Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Editors _ Law blocked as an alternate account of the_undertow

Posted by: TheySeeMeTrollin

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FMotions&diff=317032607&oldid=312524681

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

Posted by: trenton

Who would have thunk it? He was so mature and drama free..... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(TheySeeMeTrollin @ Wed 30th September 2009, 1:33am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FMotions&diff=317032607&oldid=312524681

Interesting. I have to say that I didn't see this coming, but hindsight being what it is, it makes sense.
Anyone who was paying attention should have known. There were many, many obvious connections.

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

Posted by: MZMcBride

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

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

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

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:01am) *

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

He found out weeks ago.

Posted by: Law

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Tue 29th September 2009, 11:05pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:01am) *

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

He found out weeks ago.

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

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 3:59pm) *

QUOTE(TheySeeMeTrollin @ Wed 30th September 2009, 1:33am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FMotions&diff=317032607&oldid=312524681

Interesting. I have to say that I didn't see this coming, but hindsight being what it is, it makes sense.
Anyone who was paying attention should have known. There were many, many obvious connections.

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


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

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(trenton @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:59am) *
Who would have thunk it? He was so mature and drama free..... rolleyes.gif

They had to let him go ... he was the guy that deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gere_and_the_gerbil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Cla68

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

Posted by: Silverman

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 6:59am) *

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

And you managed to keep it a secret?

Posted by: Abd

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

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

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

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

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

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

QUOTE(Law @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:06am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Tue 29th September 2009, 11:05pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:01am) *

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

He found out weeks ago.

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


Not the best strategy, was it? ermm.gif

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:01am) *

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


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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 30th September 2009, 8:58am) *
Who's the Undertow? I don't mean who he is in real life, I mean, why is he notable enough to be mentioned here?
Former admin, good wikifriend of Lara's, resigned adminship under a cloud after unilaterally unblocking Moulton, was involved in a kerfuffle with Swatjester some time ago when Swatjester made an issue of the Undertow being a self-declared white pride-ist. Created an article on Dan Rosenthal (Swatjester's real name), and was subsequently blocked for nine months for "Off-wiki threats and harassment". Progressive BLP views or not, not a guy I particularly want as an administrator.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

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

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

Posted by: One

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:59am) *

QUOTE(TheySeeMeTrollin @ Wed 30th September 2009, 1:33am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FMotions&diff=317032607&oldid=312524681

Interesting. I have to say that I didn't see this coming, but hindsight being what it is, it makes sense.
Anyone who was paying attention should have known. There were many, many obvious connections.

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

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

Undertow also requested an unblock on his now-deleted talk page in February when he had been editing for like 7 months. He wanted permission to participate in OS/CU elections, which he did anyway. Actually, Law asked to be unblocked to vote on Feb 8, but he had already voted on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090220&contribs=user&target=Law&namespace=4.

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

Posted by: everyking

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

Posted by: carbuncle

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

Posted by: Tarc

Probably regretting that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Law&diff=prev&oldid=315036163 now to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=315036758 CoM, eh?

Posted by: Friday

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 30th September 2009, 12:32pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 30th September 2009, 8:58am) *
Who's the Undertow? I don't mean who he is in real life, I mean, why is he notable enough to be mentioned here?
Former admin, good wikifriend of Lara's, resigned adminship under a cloud after unilaterally unblocking Moulton, was involved in a kerfuffle with Swatjester some time ago when Swatjester made an issue of the Undertow being a self-declared white pride-ist. Created an article on Dan Rosenthal (Swatjester's real name), and was subsequently blocked for nine months for "Off-wiki threats and harassment". Progressive BLP views or not, not a guy I particularly want as an administrator.


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

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

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Silverman @ Wed 30th September 2009, 8:15am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 6:59am) *

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

And you managed to keep it a secret?

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

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 9:01am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:59am) *

QUOTE(TheySeeMeTrollin @ Wed 30th September 2009, 1:33am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FMotions&diff=317032607&oldid=312524681

Interesting. I have to say that I didn't see this coming, but hindsight being what it is, it makes sense.
Anyone who was paying attention should have known. There were many, many obvious connections.

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

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

Undertow also requested an unblock on his now-deleted talk page in February when he had been editing for like 7 months. He wanted permission to participate in OS/CU elections, which he did anyway. Actually, Law asked to be unblocked to vote on Feb 8, but he had already voted on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090220&contribs=user&target=Law&namespace=4.

