocks will be based entirely on guesswork, rather than 90-95 percent guesswork.

[dtobias]

has become bored with Wikipedia, and has been trolling

This describes one of the phases you went through yourself; you seem to have gotten over that by now and are in the "cynical commentator" state at present.

[Somey]

We also shouldn't forget that Dave is a father now, and if I'm not terribly mistaken his dropoff in WP-related activity came fairly close on the heels of that particular event. Fatherhood tends to shift one's priorities, in some cases drastically. If he's spending less time on WP because he's spending more time on (hopefully responsible) parenting activities, then more power to him.

I just hope he lets the kid wear "normal" clothes in school... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

I just hope he lets the kid wear "normal" clothes in school... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Hell, if he lets the kid go to school at all we can probably consider that a victory.

[Daniel Brandt]

Gerard referred to me as "sociopath" by name at least three different times over the last three years, on Wikipedia mailing lists and such. You don't see very many press contacts of corporations doing this on the job. But he's still listed by the Foundation as a press contact.

It makes Wikipedia Review's job easier, I guess.

[GlassBeadGame]

We also shouldn't forget that Dave is a father now...

By his wife or his concubine?

[Milton Roe]

Ah. Now I see. He jammed 'is thumb up their collet'ive butt'ole.

Actually, merely failed to kiss their collective ass tenderly enough.

Reminds me of the scene in Matrix Reloaded (itself a pretentious film full of pretentious characters and pretentious dialogue) where the Merovingian's jealous wife Persephone demands one sincere kiss from Neo, as her price.

"If you kiss our ass like you were kissing a true love, Gerard, we'll overlook your posturing to the effect that you're so powerful on WP that we can't do anything to you."

But Gerard refused, so they took away some of this magic. Hubris, Gerard.

I suppose if Gerard had actually given them a totally sincere ass-kiss ("Do it like you were kissing Jimbo's ass") they would have accepted it and let it go.

Maybe sent Jimbo an IRC: "We envy you." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

However, as has been pointed out, Gerard retains adminship, and thus still the ability to do one of the things he's infamous for, which is overwide range blocks. And of course, he still retains his big mouth.

One suppose he's going to sulk a while now. He was told he was "in the wrong cabal" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Presumably that means: "not the one that controls ArbCom." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[No one of consequence]

Is this enough to set a precedent, given the history? It would be nice if ARBCOM would send a clear message that actions such as this are unacceptable and will result in revocation of rights.

Between Jayjg, Raul654 and David Gerard, I think a clear message has been sent.

[Somey]

By his wife or his concubine?

Concubine, I believe.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the privacy violations happened offwiki (on Twitter), although I haven't read DG's Twitter page. Did anybody else get this impression?

If this is the case, this also leads to some interesting precedent for WP editors being responsible for their offwiki activities, as they relate to WP itself (at least)...

Aye, tis an ugly win (with Davy, Davy Gothic ex-god king of the Wiki-frontier, can there be any other kind?), but let's take it anyway.

Despite Ms. Martin's exposition piece earlier, I still don't understand how someone who has fought so long against Scientology, can throw himself whole-heartedly into a pedantic, geek cybercult that is only a few dozen pairs of Nikes and much needed castrations away from Heaven's Gate
.

Oh, and hello at long last WP Review! I guess this constitutes my debut.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine):

[GlassBeadGame]

By his wife or his concubine?

Concubine, I believe.

Well call me Ishmeal.

[Kelly Martin]

We also shouldn't forget that Dave is a father now...

By his wife or his concubine?

I'm with Miss Manners on this one: "All children are a gift from God." Simply put, it is impolite to inquire into or speculate about the origins of someone else's children.

[Somey]

Despite Ms. Martin's exposition piece earlier, I still don't understand how someone who has fought so long against Scientology, can trow himself whole-heartedly into a pedantic, geek cybercult...

It may be that he wasn't initially expecting WP to turn out that way, and when it did, he became somewhat disenchanted with it. He might have realized that by identifying organized external enemies and exaggerating the threat(s) they represented, he/they would be contributing to the creation of a cult-like environment... but as long as he felt that his side was in the right, that wouldn't have mattered to him. Of course, he would never admit any of this, because that might be tantamount to admitting that he was wrong about something.

Oh, and hello at long last WP Review! I guess this constitutes my debut.

And a fine debut it is, too! Welcome to WR, Mr. RDH.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Despite Ms. Martin's exposition piece earlier, I still don't understand how someone who has fought so long against Scientology, can trow himself whole-heartedly into a pedantic, geek cybercult...

It may be that he wasn't initially expecting WP to turn out that way, and when it did, he became somewhat disenchanted with it. He might have realized that by identifying organized external enemies and exaggerating the threat(s) they represented, he/they would be contributing to the creation of a cult-like environment... but as long as he felt that his side was in the right, that wouldn't have mattered to him. Of course, he would never admit any of this, because that might be tantamount to admitting that he was wrong about something.

Oh, and hello at long last WP Review! I guess this constitutes my debut.

And a fine debut it is, too! Welcome to WR, Mr. RDH.

That is very true...you'll never see him hit himself with his own cluestick. He'll make a blithering fool, or rather tool, out of himself first.

And thank you, sir! Tis great to be aboard!

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine):

[trenton]

You'd think a freak like Gerard would be a little more circumspect in labeling other people (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[MBisanz]

Is this enough to set a precedent, given the history? It would be nice if ARBCOM would send a clear message that actions such as this are unacceptable and will result in revocation of rights.

Between Jayjg, Raul654 and David Gerard, I think a clear message has been sent.

If we want to look at it precedentially, Arbcom has respectively established the principles that:

1. You may not have higher-level userrights if your actions threaten to bring the project into extreme disrepute;
2. You may not use higher-level userrights in such a manner as to repeatedly inflict disproportionate collateral damage;
3. You may not use higher-level userrights in an offensive manner; they may only be used in defense of the project.

[Somey]

I'm with Miss Manners on this one: "All children are a gift from God." Simply put, it is impolite to inquire into or speculate about the origins of someone else's children.

I agree, and if he contacts us and asks us to delete it, we probably will. However, in order to avoid the dreaded "hypocrite" tag, before he does that he'll probably want to use his admin powers on Uncyclopedia to delete things like this.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

You'd think a freak like Gerard would be a little more circumspect in labeling other people (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Self-awareness is not one of the Gerroid's strong suits.

Given this and his ego, I wonder if he will go begging for his supah powahs' return.

[TungstenCarbide]

I'm with Miss Manners on this one: "All children are a gift from God." Simply put, it is impolite to inquire into or speculate about the origins of someone else's children.

I agree, and if he contacts us and asks us to delete it, we probably will. However, in order to avoid the dreaded "hypocrite" tag, before he does that he'll probably want to use his admin powers on Uncyclopedia to delete things like this.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Well, let's not get our collective panties in a bunch here. Obviously we are engaged in critical review of Gerard, his character and how it plays into the leadership of Wikipedia. Noting an oddity or two is par for the course, like having a harem or whatever it is. Especially since David himself has advertised this wide and far, with pictures included.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[thekohser]

Is Gerard on the Meta "Public Speakers" page? If so, could someone please make sure to note on his listing his "tools revoked by ArbCom" status? I hear that it's okay for unaffiliated editors to modify the listings of other public speakers.

[MZMcBride]

Looking at the current list of CheckUsers, it looks pretty clean to me at this point. Might be nice to remove one or two people for inactivity, but most the problematic old guard seems to have been removed.

[Doc glasgow]

So, does David Gerard join wikipedia review now?

[trenton]

Given this and his ego, I wonder if he will go begging for his supah powahs' return.

He's probably kissing Jimbeau's ass right now.

[TungstenCarbide]

Given this and his ego, I wonder if he will go begging for his supah powahs' return.

He's probably kissing Jimbeau's ass right now.

I wonder if the arbcom listens to Jimbo any more.

[Kelly Martin]

I wonder if the arbcom listens to Jimbo any more.

I would count it a positive development if they didn't.

[Lar]

Is Gerard on the Meta "Public Speakers" page? If so, could someone please make sure to note on his listing his "tools revoked by ArbCom" status? I hear that it's okay for unaffiliated editors to modify the listings of other public speakers.

I would think you'd know the answer to that question... you spent considerable effort to get the page cleaned up recently. But in any case he is not currently listed on that page.

[Somey]

So, does David Gerard join wikipedia review now?

For a while we thought this might be him, and if it is then he's been a member for some time now... but I've since decided it probably isn't him. And if it isn't, then he's not likely to register here as long as I'm around. (Not that I would deny him an account or anything like that.)

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Given this and his ego, I wonder if he will go begging for his supah powahs' return.

He's probably kissing Jimbeau's ass right now.

Even Jimbozo must realize it would create a category 5.5 shitstorm if he gave DG back his toys. Besides, let's not forget his habit of abandoning allies like damaged goods once they cease to be useful to him.

[CharlotteWebb]

For a while we thought this might be him, and if it is then he's been a member for some time now... but I've since decided it probably isn't him. And if it isn't, then he's not likely to register here as long as I'm around. (Not that I would deny him an account or anything like that.)

That user doesn't compulsively say "Hoi" by it could just as easily be Gerard Meijssen (or some other Netherlander rather than Brit).

Eight posts is a small sample size but the grammatical errors I do see may support this theory.

[thekohser]

I would think you'd know the answer to that question... you spent considerable effort to get the page cleaned up recently. But in any case he is not currently listed on that page.

Sorry, Lar. I really didn't remember, and I'm on vacation and didn't want to waste effort looking it up on my BlackBerry. Probably best not to add drama to that page. Has someone yet removed the "banned from English Wikipedia" from my listing, or will that be up to me when I return to Philly?

[anthony]

We also shouldn't forget that Dave is a father now...

By his wife or his concubine?

I'm with Miss Manners on this one: "All children are a gift from God." Simply put, it is impolite to inquire into or speculate about the origins of someone else's children.

It's not like it's a secret: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arkady_Rose

[Nerd]

I would think you'd know the answer to that question... you spent considerable effort to get the page cleaned up recently. But in any case he is not currently listed on that page.

Sorry, Lar. I really didn't remember, and I'm on vacation and didn't want to waste effort looking it up on my BlackBerry. Probably best not to add drama to that page. Has someone yet removed the "banned from English Wikipedia" from my listing, or will that be up to me when I return to Philly?

Your friend Guido has, yes.

[GlassBeadGame]

We also shouldn't forget that Dave is a father now...

By his wife or his concubine?

I'm with Miss Manners on this one: "All children are a gift from God." Simply put, it is impolite to inquire into or speculate about the origins of someone else's children.

It's not like it's a secret: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arkady_Rose

I like this one better. Who is the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

[TungstenCarbide]

We also shouldn't forget that Dave is a father now...

By his wife or his concubine?

I'm with Miss Manners on this one: "All children are a gift from God." Simply put, it is impolite to inquire into or speculate about the origins of someone else's children.

It's not like it's a secret: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arkady_Rose

I like this one better. Whose the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

Dave's wife's girlfriend at the time, if I recall.

[Nerd]

We also shouldn't forget that Dave is a father now...

By his wife or his concubine?

I'm with Miss Manners on this one: "All children are a gift from God." Simply put, it is impolite to inquire into or speculate about the origins of someone else's children.

It's not like it's a secret: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arkady_Rose

I like this one better. Whose the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

Dave's wife's girlfriend at the time, if I recall.

It's a bit complicated!

[No one of consequence]

Looking at the current list of CheckUsers, it looks pretty clean to me at this point. Might be nice to remove one or two people for inactivity, but most the problematic old guard seems to have been removed.

One of Dominic's platform items in the Audit subcommittee election was removal of privileges for inactivity.

[MBisanz]

Looking at the current list of CheckUsers, it looks pretty clean to me at this point. Might be nice to remove one or two people for inactivity, but most the problematic old guard seems to have been removed.

One of Dominic's platform items in the Audit subcommittee election was removal of privileges for inactivity.

Looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/Statistics#Checkuser_statistics_.28Monthly.29, I have a hard time understanding why James, Jimbo, and VOA retain the right.

[No one of consequence]

Looking at the current list of CheckUsers, it looks pretty clean to me at this point. Might be nice to remove one or two people for inactivity, but most the problematic old guard seems to have been removed.

One of Dominic's platform items in the Audit subcommittee election was removal of privileges for inactivity.

Looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/Statistics#Checkuser_statistics_.28Monthly.29, I have a hard time understanding why James, Jimbo, and VOA retain the right.

VOA is the developer who coded most of the CU interface. I don't know if he still works on the code at all, but that would obviously not show up in the log. There are a few people on that list, Stewards and other WMF office folk, who rarely use the tool, but who, realistically, are not going to have it removed by Arbcom for lack of activity. I suppose Jimbo fits in this category, heaven knows why.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I suppose Jimbo fits in this category, heaven knows why.

I thought Jimbo only gave himself that userright temporarily, to deal with something Bruce Edwards Ivins-related?

[MBisanz]

I suppose Jimbo fits in this category, heaven knows why.

I thought Jimbo only gave himself that userright temporarily, to deal with something Bruce Edwards Ivins-related?

I believe someone (MZMcBride iirc) asked him about it a few months ago and the answer was rather vague.

[Cimorene]

I suppose Jimbo fits in this category, heaven knows why.

I thought Jimbo only gave himself that userright temporarily, to deal with something Bruce Edwards Ivins-related?

According to the user rights log, Jimbo gave himself the right in 2008 to "check some Grawp flood ip numbers" and has just failed to remove it.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Looks like I was correct, mostly - he gave it to himself for eight minutes on August 19, 2008, and then took it away for himself. But on November 17, 2008, he gave it back, with the summary "checking some grawp flood ip numbers". He hasn't removed it since.

[CharlotteWebb]

I suppose Jimbo fits in this category, heaven knows why.

I thought Jimbo only gave himself that userright temporarily, to deal with something Bruce Edwards Ivins-related?

I don't feel like arguing about whether it is appropriate for him to be able to add or remove this right from his own account at any time (without requiring approval from any other entity), but…

…as long as this is the case, I think it would be best to just leave it enabled so that observers know exactly how many people have access to this tool. You know, to avoid surprises.

I mean it's not really fair to the other checkusers, who cannot simply use this tool and then obscure the fact that they had access to it.

[Cimorene]

I suppose Jimbo fits in this category, heaven knows why.

I thought Jimbo only gave himself that userright temporarily, to deal with something Bruce Edwards Ivins-related?

I don't feel like arguing about whether it is appropriate for him to be able to add or remove this right from his own account at any time (without requiring approval from any other entity), but…

…as long as this is the case, I think it would be best to just leave it enabled so that observers know exactly how many people have access to this tool. You know, to avoid surprises.

I mean it's not really fair to the other checkusers, who cannot simply use this tool and then obscure the fact that they had access to it.

Yeah, I agree. Being able to grant yourself sensitive user rights at will, no matter who you are, isn't really fair. For transparencies sake, it's best that he keep it.

[everyking]

It's a pleasure to see the ArbCom do something right. It's hard to deny that there's been substantial progress this year. Personally, I'd say desysop him too, but still--progress is progress.

[EricBarbour]

You'd think a freak like Gerard would be a little more circumspect in labeling other people (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Self-awareness is not one of the Gerroid's strong suits.
Given this and his ego, I wonder if he will go begging for his supah powahs' return.

Guess you didn't check his talkpage, eh?

Please contact ArbCom

Hello David,

Please contact ArbCom via its mailing list (arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org) at your earliest convenience. — Coren (talk), for the Committee, 01:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You realise of course this consists of me emailing and going "OK, what?" - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this appears to be concerning me receiving a personal threat, posting it to my blog and the arbcom deciding it doesn't like this. I have been asked to resign functionaries-en or be pushed. The reasoning is unclear, and perhaps you should do this publicly - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(This comes a few months after arbitrators telling me a few months ago I should resign or be pushed over this humour post, and several ex-arbs calling them "pompous idiots" for the suggestion. I said I'd like it done publicly, and nothing was heard of the notion again. The 2009 arbcom's thinking in these matters needs more transparency and public review.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

David, your response was unacceptable to this committee. Motion carried. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To make things perfectly clear, the blog post you referred to was considered the last of a string of incidents and public posturing that the committee unanimously felt was incompatible with holding a position of high trust and access to private data. That we offered you the opportunity to explain or step down privately was borne entirely of a desire to avoid possible drama or embarrassment to you; but the motion having passed in no way prevents you from making a public appeal where you will be able to present a case in detail if you feel it warranted. — Coren (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So the reason is a dislike of adult supervision, but the excuse is a specific allegation of actual malfeasance. You realise you can't vote the latter into existence, right? - David Gerard (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're in the wrong cabal. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to urge David to reflect on this experience and conduct himself in a more responsible and respectful manner in the future. Everyking (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

He's a massive dick, right to the bitter end. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

If we want to look at it precedentially, Arbcom has respectively established the principles that:

1. You may not have higher-level userrights if your actions threaten to bring the project into extreme disrepute;
2. You may not use higher-level userrights in such a manner as to repeatedly inflict disproportionate collateral damage;
3. You may not use higher-level userrights in an offensive manner; they may only be used in defense of the project.

That's nice.

While Arbcom are about it, why don't they pull SV's powers? She's definitely been "bringing the project into extreme disrepute", not to mention the collateral damage.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[MBisanz]

If we want to look at it precedentially, Arbcom has respectively established the principles that:

1. You may not have higher-level userrights if your actions threaten to bring the project into extreme disrepute;
2. You may not use higher-level userrights in such a manner as to repeatedly inflict disproportionate collateral damage;
3. You may not use higher-level userrights in an offensive manner; they may only be used in defense of the project.

That's nice.

While Arbcom are about it, why don't they pull SV's powers? She's definitely been "bringing the project into extreme disrepute", not to mention the collateral damage.

There is a concept in US law that courts will not issue advisory opinions, but that they will only rule on actual cases and controversies. At the most simple interpretation, this is to ensure that the judges and juries have actual facts on which to base their decisions and aren't left trying to construct elaborate "what if" situations that may not actually happen. In each of the cases referenced above, there was a factual event that permitted Arbcom to examine and establish a principle. If there are actual events that you think SV has done that in some way violate policy or practice, then email arbcom, but I do not think it is wise to go around saying "I don't like how you generally behave, so you should be punished"; sanctions should be based on hard facts presented for rebuttal and review.

[dtobias]

He deleted my comments on his talk page.

[Cla68]

He deleted my comments on his talk page.

He didn't delete Everyking's comment, however. I suspect if one simply typed the words "Wikipedia Review" on his talk page and hit enter he would delete it immediately.

[MBisanz]

He deleted my comments on his talk page.

He didn't delete Everyking's comment, however. I suspect if one simply typed the words "Wikipedia Review" on his talk page and hit enter he would delete it immediately.

Um, I think Everyking's comment was made in the middle of the night David's time, so I wouldn't expect an immediate response/removal.

[EricBarbour]

Going back to the original business, involving right-wing blogger Andrew Landeryou:

Gerard's history of disputes with him goes back at least 3 years.

I believe it originated with the Darren Ray/2006BC sockfests.
One of the articles they were fighting to "protect": Landeryou's BLP.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Cedric]

There is a concept in US law that courts will not issue advisory opinions, but that they will only rule on actual cases and controversies. At the most simple interpretation, . . . blah, blah, blabitty, blah.

"Wikipedia doesn't do due process." --Lar

How many times do we have to remind you? Seriously.

Meanwhile, back in the States:

Going back to the original business, involving right-wing blogger Andrew Landeryou:

Gerard's history of disputes with him goes back at least 3 years.

I believe it originated with the Darren Ray/2006BC sockfests.
One of the articles they were fighting to "protect": Landeryou's BLP.

(IMG:http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3308/mountaindewbottle.jpg)

"T'aint no feud like an old feud"

[Lar]

Yeah, I agree. Being able to grant yourself sensitive user rights at will, no matter who you are, isn't really fair. For transparencies sake, it's best that he keep it.

Um? Any steward can do that. It's logged in a central place, but they can do it at will. Are you suggesting that all stewards should give themselves all rights on all wikis? I expect not so I must be confused by what you are suggesting.

[dtobias]

He deleted my comments on his talk page.

He didn't delete Everyking's comment, however. I suspect if one simply typed the words "Wikipedia Review" on his talk page and hit enter he would delete it immediately.

Although, back in the days of the BADSITES Wars, he was one of the few well-connected, politically powerful insiders who actually took a stand on the mailing lists against banning links to so-called attack sites.

[Kelly Martin]

Although, back in the days of the BADSITES Wars, he was one of the few well-connected, politically powerful insiders who actually took a stand on the mailing lists against banning links to so-called attack sites.

While at the same time agitating behind the scenes to minimalize and sanction those who did so. Davy was against "BADSITES" because he felt that letting people post links to "attack sites" gave him valuable evidence to discover traitors to the cause, plus the whole process generated drama, which he, of course, loves.

[CharlotteWebb]

Yeah, I agree. Being able to grant yourself sensitive user rights at will, no matter who you are, isn't really fair. For transparencies sake, it's best that he keep it.

Um? Any steward can do that. It's logged in a central place, but they can do it at will. Are you suggesting that all stewards should give themselves all rights on all wikis? I expect not so I must be confused by what you are suggesting.

I know that, but I was under the impression that arbcom and the "community" expected "normal" stewards not to assign "advanced user-rights" to themselves or anyone else on enwiki unless the local arbcom locally appoints the local user in question to that local position, on a permanent and local basis.

Do you not remember how the "community" had a fit when DerHexer empowered himself with oversight in what he felt was a bona fide emergency (to redact what he mistook for Rlevse's personal info). Yet somehow it's okay when Jimbo does it, though I'd estimate that he's even further out of touch (with the English Wikipedia) than the Angry German Kid.

Sure, acting in good faith is always nice, but hardly worth what it takes to convince anyone of it. Plus half will never believe it anyway.

[Lar]

Yeah, I agree. Being able to grant yourself sensitive user rights at will, no matter who you are, isn't really fair. For transparencies sake, it's best that he keep it.

Um? Any steward can do that. It's logged in a central place, but they can do it at will. Are you suggesting that all stewards should give themselves all rights on all wikis? I expect not so I must be confused by what you are suggesting.

I know that, but I was under the impression that arbcom and the "community" expected "normal" stewards not to assign "advanced user-rights" to themselves or anyone else on enwiki unless the local arbcom locally appoints the local user in question to that local position, on a permanent and local basis.

Do you not remember how the "community" had a fit when DerHexer empowered himself with oversight in what he felt was a bona fide emergency (to redact what he mistook for Rlevse's personal info). Yet somehow it's okay when Jimbo does it, though I'd estimate that he's even further out of touch (with the English Wikipedia) than the Angry German Kid.

Sure, acting in good faith is always nice, but hardly worth what it takes to convince anyone of it. Plus half will never believe it anyway.

Yes, arbcom expects that.
Yes, I remember the DerHexer oversight situation.

I was asking Cimorene a question. Sorry for any confusion there.

[No one of consequence]

I was asking Cimorene a question. Sorry for any confusion there.

I think Cimorene's point is that since Jimbo could re-grant himself CU at a moment's notice for any reason, or for no reason, asking him to resign CU for reason of inactivity does not really accomplish anything.

[CharlotteWebb]

Yes, arbcom expects that.
Yes, I remember the DerHexer oversight situation.

I was asking Cimorene a question. Sorry for any confusion there.

Looks to me like Cimorene was basically agreeing with my position, which you either misunderstood or misrepresented in your reply.

So I figured I should at least clarify it (even if for no other reason than to make sure she still agrees with it). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Cimorene]

Yes, arbcom expects that.
Yes, I remember the DerHexer oversight situation.

I was asking Cimorene a question. Sorry for any confusion there.

Looks to me like Cimorene was basically agreeing with my position, which you either misunderstood or misrepresented in your reply.

So I figured I should at least clarify it (even if for no other reason than to make sure she still agrees with it). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Yep. That's it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Sorry for the confusion, Lar.

Edit: Typo

This post has been edited by Cimorene:

[MBisanz]

I was asking Cimorene a question. Sorry for any confusion there.

I think Cimorene's point is that since Jimbo could re-grant himself CU at a moment's notice for any reason, or for no reason, asking him to resign CU for reason of inactivity does not really accomplish anything.

I could block you for any reason or no reason at all, but policy prevents me from doing so. The global policy is rather explicit that it is only granted with Arbcom approval on wikis with Arbcoms. Why is something permissible if it violates policy?

[Lar]

I was asking Cimorene a question. Sorry for any confusion there.

I think Cimorene's point is that since Jimbo could re-grant himself CU at a moment's notice for any reason, or for no reason, asking him to resign CU for reason of inactivity does not really accomplish anything.

I could block you for any reason or no reason at all, but policy prevents me from doing so. The global policy is rather explicit that it is only granted with Arbcom approval on wikis with Arbcoms. Why is something permissible if it violates policy?

And that's my point, which I don't think Cimorene or Charlotte got.

[Sarcasticidealist]

And that's my point, which I don't think Cimorene or Charlotte got.

Okay, but does policy prevent Jimmy from assigning himself userrights at will? Insofar as policy is a description of actual practice, it appears not.

[Kelly Martin]

Okay, but does policy prevent Jimmy from assigning himself userrights at will? Insofar as policy is a description of actual practice, it appears not.

Jimmy believes that he is bound by policy only when he chooses to be. He believes that his role is that of constitutional monarch, but does not understand that a constitutional monarch is legally required to abide by the restrictions placed upon him by the parliamentary body to which he has irrevocably delegated governance. Jimmy's relationship to Wikipedia is much closer to that of an mostly absent absolute dictator. Jimmy just uses the constitutional monarch characterization because James Forrester (himself quite the little Royalist) is fond of it and has pushed it quite extensively upon Jimmy (and finding in the latter a very receptive audience).

[Cedric]

Meanwhile back in Gerardland, David is now claiming that "my main concern is the serious defamation."

K. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Somey]

Meanwhile back in Gerardland, David is now claiming that "my main concern is the serious defamation."

Why, I wonder? Dave's never been concerned about the consequences of his defamatory WP-related writings in the past... I doubt that Andrew Landeryou is going to sue Dave over this, since they're in different countries, and he's already gotten some publicity out of it. Admittedly, English libel law is stricter than Australia's, but the cost of conducting an international lawsuit of that nature is likely to be prohibitive.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Jimmy believes that he is bound by policy...

"Bound by policy"? Silly Kelly, that's not how we do things over at our anarcho-libertarian Randian paradise.

[Kelly Martin]

DeeGee feels he's been defamed? Well, poo on that. I've been trying to convince Jimmy to get Wikipedia to stop hosting defamatory comments about me for years, and I've gotten nowhere with that (at best he just promises to "look into it", which is Jimbospeek for "Go away, leave me alone.") No reason I can think of for DeeGee to get better treatment.

[Doc glasgow]

Okay, but does policy prevent Jimmy from assigning himself userrights at will? Insofar as policy is a description of actual practice, it appears not.

Jimmy believes that he is bound by policy only when he chooses to be. He believes that his role is that of constitutional monarch, but does not understand that a constitutional monarch is legally required to abide by the restrictions placed upon him by the parliamentary body to which he has irrevocably delegated governance. Jimmy's relationship to Wikipedia is much closer to that of an mostly absent absolute dictator. Jimmy just uses the constitutional monarch characterization because James Forrester (himself quite the little Royalist) is fond of it and has pushed it quite extensively upon Jimmy (and finding in the latter a very receptive audience).

Give me one recent instance where Jimmy has "dictated" anything, and anyone paid the blindest bit of notice?

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Meanwhile back in Gerardland, David is now claiming that "my main concern is the serious defamation."

K. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

So is he making some sort of veiled legal threat?

He also thanks Everyking for his ''wise counsel''. He can be polite when it serves his purpose, as well as extremely sarcastic.

[CharlotteWebb]

And that's my point, which I don't think Cimorene or Charlotte got.

Okay, but does policy prevent Jimmy from assigning himself userrights at will? Insofar as policy is a description of actual practice, it appears not.

Either Jimbo has some kind of approval from arbcom to use checkuser/oversight on enwiki, or (being the founder/god-king and all) he is exempt from needing said approval. I don't know which of these is true and I don't reckon it makes any difference.

I'm only saying that since enwiki has an arbcom, and since this arbcom does not allow the assignment of these enwiki user-rights at the discretion of any outsider (steward), it is not an unreasonable expectation for Special:Listusers/checkuser to in fact be an exhaustive list of individuals allowed to use this tool on enwiki.

And no, that doesn't mean they have to use it, or that it should be removed from anyone for "inactivity". As far as I'm concerned even the slight possibility that somebody is monitoring the top-secret logs for cases of abuse (enter Smith and Jones) is reason enough to let them continue lurking with the tool, plus someday they might need it.

On arbcom-free "frontier justice" wikis (those fully open to steward intervention) no similar expectation would exist, and none of this would matter. I'm not sure how Lar's interpretation of this (to mean that stewards should permanently retain every access level on every project, just because they can) is anything more than a straw-man.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I'm only saying that since enwiki has an arbcom, and since this arbcom does not allow the assignment of these enwiki user-rights at the discretion of any outsider (steward), it is not an unreasonable expectation for Special:Listusers/checkuser to in fact be an exhaustive list of individuals allowed to use this tool on enwiki.

I agree; I was rebutting Lar's point.

[MBisanz]

And that's my point, which I don't think Cimorene or Charlotte got.

Okay, but does policy prevent Jimmy from assigning himself userrights at will? Insofar as policy is a description of actual practice, it appears not.

Either Jimbo has some kind of approval from arbcom to use checkuser/oversight on enwiki, or (being the founder/god-king and all) he is exempt from needing said approval. I don't know which of these is true and I don't reckon it makes any difference.

I'm only saying that since enwiki has an arbcom, and since this arbcom does not allow the assignment of these enwiki user-rights at the discretion of any outsider (steward), it is not an unreasonable expectation for Special:Listusers/checkuser to in fact be an exhaustive list of individuals allowed to use this tool on enwiki.

And no, that doesn't mean they have to use it, or that it should be removed from anyone for "inactivity". As far as I'm concerned even the slight possibility that somebody is monitoring the top-secret logs for cases of abuse (enter Smith and Jones) is reason enough to let them continue lurking with the tool, plus someday they might need it.

On arbcom-free "frontier justice" wikis (those fully open to steward intervention) no similar expectation would exist, and none of this would matter. I'm not sure how Lar's interpretation of this (to mean that stewards should permanently retain every access level on every project, just because they can) is anything more than a straw-man.

Jimbo does have Arbcom permission for Oversight, see Meta request.

[CharlotteWebb]

Jimbo does have Arbcom permission for Oversight, see Meta request.

Ah, thanks. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

That's fine provided he doesn't confuse people by switching it on and off for no apparent reason.

[Milton Roe]

Jimbo does have Arbcom permission for Oversight, see Meta request.

Ah, thanks. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

That's fine provided he doesn't confuse people by switching it on and off for no apparent reason.

Or even worse, switching it on and off for reasons that actually are apparent. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[EricBarbour]

Give me one recent instance where Jimmy has "dictated" anything, and anyone paid the blindest bit of notice?

Recent? Now, you know that he's not doing it on IRC or in some other public-readable area. Remember this? He learned his lesson. Now he does his backstabbing (and his butt-suckers do their sucking) more quiet-like. No more "let them eat cake", just whispering.

Jimmy believes that he is bound by policy only when he chooses to be. He believes that his role is that of constitutional monarch, but does not understand that a constitutional monarch is legally required to abide by the restrictions placed upon him by the parliamentary body to which he has irrevocably delegated governance. Jimmy's relationship to Wikipedia is much closer to that of a mostly absent absolute dictator.

That's more like it. Thank you.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[TungstenCarbide]

Give me one recent instance where Jimmy has "dictated" anything, and anyone paid the blindest bit of notice?

Recent? Now, you know that he's not doing it on IRC or in some other public-readable area. Remember this? He learned his lesson. Now he does his backstabbing (and his butt-suckers do their sucking) more quiet-like. No more "let them eat cake", just whispering.

Actually, that was the admin irc channel, which was supposed to be confidential. You should have seen them go apeshit when they realized an admin on that channel was leaking logs. The next log is even more impressive - Jimbo basically saying he fired Sanger for cause, and calling on his army of admins to do his dirty work at Larry_Sanger (T-H-L-K-D). Seems to me like a pretty solid case of defaming Sanger's professional reputation.

[Lar]

I'm only saying that since enwiki has an arbcom, and since this arbcom does not allow the assignment of these enwiki user-rights at the discretion of any outsider (steward), it is not an unreasonable expectation for Special:Listusers/checkuser to in fact be an exhaustive list of individuals allowed to use this tool on enwiki.

I agree; I was rebutting Lar's point.

I think I made that point so badly that no one understands it.

Let me try again. The DerHexer incident notwithstanding, if there is a dire enough CU (or OV) emergency and no en:wp CU (or OV, respectively) to be found, any steward can and will turn on the CU (or OV, respectively) bit and do what needs doing. Exceedingly rare, but not in any way against policy. (but the steward better have had a darn good reason or a shitstorm will ensue)

So unless every steward left their CU bit on all the time, on en:wp anyway, Special:Listusers/checkuser will not ever be an exhaustive list of individuals allowed to use this tool by policy. Ditto OV. Because it would omit the stewards. Who are allowed to use the tool by policy.

I think it's silly to suggest that all stewards leave their bits on, but since there is no other way to do that exhaustive list thing, it's not actually a straw man argument I don't think, it's a rebuttal via reductio ad absurdum. (1)

1 - well, the text that is displayed for Special:Listusers/checkuser could be modified to remind you to go look on meta to see the list of stewards and give you the link, so that by addition you yourself could construct the list.

I'm only saying that since enwiki has an arbcom, and since this arbcom does not allow the assignment of these enwiki user-rights at the discretion of any outsider (steward)

Ah, there's the rub... that's a false assumption. Broken out for emphasis. No Arbcom has the authority to do that (in emergency situations... if the emergency is dire enough).

[CharlotteWebb]

Let me try again. The DerHexer incident notwithstanding, if there is a dire enough CU (or OV) emergency and no en:wp CU (or OV, respectively) to be found, any steward can and will turn on the CU (or OV, respectively) bit and do what needs doing. Exceedingly rare, but not in any way against policy. (but the steward better have had a darn good reason or a shitstorm will ensue)

Okay, has anyone provided a definition of "darn good reason" in this context?

Surely, I would have thought redacting a user's suspected personal info would fall into this category, even if it later proves to be a (very amusing) false alarm, as in the case of…

[Alison]

We also shouldn't forget that Dave is a father now...

By his wife or his concubine?

I'm with Miss Manners on this one: "All children are a gift from God." Simply put, it is impolite to inquire into or speculate about the origins of someone else's children.

It's not like it's a secret: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arkady_Rose

I like this one better. Who is the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

Guys, will you just knock it off already (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) Not only are you getting all holier-than-thou about David Gerard, but you're also messing about with his family who have nothing to do with this.

I'm no massive fan of David 'skull dancing' Gerard, but this is just wrong. BTW - there aren't a whole lot of admins who had the cojones to deal with this particular nuisance, but David was one of then who did. Kudos and respect to him for doing that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

[anthony]

We also shouldn't forget that Dave is a father now...

By his wife or his concubine?

I'm with Miss Manners on this one: "All children are a gift from God." Simply put, it is impolite to inquire into or speculate about the origins of someone else's children.

It's not like it's a secret: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arkady_Rose

I like this one better. Who is the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

Guys, will you just knock it off already (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) Not only are you getting all holier-than-thou about David Gerard, but you're also messing about with his family who have nothing to do with this.

Once again, all three members of David's "family" are completely open about their living arrangement, so I see no problem with the initial question (I wondered myself, though I would have used the term "girlfriend" rather than "concubine"). Be angry at David and/or Liz and/or Arkady if you don't like the idea of a man living with his wife and his girlfriend/best man/baby mama, not at us.

I do think bringing the "bridesmaid" into the thread was unnecessary.

[GlassBeadGame]

We also shouldn't forget that Dave is a father now...

By his wife or his concubine?

I'm with Miss Manners on this one: "All children are a gift from God." Simply put, it is impolite to inquire into or speculate about the origins of someone else's children.

It's not like it's a secret: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arkady_Rose

I like this one better. Who is the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

Guys, will you just knock it off already (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) Not only are you getting all holier-than-thou about David Gerard, but you're also messing about with his family who have nothing to do with this.

Once again, all three members of David's "family" are completely open about their living arrangement, so I see no problem with the initial question (I wondered myself, though I would have used the term "girlfriend" rather than "concubine"). Be angry at David and/or Liz and/or Arkady if you don't like the idea of a man living with his wife and his girlfriend/best man/baby mama, not at us.

I do think bringing the "bridesmaid" into the thread was unnecessary.

I would say it would be wrong if anyone posted the child's name, pic or any other information. But not what's been said here. This is more "we make the world anew without regard to convention, rules, morals etc" and if you don't like it then "let's skulldance." Besides if I can't say "concubine" here, when do I ever get to say it?

[anthony]

Besides if I can't say "concubine" here, when do I ever get to say it?

I use the term "baby mama" all the time. It's so much cooler than "child's mother". Not in front of anyone I mind offending, though. I don't see it as an offensive term, but some people do.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Somey]

Guys, will you just knock it off already (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) Not only are you getting all holier-than-thou about David Gerard, but you're also messing about with his family who have nothing to do with this.

Like I say, we'll remove the references if he asks, but he's got quite a few other things to remove himself, preferably before he asks others to do likewise. And like GBG says, we're not referring to the little tyke directly...

Still, whenever I see things like that I'm reminded of the Kathie Lee Gifford (T-H-L-K-D) story. In 1995 she wrote a book entitled Listen to My Heart: Lessons in Love, Laughter, and Lunacy, essentially a memoir of her first 2-3 years raising her son Cody. Unfortunately, the book is little more than her fulminating at great length about how "cute" Cody is (or was), including his propensity to "poop" on things, such as (in most cases) himself. You can still find the book on amazon.com, the page for which includes a Publisher's Weekly review containing a reference to the poop-related content, and two hilarious (though short) customer reviews, one of which reads thusly:

Poor Kathie Lee. Her book is designed to show us that she is such a sweet kind loving attentive mother. If you read the book with any degree of attention, you will see that she is a very disturbed woman, and that dear little Cody is well on his way to serial-killerdom.

In effect, Kathie Lee transferred her extreme-narcissistic psychological issues onto her son by proxy, published a book which inadvertently detailed it (without no self-realization whatsoever), and in so doing saddled the poor boy with an account of his childhood toilet-training issues that will follow him for the rest of his life.

Thankfully, there's no account of this book (or any of her other books) in Kathie Lee's Wikipedia article, nor is it mentioned on her personal website. Cody is now 19 and hopefully doing well, but who knows how much hell he had to endure growing up because of this?

I can only hope Dave, and other parents, learn from this and try to keep details of their children's development private. He wasn't doing a good job of that around the time of his own child's birth, but to be fair, he seems to have done a lot better since then.

[MZMcBride]

In effect, Kathie Lee transferred her extreme-narcissistic psychological issues onto her son by proxy, published a book which inadvertently detailed it (without no self-realization whatsoever), and in so doing saddled the poor boy with an account of his childhood toilet-training issues that will follow him for the rest of his life.

Everyone poops.

[CharlotteWebb]

Thankfully, there's no account of this book (or any of her other books) in Kathie Lee's Wikipedia article, nor is it mentioned on her personal website.

Uh, best not to give 'em any ideas eh?

Everyone poops.

Starring Al Yankovic as Michael Stipe. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Paging Dr. Moulton…

[Nerd]

Now what?

[trenton]

Looks like all mention of this is about to disappear....

Looks like Gerard kissed the right ass to have the "defamation" removed....

[thekohser]

Now what?

Quote some text, please, for those of us trapped on BlackBerry!

[Nerd]

Now what?

Quote some text, please, for those of us trapped on BlackBerry!

It looks like Risker has oversighted the whole ordeal, on Gerard's talkpage, and the discussion on the arbcom noticeboard.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Quote some text, please, for those of us trapped on BlackBerry!

No text - that's just it. A bunch of revisions to David Gerard's talk page appear to have been revision deleted.

[Milton Roe]

Thankfully, there's no account of this book (or any of her other books) in Kathie Lee's Wikipedia article, nor is it mentioned on her personal website.

Uh, best not to give 'em any ideas eh?

For sure. A mother's obscessive fascination with her baby's poop would be SO unusual; it would probably overwhelm the rest of the article. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

Quote some text, please, for those of us trapped on BlackBerry!

No text - that's just it. A bunch of revisions to David Gerard's talk page appear to have been revision deleted.

David has always been fond of censorship, except when it comes to obscene images.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[GlassBeadGame]

Quote some text, please, for those of us trapped on BlackBerry!

No text - that's just it. A bunch of revisions to David Gerard's talk page appear to have been revision deleted.

David has always been fond of censorship, except when it comes to obscene images.

Child Porn is information that needs to be free. Embarrassing comments about DG, not so much.

[RMHED]

Quote some text, please, for those of us trapped on BlackBerry!

No text - that's just it. A bunch of revisions to David Gerard's talk page appear to have been revision deleted.

David has always been fond of censorship, except when it comes to obscene images.

David has always been very fond of playing with himself, this inevitably leads some to label him an irredeemable wanker. Such a label though would be rather unfair, as I'm sure given enough counselling he could be redeemed.

[TungstenCarbide]

Quote some text, please, for those of us trapped on BlackBerry!

No text - that's just it. A bunch of revisions to David Gerard's talk page appear to have been revision deleted.

David has always been fond of censorship, except when it comes to obscene images.

Child Porn is information that needs to be free. Embarrassing comments about DG, not so much.

Here's David censoring information about his beloved super secret admins-irc channel, (you know - the very same one where Jimbo went to round up his posse of admins to go demolish Sanger's bio). And here's Gerard protecting it, to make sure the censorship sticks.

Oh, and you're gonna love this. When the case went to the arbcom, Gerard hid behind closed doors and presented his defense in secret, by virtue of his membership on the arbcom mailing list, which none of the other parties to the case had. Needless to say, Gerard got a pass, and the arbcom took full advantage of the opportunity to demonstrated what a joke they were.

But you are absolutely right, GBG, Gerard loves censoring except when it comes to obscenity, like pictures of men sucking their own wieners. For example, when discussing images on the Autofellatio page, Gerard threatens; "If this looks like becoming the Jesusland Extremely Abridged Encyclopedia, I will be out of here."

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[RMHED]

Quote some text, please, for those of us trapped on BlackBerry!

No text - that's just it. A bunch of revisions to David Gerard's talk page appear to have been revision deleted.

David has always been fond of censorship, except when it comes to obscene images.

Child Porn is information that needs to be free. Embarrassing comments about DG, not so much.

Here's David censoring information about his beloved super secret admins-irc channel, (you know - the very same one where Jimbo went to round up his posse of admins to go demolish Sanger's bio). And here's Gerard protecting it, to make sure the censorship sticks.

Oh, and you're gonna love this. When the case went to the arbcom, Gerard hid behind closed doors and presented his defense in secret, by virtue of his membership on the arbcom mailing list, which none of the other parties to the case had. Needless to say, Gerard got a pass, and the arbcom took full advantage of the opportunity to demonstrated what a joke they were.

But you are absolutely right, GBG, Gerard loves censoring except when it comes to obscenity, like pictures of men sucking their own wieners. For example, when discussing images on the Autofellatio page, Gerard threatens; "If this looks like becoming the Jesusland Extremely Abridged Encyclopedia, I will be out of here."

Is this your roundabout way of calling David Gerard a cocksucker?

[Kelly Martin]

So David Gerard can get vaguely defamatory comments about himself disappeared, but the volumes of stuff that is equally defamatory of me gets, at best, courtesy blanked (and most of it just sits around in archives for anyone to read).

I suppose I should send Mike Godwin a letter or something, the numerous discussions I've had with King Jimmy have been decisively unproductive.

[RMHED]

So David Gerard can get vaguely defamatory comments about himself disappeared, but the volumes of stuff that is equally defamatory of me gets, at best, courtesy blanked (and most of it just sits around in archives for anyone to read).

I suppose I should send Mike Godwin a letter or something.

I'd go with the "or something". It'll be a surprise for Mr. Godwin, though not necessarily a pleasant one.

[A Horse With No Name]

Is this your roundabout way of calling David Gerard a cocksucker?

You hit it on the head, so to speak. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Milton Roe]

But you are absolutely right, GBG, Gerard loves censoring except when it comes to obscenity, like pictures of men sucking their own wieners. For example, when discussing images on the Autofellatio page, Gerard threatens; "If this looks like becoming the Jesusland Extremely Abridged Encyclopedia, I will be out of here."

Okay: There is a motion from the floor to rename WP to:

The Jesusland Extremely Abridged Encyclopedia

Second? Benefits are obvious. The crew from Exodus (1960 film) that hangs around the place would probably be annoyed at this, and leave also.

I never quite did get a good reason why an admin can't named Nipple37 but the 'pedia can have a complete article on autofellatio (which, if I am not mistaken involves sucking a tailpipe, as Republicans are wont to encourage rather than do something about global warming).

Look at it this way: unless you go into "edit" mode, you never even SEE usernames, right? So what would it matter if they were all obscene? But there are plenty of oportunities to see [[autofellatio]] in a regular article, even if you weren't particularly looking for porn or exotica. I'm tempted to see what links to it-- is there any way to do that easily?

Is there a chance that [[autofellatio]] links only to itself? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

So David Gerard can get vaguely defamatory comments about himself disappeared, but the volumes of stuff that is equally defamatory of me gets, at best, courtesy blanked (and most of it just sits around in archives for anyone to read).

I suppose I should send Mike Godwin a letter or something.

I'd go with the "or something". It'll be a surprise for Mr. Godwin, though not necessarily a pleasant one.

Since Gerard's powers to do this kind of thing are suspended, who is doing this stuff for him? Inquiring minds want to know. Jimbo himself?

Nevermind autofellatio. Somebody's doing Gerard, and he's doing somebody in return. Who?

[MZMcBride]

But there are plenty of oportunities to see [[autofellatio]] in a regular article, even if you weren't particularly looking for porn or exotica. I'm tempted to see what links to it-- is there any way to do that easily?

Is there a chance that [[autofellatio]] links only to itself? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

This link is all incoming links to the article. This link is only articles that link to "Autofellatio."

[No one of consequence]

So David Gerard can get vaguely defamatory comments about himself disappeared, but the volumes of stuff that is equally defamatory of me gets, at best, courtesy blanked (and most of it just sits around in archives for anyone to read).

I suppose I should send Mike Godwin a letter or something, the numerous discussions I've had with King Jimmy have been decisively unproductive.

Email me a list. Assuming I decide to keep my checkuser and oversight privileges, I'll give it a fair review.

[TungstenCarbide]

So David Gerard can get vaguely defamatory comments about himself disappeared, but the volumes of stuff that is equally defamatory of me gets, at best, courtesy blanked (and most of it just sits around in archives for anyone to read).

I suppose I should send Mike Godwin a letter or something, the numerous discussions I've had with King Jimmy have been decisively unproductive.

Email me a list. Assuming I decide to keep my checkuser and oversight privileges, I'll give it a fair review.

I think Lar has oversight on Commons

[Kelly Martin]

Email me a list. Assuming I decide to keep my checkuser and oversight privileges, I'll give it a fair review.

It's a very long list. There's hundreds of instances of people on Wikipedia speaking of me in a defamatory way. SlimVirgin and Irpen are two of the worst violators.

Since Gerard's powers to do this kind of thing are suspended, who is doing this stuff for him? Inquiring minds want to know. Jimbo himself?

I've heard rumors that there's a right kerfuffle within the Inner Cabal, which views this as an Old Guard/New Guard sort of thing: the new guard (which controls the arbcom now) is "cleaning house" of the old guard, which includes David. The reason for removal was a pretext (ask everyking how that works if you don't get it). Reportedly the revision hidings were flat-out ordered by Mike Godwin. Whether Jimbo going involved is an open guess at this point.

[Cla68]

Email me a list. Assuming I decide to keep my checkuser and oversight privileges, I'll give it a fair review.

It's a very long list. There's hundreds of instances of people on Wikipedia speaking of me in a defamatory way. SlimVirgin and Irpen are two of the worst violators.

Since Gerard's powers to do this kind of thing are suspended, who is doing this stuff for him? Inquiring minds want to know. Jimbo himself?

I've heard rumors that there's a right kerfuffle within the Inner Cabal, which views this as an Old Guard/New Guard sort of thing: the new guard (which controls the arbcom now) is "cleaning house" of the old guard, which includes David. The reason for removal was a pretext (ask everyking how that works if you don't get it). Reportedly the revision hidings were flat-out ordered by Mike Godwin. Whether Jimbo going involved is an open guess at this point.

If that's true, when people ask ArbCom why the edits were deleted, ArbCom should simply answer, "Ask Mike Godwin."

[No one of consequence]

Email me a list. Assuming I decide to keep my checkuser and oversight privileges, I'll give it a fair review.

It's a very long list. There's hundreds of instances of people on Wikipedia speaking of me in a defamatory way. SlimVirgin and Irpen are two of the worst violators.

The problem then is one of scope. Consider one bad comment that was visible on a page for a week before it was archived. I could suppress the diff itself, so no one could link directly to the comment, and the archive could be cleaned up fairly painlessly, but hiding the comment in every revision it appears could involve suppressing dozens or hundreds of edits per comment. I'll still look if you want me to, but suppressing something is easiest if it is reverted right away and gets progressively harder the longer the text hangs around.

[Daniel Brandt]

I won't believe that Mike Godwin is involved at all until such time that Gerard's name, listed twice on this Foundation page, is deleted. That's absolutely the most obvious thing that Godwin should do at this point. But I suspect that Godwin isn't even trying to do his job on this issue.

[trenton]

Meh, there's no such thing as being "forced" to do anything. If they disagree strong enough they can always resign en-masse.

[dtobias]

Reportedly the revision hidings were flat-out ordered by Mike Godwin.

How Nazi-like! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

Reportedly the revision hidings were flat-out ordered by Mike Godwin.

And the peasants are mad as hell.

You'd thing Mike Godwin would have more important things to do, like addressing the problem of Wikipedia giving minors the responsibility of administering porn.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Piperdown]

Meanwhile back in Gerardland, David is now claiming that "my main concern is the serious defamation."

K. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

he didn't seem so concerned with the serious defamation of Judd Bagley on Wikipedia.

[Somey]

I think we have to assume that Andrew Landeryou actually did call in some US-based attorneys to act on his behalf with the Foundation. There isn't much else that would explain this kind of activity by these particular individuals... is there? I wouldn't think just an e-mail would do it, there would have to be a letter or a phone call from an actual attorney.

IMO it's conceivable that they may give DG his access privileges back, at least for the time being, in order to avoid the appearance of having punished him, as this might be taken as an admission of wrongdoing. But I'd only give it a 10-20 percent chance, personally. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[trenton]

No, that doesn't sound too plausible.... The cat's already out of the bag if they're trying to protect themselves by protecting Gerard.

More likely that Gerard whined to the right people about being "defamed" by the arbcom, and him and his buddies got the arbcom to back down.

[Milton Roe]

Reportedly the revision hidings were flat-out ordered by Mike Godwin.

How Nazi-like! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Yeah, we've got to be sure to mention The Third Reich as soon as possible, whenever the man's name comes up. Just out of respect.

[TungstenCarbide]

Can someone please tell me what Gmaxwell is doing on the CU mailing list? Is there a global list of checkusers somewhere?
<edit>
Nevermind, Gmaxwell is a cu on commons

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[No one of consequence]

Can someone please tell me what Gmaxwell is doing on the CU mailing list? Is there a global list of checkusers somewhere?

The SUL tool will tell you the status of a given user name on all wikis where it is active. Gmaxwell is a checkuser on Commons.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[Jon Awbrey]

Reportedly the revision hidings were flat-out ordered by Mike Godwin.

How Nazi-like! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Now, DT, you know perfectly well how defamatory and unfair that is — toward Nazis — they were meticulous record-keepers in documenting their own atrocities. It's almost as if they were proud of them.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif)

[Milton Roe]

But there are plenty of oportunities to see [[autofellatio]] in a regular article, even if you weren't particularly looking for porn or exotica. I'm tempted to see what links to it-- is there any way to do that easily?

Is there a chance that [[autofellatio]] links only to itself? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

This link is all incoming links to the article. This link is only articles that link to "Autofellatio."