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

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

QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 30th September 2009, 9:31am) *

Probably regretting that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Law&diff=prev&oldid=315036163 now to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=315036758 CoM, eh?
Had nothing to do with that. Nothing at all.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 30th September 2009, 1:24pm) *

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

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

Posted by: Moulton

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:02am) *
But if the above is true.. it's good riddance, right? Normally I don't consider real-life issues in connection with Wikipedia. But if someone is one of those white-pride types, this indicates an underlying mental defect. I would not trust that such an individual could be impartial, or use good judgement.
In his defense, he took care to draw distinctions between the "white pride" that he felt and the "white supremacy" that he rejected. I believe - and he can correct me if I'm wrong - that he was one of those people who equates white pride to black pride or gay pride or what have you ("There's nothing racist about taking pride in who you are!"). Either way, I don't really want him as an admin, but there's no reason to believe that he's an Aryan Nation supporter or any such thing.

Posted by: Apathetic

So did anyone put the popcorn on yet?

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

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 30th September 2009, 10:30am) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:02am) *
But if the above is true.. it's good riddance, right? Normally I don't consider real-life issues in connection with Wikipedia. But if someone is one of those white-pride types, this indicates an underlying mental defect. I would not trust that such an individual could be impartial, or use good judgement.
In his defense, he took care to draw distinctions between the "white pride" that he felt and the "white supremacy" that he rejected.


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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:40am) *
That is a wonderful defense.
Well, it's his, not mine. I think that i. "white pride" and "white supremacy" are, as generally applied, synonymous, and ii. the notion that there is any historical, sociological, or other reason for white people to take pride in being white is idiotic. But since I'm the one who brought white pride into this thread, I thought I should at least make an effort to accurately describe his views on the subject.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 30th September 2009, 10:02am) *
I would not trust that such an individual could be impartial, or use good judgement.


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

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 30th September 2009, 10:47am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:40am) *
That is a wonderful defense.
the notion that there is any historical, sociological, or other reason for white people to take pride in being white is idiotic.


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

None of this has to do with Law, of course, but I can't figure out any way to insert bosom jokes into this conversation. evilgrin.gif

Posted by: LaraLove

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

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 30th September 2009, 10:47am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:40am) *
That is a wonderful defense.
Well, it's his, not mine. I think that i. "white pride" and "white supremacy" are, as generally applied, synonymous, and ii. the notion that there is any historical, sociological, or other reason for white people to take pride in being white is idiotic. But since I'm the one who brought white pride into this thread, I thought I should at least make an effort to accurately describe his views on the subject.

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:54am) *
At the same time, however, an argument could be made that there is no need for "black pride," "gay pride" or any "XXX pride" in a 21st century society where the political, economic, academic and cultural elite represent the full spectrum of racial, religious and ethnic experiences.
An argument could be made. I think it's wrong. Black pride, gay pride, etc. have their origins in the systematic denigration of blackness, homosexuality, etc. If people were constantly telling me, explicitly and otherwise, that my being white meant that I wasn't as good as non-whites, I might want to band together with other whites to celebrate whiteness in response. But that doesn't happen to any appreciable extent, and even where it does happen it's almost always a case of the disadvantaged denigrating the advantaged; in such circumstances, collective pride is a much less reasonable response than it is when the advantaged are denigrating the disadvantaged.

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

Also, tits.

Posted by: trenton

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

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

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 9:01am) *

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


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

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 30th September 2009, 10:59am) *
As a heterosexual white male, I feel that I already am so-judged.


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

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 30th September 2009, 10:59am) *
Also, tits.


boing.gifboing.gifboing.gifboing.gif

Posted by: One

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:56pm) *

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

I'm assuming bad faith?

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

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(trenton @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:02am) *

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

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

Ya, ya. WHITE PAR! o/

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:08am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:56pm) *

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

I'm assuming bad faith?

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

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

Posted by: One

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

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 30th September 2009, 8:30am) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:02am) *
But if the above is true.. it's good riddance, right? Normally I don't consider real-life issues in connection with Wikipedia. But if someone is one of those white-pride types, this indicates an underlying mental defect. I would not trust that such an individual could be impartial, or use good judgement.
In his defense, he took care to draw distinctions between the "white pride" that he felt and the "white supremacy" that he rejected. I believe - and he can correct me if I'm wrong - that he was one of those people who equates white pride to black pride or gay pride or what have you ("There's nothing racist about taking pride in who you are!"). Either way, I don't really want him as an admin, but there's no reason to believe that he's an Aryan Nation supporter or any such thing.