Okay, thanks-- didn't know that command. Here's the list of articles that link to autofellatio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...tio&namespace=0

Notice the odd one Compadre Records. It's just a stub. Where's the link?? Okay, you see it specializes in roots music. Fine. But if you click on the roots music link in the article, you find that some vandal has turned it into an "easter egg" piped link, which takes you instead to .... [[autofellatio]]. So you can go there without ever realizing what you're doing, just by following a very innocent looking link in a stub on a record company. A company owned by Beyoncé's father. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

It's Wikipedia wonderful? But thank god they blocked user:nipples37.

BTW, this pipe-link-to-explicit-stuff type vandalism is actually not a type of vandalism I've seen. It's obviously not obvious to readers of the "plain" text, and so might go unnoticed for quite some time. In fact, this particular IP vandalism is still there, has been in the article for more than a year, since Nov. 2008., and was missed by two subsequent name-editors. The IP responsible has made this one vandalism, plus one more edit which probably explains it: a very similar easter egg pipe link vandalism . This one lasted from 19 Nov to 3 Jan, about 5 weeks. It wasn't caught as vandalism (there were pages of edits between) but disappeared as part of a rewrite. Until then, anybody who linked the term "rapper" in R. Kelly, was pipe-directed to "raper" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Presumably due to the man's 21 indictments for statutory rape (none of which resulted in a conviction).

Ah, Wikipedia. Where if you sin, or even if you're indicted, you have to pay the piper. Somebody is not happy with R. Kelly. Or with "root music." Or Compadre Records.

[Daniel Brandt]

I'm no massive fan of David 'skull dancing' Gerard, but this is just wrong. BTW - there aren't a whole lot of admins who had the cojones to deal with this particular nuisance, but David was one of then who did. Kudos and respect to him for doing that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

Alison, you have a lot of good instincts and do good work. But when Amorrow enters into the equation, even tangentially, you lose it. Here's my formula for dealing with this:

Is the bad guy packing a piece?

If no, then pretend that the bad guy doesn't exist.

If yes, then get your own piece.

You will live longer and feel healthier this way.

[SirFozzie]

Gee, I wonder why she loses it, Daniel...

[Alison]

Alison, you have a lot of good instincts and do good work. But when Amorrow enters into the equation, even tangentially, you lose it. Here's my formula for dealing with this:

[Redacted my original reply. What's the point ... ]

So David Gerard can get vaguely defamatory comments about himself disappeared, but the volumes of stuff that is equally defamatory of me gets, at best, courtesy blanked (and most of it just sits around in archives for anyone to read).

I suppose I should send Mike Godwin a letter or something, the numerous discussions I've had with King Jimmy have been decisively unproductive.

Email me a list. Assuming I decide to keep my checkuser and oversight privileges, I'll give it a fair review.

Likewise. If 'No one of consequence' can't do it, I'll be glad to take a look. Probably best to start with directly googleable stuff, then hit those first. Defamation is defamation - show me the diffs and I'll try my best.

[EricBarbour]

So....Gerard managed to get some comments he didn't like oversighted out of existence.
People are very unhappy. Arbcom stepped on its collective dick--again. And the silence
is deafening.

Meanwhile, this thread is being dragged off into talk of autofellatio and Amorrow.

[Doc glasgow]

Give me one recent instance where Jimmy has "dictated" anything, and anyone paid the blindest bit of notice?

Recent? Now, you know that he's not doing it on IRC or in some other public-readable area. Remember this? He learned his lesson. Now he does his backstabbing (and his butt-suckers do their sucking) more quiet-like. No more "let them eat cake", just whispering.

Typical conspiracy theory move really:

"Evidence? You want evidence? Of course there's no evidence, the aliens ate all the evidence. The fact it no longer exists perfectly proves that point."

[A Horse With No Name]

So....Gerard managed to get some comments he didn't like oversighted out of existence.
People are very unhappy. Arbcom stepped on its collective dick--again. And the silence
is deafening...

...for now, Eric. For now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[dtobias]

Meanwhile, this thread is being dragged off into talk of autofellatio and Amorrow.

Because WR really obsesses on sex and stalking. However, it has to involve children and/or animals to really get attention around here.

[Random832]

Here's my formula for dealing with this:

Is the bad guy packing a piece?

At least you've conceded that he's a bad guy; that's a step up. Didn't you re-add Alison to Hivemind at one point for posting 'defamatory' claims that he was a stalker?

If no, then pretend that the bad guy doesn't exist.

Ignoring that there are certainly bad things that someone can do without using a gun...

If yes, then get your own piece.

...and the endgame for this one is that someone gets shot (no guarantee that it's the bad guy). Wouldn't it be so much better if he'd never gotten her information to begin with?

What part of your stated goal for Hivemind can't be served by merely listing usernames and providing the rest of the information on request (and rejecting requests that don't show sufficient cause etc)?

This post has been edited by Random832:

[MBisanz]

It would seem that Jayvdb has now resigned as an Arbitrator in light of a private deal brokered by Mike Godwin between David Gerard and the Arbcom that resulted in the sanction notice being oversighted. John, any more context possibly? Was your resignation requested? Was Arbcom admonished? Is it likely there will be more resignations? Is this a protest resignation? What exactly was the deal? Etc.

[Kelly Martin]

This is pretty clearly an old guard/new guard fight; Alison's attempt to hijack the thread (Alison being pretty much a member of the old guard) is just another bit of evidence toward that.

It would be interesting to learn the reason behind John's resignation, but it's likely we won't.

[A Horse With No Name]

It would seem that Jayvdb has now resigned as an Arbitrator in light of a private deal brokered by Mike Godwin between David Gerard and the Arbcom that resulted in the sanction notice being oversighted. John, any more context possibly? Was your resignation requested? Was Arbcom admonished? Is it likely there will be more resignations? Is this a protest resignation? What exactly was the deal? Etc.

He should have quit over his incompetent handling of the Law/TU case. No great loss at all (sorry, John).

[Doc glasgow]

Does anyone have the text of the original motion that was oversighted?

[GlassBeadGame]

Maybe Godwin saw things the way I did and is sticking up for the B/D's ability to enforce their own policies without a "community" organ such as Arbcom interfering? But that would make too much sense so it probably has more to do with old rivalries and such that I can't understand.

[Kelly Martin]

Maybe Godwin saw things the way I did and is sticking up for the B/D's ability to enforce their own policies without a "community" organ such as Arbcom interfering. But that would make too much sense so it probably has more to do with old rivalries and such that I can't understand.

Godwin doesn't have principles; this is just Godwin being pointed like a gun and fired at political enemies.

Politics are always at their nastiest when the stakes are at their lowest. This is just another data point confirming that old truism.

[Random832]

Maybe Godwin saw things the way I did and is sticking up for the B/D's ability to enforce their own policies

News flash: The meta privacy policy is not the only policy that checkusers have to follow, and the ombudspersons have specifically disavowed responsibility for matters where someone violated the stricter en.wiki checkuser policy but not the meta one in the past. (I don't recall the specific example - it might have been the thing with Jayjg and CharlotteWebb.)

This post has been edited by Random832:

[CharlotteWebb]

If yes, then get your own piece.

...and the endgame for this one is that someone gets shot (no guarantee that it's the bad guy). Wouldn't it be so much better if he'd never gotten her information to begin with?

Definitely so, but this is still good advice. That the source of this advice also contributed to the underlying risk factors (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif) does not detract from its soundness. I'd recommend a defensive living course myself at this point. A fighting chance is always better than a hope and a prayer (particularly if one does not believe in the latter).

[GlassBeadGame]

Maybe Godwin saw things the way I did and is sticking up for the B/D's ability to enforce their own policies

News flash: The meta privacy policy is not the only policy that checkusers have to follow, and the ombudspersons have specifically disavowed responsibility for matters where someone violated the stricter en.wiki checkuser policy but not the meta one in the past. (I don't recall the specific example - it might have been the thing with Jayjg and Charlotte.)

You confuse "user generated content purporting to tell others what to do" with policies.

[Random832]

You confuse "user generated content purporting to tell others what to do" with policies.

Well considering that, by those criteria the presence (or absence) of David Gerard's permission bits are also user generated content, what's the problem?

[Kelly Martin]

News flash: The meta privacy policy is not the only policy that checkusers have to follow, and the ombudspersons have specifically disavowed responsibility for matters where someone violated the stricter en.wiki checkuser policy but not the meta one in the past. (I don't recall the specific example - it might have been the thing with Jayjg and CharlotteWebb.)

I suspect that most such decisions have been made primarily on political grounds, rather than principled ones.

[Random832]

I suspect that most such decisions have been made primarily on political grounds, rather than principled ones.

Doesn't change the fact that the only policy they have accepted the responsibility of enforcing is not the one that was enforced here (so there's no conflict). If they object to the existence of the en.wiki checkuser policy, then can't Godwin just delete it?

And since this whole thing is apparently that there's supposedly nothing wrong with publishing a private email, where was Godwin to reverse Giano's block for a certain past incident?

[Jon Awbrey]

News flash: The meta privacy policy is not the only policy that checkusers have to follow, and the ombudspersons have specifically disavowed responsibility for matters where someone violated the stricter en.wiki checkuser policy but not the meta one in the past. (I don't recall the specific example — it might have been the thing with Jayjg and CharlotteWebb.)

I suspect that most such decisions have been made primarily on political grounds, rather than principled ones.

I see Kelly's going full out for

The Understatement Of The Year Award (TUOTYA).

Jonny :applesauce:

[GlassBeadGame]

You confuse "user generated content purporting to tell others what to do" with policies.

Well considering that, by those criteria the presence (or absence) of David Gerard's permission bits are also user generated content, what's the problem?

If that was the case Godwin should have stayed out of it. Put he seems to believe some other interest is a play here. It does puzzle me, if he was concerned with the board's policy, that discussion was removed but the sanction against DG seems to remain in place. Maybe he feels that the allocation of the bits is a "community" matter but ArbCom acting unilaterally concerning the policy is not. Or maybe this all is seen as somekind of defamation issue. This is all a little like Soviet era Kremlinology.

[Doc glasgow]

You confuse "user generated content purporting to tell others what to do" with policies.

Well considering that, by those criteria the presence (or absence) of David Gerard's permission bits are also user generated content, what's the problem?

If that was the case Godwin should have stayed out of it. Put he seems to believe some other interest is a play here. It does puzzle me, if he was concerned with the board's policy, that discussion was removed but the sanction against DG seems to remain in place. Maybe he feels that the allocation of the bits is a "community" matter but ArbCom acting unilaterally concerning the policy is not. Or maybe this all is seen as somekind of defamation issue. This is all a little like Soviet era Kremlinology.

Bear in mind:

"Mike Godwin [was] acting, it is important to note, in his private capacity and not in any way as the Foundation's legal counsel" when he "brokered and agreement between David and the Committee that the statement should be removed entirely to avoid the possibility of further needless harm"

See here

Which rather explains it, doesn't it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

If that was the case Godwin should have stayed out of it. Put he seems to believe some other interest is a play here. It does puzzle me, if he was concerned with the board's policy, that discussion was removed but the sanction against DG seems to remain in place. Maybe he feels that the allocation of the bits is a "community" matter but ArbCom acting unilaterally concerning the policy is not. Or maybe this all is seen as somekind of defamation issue. This is all a little like Soviet era Kremlinology.

This has nothing to do with any sort of principle. None of the parties involved here (at least the major parties) have principles or were acting on the basis of principles. What happened is the "new guard" in Wikipedia has been steadily working to undermine the "old guard". Gerard's misadventures with this politician guy gave them the pretext they needed to move against him, and move they did. The fact that the ArbCom's statement (by way of John Vanderburg) could be interpreted as "defamatory" gave Gerard a pretext he could use to stab back "from the depths of hell" and at least take one of them with him as he went, so he did. Godwin was merely used as a (willing) tool in what amounts to a pissing match.

The comparison to Kremlinology is not inapt, except that in that situation the personal political foibles of a bunch of catty old men really did matter, because those old men had control of enough nuclear firepower to blow the world up several times over. In this case, the catty "old men" have no real power, for which we can be eternally grateful.

[CharlotteWebb]

Bear in mind:

"Mike Godwin [was] acting, it is important to note, in his private capacity and not in any way as the Foundation's legal counsel" when he "brokered and agreement between David and the Committee that the statement should be removed entirely to avoid the possibility of further needless harm"

See here

Which rather explains it, doesn't it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

If I didn't know better I'd say this almost looks like a non-denial denial that El Gerardo threatened to sue somebody. The likelihood of this scenario is a question probably best left to those well-acquainted with him. Uh… Kelly?

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Kelly Martin]

If I didn't know better I'd say this almost looks like a non-denial denial that El Gerardo threatened to sue somebody. The likelihood of this scenario is a question probably best left to those well-acquainted with him. Uh… Kelly?

Gerard lacks the resources required to prosecute such a case, but he is also a grand master of bluster, so I wouldn't be surprised if he made the threat.

[Doc glasgow]

There is a myth that UK libel laws are a litigant's paradise. They are certainly significantly more favourable to the complainer than those of the US. However, it is also incredibly expensive to bring an action, and awards are generally very low.

The result of this means that unless you are very rich, and more interested in vindication than reward, the UK courts are pretty useless for you. That is a paradise if you're an ego-led celebrity, but not if you are a mortal.

[MBisanz]

There is a myth that UK libel laws are a litigant's paradise. They are certainly significantly more favourable to the complainer than those of the US. However, it is also incredibly expensive to bring an action, and awards are generally very low.

The result of this means that unless you are very rich, and more interested in vindication than reward, the UK courts are pretty useless for you. That is a paradise if you're an ego-led celebrity, but not if you are a mortal.

So basically, it is a lot easier to waste money on lawyers in the UK for these kinds of cases with less chance of someone actually recovering substantial damages.

[Doc glasgow]

There is a myth that UK libel laws are a litigant's paradise. They are certainly significantly more favourable to the complainer than those of the US. However, it is also incredibly expensive to bring an action, and awards are generally very low.

The result of this means that unless you are very rich, and more interested in vindication than reward, the UK courts are pretty useless for you. That is a paradise if you're an ego-led celebrity, but not if you are a mortal.

So basically, it is a lot easier to waste money on lawyers in the UK for these kinds of cases with less chance of someone actually recovering substantial damages.

With a few high profile exceptions, yes.

[GlassBeadGame]

There is a myth that UK libel laws are a litigant's paradise. They are certainly significantly more favourable to the complainer than those of the US. However, it is also incredibly expensive to bring an action, and awards are generally very low.

The result of this means that unless you are very rich, and more interested in vindication than reward, the UK courts are pretty useless for you. That is a paradise if you're an ego-led celebrity, but not if you are a mortal.

So basically, it is a lot easier to waste money on lawyers in the UK for these kinds of cases with less chance of someone actually recovering substantial damages.

With a few high profile exceptions, yes.

And no contingency fees, either.

So Godwin meddled in a dispute, personally and not as counsel, involving parties who he may tomorrow have to engage as counsel for the corporation? I wonder if Godwin will confirm Coren's account of his acting in a private capacity? I wouldn't believe it but I've never heard of another lawyer with half of his resume pertaining to things he said on Usenet.

[Somey]

If this is true, and they're going to this much trouble on behalf of a "functionary" (or ex-functionary, whichever) merely on the basis of a clearly-bogus threat of legal action... I mean, we already knew there were double-standards for admins and functionaries, which I suppose the "New Guard" is trying to ameliorate. But this is more blatant than usual.

Seriously, I wonder how long it would have taken a court (no matter what country it was) to throw out the case once the plaintiff announced that the "defamation" consisted of implying that he misused his checkuser privileges? Maybe I could see a minute or two for the judge to ask for an explanation of what checkuser privileges are, but once that was taken care of, no more than 30 seconds, 25 of which are going to be for a stern admonishment to plaintiff's counsel.

[TungstenCarbide]

If I didn't know better I'd say this almost looks like a non-denial denial that El Gerardo threatened to sue somebody. The likelihood of this scenario is a question probably best left to those well-acquainted with him. Uh… Kelly?

Gerard lacks the resources required to prosecute such a case, but he is also a grand master of bluster, so I wouldn't be surprised if he made the threat.

Giano has asked that question straight up. Remember, a legal threat, even implied, is grounds for immediate banning from the site. For example...

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[GlassBeadGame]

If I didn't know better I'd say this almost looks like a non-denial denial that El Gerardo threatened to sue somebody. The likelihood of this scenario is a question probably best left to those well-acquainted with him. Uh… Kelly?

Gerard lacks the resources required to prosecute such a case, but he is also a grand master of bluster, so I wouldn't be surprised if he made the threat.

Giano has asked that question straight up. Remember, a legal threat, even implied, is grounds for immediate banning from the site.

He asks for "only the truth." That trick never works.

[trenton]

No, I don't think he had to make any legal threats.... why resort to that when you're buddies with the higher ups?

[Random832]

No, I don't think he had to make any legal threats.... why resort to that when you're buddies with the higher ups?

This is a nice encyclopedia you've got here - It'd be a shame if anything.... litigious.... were to happen to it.

'Legal threat' is such an ugly word. (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

So what exactly does this Gerard character do for a living? All I know is that he looks like a weirdo, has a hefty wife and behaves like a boor on the Internet. Is there any reason to pay attention to him?

[gomi]

Privatemusings (T-C-L-K-R-D) manages to post a link to the offending blog post that started the whole thing, without that being oversighted (yet). I wonder when the rest of the bits will re-appear.

It appears that Wikipedia identifies Mike Godwin as damage to the network and routes around him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

So what exactly does this Gerard character do for a living? All I know is that he looks like a weirdo, has a hefty wife and behaves like a boor on the Internet. Is there any reason to pay attention to him?

Nope.

Except trolls generate their own attention, and he's an immensely successful one.

I've always found it ironic when Wikipedians refer to WR as "trolls", the best trolls here are entirely outclassed by most senior wikipedians.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Kelly Martin]

So what exactly does this Gerard character do for a living? All I know is that he looks like a weirdo, has a hefty wife and behaves like a boor on the Internet. Is there any reason to pay attention to him?

My understanding is that he works for the BBC, as a software developer in their web content delivery division. He might be a contractor; my memory on this point is vague, but I am reasonably certain that he has some affiliation with the Beeb.

He has also made money doing various other sorts of IT and internet stuff, including apparently reselling hosting.

[gomi]

So what exactly does this Gerard character do for a living? All I know is that he looks like a weirdo, has a hefty wife and behaves like a boor on the Internet. Is there any reason to pay attention to him?

By his own description, he's a run-of-the-mill IT consultant "sysadmin" low- to mid-level computer guy. He's known to have set up various hosting servers, websites, etc, etc.

In addition to being a walking freak-show himself, he has a wife who styles herself the "Red Countess" and a "girlfriend" who makes and sells fetish wear for barbie dolls.

Ahem. "May you live in interesting times."

[MBisanz]

This new evidence shoot numerous large holes in what my understanding was thus far and concerns me on several levels.

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[Sarcasticidealist]

I understand the defamation issue, but can anybody clarify the issues surrounding Godwin's question "was David Gerard punished fairly for a *substantive* violation of administrative standards"? To what degree of fairness is somebody legally entitled for administrative privileges on a private website? I would have thought not a lot, but I'm not really a very good law student.

[trenton]

All this crap for a decision that is pretty much spot on with regards to Gerard being a jackass. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Congrats Godwin....

(Let's not forget he's the ace lawyer who edited his own article as an ip because the coi policy only "discourages" editing by involved individuals)

If anyone should lose their job, it should be Godwin.

edit: and is Godwin seriously suggesting that arbcom needs to apply legal standards in regards to site governance? What a farce...

This post has been edited by trenton:

[everyking]

This new evidence shoot numerous large holes in what my understanding was thus far and concerns me on several levels.

This feels like one of those "it's a pity they can't both lose" situations. But really, I'd suggest that the ArbCom take a very hard line here. Gerard is poison for Wikipedia, and this mess just drives the point home.

[Kelly Martin]

I understand the defamation issue, but can anybody clarify the issues surrounding Godwin's question "was David Gerard punished fairly for a *substantive* violation of administrative standards"? To what degree of fairness is somebody legally entitled for administrative privileges on a private website? I would have thought not a lot, but I'm not really a very good law student.

How many times have we been told that "Wikipedia does not do due process"? Are we now to believe that David Gerard is an exception to that aphorism?

It's pretty clear that this is Godwin leveraging personal influence for a friend, in the masquerade of providing legal counsel. I suspect he is actually treading on ethically treacherous grounds by pretending to provide legal advice to a party which is adverse to a party to whom he may have a duty to represent.

[MBisanz]

I understand the defamation issue, but can anybody clarify the issues surrounding Godwin's question "was David Gerard punished fairly for a *substantive* violation of administrative standards"? To what degree of fairness is somebody legally entitled for administrative privileges on a private website? I would have thought not a lot, but I'm not really a very good law student.

How many times have we been told that "Wikipedia does not do due process"? Are we now to believe that David Gerard is an exception to that aphorism?

I believe I was yelled higher up in this very thread for saying the same thing.

[Sarcasticidealist]

How many times have we been told that "Wikipedia does not do due process"?

That was certainly my understanding. But when you see a lawyer with recognized expertise in, as he put it, "the law of online communities" imply otherwise, it stirs up some doubt.

[Random832]

I understand the defamation issue, but can anybody clarify the issues surrounding Godwin's question "was David Gerard punished fairly for a *substantive* violation of administrative standards"? To what degree of fairness is somebody legally entitled for administrative privileges on a private website? I would have thought not a lot, but I'm not really a very good law student.

You know... looking past the particular personalities involved - this could be a step in... well, I won't say the right direction, but if it leads to either actual standards of fairness, or more likely at least an inability to silence other people's demands to be treated fairly, this could be something positive.

This is of course, if such a step is actually taken, rather than expediently used to save David Gerard and then ignored in the future.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[trenton]

and Gerard was the one who wanted things to be done in public (if you remember his now oversighted talk page). The arbcom tried to talk to him and get him to resign quietly.

So he wants things done in public, doesn't like the outcome, whines to Godwin, and everything is covered up.

[Kelly Martin]

You know... looking past the particular personalities involved - this could be a step in... well, I won't say the right direction, but if it leads to either actual standards of fairness, or more likely at least an inability to silence other people's demands to be treated fairly, this could be something positive.

Yes, it's certainly possible that this could lead to more responsible dispute resolution practices in Wikipedia, but at this point it seems just as likely just to lead to equally arbitrary, but more opaque, practices. Only time will tell.

[Random832]

If nothing else it should at least be entertaining. Looks like ChrisO is trying to start yet another "let's recall the whole Arbcom" movement that will get nowhere.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

[MBisanz]

You know... looking past the particular personalities involved - this could be a step in... well, I won't say the right direction, but if it leads to either actual standards of fairness, or more likely at least an inability to silence other people's demands to be treated fairly, this could be something positive.

Yes, it's certainly possible that this could lead to more responsible dispute resolution practices in Wikipedia, but at this point it seems just as likely just to lead to equally arbitrary, but more opaque, practices. Only time will tell.

This is probably one of the general strengths of the jury trial system. If defendants knew exactly why a jury had convicted them, there would be endless appeals of "they weighed the wrong facts," "they missed this important thing," etc. Leaving it as a black box from which a decision pops out does have some advantages to finality.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Leaving it as a black box from which a decision pops out does have some advantages to finality.

Except for the part where the judge's instructions are then picked apart and appealed on the most spurious grounds. The problem's exacerbated up here by the fact that we have so few jury trials, so judges don't have much experience with instruction.

[TungstenCarbide]

This new evidence shoot numerous large holes in what my understanding was thus far and concerns me on several levels.

"I've been following this discussion, and it seems to me that the case for removing David Gerard's checkuser and oversight functions has not been made in any way that meets what I as a lawyer would characterize as due-process and evidentiary standards... Please communicate to all involved my strong personal and professional preference that they reconsider this decision." Mike Godwin

Just exactly how stupid is this guy. Checkuser and Functionary list membership are not a 'rights' afforded by a court of law. Giving or taking them is not a legal thing that requires 'due-process' or 'evidentiary standards' in the way that Godwin has implied. Godwin himself is barely a member of the community. How many featured articles has he written? (considering he's acting outside of his role as legal council).

On the one hand, Godwin is causing text and links to be censored that show Gerard not reaching the level of decorum expected of checkusers and functionaries, while on the other he's demanding 'due-process' with 'evidentiary standards' for what? ... to show that Gerard fails to reach the level of decorum expected of checkusers and functionaries.

Unfucking believable

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Random832]

So we've got:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#John.27s_resignation
• this thread
• the other thread

Anywhere else?

[Kelly Martin]

One wonders if anyone involved in this entire process has ever read §61 of Robert's Rules. The editors of that august work set out several good arguments why public disciplinary proceedings for members of a voluntary organization might not be a good idea. Wikipedia's dispute resolution process manages to breach every one of the recommendations made therein.

[Doc glasgow]

The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:

"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"

That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.

[Kelly Martin]

The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:

"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"

That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.

James is not wholly responsible for that travesty; Fred Bauder also has a lot to do with it. Both of them (and several other former arbs) saw their service on the committee as an opportunity to Play Judge, and kitted the entire experience out with the trappings of a court of law, while at the same time denying any of the actual protections that one expects in such an environment.

I argued, both while on the committee and after leaving it, that the committee should resolve most matters before it on summary motion, without detail, sparing the "full monty" for cases that truly demanded it. However, the legal wonks enjoyed their game, and were loath to give it up.

§61 of RONR urges that disciplinary issues be investigated confidentially, and that the assembly refrain from making public statements that might prejudice or defame persons suspected or accused of malfeasance, even after the assembly is satisfied that malfeasance has occurred. The disciplinary body of a voluntary organization should publicly comment on its investigations of a member only in order to respond to the statements of that member, and only to the degree necessary to do so; to do otherwise opens the members of the disciplinary committee (or the members of the organization as a whole) to liability without providing any benefit to the organization or to the members thereof.

Once again, we have a case of Wikipedia ignoring the sage wisdom of those who came before because of their vain belief that they are, in all matters, sui generis.

[No one of consequence]

The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:

"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"

That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.

Yes.

[TungstenCarbide]

The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:

"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"

That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.

James is not wholly responsible for that travesty; Fred Bauder also has a lot to do with it. Both of them (and several other former arbs) saw their service on the committee as an opportunity to Play Judge, and kitted the entire experience out with the trappings of a court of law, while at the same time denying any of the actual protections that one expects in such an environment.

I argued, both while on the committee and after leaving it, that the committee should resolve most matters before it on summary motion, without detail, sparing the "full monty" for cases that truly demanded it. However, the legal wonks enjoyed their game, and were loath to give it up.

§61 of RONR urges that disciplinary issues be investigated confidentially, and that the assembly refrain from making public statements that might prejudice or defame persons suspected or accused of malfeasance, even after the assembly is satisfied that malfeasance has occurred. The disciplinary body of a voluntary organization should publicly comment on its investigations of a member only in order to respond to the statements of that member, and only to the degree necessary to do so; to do otherwise opens the members of the disciplinary committee (or the members of the organization as a whole) to liability without providing any benefit to the organization or to the members thereof.

Once again, we have a case of Wikipedia ignoring the sage wisdom of those who came before because of their vain belief that they are, in all matters, sui generis.

That sounds like very good advice.

The arbcom did ok on the first half, considering the matter in private, but erred on the second half, making a public announcement. The problem is that's how Wikipedia runs; when the arbcom takes action they generally announce it - and the community demands as much. When someone gets blocked, a reason is generally given. I object to Gerard getting special treatment on this matter, especially after all the personal insults he's spewed over the years on the world's biggest reference site.

[MBisanz]

The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:

"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"

That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.

That probably would have been the cleanest finding. It is interesting that I recall under New York law, there is an obscure provision known as an Article 78 proceeding that, in part, states the decision of a body can be reviewed by a state court if it makes a:

...a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed; or...[emphasis mine]

Now, in NY, I'm told that 90% of the time these proceedings are brought against government agencies, but the other 10% of the time they are brought against private organizations, which in NY also includes unincorporated groups of more than 5 or 12 people who act with a common purpose (I don't have the exact language handy). I don't know what the laws of Florida, California, or the UK have to say about "arbitrary" actions, but it does seem odd that Mike would use a phrase that is a legal term of art in describing Arbcom's actions.

[Tarc]

If nothing else it should at least be entertaining. Looks like ChrisO is trying to start yet another "let's recall the whole Arbcom" movement that will get nowhere.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Most likely because this AC committee was the one that sacked him.

[MBisanz]

The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:

"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"

That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.

James is not wholly responsible for that travesty; Fred Bauder also has a lot to do with it. Both of them (and several other former arbs) saw their service on the committee as an opportunity to Play Judge, and kitted the entire experience out with the trappings of a court of law, while at the same time denying any of the actual protections that one expects in such an environment.

I argued, both while on the committee and after leaving it, that the committee should resolve most matters before it on summary motion, without detail, sparing the "full monty" for cases that truly demanded it. However, the legal wonks enjoyed their game, and were loath to give it up.

§61 of RONR urges that disciplinary issues be investigated confidentially, and that the assembly refrain from making public statements that might prejudice or defame persons suspected or accused of malfeasance, even after the assembly is satisfied that malfeasance has occurred. The disciplinary body of a voluntary organization should publicly comment on its investigations of a member only in order to respond to the statements of that member, and only to the degree necessary to do so; to do otherwise opens the members of the disciplinary committee (or the members of the organization as a whole) to liability without providing any benefit to the organization or to the members thereof.

Once again, we have a case of Wikipedia ignoring the sage wisdom of those who came before because of their vain belief that they are, in all matters, sui generis.

Yes, if you see my post right above, at least in NY, that is why RONR suggest such methods to avoid liability for defamation, since it probably exists even in a situation as informal as arbcom.

[Peter Damian]

Revenge: best served cold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253892048

Delicious.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Revenge: best served cold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253892048

Delicious.

I don't follow - who are you saying is getting revenge on whom?

[TungstenCarbide]

The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:

"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"

That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.

That probably would have been the cleanest finding. It is interesting that I recall under New York law, there is an obscure provision known as an Article 78 proceeding that, in part, states the decision of a body can be reviewed by a state court if it makes a:

...a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed; or...[emphasis mine]

Now, in NY, I'm told that 90% of the time these proceedings are brought against government agencies, but the other 10% of the time they are brought against private organizations, which in NY also includes unincorporated groups of more than 5 or 12 people who act with a common purpose (I don't have the exact language handy). I don't know what the laws of Florida, California, or the UK have to say about "arbitrary" actions, but it does seem odd that Mike would use a phrase that is a legal term of art in describing Arbcom's actions.

I believe that Mr. Godwin just opened one hell of a pandora's box.

[InkBlot]

Revenge: best served cold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253892048

Delicious.

I don't follow - who are you saying is getting revenge on whom?

Peter is rummaging through his own personal luggage. The link is to a discussion from a year ago when Giano discovered David Gerard had oversighted an edit of FT2's on grounds of...well, on grounds of DG thinking it ought to go away. Kerflufle errupts much later, but fails to gain much steam on-wiki, since oversighting was new, not everybody knew how to use it right, DG meant well, etc., etc.

If David Gerard was going to lose oversight privileges, that would have been a good precedent...but he didn't. No audit committee existed yet, and as Thatcher points out in that link, not much thought had ever been given to how one might audit oversighting activity. In fact, I'd say it's that event plus Thatcher's persistence that eventually made the audit subcommittee a reality, but I digress.

I believe Peter's saying this is his revenge, for all the muck he tried to rake back then failing to gain sufficient attention. For more on his side of things, look here - since most of the topics there are from him.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I believe Peter's saying this is his revenge, for all the muck he tried to rake back then failing to gain sufficient attention. For more on his side of things, look here - since most of the topics there are from him.

Doesn't revenge require some involvement on the part of the avenging party? I thought maybe Peter was saying that he'd somehow caused this turn of events, maybe by tipping off ArbCom to the blog post.

Anyway, that's a dumb semantic debate, and I apologize for starting it. Back to dumb governance debates!

[Apathetic]

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#David_Gerard:_statement_by_ArbCom

Someone might want to webcite this and the resulting discussion!

[cyofee]

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#David_Gerard:_statement_by_ArbCom

Someone might want to webcite this and the resulting discussion!

They don't mention that they've taken away his Checkuser and Oversight bits? Looks like I can't read.

Does anyone have any idea what the "potentially libellous information" could have been?

This post has been edited by cyofee:

[TungstenCarbide]

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#David_Gerard:_statement_by_ArbCom

Someone might want to webcite this and the resulting discussion!

Oh this is just too much. Gerard uses his position as checkuser, along with printing a private email on his blog, to ridicule someone. And when called on it, goes into slash and censor mode, demanding that any review of his actions be removed, because pointing his childish behavior, which was clearly harmful, might cause him harm. This is hypocracy^2 - you just can't make this shit up.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[gomi]

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#David_Gerard:_statement_by_ArbCom

Someone might want to webcite this and the resulting discussion!

David Gerard: statement by ArbCom

Yesterday, a member of ArbCom deleted and suppressed an announcement and two discussions under the heading of "David Gerard". David had expressed a good faith concern that our original and revised announcements could harm him in real life. Although several arbitrators felt that the announcement was proper, we all agreed that we should do no harm when it comes to living people--including our long-time contributor David Gerard. We reached an agreement where our original remarks would be removed but the removal of his oversight and checkuser rights would remain in force. Although arbitrators were worried that a Streisand-like effect would occur, this suppression was the desire of David Gerard, who felt defamed by the comments, and it is proper under the oversight policy ("Removal of potentially libellous information").

For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 20:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[Sarcasticidealist]

They don't mention that they've taken away his Checkuser and Oversight bits?

Um, yes, they do. And they quite explicitly state (contrary to Cade Metz's report) that their decision to do so stands.

[No one of consequence]

Oh this is just too much. Gerard uses his position as checkuser, along with printing a private email on his blog, to ridicule someone. And when called on it, goes into slash and censor mode, demanding that any review of his actions be removed, because pointing his childish behavior, that was meant to harm someone, might cause him harm. This is hypocracy^2 - you just can't make this shit up.

He objected to the specific language of the announcement, which was more strongly worded than was perhaps appropriate.

[Sarcasticidealist]

So here's a question - we know Wikileaker was on arbcom-l until former Arbs were kicked off. Doesn't that mean that unless he's Raul or Jayjg, which he presumably is not, he's now on functionaries-l? Does this fact have any kind of chilling effect on what goes out over that list? I gather from Metz's article that it doesn't. Should it?

[TungstenCarbide]

Oh this is just too much. Gerard uses his position as checkuser, along with printing a private email on his blog, to ridicule someone. And when called on it, goes into slash and censor mode, demanding that any review of his actions be removed, because pointing his childish behavior, that was meant to harm someone, might cause him harm. This is hypocracy^2 - you just can't make this shit up.

He objected to the specific language of the announcement, which was more strongly worded than was perhaps appropriate.

Oh yes, after calling someone a "waste of skin". What a fucking hypocritical crybaby.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Oh yes, after calling someone a "waste of skin". What a fucking hypocritical crybaby.

I don't think "waste of skin" could possibly be held to be defamatory. "Has abused checkuser in a manner contrary to policy", or whatever the wording was, probably could be.

(Defamation is one of the few areas of law that I understand reasonably well outside of exam time.)

[No one of consequence]

So here's a question - we know Wikileaker was on arbcom-l until former Arbs were kicked off. Doesn't that mean that unless he's Raul or Jayjg, which he presumably is not, he's now on functionaries-l? Does this fact have any kind of chilling effect on what goes out over that list? I gather from Metz's article that it doesn't. Should it?

It does now.

[TungstenCarbide]

Oh yes, after calling someone a "waste of skin". What a fucking hypocritical crybaby.

I don't think "waste of skin" could possibly be held to be defamatory. "Has abused checkuser in a manner contrary to policy", or whatever the wording was, probably could be.

(Defamation is one of the few areas of law that I understand reasonably well outside of exam time.)

I don't recall the arbcom announcement stating that DG abused CU. I think they said he failed to live up to the level of decorum expected, or something along those lines. Of course it's all been censored now.

But just think about door that Godwin opened in demanding this oversight. By this standard, pretty much anyone with a RL identity connected to their account name who's ever been in a heated argument on wikipedia can go have wide swaths of history wiped from the project.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Sarcasticidealist]

I don't recall the arbcom announcement stating that DG abused CU.

My recollection was that there were two parts - failing to live up to decorum and inappropriate use of the tool. But I don't have the wording in front of me, so my memory could be off.

[Peter Damian]

Revenge: best served cold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253892048

Delicious.

I don't follow - who are you saying is getting revenge on whom?

On Gerard. For it was he who oversighted the famous edits. Actually it's only truly revenge if one is the cause of his downfall, and I can't claim that. Still, happy to dance here on a skull or two.

Doesn't revenge require some involvement on the part of the avenging party? I thought maybe Peter was saying that he'd somehow caused this turn of events, maybe by tipping off ArbCom to the blog post.

Very true, see above. But is anyone going to deny me my bit of pleasure? Speak up.

[TungstenCarbide]

I don't recall the arbcom announcement stating that DG abused CU.

My recollection was that there were two parts - failing to live up to decorum and inappropriate use of the tool. But I don't have the wording in front of me, so my memory could be off.

Anyone else remember if the announcement specifically stated that DG misused the tool? I don't recall that it did.

[No one of consequence]

Oh yes, after calling someone a "waste of skin". What a fucking hypocritical crybaby.

I don't think "waste of skin" could possibly be held to be defamatory. "Has abused checkuser in a manner contrary to policy", or whatever the wording was, probably could be.

(Defamation is one of the few areas of law that I understand reasonably well outside of exam time.)

I don't recall the arbcom announcement stating that DG abused CU. I think they said he failed to live up to the level of decorum expected, or something along those lines. Of course it's all been censored now.

But just think about door that Godwin opened in demanding this oversight. By this standard, pretty much anyone with a RL identity connected to their account name who's ever been in a heated argument on wikipedia can go have wide swaths of history wiped from the project.

David demanded a full retraction and apology, or oversight, and he demanded it in a hurry because Cade Metz was sniffing around. Arbcom doesn't do "hurry" under the best of circumstances, and here there were significant disagreements about whether or not a retraction was even deserved, much less how to word it. So the comments were oversighted instead.

[Rhindle]

Perhaps if Arbcom said "we are dancing on the skull of DG for abuse of checkuser" instead of "not living up to the level of decorum" it wouldn't have been as libelous.

This post has been edited by Rhindle:

[Sarcasticidealist]

David demanded a full retraction and apology, or oversight, and he demanded it in a hurry because Cade Metz was sniffing around. Arbcom doesn't do "hurry" under the best of circumstances, and here there were significant disagreements about whether or not a retraction was even deserved, much less how to word it. So the comments were oversighted instead.

Are you willing and able to confirm that the decision to oversight was ArbCom's, and was neither ordered nor coerced by Mike Godwin? That's my impression, but I think ArbCom may be doing itself a disservice by not coming right out and saying it.

[Peter Damian]

I don't follow the bit about Cade. Can someone explain?

[CharlotteWebb]

I think they said he failed to live up to the level of decorum expected, or something along those lines.

Beer, beer, beer, beer, and BEER. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/letsgetdrunk.gif)

That is, for future reference it would be helpful if arbcom (or somebody) ever managed to figure out what level of decorum is "expected" exactly.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[TungstenCarbide]

I think they said he failed to live up to the level of decorum expected, or something along those lines.

Beer, beer, beer, beer, and BEER. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/letsgetdrunk.gif)

That is, for future reference it would be helpful if arbcom (or somebody) ever managed to figure out what level of decorum is "expected" exactly.

like pornography - you know it when you see it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Peter Damian]

I think they said he failed to live up to the level of decorum expected, or something along those lines.

Beer, beer, beer, beer, and BEER. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/letsgetdrunk.gif)

That is, for future reference it would be helpful if arbcom (or somebody) ever managed to figure out what level of decorum is "expected" exactly.

I've just opened a bottle of wine. It's not just, like, Gerard is over. It's that the whole Wiki is eating itself.

If only I had the literary powers of Victim of Censorship.

[CharlotteWebb]

like pornography - you know it when you see it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Ah yes, the WP:POTTERSTEWART standard. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[MBisanz]

David demanded a full retraction and apology, or oversight, and he demanded it in a hurry because Cade Metz was sniffing around. Arbcom doesn't do "hurry" under the best of circumstances, and here there were significant disagreements about whether or not a retraction was even deserved, much less how to word it. So the comments were oversighted instead.

Are you willing and able to confirm that the decision to oversight was ArbCom's, and was neither ordered nor coerced by Mike Godwin? That's my impression, but I think ArbCom may be doing itself a disservice by not coming right out and saying it.

Well I'm sure it can say it was not "ordered" to do so. Coercion is different from an order in that it is usually implicit and not explicit. Something like saying "I am not acting officially since I only act officially by signing X" and then immediately saying "I hope you do this thing, signed X" seems to be the implicit sort of hedging that makes coercion an unclear act.

[GlassBeadGame]

The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:

"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"

That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.

That probably would have been the cleanest finding. It is interesting that I recall under New York law, there is an obscure provision known as an Article 78 proceeding that, in part, states the decision of a body can be reviewed by a state court if it makes a:

...a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed; or...[emphasis mine]

Now, in NY, I'm told that 90% of the time these proceedings are brought against government agencies, but the other 10% of the time they are brought against private organizations, which in NY also includes unincorporated groups of more than 5 or 12 people who act with a common purpose (I don't have the exact language handy). I don't know what the laws of Florida, California, or the UK have to say about "arbitrary" actions, but it does seem odd that Mike would use a phrase that is a legal term of art in describing Arbcom's actions.

I believe that Mr. Godwin just opened one hell of a pandora's box.

I think your definition of "public body" is way to wide. Otherwise the relief provided by administrative law would be available to boyscout troops and daycare centers (although maybe to a provider of head start services, which is something of a public benefit and has eligibility and appeal criteria.) Think public housing boards and licensing authorities, not Wikipedia.

[MBisanz]

The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:

"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"

That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.

That probably would have been the cleanest finding. It is interesting that I recall under New York law, there is an obscure provision known as an Article 78 proceeding that, in part, states the decision of a body can be reviewed by a state court if it makes a:

...a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed; or...[emphasis mine]

Now, in NY, I'm told that 90% of the time these proceedings are brought against government agencies, but the other 10% of the time they are brought against private organizations, which in NY also includes unincorporated groups of more than 5 or 12 people who act with a common purpose (I don't have the exact language handy). I don't know what the laws of Florida, California, or the UK have to say about "arbitrary" actions, but it does seem odd that Mike would use a phrase that is a legal term of art in describing Arbcom's actions.

I believe that Mr. Godwin just opened one hell of a pandora's box.

I think your definition of "public body" is way to wide. Otherwise the relief provided by administrative law would be available to boyscout troops and daycare centers. Think public housing boards and licensing authorities, not Wikipedia.

Right, NY has a very wide definition of public body. Much wider than one would assume is logical.

Edit: Looking up an example (hopefully).

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[No one of consequence]

David demanded a full retraction and apology, or oversight, and he demanded it in a hurry because Cade Metz was sniffing around. Arbcom doesn't do "hurry" under the best of circumstances, and here there were significant disagreements about whether or not a retraction was even deserved, much less how to word it. So the comments were oversighted instead.

Are you willing and able to confirm that the decision to oversight was ArbCom's, and was neither ordered nor coerced by Mike Godwin? That's my impression, but I think ArbCom may be doing itself a disservice by not coming right out and saying it.

It was mutually agreed upon by Arbcom and David, as far as I can tell. Mike acted as a broker between Arbcom and David, who had been removed from the functionaries mailing list at that point.

[Jon Awbrey]

Right, NY has a very wide definition of public body.

It's called the Seventh Avenue Definition of a Public Body.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

It was mutually agreed upon by Arbcom and David, as far as I can tell. Mike acted as a broker between Arbcom and David, who had been removed from the functionaries mailing list at that point.

Then this seems fairly clearcut. The only issues I can see are
1. Did ArbCom make the right choice in stripping David Gerard of the tools?
2. Was ArbCom's wording in announcing its decision appropriate?
3. Did ArbCom make the correct choice in agreeing to David Gerard's request for revision deletion?
4. Did Mike Godwin act appropriately by serving, in an unofficial capacity, as a broker?

The answers to questions 1 and 3 appear to me to be "yes". The answer to 2 seems to be "maybe". I have no particular thoughts on 4; in any event, it's a WMF issue rather than an en-wiki one.

[No one of consequence]

I don't follow the bit about Cade. Can someone explain?

Cade Metz, reporter for the Register, contacted David and Mike Godwin about a story he was writing about David losing his privileges. He had copies of at least one of Godwin's emails to the functionaries mailing list. This raised the sense of urgency at the discussion.

[A Horse With No Name]

I don't follow the bit about Cade. Can someone explain?

Cade Metz, reporter for the Register, contacted David and Mike Godwin about a story he was writing about David losing his privileges. He had copies of at least one of Godwin's emails to the functionaries mailing list. This raised the sense of urgency at the discussion.

Does Cade Metz carry any clout outside of WP circles? I am not familiar with this writer and the influence that Cade brings.

[Random832]

It's now becoming clear what this is: It's a repetition of the same old story where someone says that because they edit under their real name, no-one should be allowed to say anything about their actions as an editor, no matter how obviously abusive those actions may be. DG is not the first to do it, and he won't be the last.

[Kelly Martin]

I think your definition of "public body" is way to wide. Otherwise the relief provided by administrative law would be available to boyscout troops and daycare centers (although maybe to a provider of head start services, which is something of a public benefit and has eligibility and appeal criteria.) Think public housing boards and licensing authorities, not Wikipedia.

Some states treat unincorporated voluntary associations like the PTA and the NCAA as "public bodies". As Wikipedia can best be described an unincorporated voluntary association (albeit with very unclear governance and membership), it would be subject to regulation as such in those states where the state prescribes certain forms of regulation and treatment for such bodies.

[Random832]

David demanded a full retraction and apology, or oversight, and he demanded it in a hurry because Cade Metz was sniffing around. Arbcom doesn't do hurry under the best of circumstances, and here there were significant disagreements about whether or not a retraction was even deserved, much less how to word it. So the comments were oversighted instead. Thatcher 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

He demanded a full retraction and apology or oversight? or what?

Why was the response to these (presumably) legal threats not a block like everyone else gets?

This post has been edited by Random832:

[A Horse With No Name]

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#David_Gerard:_statement_by_ArbCom

Someone might want to webcite this and the resulting discussion!

Ah, the wit and wisdom of Roger Davies. Where does WP find these idiots? Does Jimbo call Lynn Stalmaster and ask for misfits who specialize in dishonesty, insincerity and evasiveness? I've never seen so many awful people congregate so tightly in one activity.

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

Why was the response to these (presumably) legal threats not a block like everyone else gets?

I hypothesize that off-wiki legal threats are frequently not met with blocks.

[No one of consequence]

David demanded a full retraction and apology, or oversight, and he demanded it in a hurry because Cade Metz was sniffing around. Arbcom doesn't do hurry under the best of circumstances, and here there were significant disagreements about whether or not a retraction was even deserved, much less how to word it. So the comments were oversighted instead. Thatcher 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

He demanded a full retraction and apology or oversight? or what?

Why was the response to these (presumably) legal threats not a block like everyone else gets?

You should know as well as anyone that legal threats are not allowed on-wiki because they are a form of intimidation meant to interfere with collaborative editing. The Foundation receives private legal threats all the time, some are dealt with by OTRS or oversight, some are ignored. (I specifically decline to comment one way or the other on whether David ever made a "threat," as making that judgement would require access to information that I do not have.)

[MBisanz]

The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:

"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"

That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.

That probably would have been the cleanest finding. It is interesting that I recall under New York law, there is an obscure provision known as an Article 78 proceeding that, in part, states the decision of a body can be reviewed by a state court if it makes a:

...a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed; or...[emphasis mine]

Now, in NY, I'm told that 90% of the time these proceedings are brought against government agencies, but the other 10% of the time they are brought against private organizations, which in NY also includes unincorporated groups of more than 5 or 12 people who act with a common purpose (I don't have the exact language handy). I don't know what the laws of Florida, California, or the UK have to say about "arbitrary" actions, but it does seem odd that Mike would use a phrase that is a legal term of art in describing Arbcom's actions.

I believe that Mr. Godwin just opened one hell of a pandora's box.

I think your definition of "public body" is way to wide. Otherwise the relief provided by administrative law would be available to boyscout troops and daycare centers. Think public housing boards and licensing authorities, not Wikipedia.

Right, NY has a very wide definition of public body. Much wider than one would assume is logical.

Edit: Looking up an example (hopefully).

You might want to review Gray v. Canisius College of Buffalo, 76 A.D.2d 30, 33, 430 N.Y.S.2d 163, 166 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980). The NY court at least seems to favor enforcing it against private colleges and corporations and to disfavor enforcement against unincorporated associations, see Brasseur v. Speranza, 21 A.D.3d 297, 800 N.Y.S.2d 669 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005), but they have sometimes stretched the definitions to make otherwise unincorporated associations subject to Art. 78 by reference to other statutes, see Cullinan v. Ahern, 212 A.D.2d 103, 106, 628 N.Y.S.2d 895, 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995).

The probable claim would try to tie the enwp arbcom as an aggregation of persons (or a board, or a tribunal) under the WMF, which they would claim was a corporation under the law, see Crane Co. v. Anaconda Co., 39 N.Y.2d 14, 18, 346 N.E.2d 507, 510, 382 N.Y.S.2d 707, 710 (N.Y. 1976). Then you get into all sorts of things like who could order the arbcom to do things, what sorts of contacts did it have with the WMF, who recognized it as a body, etc. I have no idea how a court would rule, but to answer your specific point, a boyscout troop organized as a non-profit corporation or a daycare center organized as an LLC could be sued under Article 78 for decisions they make, in my non-legal opinion.

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[gomi]

David demanded a full retraction and apology, or oversight, and he demanded it in a hurry because Cade Metz was sniffing around. Arbcom doesn't do hurry under the best of circumstances, and here there were significant disagreements about whether or not a retraction was even deserved, much less how to word it. So the comments were oversighted instead. Thatcher 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

He demanded a full retraction and apology or oversight? or what?Why was the response to these (presumably) legal threats not a block like everyone else gets?

You should know as well as anyone that legal threats are not allowed on-wiki because they are a form of intimidation meant to interfere with collaborative editing. The Foundation receives private legal threats all the time, some are dealt with by OTRS or oversight, some are ignored. (I specifically decline to comment one way or the other on whether David ever made a "threat," as making that judgement would require access to information that I do not have.)

Given that Wikipedia capriciously "community bans" people all the time, for all sorts of reasons, most of them massively more trivial than Gerard's offenses, why has no one proposed Gerard's outright community bannination and removal of all possibly-removable bits?

If anyone ever deserved such treatment, surely it's Wavy Davey Gerard

[Random832]

Um, "damaging to a reputation" is more or less the definition of "libellous" (provided that the material so-damaging is presented as factual). Steve Smith (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In the US, at least, "not actually true" is an element of the definition that you forgot to mention. It has not been made clear to anyone that arbcom is actually conceding that anything they said about DG was not actually true. In particular, the person you were directly responding to with this post was clearly under the impression that it was DG's own actions (and truthful reporting of the same) that had damaged his reputation.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Sarcasticidealist]

In the US, at least, "not actually true" is an element of the definition that you forgot to mention. It has not been made clear to anyone that arbcom is actually conceding that anything they said about DG was not actually true

Yeah, it appears that I was missing a nuance between U.S. and Canadian defamation law. In Canada, truth can be used as a defense once defamation has been established, but does not prevent a finding of defamation from being reached in the first place.

[Jon Awbrey]

Given that Wikipedia capriciously "community bans" people all the time, for all sorts of reasons, most of them massively more trivial than Gerard's offenses, why has no one proposed Gerard's outright community bannination and removal of all possibly-removable bits?

If anyone ever deserved such treatment, surely it's Wavy Davey Gerard.

Try to calm yerself — just keep repeating this handy mantra:

There Is No Cabal, There Is No Elite, It's Only A Mop, Rag Mop …

M
I say M-O
M-O-P
M-O-P-P
Mop
M-O-P-P
Mop Mop Mop Mop

R
I say R-A
R-A-G
R-A-G-G
Rag
R-A-G-G M-O-P-P
Rag Mop

Doo-doo-doo-DAH-dee-ah-dah
Rag Mop
Doo-doo-doo-DAH-dee-ah-dah
Rag Mop
Doo-doo-doo-DAH-dee-ah-dah
Rag Mop
Doo-doo-doo-DAH-dee-ah-dah
Rag Mop
Doo-doo-doo-DAH-dee-ah-dah
R-A-G-G M-O-P-P
Rag Mop!