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

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

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:26am) *

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

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

Posted by: Friday

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 30th September 2009, 3:29pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 30th September 2009, 8:30am) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:02am) *
But if the above is true.. it's good riddance, right? Normally I don't consider real-life issues in connection with Wikipedia. But if someone is one of those white-pride types, this indicates an underlying mental defect. I would not trust that such an individual could be impartial, or use good judgement.
In his defense, he took care to draw distinctions between the "white pride" that he felt and the "white supremacy" that he rejected. I believe - and he can correct me if I'm wrong - that he was one of those people who equates white pride to black pride or gay pride or what have you ("There's nothing racist about taking pride in who you are!"). Either way, I don't really want him as an admin, but there's no reason to believe that he's an Aryan Nation supporter or any such thing.


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

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


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

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

Posted by: One

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 3:43pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:26am) *

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

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

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

Posted by: trenton

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

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 30th September 2009, 9:59am) *
An argument could be made. I think it's wrong. Black pride, gay pride, etc. have their origins in the systematic denigration of blackness, homosexuality, etc. If people were constantly telling me, explicitly and otherwise, that my being white meant that I wasn't as good as non-whites, I might want to band together with other whites to celebrate whiteness in response.

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

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

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

QUOTE
Also, tits.

Amen to that!

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(trenton @ Wed 30th September 2009, 12:52pm) *
When you and your klan buddies go out for a night of fun...
I find your invective tiresome.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:49am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 3:43pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:26am) *

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

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

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

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

QUOTE(trenton @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:52am) *

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

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

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

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

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 30th September 2009, 4:47pm) *

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

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

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

Posted by: One

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 4:17pm) *

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 30th September 2009, 12:22pm) *
This is about Wikipedia, a project to build an encyclopedia. All he has to do is write content properly.


A project to...what? Are we talking about the same Wikipedia? ermm.gif

Posted by: Friday

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 30th September 2009, 4:22pm) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 30th September 2009, 4:47pm) *

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

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

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


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

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 30th September 2009, 10:47am) *
But, I'd never expect the chat room crowd to understand that we should not try to do therapy. (Edit: no implications intended of who is or is not part of the "chat room crowd".)
You're barmy, dude. The "chat room crowd" has absolutely no desire to see Wikipedia used to do therapy. However, it has no objection to Wikipedia being used to generate entertainment. As you are, of course, well aware, taunting the emotionally disabled is a great way to generate entertainment for the masses.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:28pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 30th September 2009, 12:22pm) *
This is about Wikipedia, a project to build an encyclopedia. All he has to do is write content properly.


A project to...what? Are we talking about the same Wikipedia? ermm.gif

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

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 30th September 2009, 3:29pm) *
The problem is that undertow's history includes active participation in StormFront. He initially came to this site as indicating he had put this racism behind him. He was embraced and gained acceptance on the basis of transcending his previous views.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does that say to you?

Posted by: Friday

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 30th September 2009, 4:37pm) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 30th September 2009, 10:47am) *
But, I'd never expect the chat room crowd to understand that we should not try to do therapy. (Edit: no implications intended of who is or is not part of the "chat room crowd".)
You're barmy, dude. The "chat room crowd" has absolutely no desire to see Wikipedia used to do therapy.



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

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:22am) *
Again, I don't think you're helping your friends by dragging this out. I was happy to let it drop. Many more people will have noticed my comment now, and they'll be much more curious about what we're talking about. I think it might hurt both of them, and I didn't intend that at all.
You should have kept your mouth shut, then. The urge to say "I know something I can't tell you" appears to remain strong with you; it's a habit you really need to work on breaking; that sort of pronouncement never leads to good ends. If you can't talk about, you can't talk about it. Talking about how you can't talk about it is just stupid, and you should bloody well know this.


QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:40am) *
You really believe that? I can't count how many times I've seen a block proposal for some disruptive editor, then someone pops up and says "I'm so-and-so's chat room friend.. let me mentor him- I can get him back on track!"

So the impression I've gotten is that they're all about trying to "fix" people.
That's not offering to "do therapy", they're just standing up for the friends.