A
I say A-B
A-B-C
A-B-C-D
A-B-C-D-E
A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H

I
I say M-O
M-O-P
M-O-P-P
Mop
M-O-P-P
Mop Mop Mop Mop

R
I say R-A
R-A-G
R-A-G-G
Rag
R-A-G-G M-O-P-P
Rag Mop

Doo-doo-doo-DAH-dee-ah-dah
Rag Mop
Doo-doo-doo-DAH-dee-ah-dah
Rag Mop
Doo-doo-doo-DAH-dee-ah-dah
Rag Mop
Doo-doo-doo-DAH-dee-ah-dah
Rag Mop
Doo-doo-doo-DAH-dee-ah-dah
R-A-G-G M-O-P-P
Rag Mop!

http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/r/ragmop.shtml

[EricBarbour]

I'm always seeing blather about what Wikipedia is not, especially on AN.
It's not a battleground, it's not a court of law, it's not this, not that etc etc.

What I do see is "This is an encyclopedia". Over and over.

With this nonsense, Wikipedia may have just created a new concept for an encyclopedia:
an encyclopedia with an ongoing bizarre soap-opera permanently attached thereto.

They need a new name for this thing they've created.

[Kelly Martin]

In the US, at least, "not actually true" is an element of the definition that you forgot to mention.

"Not actually true" is not an absolute element for defamation even in the US; some states have allowed defamation actions to proceed when the libelee is a private person, the libel amounts to an invasion of privacy, and the state has recognized a right of privacy greater than that protected by the federal Constitution. Such claims are as likely to be captioned as "invasion of privacy" as of "defamation", but they are fundamentally defamation claims.

"Not actually true" is not an element of defamation under English law, in any case.

[gomi]

What I do see is "This is an encyclopedia". Over and over.

With this nonsense, Wikipedia may have just created a new concept for an encyclopedia:
an encyclopedia with an ongoing bizarre soap-opera permanently attached thereto.

This is, at best, wishful thinking and at worst deliberate misrepresentation.

Wikipedia is, perhaps, a soap opera with a Big Ball O' Trivia™-masquerading-as-an-encyclopedia attached.

They need a new name for this thing they've created.

Encyclopedia Dramatica?

[Peter Damian]

[...] legal threats are not allowed on-wiki because they are a form of intimidation meant to interfere with collaborative editing.

Off-wiki legal threats are not a form of intimidation meant to interfere with collaborative editing, then?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Off-wiki legal threats are not a form of intimidation meant to interfere with collaborative editing, then?

Well, most of the people with whom one is supposed to collaborate would have no way of knowing about an off-wiki (that is, privately communicated) legal threat.

[Random832]

In the US, at least, "not actually true" is an element of the definition that you forgot to mention.

"Not actually true" is not an absolute element for defamation even in the US; some states have allowed defamation actions to proceed when the libelee is a private person, the libel amounts to an invasion of privacy, and the state has recognized a right of privacy greater than that protected by the federal Constitution. Such claims are as likely to be captioned as "invasion of privacy" as of "defamation", but they are fundamentally defamation claims.

"Not actually true" is not an element of defamation under English law, in any case.

What exactly is the public policy theory under which people are given carte blanche to cover up their own actions?

[Doc glasgow]

In fairness, complaining that a post is defamatory and asking for it to be removed does not constitute a legal threat. I may be asking that you remove it because you will not want to leave something which unfairly impugns my character, rather than asking you to remove it to avoid legal action.

One of the problems with wikipedia is that people too quickly pretend to be lawyers and ask what's going to get them sued, rather than simply worrying about what is accurate and what might tend to harm someone.

If the arbcom statement gave the impression (or could be read as giving the impression) that Gerard had actively misused his tools, and all that arbcom wanted to say was he'd been indiscreet with his reference to his use of them, then it is not unreasonable for him to request them to clarify or retract - and it is not unreasonable for them to do so.

The problem emerges because legal counsel got involved and asked the committee questions about how a court would view this. Now either counsel is acting on Gerard's behalf and implying he could sue, or counsel is acting for the Arbcom's protection and implying WMF/Arbcom might get sued. However, I strongly suspect Godwin intervened (or was asked to) because he has clout, rather than because anyone was in risk of being sued.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Peter Damian]

Off-wiki legal threats are not a form of intimidation meant to interfere with collaborative editing, then?

Well, most of the people with whom one is supposed to collaborate would have no way of knowing about an off-wiki (that is, privately communicated) legal threat.

Yes they would it would be on Wikipedia Review.

[Sarcasticidealist]

What exactly is the public policy theory under which people are given carte blanche to cover up their own actions?

As I said, truth is a defense (usually an absolute one) against defamation once defamation is established, so the law generally doesn't actually allow people to cover up their actions (except insofar as it's usually cheaper and less work for the defendant to settle by acceding to the plaintiff's demands, but that would be true regardless of what the law said).

[Random832]

...and the state has recognized a right of privacy greater than that protected by the federal Constitution.

Wouldn't such state laws conflict with the federal constitution's protection of freedom of speech?

And shouldn't invasion of privacy be an entirely separate cause of action, anyway, rather than being encompassed as defamation?

This post has been edited by Random832:

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

I'm always seeing blather about what Wikipedia is not, especially on AN.
It's not a battleground, it's not a court of law, it's not this, not that etc etc.

What I do see is "This is an encyclopedia". Over and over.

With this nonsense, Wikipedia may have just created a new concept for an encyclopedia:
an encyclopedia with an ongoing bizarre soap-opera permanently attached thereto.

They need a new name for this thing they've created.

WP:ISNOT= Bizarro code:

(IMG:http://www.seoinc.com/seo-blog/wp-admin/images/bizarrocode.jpg)

[Random832]

Durova,

I'm still uncertain about the policy basis for revdeleting all of the discussion threads. It stretches the imagination to suppose that every single one of those posts could be considered defamatory.

You are aware that each revision contains the entire text of all comments made before that point, in addition to the comment that was added, right? Now, of course, a redacted (if need be) version of the discussion should be posted, but having the text of the original revisions hidden isn't such a big deal.

[No one of consequence]

Durova,

I'm still uncertain about the policy basis for revdeleting all of the discussion threads. It stretches the imagination to suppose that every single one of those posts could be considered defamatory.

You are aware that each revision contains the entire text of all comments made before that point, in addition to the comment that was added, right? Now, of course, a redacted (if need be) version of the discussion should be posted, but having the text of the original revisions hidden isn't such a big deal.

I argued quite strongly that the discussion should not have been suppressed, as it did not discuss the statement in sufficient detail so as to constitute repeating the problematic part of the statement. Obviously that didn't carry any weight.

[Jon Awbrey]

I'm always seeing blather about what Wikipedia is not, especially on AN.
It's not a battleground, it's not a court of law, it's not this, not that etc etc.

What I do see is "This is an encyclopedia". Over and over.

With this nonsense, Wikipedia may have just created a new concept for an encyclopedia:
an encyclopedia with an ongoing bizarre soap-opera permanently attached thereto.

They need a new name for this thing they've created.

WP:ISNOT = Bizarro Code:

(IMG:http://www.seoinc.com/seo-blog/wp-admin/images/bizarrocode.jpg)

WP:CIVILITY = Kangaroo Courtesy

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

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

I'm always seeing blather about what Wikipedia is not, especially on AN.
It's not a battleground, it's not a court of law, it's not this, not that etc etc.

What I do see is "This is an encyclopedia". Over and over.

With this nonsense, Wikipedia may have just created a new concept for an encyclopedia:
an encyclopedia with an ongoing bizarre soap-opera permanently attached thereto.

They need a new name for this thing they've created.

WP:ISNOT = Bizarro Code:

(IMG:http://www.seoinc.com/seo-blog/wp-admin/images/bizarrocode.jpg)

WP:CIVILITY = Kangaroo Courtesy

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

[A Horse With No Name]

They need a new name for this thing they've created.

Hell.

[Viridae]

I'm no massive fan of David 'skull dancing' Gerard, but this is just wrong. BTW - there aren't a whole lot of admins who had the cojones to deal with this particular nuisance, but David was one of then who did. Kudos and respect to him for doing that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

Alison, you have a lot of good instincts and do good work. But when Amorrow enters into the equation, even tangentially, you lose it. Here's my formula for dealing with this:

Is the bad guy packing a piece?

If no, then pretend that the bad guy doesn't exist.

If yes, then get your own piece.

You will live longer and feel healthier this way.

Fucking gun happy americans.

[gomi]

[Moderator's note: I moved a post about acceptable image-hosting sites to here, in WRR. -- gomi]

[Doc glasgow]

Seems Durova has decided that linking to David Gerard's blog is unacceptable


I'm no copyright expert, but I call this out as more silly trolling.

[GlassBeadGame]

Seems Durova has decided that linking to David Gerard's blog is unacceptable


I'm no copyright expert, but I call this out as more silly trolling.

Kiddie porn? Information must be free.

Material embarrassing to Wikipedians? Not so much.

[EricBarbour]

Seems Durova has decided that linking to David Gerard's blog is unacceptable
I'm no copyright expert, but I call this out as more silly trolling.

O, ye mighty Wiki-Witch, thank you kindly for the added dramah!!!

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Random832]

It's simpler than that - Durova has committed to the position that it is absolutely unacceptable to reproduce - for any purpose, including legitimate criticism - the content any email. If she backs down from this position, she has some explaining to do about a certain block of Giano, so she has to hold to it.

[InkBlot]

Seems Durova has decided that linking to David Gerard's blog is unacceptable


I'm no copyright expert, but I call this out as more silly trolling.

I just read the conversation on your talk page. Good Lord, she's got the shortest playbook I've ever seen!

1. Piss in someone's cornflakes.
2. When called out, express your high admiration for them in the past and how disappointed you are in them now.
3. Really, really disappointed. You could do so much better. (Because it worked so well for Mom.)
4. Insist you were just trying to diffuse things.
5. Point out the massive amounts of photo editing you'd rather be doing and, oh, wouldn't you like to go edit some articles too?

[GlassBeadGame]

Seems Durova has decided that linking to David Gerard's blog is unacceptable


I'm no copyright expert, but I call this out as more silly trolling.

I just read the conversation on your talk page. Good Lord, she's got the shortest playbook I've ever seen!

1. Piss in someone's cornflakes.
2. When called out, express your high admiration for them in the past and how disappointed you are in them now.
3. Really, really disappointed. You could do so much better. (Because it worked so well for Mom.)
4. Insist you were just trying to diffuse things.
5. Point out the massive amounts of photo editing you'd rather be doing and, oh, wouldn't you like to go edit some articles too?

That "I have important restoration work to do" creeps me out. I wonder if she knows how much of a loser it makes her appear?

[Lar]

That "I have important restoration work to do" creeps me out. I wonder if she knows how much of a loser it makes her appear?

That "my work is more important than yours " undertone is probably the most annoying part of it all, in my view.

[trenton]

You guys should refactor your hurtful comments.

[Cla68]

That "I have important restoration work to do" creeps me out. I wonder if she knows how much of a loser it makes her appear?

That "my work is more important than yours " undertone is probably the most annoying part of it all, in my view.

Ironically, becoming skilled at digitally restoring old photographs might actually be a useful skill that could conceivably get someone a job. If so, then it would be an example of Wikipedia/Commons volunteer work helping someone with their employment prospects.

Anyway, this thread is not about Durova. Again, I hope David Gerard is learning a lesson here. By pulling in a personal favor from Mike Godwin (Jimbo has denied being involved) Gerard has caused greater trouble for himself. Now, a lot more people know what about what happened. Whenever someone googles Gerard's name, they may find the Register article. I guess that applies to Mike Godwin, also. I hope that in the future if Mike Godwin tries to approach the ArbCom in the same mealy-mouthed semi-official capacity, that they ask him to either go away and return in his official capacity, or to stay out of it.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[GlassBeadGame]

That "I have important restoration work to do" creeps me out. I wonder if she knows how much of a loser it makes her appear?

That "my work is more important than yours " undertone is probably the most annoying part of it all, in my view.

Ironically, becoming skilled at digitally restoring old photographs might actually be a useful skill that could conceivably get someone a job. If so, then it would be an example of Wikipedia/Commons volunteer work helping someone with their employment prospects.

There are people who actually possess the skills, not pretend on Wikipedia.

[Cla68]

That "I have important restoration work to do" creeps me out. I wonder if she knows how much of a loser it makes her appear?

That "my work is more important than yours " undertone is probably the most annoying part of it all, in my view.

Ironically, becoming skilled at digitally restoring old photographs might actually be a useful skill that could conceivably get someone a job. If so, then it would be an example of Wikipedia/Commons volunteer work helping someone with their employment prospects.

There are people who actually possess the skills, not pretend on Wikipedia.

I know. Several times I've supervised or otherwise worked with computer graphics and digital photo specialists. I admired their skills. So, if I was hiring someone for such a job they would probably need to show some actual on-the-job experience with photo or graphics work, but working with photos on Commons could help give someone beginning experience with it.

Mike Godwin states that he got involved on his own, not because someone else asked him to, and gives more of his side of the story.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Somey]

Mike Godwin states that he got involved on his own, not because someone else asked him to, and gives more of his side of the story.

It's pretty clear to me that Kelly Martin has a penchant for making things up, even if Martin happens to have actual emails. Martin has asserted, I understand, the proposition that I forced Arbcom to remove the original motion. Not only did I not do so, but that's not how I operate with regard to community matters. For the record, I came across a process that seemed to me to have gone off the rails, at least in some respects, and at nobody's request but my own, I spoke out about it, and ultimately was asked to try to mediate a resolution, which I then did. The goal was not to erase history (I'm not as stupid as I look), but simply to remove Arbcom's seal of approval on some problematic statements while at the same time preserving Arbcom's prerogatives and authority. Keep in mind that those who want to create a master negative narrative about this already have it in for Wikipedia, Arbcom, the Foundation, and the community -- yes, I'm talking about people like Cade Metz and Kelly Martin, whom I pity.

I'm afraid if he carries on like this in future incidents, he'll risk being known less for his "law" regarding the ultimate outcome of online discussions, and more for general weaseling-out, backtracking, and dissembling.

The last sentence in particular is classic cult-like "with us or against us" crapola. And why add the "whom I pity" at the end, anyway? Completely unnecessary... it sounds like he's getting a little exasperated! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[trenton]

So Godwin comes out swinging (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Apparently its bad to be a wikilawyer (except if it's him editing his own article). Also he want's us to believe that out of all the cases where the arbcom has undoubtedly royally screwed up, he chose this particular case to correct things.

Apparently the wmf lawyer considers wikipedians to be as stupid as most people here do if he expects people to believe this bull.

[Somey]

Apparently the wmf lawyer considers wikipedians to be as stupid as most people here do if he expects people to believe this bull.

That would hardly be a surprise! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Godwin's Second Law: As a Wikipedia discussion involving inappropriate or abusive behavior by David Gerard grows longer, the probability of the whole thing being oversighted out of existence approaches 1.

Now, what Kelly Martin wrote in this post was:

I've heard rumors that there's a right kerfuffle within the Inner Cabal, which views this as an Old Guard/New Guard sort of thing: the new guard (which controls the arbcom now) is "cleaning house" of the old guard, which includes David. The reason for removal was a pretext (ask everyking how that works if you don't get it). Reportedly the revision hidings were flat-out ordered by Mike Godwin. Whether Jimbo going involved is an open guess at this point.

I could boldface the words "rumors" and "reportedly" and "open guess" for emphasis, but that shouldn't be necessary... It's fairly clear that this was not asserted so much as it was repeated, as Kelly apparently has a number of, well, informants.

Mr. Godwin also refers to Cade Metz as "inherently dishonest"... not the sort of thing he should be saying in either a personal or professional capacity. He might want to have them oversight that too! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Godwin is probably just upset that this has blown up into a bigger deal than he'd hoped - he clearly underestimated Dave Gerard's unpopularity with what Kelly calls the "new guard." Frankly, I don't think he's all that popular with the "old guard" either at this point, but ehh, who knows? Maybe they all get together for tea and tiddlywinks after school and plot the destruction of the civilized world. Very difficult to say with these people.

[Kelly Martin]

I have now actually seen the full email that Godwin sent to the ArbCom; it is substantially larger than what Cade quoted, and Cade's selective quotation of it (or perhaps the selective quotation that was provided to him by whomever leaked the content to him) was exceedingly unfair to Godwin. While I still think that Godwin is a piss-poor lawyer in general, and has serious issues with controlling his temper, his full comments to the ArbCom was actually quite good, and very much in line with the sort of things that most of the serious critics here on Wikipedia Review have expressed to be flaws with the ArbCom's way of doing things.

Godwin's initial email was reasonable; some of his followups, not so much. The ArbCom acted with consistent stupidity throughout.

As for Mike Godwin's pity, he can keep it for himself. It also seems to me that his commentary regarding both me and Cade Metz could be perceived as defamatory, and as such should probably be revdeleted, but somehow I doubt that will happen.

Godwin is probably just upset that this has blown up into a bigger deal than he'd hoped - he clearly underestimated Dave Gerard's unpopularity with what Kelly calls the "new guard." Frankly, I don't think he's all that popular with the "old guard" either at this point, but ehh, who knows? Maybe they all get together for tea and tiddlywinks after school and plot the destruction of the civilized world. Very difficult to say with these people.

Godwin's prime salvo to the ArbCom was basically a reading of the riot act to the ArbCom, basically telling them that, as the attorney for their sponsor and hosting company, he cannot allow them to continue to appear to be acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Despite his subsequent claims that he was not speaking as the Foundation's attorney at the time (which I believe to be a lie, or at least a willful reimagination of history, on his part, but only he can know the truth of that), the gist of his message was that the ArbCom, at the very least, needs to adopt the principle that its dispute resolution process must at least make some effort to afford fairness and due process. The implied threat (which Godwin may not have intended; he is, after all, very poor at controlling his temper, especially when aroused) was that if they do not, they will be replaced. I imagine that, given this, he is not very popular with anyone in Wikipedia's High Gudgeon. I suspect his greatest supporters, if the truth were fully known, would ironically be found here on Wikipedia Review.

Godwin also needs to work on his reading; I routinely speculate about matters where I only have incomplete information, filling in the blanks as best I can. This makes me wrong sometimes (as I was in this case, because I had incomplete information), but not all the time. You could, of course, choose to keep me more fully informed; that would avoid the need for me to speculate at all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[MBisanz]

Besides the liability protection of Sec. 230, the other great thing about it is that it saves service providers a fortune in complaint department costs. If they know the only things they are responsible for are removing copyright violations, they only need to hire enough complaint department staff to handle those requests. If they didn't have Sec. 230, they'd need to hire enough staff to regularly monitor the goings-on at their site (think the level of staff required for watching for spills, fights, etc at a supermarket or department store). But, as soon as people realize they will occasionally come out if a person yells loudly enough, then everyone starts baying at the moon every time they have an issue, since they that at least it has been done once before and maybe they'll be lucky enough to get it again.

I remember thinking the same thing when Jimbo said he would review the Scientology banning verdict and being relieved weeks later when I realized he had probably forgotten it. I expect that nearly every WP:AE matter and ever WP:RFAR will now have something like this attached to it by the losing party indicating why they don't need to follow the decision since it has not been approved by the "highest power" that makes decisions on the site.

[Kelly Martin]

I remember thinking the same thing when Jimbo said he would review the Scientology banning verdict and being relieved weeks later when I realized he had probably forgotten it. I expect that nearly every WP:AE matter and ever WP:RFAR will now have something like this attached to it by the losing party indicating why they don't need to follow the decision since it has not been approved by the "highest power" that makes decisions on the site.

All the more reason why Wikipedia needs to adopt real, not-easily-mutable, processes that are firm and not subject to gaming, and to enforce them assiduously without remorse. Wikipedia's "marshmallow governance" means that there are no final decisions, ever.

Of course, taking the step to do that will almost certainly cost them "members of the community". But I suspect you'll find that most of those lost are not that productive. One of the things I've noticed about Wikipedia is that being effective in wikipolitics is more than a full time job. The people who will "lose" the most in a change to a more regulated, more streamlined system are exactly the people who are spending virtually every waking moment manipulating Wikipedia's community. As they are producing nothing of value anyway, losing their contribution is of no consequence, and by taking away their pet pastime they might actually be freed to return to content editing, which is (we can hope) the reason they joined Wikipedia in the first place.

[MBisanz]

All the more reason why Wikipedia needs to adopt real, not-easily-mutable, processes that are firm and not subject to gaming, and to enforce them assiduously without remorse. Wikipedia's "marshmallow governance" means that there are no final decisions, ever.

A good part of that is software based. One of the reasons "ban" is interpreted to mean "no admin willing to unblock" is because it is impossible to block an account in such a way that no other admin can undo it (ok, stewards can lock them, but I'm pretending that doesn't exist). Other than a hierarchy of editors where the decisions of those higher up are binding both because they are higher up and because it isn't possible for lower level editors to undo them (think an office org chart), I don't really see any models out there that would work for a "not easily mutable process." And that would mean convincing people such as Everyking, Barberio, me, Lar, etc, that it is worth the risk of the "wrong" people getting in the binding positions of power and kicking out people they don't like simply because they can (then again, I am a pessimist in that I doubt there is a system of governance that both protects minority rights absolutely and operates in an expedient and reliable manner).

[Kelly Martin]

A good part of that is software based. One of the reasons "ban" is interpreted to mean "no admin willing to unblock" is because it is impossible to block an account in such a way that no other admin can undo it (ok, stewards can lock them, but I'm pretending that doesn't exist). Other than a hierarchy of editors where the decisions of those higher up are binding both because they are higher up and because it isn't possible for lower level editors to undo them (think an office org chart), I don't really see any models out there that would work for a "not easily mutable process."

Sorry, dude, you're barmy. A not-easily-mutable process for banning could be something along the lines of a declaration from a designated disciplinary tribunal that "X is banned", followed by a designated bailiff hitting the ban button. Any admin who then unbans them would then face summary desysopping. "Not easily mutable" means that you can't alter this process by waving magic wiki wands at it; you have to go through a well-defined process for changing process that preferably involves notice, debate, and actual voting (and not the travesty of voting that Wikipedia uses, which is defective in many different ways). It doesn't mean that the process operates without supervision, or that there is no way the process can be executed incorrectly or that there is no way that people can abuse their authority.

Let's take your office org chart example. At my last job, where I was the lead network administrator, there was absolutely nothing technical preventing me from impersonating just about anyone else's network credentials. The only barriers for that were (a) my professional ethical responsibility as an information technology professional and (b) the knowledge that if I did get caught doing that, somehow, I would likely get in a lot of trouble (unless I was doing so with legitimate cause, such as being ordered to do so by the CEO). Neither of these is "software-based"; they're based in social structures. My point is that, despite being four or five steps from the CEO, I actually had more technical power over the computer systems there than anyone else, including the CEO. Similarly, in many offices nothing physically stops Joe Average Office Worker from walking into the file room and randomly throwing out files; it's just that people don't do that.

Wikipedia's problem here is that it has never done a good job of inculcating any set of social norms in its editors and admins that there are things that you just don't do. Sure, some people have them, but not enough, and no effort is made to exclude those who fail to adhere to social norms that are compatible with Wikipedia's ostensible purpose. You can't solve social problems in software. Sometimes software can help, but fundamentally the problem here is in the community, not in the tools it uses.

(then again, I am a pessimist in that I doubt there is a system of governance that both protects minority rights absolutely and operates in an expedient and reliable manner).

Indeed, there is no perfect system of governance. All systems inevitably involve tradeoffs; where you strike the balance is often as much a matter of taste as anything else. That said, there are places to strike that will not work, and Wikipedia has succeeded in making some astoundingly bad decisions in such matters. In addition, people have been working on this problem for a very long time, and there is a lot of guidance to be found on making reasonable decisions on how to strike these balances, guidance which Wikipedia has persistently, deliberately refused to even look at. Small wonder the place is completely fucked up.

[MBisanz]

A good part of that is software based. One of the reasons "ban" is interpreted to mean "no admin willing to unblock" is because it is impossible to block an account in such a way that no other admin can undo it (ok, stewards can lock them, but I'm pretending that doesn't exist). Other than a hierarchy of editors where the decisions of those higher up are binding both because they are higher up and because it isn't possible for lower level editors to undo them (think an office org chart), I don't really see any models out there that would work for a "not easily mutable process."

Sorry, dude, you're barmy. A not-easily-mutable process for banning could be something along the lines of a declaration from a designated disciplinary tribunal that "X is banned", followed by a designated bailiff hitting the ban button. Any admin who then unbans them would then face summary desysopping. "Not easily mutable" means that you can't alter this process by waving magic wiki wands at it; you have to go through a well-defined process for changing process that preferably involves notice, debate, and actual voting (and not the travesty of voting that Wikipedia uses, which is defective in many different ways). It doesn't mean that the process operates without supervision, or that there is no way the process can be executed incorrectly or that there is no way that people can abuse their authority.

Let's take your office org chart example. At my last job, where I was the lead network administrator, there was absolutely nothing technical preventing me from impersonating just about anyone else's network credentials. The only barriers for that were (a) my professional ethical responsibility as an information technology professional and (b) the knowledge that if I did get caught doing that, somehow, I would likely get in a lot of trouble (unless I was doing so with legitimate cause, such as being ordered to do so by the CEO). Neither of these is "software-based"; they're based in social structures. My point is that, despite being four or five steps from the CEO, I actually had more technical power over the computer systems there than anyone else, including the CEO. Similarly, in many offices nothing physically stops Joe Average Office Worker from walking into the file room and randomly throwing out files; it's just that people don't do that.

Wikipedia's problem here is that it has never done a good job of inculcating any set of social norms in its editors and admins that there are things that you just don't do. Sure, some people have them, but not enough, and no effort is made to exclude those who fail to adhere to social norms that are compatible with Wikipedia's ostensible purpose. You can't solve social problems in software. Sometimes software can help, but fundamentally the problem here is in the community, not in the tools it uses.

I suspect what stops Joe Average from randomly throwing out files, beyond even the social norms, is that as soon as his boss finds out, Joe is going to be out of a job and having a very hard time finding a new job. Everyone who owns a gun has more power than I do, since I don't own a gun and they can shoot me before I get within grappling distance of me. There is a social norm that says it is wrong to shoot me, but there is the even greater self-preservation instinct that shooting me will probably lead to jail for them.

In WP-world we all know that summary desysoppings don't work, least of all because Arbcom lacks a expedited judgment process such that if it is so obvious someone broke a policy that they automatically lose without a full case. Instead Arbcom, probably from all the baying about due process and arbitrariness, lets them present evidence to the point that I am surprised the arbs aren't at tears from its length that tends to say "I did it, but I am special and therefore right" when a simple "you did it, you weren't supposed to do it, we don't care why you did it, you get the auto-sanction of X."

[Kelly Martin]

In WP-world we all know that summary desysoppings don't work, least of all because Arbcom lacks a expedited judgment process such that if it is so obvious someone broke a policy that they automatically lose without a full case.

This is the ArbCom's failing, and the Wikipedia community's failing. It has nothing to do with the software.

Don't blame the software. The problem isn't the software.

[Trick cyclist]

A not-easily-mutable process for banning could be something along the lines of a declaration from a designated disciplinary tribunal that "X is banned", followed by a designated bailiff hitting the ban button. Any admin who then unbans them would then face summary desysopping.

Isnt that what the ArbCom is for? What would happen to an admin who unilaterally overturned an ArbCom ban, and has anyone ever done it?

[dtobias]

All the more reason why Wikipedia needs to adopt real, not-easily-mutable, processes that are firm and not subject to gaming, and to enforce them assiduously without remorse. Wikipedia's "marshmallow governance" means that there are no final decisions, ever.

So you're in the "draconian", "banned means banned" faction along with JzG?

[A Horse With No Name]

Godwin's prime salvo to the ArbCom was basically a reading of the riot act to the ArbCom, basically telling them that, as the attorney for their sponsor and hosting company, he cannot allow them to continue to appear to be acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Message to the arbitrators: don't be arbitrary. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[MBisanz]

Godwin's prime salvo to the ArbCom was basically a reading of the riot act to the ArbCom, basically telling them that, as the attorney for their sponsor and hosting company, he cannot allow them to continue to appear to be acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Message to the arbitrators: don't be arbitrary. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I don't know why he did not use a term like "hasty," "inconsistent," etc to describe ArbCom. I would have thought he would try very hard not to use legal terms of art, if simply because only three arbs have legal training (I think) and it would present a mixed message if some arbs read it and thought "oh my, he's accusing me of this claimable action" and others thought "he's saying I'm inconsistent."

[A Horse With No Name]

A good part of that is software based. One of the reasons "ban" is interpreted to mean "no admin willing to unblock" is because it is impossible to block an account in such a way that no other admin can undo it (ok, stewards can lock them, but I'm pretending that doesn't exist). Other than a hierarchy of editors where the decisions of those higher up are binding both because they are higher up and because it isn't possible for lower level editors to undo them (think an office org chart), I don't really see any models out there that would work for a "not easily mutable process."

Once you move beyond the fiction of blocking and banning and recognize that all you are doing is disabling a free individual account, you will be able to recognize the futility of this aspect of the Wikipedia modus operandi.

If you took away the indef block function and limited the blocking feature to no more than 15 or 30 days (incorporating both account and IP that goes with it - current blocks don't do that), you would see a dramatic reduction in chaos. You would also see about half of the so-call vandal fighting admins quit Wikipedia immediately, since you are taking away the police action power that makes them orgiastic.

And if you stopped "banning" people (which is a stupid joke that even the Arbcom admit cannot and does not work), you will be on the way to creating a more mature environment.

[GlassBeadGame]

Godwin's prime salvo to the ArbCom was basically a reading of the riot act to the ArbCom, basically telling them that, as the attorney for their sponsor and hosting company, he cannot allow them to continue to appear to be acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Message to the arbitrators: don't be arbitrary. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

So when do we hear from One and NYB about their actions and Godwins assessment? Are they just going to turn tail and hang their heads? I think it was WMF board, through staff and counsel who should have address issues so touching upon the privacy policy. But they knew that nothing would happen because, as always, WMF would just abdicate responsibility. This ArbCom, or at least some elements of it, has tried to address a hopeless situation on many front. They should be seen as a reform ArbCom in relation to BLP and reining-in the excesses of the worst actors on en.WP. But try as they might they are not the responsible parties and always stand on shaky ground whenever they try to do anything. Now this is their reward, to be rebuffed in a public and humiliating fashion by Godwin, telling them acted, well, like the cult of the amateur star-chamber that they are by the very design of the project, no matter how much they try to transcend those limits even when the positions are held by quality people like One and NYB. Had enough yet?

[TungstenCarbide]

The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:

"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"

That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.

James is not wholly responsible for that travesty; Fred Bauder also has a lot to do with it. Both of them (and several other former arbs) saw their service on the committee as an opportunity to Play Judge, and kitted the entire experience out with the trappings of a court of law, while at the same time denying any of the actual protections that one expects in such an environment.

I argued, both while on the committee and after leaving it, that the committee should resolve most matters before it on summary motion, without detail, sparing the "full monty" for cases that truly demanded it. However, the legal wonks enjoyed their game, and were loath to give it up.

If that had come to pass, do you think Giano would still be editing? Or would you have banned his ass on a 'summary motion'.

§61 of RONR urges that disciplinary issues be investigated confidentially, and that the assembly refrain from making public statements that might prejudice or defame persons suspected or accused of malfeasance, even after the assembly is satisfied that malfeasance has occurred. The disciplinary body of a voluntary organization should publicly comment on its investigations of a member only in order to respond to the statements of that member, and only to the degree necessary to do so; to do otherwise opens the members of the disciplinary committee (or the members of the organization as a whole) to liability without providing any benefit to the organization or to the members thereof.

That would have made the arbcom (at the time) even more fucked. I shudder to imagine what that body, made up with the likes of David Gerard, Fred Bauder and you, would have done with more secrecy, more power and less oversight by the community.

Quote RONR all you like, but I doubt it was ever intended to empower a hive of scum and villainy.

That being said, some of the suggestions from RONR seem to have something to offer, and maybe things would have gone smoother by approaching DG privately and offering to let him to resign voluntarily. Of course, maybe that's what happened and DG told them to fuck off, who knows.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Piperdown]

so let's Review where WP is at after 2-3 years of supposed reform:

Guy Chapman is still administering WP.
David Gerard, ibid.
Gary Weiss is now getting very close to getting his admin badge. Go Gary!
The Head Lawyer at WP has the tact of a 12 year old child. Which is the average age of WP admins, so that's about right.
Linda Mack is as prevalent as ever on the WP.
Jimbo Wales, spoogemeister, is still the Teflon Don. And touring the world and getting paid.
Fred Baudy is back in the saddle.
Good people rise up, get worn down, and bow out.

Lol.

Some things never change. Why's that? Because the place is rotten to the top, and he's keeping his rotten friends around him at all costs. Good luck with that, WR!

[Kelly Martin]

So you're in the "draconian", "banned means banned" faction along with JzG?

I'm in the (apparently tiny) faction that believes that delegated authority should be respected, rather than flaunted, whether or not you agree with the decisions reached by such delegates. Wikipedia's practice of allowing every admin to act as an independent final arbiter is unsupportable in practice.

[Jon Awbrey]

so let's Review where WP is at after 2-3 years of supposed reform:

Guy Chapman is still administering WP.
David Gerard, ibid.
Gary Weiss is now getting very close to getting his admin badge. Go Gary!
The Head Lawyer at WP has the tact of a 12 year old child. Which is the average age of WP admins, so that's about right.
Linda Mack is as prevalent as ever on the WP.
Jimbo Wales, spoogemeister, is still the Teflon Don. And touring the world and getting paid.
Fred Baudy is back in the saddle.
Good people rise up, get worn down, and bow out.

Lol.

Some things never change. Why's that? Because the place is rotten to the top, and he's keeping his rotten friends around him at all costs. Good luck with that, WR!

Tanks fer da admiral sumping ↑, Piper(Laurie)↓ —

Mods, can we close this st00pid thread now and try to pull our heads out out of this particular e-hole?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

If that had come to pass, do you think Giano would still be editing? Or would you have banned his ass on a 'summary motion'.

If Wikipedia's ArbCom had been constituted along more reasonable lines, Giano would have never come before it. He is a symptom, not a cause.

[A Horse With No Name]

So when do we hear from One and NYB about their actions and Godwins assessment?

Hearing from them is like watching reruns of the Abbott and Costello comedy show -- you know you are going to get "Who's on First?" and all of the old routines for the umpteenth time, and zero in the way of fresh material. In fairness, the issue is bigger than them -- bigger than Friday, too, and he's quite a chunk! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) But seriously, the damage is already done and putting these guys on the spot isn't necessary.

Are they just going to turn tail and hang their heads?

That sounds vaguely kinky. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Had enough yet?

What do you say we all get in a car and grab some pizza? Newyorkbrad is wealthy, so he'll pay! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

The Head Lawyer at WP has the tact of a 12 year old child. Which is the average age of WP admins, so that's about right.

Best line of the year! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)


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

[MBisanz]

So when do we hear from One and NYB about their actions and Godwins assessment?

Hearing from them is like watching reruns of the Abbott and Costello comedy show -- you know you are going to get "Who's on First?" and all of the old routines for the umpteenth time, and zero in the way of fresh material. In fairness, the issue is bigger than them -- bigger than Friday, too, and he's quite a chunk! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) But seriously, the damage is already done and putting these guys on the spot isn't necessary.

I have a feeling that NYB and CHL are wise enough to know that anything they say about this would not improve their position either on WP or in RL and could only hurt them.

[TungstenCarbide]

If that had come to pass, do you think Giano would still be editing? Or would you have banned his ass on a 'summary motion'.

If Wikipedia's ArbCom had been constituted along more reasonable lines, Giano would have never come before it. He is a symptom, not a cause.

And yet you were a smug and arrogant arbitrator at the time, and you had it in for Giano.

In all fairness, Kelly, you know as well as I do that you would have banned his ass in a second if you could have. And then gone strutting and bragging and whooping it up, especially in the super secret admin irc chat room.

[Kelly Martin]

And yet you were a smug and arrogant arbitrator at the time, and you had it in for Giano.

When I was an arbitrator, I didn't know Giano from the president of Uganda. My first contact with him occurred well after I ceased being an arbitrator. Please don't let your visceral dislike of me get in the way of the truth; it only makes you look petty, vindictive, and stupid.

By the time I got to the ArbCom, the damage was long since done. I got there expecting to be in the company of adults, and very quickly discovered that I was, instead, surrounded by children. I'm not terribly good at dealing with fractious children; to that end, I wasn't well suited to the role. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is still being run primarily by children (adult children, to be sure, but children nonetheless), with childish expectations and childish ways of dealing with problems.

[GlassBeadGame]

If that had come to pass, do you think Giano would still be editing? Or would you have banned his ass on a 'summary motion'.

If Wikipedia's ArbCom had been constituted along more reasonable lines, Giano would have never come before it. He is a symptom, not a cause.

And yet you were a smug and arrogant arbitrator at the time, and you had it in for Giano.

In all fairness, Kelly, you know as well as I do that you would have banned his ass in a second if you could have. And then gone strutting and bragging and whooping it up, especially in the super secret admin irc chat room.

This kind of memory for old grievances is a large part of what makes WP ungovernable. Build up a sufficient mass of grievances and then any issue can be used to polarize the participants into opposing camps. Any review of the particular positions taken by particular participants over time shows a lack of consistency and a willingness to flip flop in order to give the knife another twist. Even leaving the site isn't enough to escape the warring.

[thekohser]

And Wikipedia proves once again that indefinite blocks and censoring of opinion are valid responses to criticism.

* I am concerned that David Gerard has hurled around hateful epithets about other people for the better part of his tenure on Wikipedia, but when the Arbitration Committee you seated crafts a statement that expresses why that body has lost its faith in David Gerard, ''that'' is suddenly a defamation concern for the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=%22david+gerard%22+gleeful+skulls&aq=f&oq=&aqi= experienced] [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=%22waste+of+skin%22+gerard+landeryou&aq=f&oq=&aqi= slur-hurler] Gerard. This is the culture of hypocrisy you have fostered, Jimmy Wales, '''founder''' of Wikipedia. -- [[User:Above storms|Above storms]] ([[User talk:Above storms|talk]]) 02:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[TungstenCarbide]

If that had come to pass, do you think Giano would still be editing? Or would you have banned his ass on a 'summary motion'.

If Wikipedia's ArbCom had been constituted along more reasonable lines, Giano would have never come before it. He is a symptom, not a cause.

And yet you were a smug and arrogant arbitrator at the time, and you had it in for Giano.

In all fairness, Kelly, you know as well as I do that you would have banned his ass in a second if you could have. And then gone strutting and bragging and whooping it up, especially in the super secret admin irc chat room.

This kind of memory for old grievances is a large part of what makes WP ungovernable. Build up a sufficient mass of grievances and then any issue can be used to polarize the participants into opposing camps. Any review of the particular positions taken by particular participants over time shows a lack of consistency and a willingness to flip flop in order to give the knife another twist. Even leaving the site isn't enough to escape the warring.

These aren't old grievances, and I have no axe to grind here. Kelly simply needs to be reminded on occasion that she was one of the worst arbitrators and admins of all time. And now she's giving advice on what makes a good arbitration committee, much as Durova puts herself forth as some sort of sage elder of the wikipedia community.

Everytime she goes off on the arbcom I am reminded that Jimbo put her there because she was one of his little sycophants, not because she earned it. And that was also era where some of wikipedias least valuable members, as far as creating content, were not only promoted to run the site but engaged in conspiratorial behavior to run off some of the sites most valuable members, like Giano. Kelly herself has admitted some of this, like being one of Jimbo's sychophants. She's has come a long way since then, I'll give her that. But when she says something stupid, like the arbcom of her time should have had 'summary motion' powers, I'm going to call her on it. Nothing personal here. Hell, Kelly used to go a'votin without even reading the arbcom case evidence, right Kelly?

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Jon Awbrey]

And Wikipedia proves once again that indefinite blocks and censoring of opinion are valid responses to criticism.

• I am concerned that David Gerard has hurled around hateful epithets about other people for the better part of his tenure on Wikipedia, but when the Arbitration Committee you seated crafts a statement that expresses why that body has lost its faith in David Gerard, ''that'' is suddenly a defamation concern for the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=%22david+gerard%22+gleeful+skulls&aq=f&oq=&aqi= experienced] [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=%22waste+of+skin%22+gerard+landeryou&aq=f&oq=&aqi= slur-hurler] Gerard. This is the culture of hypocrisy you have fostered, Jimmy Wales, '''founder''' of Wikipedia. — [[User:Above storms|Above storms]] ([[User talk:Above storms|talk]]) 02:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, but you gotta admire the New Standurd In Evidence — I wonder if Gawdwin helped him think of that?

I have blocked this account indefinitely as behavioral evidence clearly indicates it to be an abusive alternate account. You can appeal this here with the {{unblock}} template. NitWit (Talk) 02:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/avtrs94dv219q5/explosivebirdflip.jpg)

[Achromatic]

I remember thinking the same thing when Jimbo said he would review the Scientology banning verdict and being relieved weeks later when I realized he had probably forgotten it.

Can anyone think of anything that Jimbo has promised to review and then not forgotten (or "forgotten") about in the history of WP?

[A Horse With No Name]

Hey, but you gotta admire the New Standurd In Evidence — I wonder if Gawdwin helped him think of that?

I have blocked this account indefinitely as behavioral evidence clearly indicates it to be an abusive alternate account. You can appeal this here with the {{unblock}} template. NitWit (Talk) 02:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The response is pure money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Above_storms

[Kelly Martin]

This kind of memory for old grievances is a large part of what makes WP ungovernable.

Especially when the memories become so vague and conflated that they bear no identifiable relationship to the actual history. I did some dumbass things during my time with Wikipedia, but I am routinely excoriated for things I did not do, by people who are unable or unwilling to bother with details such as the facts. It grows very tiresome.

[Jon Awbrey]

Hey, but you gotta admire the New Standurd In Evidence — I wonder if Gawdwin helped him think of that?

I have blocked this account indefinitely as behavioral evidence clearly indicates it to be an abusive alternate account. You can appeal this here with the {{unblock}} template. NitWit (Talk) 02:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The response is pure money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Above_storms

Which Brings Up The Next Two Questions —

How many Dips could a Dipwad Wad if a Dipwad could Wad Dips?

How many Wads could a Dipwad Dip if a Dipwad could Dip Wads?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

Everytime she goes off on the arbcom I am reminded that Jimbo put her there because she was one of his little sycophants, not because she earned it.

I didn't really know who Jimbo was, except in some vague sense, when he wrote me to let me know he was appointing me to the ArbCom. I was appointed based on the recommendations of others who Jimbo apparently trusted. Once again, your grasp of history is demonstrated to be defective.

Your belief that I need "to be reminded on occasion that [I] was one of the worst arbitrators and admins of all time" is idiotic, serves no legitimate purpose in the furtherance of criticism of Wikipedia or, indeed, for any other purpose other than your personal need to be a petty, vindictive asshole. So, please kindly shut your useless, knowledgeless yap.

[No one of consequence]

If that had come to pass, do you think Giano would still be editing? Or would you have banned his ass on a 'summary motion'.

If Wikipedia's ArbCom had been constituted along more reasonable lines, Giano would have never come before it. He is a symptom, not a cause.

Giano was never even mentioned on the admin noticeboard until after he was blocked by Carnildo in the pedophile userbox war. He seems to have been quite happy to write articles and avoid admins and their dramas altogether.

[A Horse With No Name]

Giano was never even mentioned on the admin noticeboard until after he was blocked by Carnildo in the pedophile userbox war.

The what war? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[Wikileaker]

So here's a question - we know Wikileaker was on arbcom-l until former Arbs were kicked off. Doesn't that mean that unless he's Raul or Jayjg, which he presumably is not, he's now on functionaries-l? Does this fact have any kind of chilling effect on what goes out over that list? I gather from Metz's article that it doesn't. Should it?

I didn't send Cade Metz any emails from funcs-l, so it appears that you have at least two untrustworthy people on that list. Frankly, it's not surprising that you have a couple bad apples on a mailing list of almost 60 people.

[Somey]

Ehh, let's not get too off-topic here. We all just have to remember that Wikipedia was different back in those days - it was the Explosive Growth Phase™, there were a lot of new ideas being thrown around, and you could still find "virgin territory" and grab it without too much opposition, if you were so inclined. That Wikipedia attracted a different sort of person than today's Wikipedia - not necessarily better, but different. And those people (including David Gerard) are probably getting a little fed up at this point.

WP has always rewarded pettiness, arrogance, vindictiveness and hypocrisy; that hasn't changed. Ms. Martin has at least removed herself from that environment - the same can't be said for many of her fellow users from the 2005-2006 period.

[Kelly Martin]

WP has always rewarded pettiness, arrogance, vindictiveness and hypocrisy; that hasn't changed.

To be fair, Wikipedia Review also rewards pettiness, arrogance, vindictiveness, and hypocrisy. At least, there's plenty of it to go around.

[Somey]

The what war? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Well, back in February 2006 (either the day of the Super Bowl or the day before), some teenage boy was playing around with userboxes on his user page, and made this edit, after which he was blocked by Carbonite (T-C-L-K-R-D) as a pedophile. Then, Carnildo (T-C-L-K-R-D) blocked Carbonite, along with El C (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Giano (T-C-L-K-R-D) , all indefinitely, for "hate speech." Those blocks were later undone, and Carnildo was desysopped by Jimbo. Giano has (apparently) never forgiven anyone who failed to take his side in this particular drama... Later, Kelly (along with a few others in the "cabal") became involved in an effort to mass-delete userboxes in an attempt to circumvent the problem, and was seen as having taken the lead in so doing, which made her very unpopular. (I might be mistaken about this, but I believe that was also the first point of falling-out between Kelly and David Gerard.)

Two posts from me about the incident (both from several months later):
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=14446
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=30035

[Jon Awbrey]

WP has always rewarded pettiness, arrogance, vindictiveness and hypocrisy; that hasn't changed.

To be fair, Wikipedia Review also rewards pettiness, arrogance, vindictiveness, and hypocrisy. At least, there's plenty of it to go around.

Uh-Oh — I see a Serial Comma War about to break out —

Let's just hope it doesn't e-scalate to anti-semicolonialism …

; (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif) .

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[No one of consequence]

Giano has (apparently) never forgiven anyone who failed to take his side in this particular drama...

More than that, Giano now makes it a point to confront bad decisions and bad blocks by admins and "functionaries" (CU, OS, Arbcom), whether they involve him or someone else. Before he was blocked by Carnildo, I can't find a single time where he ever had a beef with an admin or arbitrator over anything.

[dtobias]

and you could still find "virgin territory"

But now the virgin pickings are slim!

[MBisanz]

The what war? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Well, back in February 2006 (either the day of the Super Bowl or the day before), some teenage boy was playing around with userboxes on his user page, and made this edit, after which he was blocked by Carbonite (T-C-L-K-R-D) as a pedophile. Then, Carnildo (T-C-L-K-R-D) blocked Carbonite, along with El C (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Giano (T-C-L-K-R-D) , all indefinitely, for "hate speech." Those blocks were later undone, and Carnildo was desysopped by Jimbo. Giano has (apparently) never forgiven anyone who failed to take his side in this particular drama... Later, Kelly (along with a few others in the "cabal") became involved in an effort to mass-delete userboxes in an attempt to circumvent the problem, and was seen as having taken the lead in so doing, which made her very unpopular. (I might be mistaken about this, but I believe that was also the first point of falling-out between Kelly and David Gerard.)

Two posts from me about the incident (both from several months later):
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=14446
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=30035

This is one of the creepier unblock reasons I've seen.

[Kelly Martin]

More than that, Giano now makes it a point to confront bad decisions and bad blocks by admins and "functionaries" (CU, OS, Arbcom), whether they involve him or someone else.

To that end, Giano serves a useful purpose: someone needs to keep the administrative corps in check. We (the cabal that I was a member of then) didn't deal with him well. Wikipedia's admin corps has not been terribly tolerant of criticism over the years. I would say that our handling of Giano was stupid and mistaken.

[Friday]

Giano sometimes has valid criticism, yeah, but sometimes he just rants about nonsense. He seems to now believe that _any_ anti-admin ranting, no matter how delusional, is reasonable criticism.

There's plenty of valid things to criticize, but critics do their cause a disservice by also engaging in invalid criticism.

[Kelly Martin]

Giano sometimes has valid criticism, yeah, but sometimes he just rants about nonsense. He seems to now believe that _any_ anti-admin ranting, no matter how delusional, is reasonable criticism.

There's plenty of valid things to criticize, but critics do their cause a disservice by also engaging in invalid criticism.

The best response to invalid criticism is to ignore it.

[thekohser]

This is one of the creepier unblock reasons I've seen.

Indeed. Jimbo communicating to a 13-year-old boy...

(Go in peace my son)

What a creep.

[Rhindle]

DG statement and subsequent thread

He's gonna be on his best behavior, help build the encyclopedia, and avoid drama from now on.

[Milton Roe]

This is one of the creepier unblock reasons I've seen.

Indeed. Jimbo communicating to a 13-year-old boy...

(Go in peace my son)

What a creep.

At least he didn't add "And neither do I condemn thee..."

[everyking]

DG statement and subsequent thread

He's gonna be on his best behavior, help build the encyclopedia, and avoid drama from now on.

Well, look at that, he managed to compose several sentences in an entirely polite and respectful manner. Has his account been hijacked?

[dtobias]

Giano sometimes has valid criticism, yeah, but sometimes he just rants about nonsense.

You can replace "Giano" with "Wikipedia Review" in the above sentence (and "he" with "they") and also have a true statement.

[everyking]

Your belief that I need "to be reminded on occasion that [I] was one of the worst arbitrators and admins of all time" is idiotic, serves no legitimate purpose in the furtherance of criticism of Wikipedia or, indeed, for any other purpose other than your personal need to be a petty, vindictive asshole. So, please kindly shut your useless, knowledgeless yap.

I think it's very useful in giving context to your criticisms here on WR. If someone didn't know about your history on WP, they might actually take you seriously.

[anthony]

This is one of the creepier unblock reasons I've seen.

Indeed. Jimbo communicating to a 13-year-old boy...

(Go in peace my son)

What a creep.

Maybe enough of an admission for the mom to finally get that DNA test, though.

(A joke, a joke, please don't take this seriously.)

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Kelly Martin]

Reading over RONR §61 and Godwin's comments again, I feel the need to raise a point. Godwin, in one of his emails to the functionaries list, said the following:

I have the impression that David has been an acerbic critic of ArbCom, and that for this reason, the notion that David's "public comment undermined confidence in Wikipedia, and its checkuser volunteers" has been used as a pretext to punish someone that some members of ArbCom found annoying.

Godwin is almost certainly correct that this was used as a pretext, and his ire at the ArbCom for using a pretext for a politically-motivated ousting is almost certainly both justified and righteous. But it needs to be clear that actions that tend to "injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work" (RONR, 10th Ed, p. 630) are censurable. While Gerard was censured on a pretext, the pretext used is nonetheless a legitimate basis for censure. That Gerard should have been censured is clear; the problem is not that he was censured, but the manner in which it was handled.

My concern is that Godwin's intervention in this case will be used to strengthen the barriers to the censure of Wikipedians whose actions are legitimately censurable. Wikipedia needs to do more, not less, to police the behavior of its members, but it must do so fairly, in a manner that respects, instead of mocks, due process.

I actually believe that the entire ArbCom should resign, en masse; their grotesque mishandling of this situation is conclusive proof of their raving incompetence. Especially the lawyers on the committee, who should have an implicit understanding of these issues.

[Random832]

If a normal editor, in response to ArbCom's now revision-deleted announcement, had suggested that it was defamatory towards David Gerard and that members of ArbCom could be held liable for it, there is no way that that editor would have been blocked. Some people might claim that a legal threat was made but, as evidenced by this conversation, people need not have any reasonable basis for making such a claim. If an admin made such a claim and blocked on the basis of it, the block would quickly be undone and the admin trouted. Steve Smith (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. There is absolutely nothing in your statement that I can find any reason to question. That's exactly how it would go in those situations

Now, on the other hand, if a normal editor, in response to a hypothetical similar ArbCom announcement about some user other than David Gerard, had made such a suggestion...

For example, wasn't Daniel BrandtGreg Kohs once blocked for "legal threatsintimidation" for complaining about defamatory statements about him without even actually saying he intended to go to court? But, then, that block was quickly undone and the admin trouted and he remains an editor in good standing today, so I guess I'm not sure where I was going with this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

EDIT: Changed to refer to correct incident.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Kelly Martin]

He's gonna be on his best behavior, help build the encyclopedia, and avoid drama from now on.

As I recall, He said the same thing after stepping down from the ArbCom back in 2006. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

This is one of the creepier unblock reasons I've seen.

Indeed. Jimbo communicating to a 13-year-old boy …

Go in peace my son

What a creep.

At least he didn't add "And neither do I condemn thee …"

And the Alter Boy rubricised, The Mess Is Ended.

Until next week …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

† Yes, I know how I spelled it.

[No one of consequence]

DG statement and subsequent thread

He's gonna be on his best behavior, help build the encyclopedia, and avoid drama from now on.

Predictably, every wikidrama ends with someone trying to start a chorus of "Kum-ba-yah."

[A Horse With No Name]

DG statement and subsequent thread

He's gonna be on his best behavior, help build the encyclopedia, and avoid drama from now on.

Gonna build a mountain, from a little hill. Gonna build a mountain, at least I hope I will... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Rhindle]

This seems to be a new tact. Instead of addressing bad behavior sincerly and/or rebutting other's accusations, dismiss it and go "let's all build an encylopedia together" and show how that's much more important than exposing my lack of character and/or incompentence.

[GlassBeadGame]

He's gonna be on his best behavior, help build the encyclopedia, and avoid drama from now on.

As I recall, He said the same thing after stepping down from the ArbCom back in 2006. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

I think we need to remember the precipitating event. Gerard posts on his blog that he has information, obtained from his access to advanced privileges on Wikipedia, that supports his position in a dispute with someone else who edits Wikipedia. This was to support that his conclusion that person was "a waste of skin." This is appears to have been also "tweeted." He did this using what appears to be that editors real name. This amounted to release of "personally identifiable data" in relation to those accounts or ips used to base the alleged sockpuppetry and then linked back to a specific real person. This might have been appropriate if used in the pursuit of any of the six specific reasons identified in the WMF privacy policy for release. But that was not the case here. DG released this information to pursue his personal grudge against this named person in as public a fashion as could achieved using his own website and social media. WMF, through ombudspersons, legal counsel, or directives to other staff should have acted on this outrage. To this point in time they seem to have no concern.

So this probably is DG "on his best behavior."

[Jon Awbrey]

He's gonna be on his best behavior, help build the encyclopedia, and avoid drama from now on.

As I recall, He said the same thing after stepping down from the ArbCom back in 2006. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

I think we need to remember the precipitating event. Gerard posts on his blog that he has information, obtained from his access to advanced privileges on Wikipedia, that supports his position in a dispute with someone else who edits Wikipedia. This was to support that his conclusion that person was "a waste of skin." This is appears to have been also "tweeted." He did this using what appears to be that editors real name. This amounted to release of "personally identifiable data" in relation to those accounts or ips used to base the alleged sockpuppetry and then linked back to a specific real person. This might have been appropriate if used in the pursuit of any of the six specific reasons identified in the WMF privacy policy for release. But that was not the case here. DG released this information to pursue his personal grudge against this named person in as public a fashion as could achieved using his own website and social media. WMF, through ombudspersons, legal counsel, or directives to other staff should have acted on this outrage. To this point in time they seem to have no concern.

So this probably is DG "on his best behavior."

And what have we learned that we did not know 350-odd posts ago?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Daniel Brandt]

For example, wasn't Daniel Brandt once blocked for "legal threats" for complaining about defamatory statements about him without even actually saying he intended to go to court? But, then, that block was quickly undone and the admin trouted and he remains an editor in good standing today, so I guess I'm not sure where I was going with this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I remain banned today, as far as I can tell. My old user page was thankfully deleted, so it's all rather moot. Believe it or not, I've never been interested in becoming a Wikipedia editor in good standing.

Gamaliel indef blocked me in April 2006, for pointing out on my user page that Bush had signed a new law that seemed to apply to those who harass others online while hiding their identity. Gamaliel said this was a "legal threat." Of course, he should have blocked George Bush Jr. and the U.S. Congress, but never mind about that.

Jimbo unbanned me about a year later. I had been exchanging a couple of emails with Jimbo, telling him that I wanted my bio deleted, and he read this as, "I want to be a good boy and edit Wikipedia constructively, so that we can all bring all of the world's information to all the world's people." So he unblocked me (now be a good boy, Brandt!). Then I responded that unblocking me was not what I had in mind when I said that I wanted my bio down. Simultaneously, everyone went apeshit bananas on AN/I, dumping on Jimbo for unblocking the evil Brandt. So he reinstated the block, saying that he was doing this at my request (which wasn't quite right either).

There may have been one or two blocks prior to April 2006, but it's difficult to remember such trivia.

[Kelly Martin]

This seems to be a new tact. Instead of addressing bad behavior sincerly and/or rebutting other's accusations, dismiss it and go "let's all build an encylopedia together" and show how that's much more important than exposing my lack of character and/or incompentence.

New to him, perhaps, but not new: Durova's been doing that for nearly three years now, any time she gets confronted with evidence of her misconduct.

[Random832]

For example, wasn't Daniel Brandt once blocked for "legal threats" for complaining about defamatory statements about him without even actually saying he intended to go to court? But, then, that block was quickly undone and the admin trouted and he remains an editor in good standing today, so I guess I'm not sure where I was going with this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I remain banned today, as far as I can tell.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif) ...right.

My obviously counterfactual claim that you were not was sarcasm, directed at Sarcastic*Idealist, because the logical extension of his claim was obviously wrong.

*what a coincidence.

So what you're saying is I was wrong that the incident was you saying you were being defamed? Who was that, then? I know that happened to someone.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[TungstenCarbide]

Reading over RONR §61 and Godwin's comments again, I feel the need to raise a point. Godwin, in one of his emails to the functionaries list, said the following:

I have the impression that David has been an acerbic critic of ArbCom, and that for this reason, the notion that David's "public comment undermined confidence in Wikipedia, and its checkuser volunteers" has been used as a pretext to punish someone that some members of ArbCom found annoying.

Godwin is almost certainly correct that this was used as a pretext, and his ire at the ArbCom for using a pretext for a politically-motivated ousting is almost certainly both justified and righteous. But it needs to be clear that actions that tend to "injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work" (RONR, 10th Ed, p. 630) are censurable. While Gerard was censured on a pretext, the pretext used is nonetheless a legitimate basis for censure. That Gerard should have been censured is clear; the problem is not that he was censured, but the manner in which it was handled.

Oh what a load of crap. When someone uses their position of CU to act like a snotty teenager and ridicule someone on their blog, they should have their cu access removed and there should be a public explanation as to why. Earlier in the thread you mentioned a RONR suggestion that these things be handled quietly. The more I think about it the more I believe a public explanation in this case is good for wikipedia.

Does NYB strike you as someone who would use a 'pretext' for a 'politically-motivated ousting'? What's the difference between a 'politically-motivated ousting' and getting fed-up with a CU and functionary who has behaved like a child for years?

RONR is not the answer to all of the arbcoms problems.

My concern is that Godwin's intervention in this case will be used to strengthen the barriers to the censure of Wikipedians whose actions are legitimately censurable. Wikipedia needs to do more, not less, to police the behavior of its members, but it must do so fairly, in a manner that respects, instead of mocks, due process.

A prerequisite for that would be to remove the sleazebags from positions of leadership.

I actually believe that the entire ArbCom should resign, en masse; their grotesque mishandling of this situation is conclusive proof of their raving incompetence. Especially the lawyers on the committee, who should have an implicit understanding of these issues.

The only 'grotesque mishandling' came from Gadwin.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[thekohser]

So what you're saying is I was wrong that the incident was you saying you were being defamed? Who was that, then? I know that happened to someone.

See below.

For example, wasn't Daniel Brandt once blocked for "legal threats" for complaining about defamatory statements about him without even actually saying he intended to go to court? But, then, that block was quickly undone and the admin trouted and he remains an editor in good standing today, so I guess I'm not sure where I was going with this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

You could say the same for "Gregory Kohs" and my "legal intimidation" ban, courtesy of Samuel Blanning.* When Durova said that I had "given misleading information to journalists that was published in the mainstream press", I replied that if she couldn't back that up with evidence, it could be considered defamatory, even though I said four different times** that I had no intention of suing her (editor's note:and her penniless household of knitting supplies). No matter, I was indefinitely blocked within a day or two, because I had been so intimidating to use a legal word like "defamatory".



* Samuel Blanning once wondered publicly about whether the second-largest coal mining company in America merited a Wikipedia article, because that element of notability "seemed weak" to him. So you know he's really smart. No possible way his block of my account was an act of revenge for my having made him look stupid back in October 2006. That's just not possible. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

**
"In sum, I'm not trying to drag you into court. I'm not trying to
expose your true identity. In fact, I'm trying to reduce the need or
desire for either of those processes."

and

"The word defamatory merely means 'harmful and often untrue; tending
to discredit or malign'. It is not exclusively a legal term."

and

"Also, you can stop any level of concern or paranoia that I am
threatening a legal action."

and

"I, too, respect and commend almost all of your contributions to
Wikipedia! Heck, only one of them is sticking in my craw. ;-) I'll
look forward to your e-mail."

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Random832]

Thanks, I think that was the incident I was thinking of. Sorry for the confusion.

[thekohser]

Thanks, I think that was the incident I was thinking of. Sorry for the confusion.

Don't miss my modified and improved response, now with more linkz!

[Kelly Martin]

Oh what a load of crap. When someone uses their position of CU to act like a snotty teenager and ridicule someone on their blog, they should have their cu access removed and there should be a public explanation as to why.

Yes, his access should have been removed. The public statement should have been "The Committee has received reports that David Gerard has acted in a manner inconsistent with his status as holder of the checkuser and oversight rights. After reviewing the evidence and discussing the matter with Mr. Gerard, the Committee has determined that it is no longer in the best interests of the project that David Gerard continue to hold those rights, and that he should be, and therefore hereby is, relieved of them. Mr. Gerard is directed to abstain from using those rights until such time as they are removed by a steward. The Committee hereby requests that a Wikimedia steward remove those rights at the earliest possible opportunity." Any further statement merely acts to create drama and the opportunity for defamation, and is not in keeping with the sort of dignified professionalism that one would expect from a project to create an encyclopedia. The fact that David Gerard acted like a child is no excuse for the ArbCom to do the same.

[GlassBeadGame]

Oh what a load of crap. When someone uses their position of CU to act like a snotty teenager and ridicule someone on their blog, they should have their cu access removed and there should be a public explanation as to why.

Yes, his access should have been removed. The public statement should have been "The Committee has received reports that David Gerard has acted in a manner inconsistent with his status as holder of the checkuser and oversight rights. After reviewing the evidence and discussing the matter with Mr. Gerard, the Committee has determined that it is no longer in the best interests of the project that David Gerard continue to hold those rights, and that he should be, and therefore hereby is, relieved of them. Mr. Gerard is directed to abstain from using those rights until such time as they are removed by a steward. The Committee hereby requests that a Wikimedia steward remove those rights at the earliest possible opportunity." Any further statement merely acts to create drama and the opportunity for defamation, and is not in keeping with the sort of dignified professionalism that one would expect from a project to create an encyclopedia. The fact that David Gerard acted like a child is no excuse for the ArbCom to do the same.

I agree. I would be better if the board did this but ArbCom might be justified to expect that they would not accept the responsibility. Just add in that he is entitled to a hearing and an opportunity to be heard and present evidence if he chooses to challenge the action. This would stop the threat of immediate harm by someone who appears (from information on his own website) to have misused advanced privileges and should be more than sufficient process. In light of this Godwin was very heavy handed and only needed (suggest would probably all it required) that ArbCom allow DG some chance to be heard while upholding the initial decision. Instead he undermined the reputation and integrity (such as it had) of ArbCom.

[Kelly Martin]

In light of this Godwin was very heavy handed and only needed (suggest would probably all it required) that ArbCom allow DG some chance to be heard while upholding the initial decision. Instead he undermined the reputation and integrity (such as it had) of ArbCom.

Godwin didn't undermine anything; his comments were made in a forum he thought was private. At most he acted foolishly in thinking that the functionaries list wouldn't leak.

In a real organization, such a message would likely have been delivered over drinks, or at worst by telephone. The lack of opportunities for face-to-face communication in Wikipedia's organizational structure creates real problems for delivering frank advice to people who need to hear it, without people who shouldn't be hearing it finding out as well.

[Somey]

He's gonna be on his best behavior, help build the encyclopedia, and avoid drama from now on.

As I recall, He said the same thing after stepping down from the ArbCom back in 2006. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

I was under the impression that he didn't actually resign, but rather just didn't stand for re-election - this would have been in January 2006, and he was removed from the ArbCom list in this edit, just after the elections were concluded.

But after that, I wouldn't say his level of activity subsided all that much, nor did he become less confrontational. The change in his level of activity has been more of a slow decline since (as I mentioned earlier) Spring 2007 or thereabouts.

I might even go so far as to point out that Dave strongly supported the deletion of the Pedophile Userbox (by Doc_glasgow) only two weeks after that election, using the rationale that it was an "attack template" - and that, in turn, engendered this discussion (started by the template's creator, Paroxysm (T-C-L-K-R-D) , a pedophile advocate himself) in which Dave clarified this to mean the userbox was a "vehicle for trolling and personal attacks."

[GlassBeadGame]

In light of this Godwin was very heavy handed and only needed (suggest would probably all it required) that ArbCom allow DG some chance to be heard while upholding the initial decision. Instead he undermined the reputation and integrity (such as it had) of ArbCom.

Godwin didn't undermine anything; his comments were made in a forum he thought was private. At most he acted foolishly in thinking that the functionaries list wouldn't leak.

In a real organization, such a message would likely have been delivered over drinks, or at worst by telephone. The lack of opportunities for face-to-face communication in Wikipedia's organizational structure creates real problems for delivering frank advice to people who need to hear it, without people who shouldn't be hearing it finding out as well.

When Pinochet sacked Chile's independent judiciary I doubt if it was over drinks. What face to face communication ensued was not very pleasant for receivers of the message. Forgive my rare use of over blown hyperbole, at least I didn't invoke Nazis. Godwin had no realistic expectation that anything would be kept private on that list. He also had much better private channels available through email, that wouldn't humiliated ArbCom to the other members on the list. He could see from jump that this was going to be high visibility. DG still has that blog post up and his lack of discresion could be seen to evoke the same in others. Since the wiki mob has been unleashed he has only made things worse, even calling a journalist "dishonest" and "pitying" you (WTF?).

[Jon Awbrey]

Yes, his access should have been removed. The public statement should have been "The Committee has received reports that David Gerard has acted in a manner inconsistent with his status as holder of the checkuser and oversight rights. After reviewing the evidence and discussing the matter with Mr. Gerard, the Committee has determined that it is no longer in the best interests of the project that David Gerard continue to hold those rights, and that he should be, and therefore hereby is, relieved of them. Mr. Gerard is directed to abstain from using those rights until such time as they are removed by a steward. The Committee hereby requests that a Wikimedia steward remove those rights at the earliest possible opportunity." Any further statement merely acts to create drama and the opportunity for defamation, and is not in keeping with the sort of dignified professionalism that one would expect from a project to create an encyclopedia. The fact that David Gerard acted like a child is no excuse for the ArbCom to do the same.

I think the proper Form Of Words would run a bit like this:

I have booted this "Turkey" out of our Yard until the cows come home as behavioral evidence clearly indicates him to be a Weasel in Turkey's Clothing. He may appeal the present judgment by pasting this {{Unbasted}} template on his tail and running around the Yard till he drops.

That would put DG more on a par with all the other Turkeys down on the WP:Φarm.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

When Pinochet sacked Chile's independent judiciary I doubt if it was over drinks. What face to face communication ensued was not very pleasant for receivers of the message. Forgive my rare use of over blown hyperbole, at least I didn't invoke Nazis. Godwin had no realistic expectation that anything would be kept private on that list. He also had much better private channels available through email, that wouldn't humiliated ArbCom to the other members on the list. He could see from jump that this was going to be high visibility. DG still has that blog post up and his lack of discresion could be seen to evoke the same in others. Since the wiki mob has been unleashed he has only made things worse, even calling a journalist "dishonest" and "pitying" you (WTF?).

Oh, without a doubt Godwin's subsequent actions are beyond the pale; he's a hothead with a short fuse and the complete inability to avoid shooting his mouth off when challenged.

Frankly I think his motives in sending that message were mainly frustration. As Wikimedia counsel one of his jobs is to fend off people screaming at the Foundation because they don't like what Wikipedia says about them. He'd like to be able to tell them to make their complaints to the ArbCom, but if the ArbCom has a reputation for being arbitrary, capricious, prejudicial, and biased, such suggestions are unlikely to be taken well. In order for him to maintain his reputation in the legal community (which is hard enough for him given how poor a lawyer he is) he really does need for the ArbCom to at least appear to be a bit less of a star chamber. So while I agree with his position in this matter, I have no affinity for his motivations in coming to it. I could care less about how easy his job is or if other lawyers respect him. But I think Wikipedia would benefit immensely if it adopted a dispute resolution process that was less dramaturgic.

[GlassBeadGame]

When Pinochet sacked Chile's independent judiciary I doubt if it was over drinks. What face to face communication ensued was not very pleasant for receivers of the message. Forgive my rare use of over blown hyperbole, at least I didn't invoke Nazis. Godwin had no realistic expectation that anything would be kept private on that list. He also had much better private channels available through email, that wouldn't humiliated ArbCom to the other members on the list. He could see from jump that this was going to be high visibility. DG still has that blog post up and his lack of discresion could be seen to evoke the same in others. Since the wiki mob has been unleashed he has only made things worse, even calling a journalist "dishonest" and "pitying" you (WTF?).

Oh, without a doubt Godwin's subsequent actions are beyond the pale; he's a hothead with a short fuse and the complete inability to avoid shooting his mouth off when challenged.

Frankly I think his motives in sending that message were mainly frustration. As Wikimedia counsel one of his jobs is to fend off people screaming at the Foundation because they don't like what Wikipedia says about them. He'd like to be able to tell them to make their complaints to the ArbCom, but if the ArbCom has a reputation for being arbitrary, capricious, prejudicial, and biased, such suggestions are unlikely to be taken well. In order for him to maintain his reputation in the legal community (which is hard enough for him given how poor a lawyer he is) he really does need for the ArbCom to at least appear to be a bit less of a star chamber. So while I agree with his position in this matter, I have no affinity for his motivations in coming to it. I could care less about how easy his job is or if other lawyers respect him. But I think Wikipedia would benefit immensely if it adopted a dispute resolution process that was less dramaturgic.

People outside Wkipedia deserve independent dispute resolution for their concerns. This is not hard to find. ArbCom might have been justified here, or not, in overstepping in relation to the privacy policy because board abdication of responsibility. But the privacy policy, by its very nature, address matters relating to editors. No one outside of WP should be subjected to ArbCom.

[Kelly Martin]

People outside Wkipedia deserve independent dispute resolution for their concerns. This is not hard to find. ArbCom might have been justified here, or not, in overstepping in relation to the privacy policy because board abdication of responsibility. But the privacy policy, by its very nature, address matters relating to editors. No one outside of WP should be subjected to ArbCom.

The ArbCom is not a suitable venue for resolving external complaints, indeed, which means Godwin's stated motive is misguided. Wikipedia needs both a disciplinary committee, for dealing with editors who behave in manners that are not conducive to the responsible authorship of an encyclopedia, and also an editorial board, for deciding questions of the propriety and appropriateness of content. It is the latter body which would review complaints from outside parties, and because of that participation in that body by nonmember experts might be appropriate. The ArbCom is, for all intents and purposes, a disciplinary committee, albeit one with extremely poor practices; it would be grossly inappropriate for outsiders to participate in, or even be privy to, disciplinary hearings, except in the roles of witness or counsel.

[EricBarbour]

Damn, Kelly......if Godwin wasn't torqued off at you before, he is now.....

(Please continue....)

[Cla68]

Damn, Kelly......if Godwin wasn't torqued off at you before, he is now.....

(Please continue....)

By the way, I suggested to Mr. Godwin that he read Wikipedia Review since he was being talked about here. He removed my suggestion without comment.

[anthony]

By the way, I suggested to Mr. Godwin that he read Wikipedia Review since he was being talked about here. He removed my suggestion without comment.

He's made comments to me before referencing things I've said about him here. Not sure if he found it through a search or through active reading, though.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Kelly Martin]

He's made comments to me before referencing things I've said about him here. Not sure if he found it through a search or through active reading, though.

I suspect others forward links (or even snippets) of things from here that they think "he should know about". Which is probably in most cases things that they think will create the most drama, since Godwin is mostly surrounded by drama queens.

[Milton Roe]

I might even go so far as to point out that Dave strongly supported the deletion of the Pedophile Userbox (by Doc_glasgow) only two weeks after that election, using the rationale that it was an "attack template" - and that, in turn, engendered this discussion (started by the template's creator, Paroxysm (T-C-L-K-R-D) , a pedophile advocate himself) in which Dave clarified this to mean the userbox was a "vehicle for trolling and personal attacks."

Well, I can't argue that such a pedophile userbox would be a masterpiece of trolling. However, I don't get the "personal attack" stuff, unless it was used like a barnstar, on somebody else's userpage. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) That would be rude, indeed.

Although I can think of a few "legal" userboxes that could ALMOST as rude, in the right hands, and applied to somebody else of the right persuation. I think for this reason WP only allows the editor/user to place userboxes on their OWN userpage. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

I PRESUME. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Somey]

Well, I can't argue that such a pedophile userbox would be a masterpiece of trolling. However, I don't get the "personal attack" stuff, unless it was used like a barnstar, on somebody else's userpage. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) That would be rude, indeed.

The obvious purpose of the template was to support the formation of WP support groups for pedophiles (though conversely, it would also have allowed for easier identification of such people by others), through use of the "What links here" feature. Doc_glasgow's edit summary for the actual deletion was simply the word "no," which I believe anyone would agree is the more appropriate response. Why Dave chose not to simply say "no," or point out the obvious (assuming he even saw it that way) was probably just due to a misplaced notion of "political correctness" or some such thing.

The only reason it was in any way remarkable was that he's never shied away from bashing and insulting users he views as "undesirables" in other situations, often for far less egregious offenses. It's possible he was just feeling unusually magnanimous that day... But the important thing is that he did support the deletion, implying that those opposing it were "bloody idiots."

At the same time, it should probably be pointed out that Wikipedia policy at that time carried no automatic sanction(s) against users thought to be promoting pedophilia on WP, or the content they created, and several of the people who opposed the template deletion did so on those grounds. They were wrong, but they were acting in accordance with WP policy, which of course was also wrong.

[One]

What the hell is this and what is it doing here?

I think he's trolling for a response.

Flattering source though: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6442747.stm (#3)

This post has been edited by One:

[Sarcasticidealist]

Guy Chapman is still administering WP.

False.

Gary Weiss is now getting very close to getting his admin badge. Go Gary!

Closer than he was with Mantanmoreland? Citation needed.

Fred Baudy is back in the saddle.

That really depends on your definition of "back in the saddle", but is likely false as well.

Some things never change. Why's that? Because the place is rotten to the top, and he's keeping his rotten friends around him at all costs.

Antecedent required.

Glassbeadgame's got it right when he says the following:

This ArbCom, or at least some elements of it, has tried to address a hopeless situation on many front. They should be seen as a reform ArbCom in relation to BLP and reining-in the excesses of the worst actors on en.WP. But try as they might they are not the responsible parties and always stand on shaky ground whenever they try to do anything.

This ArbCom's been undeniably positive (I mean, really, that Glassbeadgame's not denying it pretty much proves it). If I'm elected, I'd hope to be a part of improving it still further. But nobody "on-wiki" is in a position to fix the more fundamental of Wikipedia's problems.

I didn't send Cade Metz any emails from funcs-l, so it appears that you have at least two untrustworthy people on that list. Frankly, it's not surprising that you have a couple bad apples on a mailing list of almost 60 people.

I don't believe you (which is not to say that I think you're lying, just that I think there's a great enough chance that you're lying to make what you say valueless).

Giano sometimes has valid criticism, yeah, but sometimes he just rants about nonsense.

You can replace "Giano" with "Wikipedia Review" in the above sentence (and "he" with "they") and also have a true statement.

Except that "Wikipedia Review" is a venue, not an entity. Some people on Wikipedia Review (Glassbeadgame, Kelly Martin, Kato (RIP)) generally have valid criticism. Others, who I will uncharacteristically be too classy to name, generally rant about nonsense.

You're absolutely correct. There is absolutely nothing in your statement that I can find any reason to question. That's exactly how it would go in those situations

Now, on the other hand, if a normal editor, in response to a hypothetical similar ArbCom announcement about some user other than David Gerard, had made such a suggestion...

I agree that if somebody pointed out defamatory statements about himself, that could reasonably be construed as a legal threat, depending on context (though it does not follow that blocking would be reasonable). But that's in no way analogous to what Mike Godwin did.

My obviously counterfactual claim that you were not was sarcasm, directed at Sarcastic*Idealist, because the logical extension of his claim was obviously wrong.

I don't view it as a logical extension at all. I agree with you, I think, on all material points here.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

All the more reason why Wikipedia needs to adopt real, not-easily-mutable, processes that are firm and not subject to gaming, and to enforce them assiduously without remorse. Wikipedia's "marshmallow governance" means that there are no final decisions, ever.

So you're in the "draconian", "banned means banned" faction along with JzG?

Why Miz Martin was a founding member of that faction. And, along with her then dear pals from USENET Gerard and Tony Sidaway, one of the key personalities who shaped WP's authoritarian culture, which most of the world now loathes.

Giano sometimes has valid criticism, yeah, but sometimes he just rants about nonsense.

You can replace "Giano" with "Wikipedia Review" in the above sentence (and "he" with "they") and also have a true statement.

WORD

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

The what war? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Well, back in February 2006 (either the day of the Super Bowl or the day before), some teenage boy was playing around with userboxes on his user page, and made this edit, after which he was blocked by Carbonite (T-C-L-K-R-D) as a pedophile. Then, Carnildo (T-C-L-K-R-D) blocked Carbonite, along with El C (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Giano (T-C-L-K-R-D) , all indefinitely, for "hate speech." Those blocks were later undone, and Carnildo was desysopped by Jimbo. Giano has (apparently) never forgiven anyone who failed to take his side in this particular drama... Later, Kelly (along with a few others in the "cabal") became involved in an effort to mass-delete userboxes in an attempt to circumvent the problem, and was seen as having taken the lead in so doing, which made her very unpopular. (I might be mistaken about this, but I believe that was also the first point of falling-out between Kelly and David Gerard.)

Two posts from me about the incident (both from several months later):
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=14446
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=30035

Carndildo was later reopped, with less than 60%, on orders from the Cabalistas, after a previous failed attempt. Giano led a vigorous protest against this move, which in turn led to the first AC case against him. The Userbox wars ate up most of 2006. In fact, I would argue it was one of the biggest events between Seigenthaler and Essjay. It perfectly exemplifies WP's factionalism, growing pains and the increasingly authoritarian response of its power elite.
Many good folks were casualties of that mess. Including my friend Karmafist.
But it did make rebels, and friends, out of Giano and myself, so some good came out of it at least.

[MZMcBride]

Twitter twatter.

[No one of consequence]

Now John V is getting uppity. Hmmm.

[MBisanz]

Now John V is getting uppity. Hmmm.

I get the sense John knows something that is not known publicly or on func-en and might not be known to all of the arbs. It is worth remembering that John is on the board of WMAU and probably is more plugged in to more higher levels things or people then most arbs.

[taiwopanfob]

Now John V is getting uppity. Hmmm.

I get the sense John knows something that is not known publicly or on func-en and might not be known to all of the arbs. It is worth remembering that John is on the board of WMAU and probably is more plugged in to more higher levels things or people then most arbs.

He flat out asked if Gerard uttered a legal threat to the Foundation.

Answer is "no". But the weighty presence of the WMF legal department, and the wiffle-waffle from the freak -- who, near his wiki-death bed has apparently found God -- wherein he spontaneously breaks into song about how we should all hold hands, love one another, and "create content!", especially video content, suggest a not entirely truthful response.

[jayvdb]

... John is on the board of WMAU ...

I stepped aside at the recent AGM in order to focus on committee work.

I guess I'll have to find something else to do in 2010. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Cla68]

I think it might help the casual by-dropper to move that stuff somewhere else

Agreed; I'd say it went off the rails right about here.

If you all would like to get back to the original topic, where we stand now, I believe is that Mr. Gerard has refused to answer the question, "Did you ask, implicitly or explicitly, for the help of foundation staff in this matter?" Instead of being forthright, he has resorted to taunting the community with patronizing remarks along the lines of "I love you all, let's build an encyclopedia!" Mr. Gerard, and I know you're reading this, you really should answer the question, because you must know by now that the truth will come out sooner or later.

I'm sure Mr. Gerard must realize that he, at least, is largely responsible for all the "trouble" that Cade Metz has caused the Foundation. It was Gerard's block of an entire suburb in Utah which gave Mr. Metz the hook for his article about the abuse of the wiki by Mantanmoreland. It was while researching for that article that Mr. Metz observed the Durova !! scandal occur. Metz' trenchant reporting on the Durova/!! issue is, I believe, what gained Cade most of his "inside" sources in Wikipedia's admin corps, which has allowed him to obtain crucial inside information into so many other wiki-scandals since then, including the latest involving Mr. Gerard himself.

I recognize Alison's valid observation that Mr. Gerard was helpful with his block of Mr. "A", a truly vile and threatening stalker. If Mr. Gerard could be so straightforward in everything else he does wiki-related, however, then perhaps now he wouldn't have a media article written about him that is probably permanently google-linked to his name. I think we should recognize that we're wrong when Durova effortlessly wins an argument with us. We reap what we sow, wouldn't you say, David?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Mod's note: fussin' and fightin' moved here at request of some combatants. HK

[TungstenCarbide]

By the way, has anyone emailed Andrew Landeryou and invited him to the Review?

[Apathetic]

Damn, Kelly......if Godwin wasn't torqued off at you before, he is now.....

(Please continue....)

By the way, I suggested to Mr. Godwin that he read Wikipedia Review since he was being talked about here. He removed my suggestion without comment.

On the contrary, I think he was responding to your advice regarding his statement about C.M. by simply redacting the whole thread.

[Cla68]

Damn, Kelly......if Godwin wasn't torqued off at you before, he is now.....

(Please continue....)

By the way, I suggested to Mr. Godwin that he read Wikipedia Review since he was being talked about here. He removed my suggestion without comment.

On the contrary, I think he was responding to your advice regarding his statement about C.M. by simply redacting the whole thread.

That may be true. Looking at the ArbCom noticeboard thread, I no longer see the "inherently dishonest" remark.

[GlassBeadGame]

What the hell is this and what is it doing here?

I think he's trolling for a response.

Flattering source though: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6442747.stm (#3)

It is not trolling when the proper use of the forum is to seek a response.

[Doc glasgow]

Does any of this wikidrama make Andrew Landeryou any more notable?

I'm surprised the "Hell it is about Wikipedia and drama it must be notable" brigade are not rushing to save him from afd.

[Viridae]

I think it might help the casual by-dropper to move that stuff somewhere else

Agreed; I'd say it went off the rails right about here.

If you all would like to get back to the original topic, where we stand now, I believe is that Mr. Gerard has refused to answer the question, "Did you ask, implicitly or explicitly, for the help of foundation staff in this matter?" Instead of being forthright, he has resorted to taunting the community with patronizing remarks along the lines of "I love you all, let's build an encyclopedia!" Mr. Gerard, and I know you're reading this, you really should answer the question, because you must know by now that the truth will come out sooner or later.

I'm sure Mr. Gerard must realize that he, at least, is largely responsible for all the "trouble" that Cade Metz has caused the Foundation. It was Gerard's block of an entire suburb in Utah which gave Mr. Metz the hook for his article about the abuse of the wiki by Mantanmoreland. It was while researching for that article that Mr. Metz observed the Durova !! scandal occur. Metz' trenchant reporting on the Durova/!! issue is, I believe, what gained Cade most of his "inside" sources in Wikipedia's admin corps, which has allowed him to obtain crucial inside information into so many other wiki-scandals since then, including the latest involving Mr. Gerard himself.

I recognize Alison's valid observation that Mr. Gerard was helpful with his block of Mr. "A", a truly vile and threatening stalker. If Mr. Gerard could be so straightforward in everything else he does wiki-related, however, then perhaps now he wouldn't have a media article written about him that is probably permanently google-linked to his name. I think we should recognize that we're wrong when Durova effortlessly wins an argument with us. We reap what we sow, wouldn't you say, David?

DG was trolling with that build the encyclopedia crap. I considered blocking him for it, but then decided I didn't give a fuck.

[victim of censorship]

I think it might help the casual by-dropper to move that stuff somewhere else

Agreed; I'd say it went off the rails right about here.

If you all would like to get back to the original topic, where we stand now, I believe is that Mr. Gerard has refused to answer the question, "Did you ask, implicitly or explicitly, for the help of foundation staff in this matter?" Instead of being forthright, he has resorted to taunting the community with patronizing remarks along the lines of "I love you all, let's build an encyclopedia!" Mr. Gerard, and I know you're reading this, you really should answer the question, because you must know by now that the truth will come out sooner or later.

I'm sure Mr. Gerard must realize that he, at least, is largely responsible for all the "trouble" that Cade Metz has caused the Foundation. It was Gerard's block of an entire suburb in Utah which gave Mr. Metz the hook for his article about the abuse of the wiki by Mantanmoreland. It was while researching for that article that Mr. Metz observed the Durova !! scandal occur. Metz' trenchant reporting on the Durova/!! issue is, I believe, what gained Cade most of his "inside" sources in Wikipedia's admin corps, which has allowed him to obtain crucial inside information into so many other wiki-scandals since then, including the latest involving Mr. Gerard himself.

I recognize Alison's valid observation that Mr. Gerard was helpful with his block of Mr. "A", a truly vile and threatening stalker. If Mr. Gerard could be so straightforward in everything else he does wiki-related, however, then perhaps now he wouldn't have a media article written about him that is probably permanently google-linked to his name. I think we should recognize that we're wrong when Durova effortlessly wins an argument with us. We reap what we sow, wouldn't you say, David?

DG was trolling with that build the encyclopedia crap. I considered blocking him for it, but then decided I didn't give a fuck.

The wikidrama continues Ad nauseam - with the drama spilling over here. The thing which is really telling about the Wikipediot apologists, is they think the world cares about the drama. It does not. What the world does care about is the industrial level of Defamation, the pollution of the internet with false, misleading, and clearly inaccurate and unreliable information. The dumbing down the of internet, and the the rise of the cult of Jimbo.

Lets make it very clear to the casual observer of the Wikipeidot zoo, there is NO consistent and FAIR governance, regulation, or over-site on the Wacky World of Wiki. On wiki, It's not about fairness, or the betterment of man, or the "sum of human knowledge - less the dissemination of pornographic filth to school children, what wikipeidia is about is cyber simulation of gang wars among the warlords of Wiki. Truth, fairness, and consideration of other people is not important, only the furtherment of the cult of wiki.

To NY Brad... YOU and the clown heads that "supposedly run wiki" better get the Wiki Zoo under control, or Society will. That will happen, count on that, the first fat lawsuit that busts though 230 ( or if 230 is revised) will spell the end of wiki. I suspect you know this, and If I were you, those like you, on wiki and if you, those like you on wiki, who still values their careers and credibility in the "REAL WORLD" Then, you and those like you on wiki, would better leave the wiki farm and distant them self from the Wiki as far and fast as they could, because the perfect storm is coming.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[A Horse With No Name]

DG was trolling with that build the encyclopedia crap...

...you don't "build" an encyclopedia -- you research/write/edit an encyclopedia. If these idiots cannot even define their hobby correctly, how can they be taken seriously?

I considered blocking him for it, but then decided I didn't give a fuck.

More accurately: you decided that you didn't want to be center of shit storm.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

For those who came in late or are just confused, here's what basically happened (Featuring Alex DeLarge as the ArbCom and Dim as Davy Gerund):

DG was trolling with that build the encyclopedia crap...

...you don't "build" an encyclopedia -- you research/write/edit an encyclopedia. If these idiots cannot even define their hobby correctly, how can they be taken seriously?

Encyclopedias are written with brains and pens, not mops and brooms.

Me from the other day.

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine):

[GlassBeadGame]

For those who came in late or are just confused, here's what basically happened (Featuring Alex DeLarge as the ArbCom and Dim as Davy Gerund):

DG was trolling with that build the encyclopedia crap...

...you don't "build" an encyclopedia -- you research/write/edit an encyclopedia. If these idiots cannot even define their hobby correctly, how can they be taken seriously?

Encyclopedias are written with brains and pens, not mops and brooms.

Me from the other day.

Virtual simulations of encyclopedias are a completely different thing. They are "written" with tokens representing the ideas and concepts used by encyclopedia. They are stripped down of all meaning that would make it difficult for the players to manipulate the tokens by their avatars. Thus we have tokens such as WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:ArbCom, etc with almost no relation to the real concepts. Hey, you even have a Simplified Rule Set to paste on your keys like game code cheats. Plus those orc hunting patrols are also a great way to level up to admin. This permits the players to engage in the simulated activity while they manually assemble the cites and sources with may ultimately be assembled into some kind of search engine. But writing an encyclopedia...really...come on now? The whole idea is to allow people to play who couldn't actually write an encyclopedia.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

For those who came in late or are just confused, here's what basically happened (Featuring Alex DeLarge as the ArbCom and Dim as Davy Gerund):

DG was trolling with that build the encyclopedia crap...

...you don't "build" an encyclopedia -- you research/write/edit an encyclopedia. If these idiots cannot even define their hobby correctly, how can they be taken seriously?

Encyclopedias are written with brains and pens, not mops and brooms.

Me from the other day.

Virtual simulations of encyclopedias are a completely different thing. They are "written" with tokens representing the ideas and concepts used by encyclopedia. They are stripped down of all meaning that would make it difficult for the players to manipulate the tokens by their avatars. Thus we have tokens such as WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:ArbCom, etc with almost no relation to the real concepts. Hey, you even have a Simplified Rule Set to past on your keys like game code cheats. Plus those orc hunting patrols are also a great way to level up to admin. This permits the players to engage in the simulated activity while they manually assemble the cites and sources with may ultimately be assembled into some kind of search engine. But writing an encyclopedia...really...come on now? The whole idea is to allow people to play who couldn't actually write an encyclopedia.

I'm a wikipedian!

Now I'm a wiki admin-is-traitor!

Actually I used to be rather fond of-

Be liberal in what you accept, be conservative in what you do.

from the simplified rule set. I'm glad it's still there. So many of Wiki's political problems would be solved if people simply adhered to it. Of course that would still leave the massive structural, foundational and intellectuals ones.

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine):

[One]

What the hell is this and what is it doing here?

I think he's trolling for a response.

Flattering source though: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6442747.stm (#3)

It is not trolling when the proper use of the forum is to seek a response.

These posts will not join the others about this diversion?

[Kelly Martin]

These posts will not join the others about this diversion?

Thread's dead anyway; all the drama has run away.

Now it's up to you and NYB and the other remaining sane people on the ArbCom, if any, to come up with some way of ensuring it never happens again.

[Piperdown]

Many aspects of Dave Gerard's WP history are actually ironic, even going beyond what he did in my own case. For example, one of the Aussie rock bands Dave was interested in back in the 90's was The Church (T-H-L-K-D), who you'll recall had a fairly big hit with a song called "Under the Milky Way." The Church were fronted by Steve Kilbey (T-H-L-K-D), and if you search the WR archives on the word "Kilbey" you'll find that the only two admitted fans of his around here are me and the now-inactive Piperdown. But Piperdown would never have joined WR if he hadn't been erroneously indef-blocked as an "overstock.com meatpuppet" by... you guessed it, Dave Gerard!

Note how the tune is similar to Milky Way. This done a couple years before. And the bemused look probably due to self-awareness of the shirt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B1Q0kUnyFE

....Happy Nuevo Year, Somey/WR, your site is still toppermost of the poppermost.

[Moulton]

Tarantino is good at analyzing writing styles to find passages that appear to be written by the same hand. If it's important enough, you can try to recruit him to the job.

[ulsterman]

Tarantino is good at analyzing writing styles to find passages that appear to be written by the same hand.

You mean that he has "exceptionally well-honed linguistic analytic skills" that enable him to identify sockpuppets?

Where have we heard that one before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=51930171

[Alison]

Tarantino is good at analyzing writing styles to find passages that appear to be written by the same hand.

You mean that he has "exceptionally well-honed linguistic analytic skills" that enable him to identify sockpuppets?

Where have we heard that one before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=51930171

Moulton is Slimvirgin??!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) OMG - I knew it all along!!!
B` (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Moulton]

Moulton is Slimvirgin??!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) OMG - I knew it all along!!! B` (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Who do you think ghost wrote all her song parodies?

[tarantino]

Tarantino is good at analyzing writing styles to find passages that appear to be written by the same hand.

You mean that he has "exceptionally well-honed linguistic analytic skills" that enable him to identify sockpuppets?

Don't you have some fetish wikis to administer? Maybe someone will come along shortly that needs checkusering.

[EricBarbour]

You mean that he has "exceptionally well-honed linguistic analytic skills" that enable him to identify sockpuppets?

Don't you have some fetish wikis to administer? Maybe someone will come along shortly that needs checkusering.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[ulsterman]

Silly nonsense

Oh dear, sorry, did I hurt your feelings?
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

Oh dear, sorry, did I hurt your feelings?
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Feelings, whoa oh oh, feelings, whoa oh oh...

[Moulton]

The phrase "silly nonsense" does not appear in the post by Tarantino which the gentleman from Ulster references above. This confuses me.

What, precisely, does "silly nonsense" refer to?

[CharlotteWebb]

The phrase "silly nonsense" does not appear in the post by Tarantino which the gentleman from Ulster references above.

Moreover, he's actually from Ilford.

[Moulton]

I can ill afford to spend time on this silly nonsense.

Is there some other silly nonsense more worthy of consideration?

[Zoloft]

I can ill afford to spend time on this silly nonsense.

Is there some other silly nonsense more worthy of consideration?

Silly nonsense on the forums,
Silly nonsense made of ticky tacky,
Silly nonsense on the forums,
Silly nonsense all the same.

[Moulton]

Silly nonsense, what a shame.

[Zoloft]

Silly nonsense, what a shame.

Your last line is better.

More poetic, in what amounts to a list, bound by our foibles.

[Moulton]

Silly nonsense on the forums,
Silly nonsense made of ticky tacky,
Silly nonsense on the wikis,
Silly nonsense, what a shame.

(With apologies to Malvina Reynolds.)

[ulsterman]

The phrase "silly nonsense" does not appear in the post by Tarantino which the gentleman from Ulster references above.

Moreover, he's actually from Ilford.

I thought Tarantino was from the USA? Didn't Somey say he lived near him? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Zoloft]

The phrase "silly nonsense" does not appear in the post by Tarantino which the gentleman from Ulster references above.

Moreover, he's actually from Ilford.

I thought Tarantino was from the USA? Didn't Somey say he lived near him? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Some Guy, not Somey, guy. Statistically this happens a lot. Need to brush up on your taxonomy. It's all a matter of soxual preference, or how an individual performer holds the mike.

[Moulton]

Title: Insinuation
Artists: Tarantino and Ulsterman (Duet)
Lyrics: Carly Simon and Barsoom Tork Associates
Music: Carly Simon

We can never know about the days to come
But we think about them anyway
And I wonder if I really know you now
Or just chasing after some stranger guy

Insinuation, Insinuation
Is making me sweat
Is keeping me trolling

And I tell you how easy it is to jest with you
And how tight your barbs feel to wound me.
But I rehearsed those words just late last night
When I was thinking about how strange tonight might be

Insinuation, Insinuation
Is making me sweat
Is keeping me baiting

And tomorrow might not be fair weather
I'm no prophet and I don't know Somey's ways
But I'll try to peer into your eyes right now
And stay right here
'Cause these aren't the good old days

CopyClef 2010 Carly Simon and Barsoom Tork Associates
Resurrection Hackware
All wrongs reversed

Carly Simon - Anticipation (1995)

[Zoloft]

*cheers and waves a lighter*

I was going to do a song parody here, but looking at the lyrics, they are perfect as is:

Bows and flows of angel hair
And ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere
I've looked at clouds that way

But now they only block the sun
They rain and snow on everyone
So many things I would have done
But clouds got in my way
I've looked at clouds from both sides now

From up and down, and still somehow
It's cloud's illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all

--Both Sides Now (Joni Mitchell)

This post has been edited by Zoloft:

[tarantino]

With so much drama in the L-B-C
It's kinda hard bein Snoop D-O-double-G
But I, somehow, some way
Keep comin up with funky ass shit like every single day
May I, kick a little something for the G's (yeah)
and, make a few ends as (yeah!) I breeze, through

- Gin and Juice
- lyrics by Snoop Dogg

[ulsterman]

I thought Tarantino was from the USA? Didn't Somey say he lived near him? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Some Guy, not Somey, guy.

No, I'm right. It was Somey.

Jeez... That's the last time I bother helping out a movie actor, and I'll bet Tarantino's with me on that score, too. And he's a fellow Iowan, to boot! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

[Somey]

No, I'm right. It was Somey.

Jeez... That's the last time I bother helping out a movie actor, and I'll bet Tarantino's with me on that score, too. And he's a fellow Iowan, to boot! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

I meant that Ron Livingston was a fellow Iowan, not Tarantino. (That should have been clear enough, but whatever...)

I have no idea where Tarantino is from - he's never even hinted at this, and AFAIK he has also never once logged into WR without using an anonymizing proxy (and I suspect that may be true for the entirety of his internet usage in general). I believe this is because he's smarter than most people, though he could just be more paranoid, or for that matter, maybe he actually is from Iowa and just doesn't want anyone to know.

The only reason *I* get away with not using proxies is because I'm just so ridiculously good-looking. Of course, nobody would know that if I used proxies, would they?

[TungstenCarbide]

The only reason *I* get away with not using proxies is because I'm just so ridiculously good-looking. Of course, nobody would know that if I used proxies, would they?

I know exactly how you feel. In fact, when I was looking for a new avatar I had to settle for the second sexiest man alive in order to protect my identity.

[MZMcBride]

I have no idea where Tarantino is from - he's never even hinted at this, and AFAIK he has also never once logged into WR without using an anonymizing proxy (and I suspect that may be true for the entirety of his internet usage in general). I believe this is because he's smarter than most people, though he could just be more paranoid, or for that matter, maybe he actually is from Iowa and just doesn't want anyone to know.

There have been rumors floating around regarding tarantino's identity for ages. I've no idea if they're true. I can't be fucked to research the matter as I simply don't care.

[Moulton]

There have been rumors floating around regarding tarantino's identity for ages. I've no idea if they're true.

Rumor has it, he enjoys chocolate chip cookies with a tall glass of fresh milk.

[Somey]

Rumor has it, he enjoys chocolate chip cookies with a tall glass of fresh milk.

The rumor I heard was that the chocolate chip cookie rumors are completely unsubstantiated.

Meanwhile, rumors of a global peanut-butter conspiracy continue to spread... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[Moulton]

Smooth Operator

Rumor has it, he enjoys chocolate chip cookies with a tall glass of fresh milk.

The rumor I heard was that the chocolate chip cookie rumors are completely unsubstantiated.

Well, I'm afraid I'm out of my theological depth here regarding the concept of transubstantiation. Is Essjay still around? (Or even Ottava, perhaps?)

Meanwhile, rumors of a global peanut-butter conspiracy continue to spread... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Kinky.

...er... Chunky.

[CharlotteWebb]

The phrase "silly nonsense" does not appear in the post by Tarantino which the gentleman from Ulster references above.

Moreover, he's actually from Ilford.

I thought Tarantino was from the USA? Didn't Somey say he lived near him? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Observation suggests your knack for willful misconstrual is ~2 standard deviations above the norm, but (thankfully) I have forgotten how to calculate that shit.

[radek]

The phrase "silly nonsense" does not appear in the post by Tarantino which the gentleman from Ulster references above.

Moreover, he's actually from Ilford.

I thought Tarantino was from the USA? Didn't Somey say he lived near him? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Observation suggests your knack for willful misconstrual is ~2 standard deviations above the norm, but (thankfully) I have forgotten how to calculate that shit.

What you are saying is that he is almost in the top 2% (~2.2%) of the most miscontrualist people in the ... whatever your universe is. That's assuming that willful miscontsrualism is distributed normally which also implies that there is such a thing as negative miscontrualism... antimisconstrualism or something. More likely, the distribution of willful misconstrualism has a positive support (with 0 being "never misconstrues willfully") and maybe even bounded above by 1 ("always freakin' misconstrues")...hmmm, something like a Beta distribution with beta>1 I think. But for that one I also forgotten how to calculate that shit.

This post has been edited by radek:

[EricBarbour]

(IMG:http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/ronsii/mrburns1.jpg)

[Milton Roe]

There have been rumors floating around regarding tarantino's identity for ages. I've no idea if they're true.

Rumor has it, he enjoys chocolate chip cookies with a tall glass of fresh milk.

That's the Zappatistas. Zappa always reminded me of Salvador Dali. Different medium but same mind set.

I think the closer character to Tarantino was his earlier avatar, the big Lebowski. Jeff Lebowski is sort of an early 90's version of Sam Spade. And Tarantino is sort of Sam Spade for the late whatever-it-is that they'll call THIS decade. Which come to think of it, I have no idea.*

MR

*You know, I've spent the last 10 years wondering if people were going to say "twenty-ought-something." Or even "twenty-oh-something". They never did. We're still saying "two thousand -this" and "two-thousand that." I don't think I've heard "twenty-ten" yet. Anybody? Do you suppose this "two-thousand" thing will continue through the entire freaking 21st century? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Or just until I'm dead?

[Moulton]

Misconstrualism is a staple feature of comedy. Those who are better educated on the subject than me can comment on whether Moliere deserves the credit for popularizing the lulz that arise from artful misconstrualism.

[thekohser]

*You know, I've spent the last 10 years wondering if people were going to say "twenty-ought-something." Or even "twenty-oh-something". They never did. We're still saying "two thousand -this" and "two-thousand that." I don't think I've heard "twenty-ten" yet. Anybody? Do you suppose this "two-thousand" thing will continue through the entire freaking 21st century? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Or just until I'm dead?

We say "twenty-ten", "twenty-eleven", and "twenty-twelve" at the office, very frequently. Often, it's in connection with forward budgeting plans.

[Moulton]

What will you say in the year 2525 (if man is still alive)?

[thekohser]

What will you say in the year 2525 (if man is still alive)?

Two-thousand-five-hundred-five-and-twenty (blackbirds baked in a pie)

[anthony]

*You know, I've spent the last 10 years wondering if people were going to say "twenty-ought-something." Or even "twenty-oh-something". They never did. We're still saying "two thousand -this" and "two-thousand that." I don't think I've heard "twenty-ten" yet. Anybody? Do you suppose this "two-thousand" thing will continue through the entire freaking 21st century? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Or just until I'm dead?

You've just gotta come south of the border. Here I hear "two oh eight", "two oh nine", and yes, even the double-ear-cringing "two oh ten" (which I suppose is so wrong that it's right).

Just two days ago I had someone tell me he needed to fill out a "form 208". It took me a while before I realized he was talking about a form 1040 for 2008.

[Kelly Martin]

You know, I've spent the last 10 years wondering if people were going to say "twenty-ought-something." Or even "twenty-oh-something". They never did. We're still saying "two thousand -this" and "two-thousand that." I don't think I've heard "twenty-ten" yet. Anybody? Do you suppose this "two-thousand" thing will continue through the entire freaking 21st century? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Or just until I'm dead?

I've been hearing twenty-oh-something or twenty-aught-something since at least 2008. The one that really amuses me is when I hear twenty-oh-ten (20010?), abbreviated to '010.

What I'm waiting for is the name for this decade. The general consensus seems to be that the 2000-2009 decade is the "oughties" or the "noughties" (mainly the same name that the 1900-1909 decade had), but I've yet to hear a general consensus for the 2010-2019 decade. The 1910-1919 decade never acquired a catchy name, mainly because it was culturally dominated by World War I, so there's no real historical precedent.

In any case, I digress.