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

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:30pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 30th September 2009, 4:22pm) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 30th September 2009, 4:47pm) *

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

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

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


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

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


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

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:40am) *
...At the same time you were telling us on this forum not so long ago that Jewish suffering was ... "sui generis" ... superior to all other individuals' suffering.

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

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

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

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 30th September 2009, 12:30pm) *

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


Funny, I can't think of a better place for a kook to be welcome! evilgrin.gif

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Friday @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:40am) *
...I can't count how many times I've seen a block proposal for some disruptive editor, then someone pops up and says "I'm so-and-so's chat room friend.. let me mentor him- I can get him back on track!" ... So the impression I've gotten is that they're all about trying to "fix" people.

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

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Wed 30th September 2009, 10:35am) *

So did anyone put the popcorn on yet?


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




QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 30th September 2009, 12:51pm) *

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


You know, if you told us that last month, TenPoundHammer would've had the game plan to pass his RfA. wink.gif

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 12:22pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 4:17pm) *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 8:49am) *

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

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

Posted by: Peter Damian

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

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

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

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 4:22pm) *
Where I'm from, silence is different from lying.


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

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 30th September 2009, 6:17pm) *

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

Guess I'll remember that next time an officer tells me what rights I have. dry.gif

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:17pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 4:22pm) *
Where I'm from, silence is different from lying.


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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:01am) *

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

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

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


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

And what role, if any, did Daniel play in ratting out Law? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&diff=317078417&oldid=317073787 it appears tomorrow's legal eagle (by his own admission) had a finger or two in the unmasking. unsure.gif

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 4:09pm) *

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:17pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 4:22pm) *
Where I'm from, silence is different from lying.


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

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

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 30th September 2009, 7:14pm) *
I am curious to see how the conversation devolved from "Please move this article?" to "Aha, you're a phony!" -- I can't see the logical progression there. wacko.gif

Reviewing this:
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 30th September 2009, 6:01am) *
On IRC on Tuesday night, Ironholds (T-C-L-K-R-D) asked Law (T-C-L-K-R-D) to move a particular article. Law wouldn't oblige, so Daniel (T-C-L-K-R-D) stepped in. Eventually Ironholds figured out that Law was the_undertow (T-C-L-K-R-D) and sent IRC logs to the Arbitration Committee.
QUOTE(Law @ Wed 30th September 2009, 6:06am) *
Let's not give him too much credit. I told him weeks ago.


Based on what we know so far the log might have looked something like this:
CODE
[23:59] <Law> no you fuck-wipe the current title is better
[00:00] <Ironholds> lolol if ur gonna be that way i guess ir start tellin ppl who ur
[00:00] <Law> go fuck the devil, shit-face
[00:05] <Ironholds> hey daniel, you got a second
[00:06] <Law> fuck you you fucking fucks

(or not!) dry.gif

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

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

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 30th September 2009, 3:50pm) *


Based on what we know so far the log might have looked something like this:
CODE
[23:59] <Law> no you fuck-wipe the current title is better
[00:00] <Ironholds> lolol if ur gonna be that way i guess ir start tellin ppl who ur
[00:00] <Law> go fuck the devil, shit-face
[00:05] <Ironholds> hey daniel, you got a second
[00:06] <Law> fuck you you fucking fucks

(or not!) dry.gif


Wait a minute...Law is also Tanthalas39? unsure.gif

Posted by: SirFozzie

Someone rang?

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

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 30th September 2009, 8:14pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:01am) *

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

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

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


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

And what role, if any, did Daniel play in ratting out Law? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&diff=317078417&oldid=317073787 it appears tomorrow's legal eagle (by his own admission) had a finger or two in the unmasking. unsure.gif


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

QUOTE

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

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 30th September 2009, 3:50pm) *


Based on what we know so far the log might have looked something like this:
CODE
[23:59] <Law> no you fuck-wipe the current title is better
[00:00] <Ironholds> lolol if ur gonna be that way i guess ir start tellin ppl who ur
[00:00] <Law> go fuck the devil, shit-face
[00:05] <Ironholds> hey daniel, you got a second
[00:06] <Law> fuck you you fucking fucks

(or not!) dry.gif

epic lulz

plz do go on

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 30th September 2009, 3:14pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:01am) *

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

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

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


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

And what role, if any, did Daniel play in ratting out Law? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&diff=317078417&oldid=317073787 it appears tomorrow's legal eagle (by his own admission) had a finger or two in the unmasking. unsure.gif
Andrew Bonar Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: One

Moral of the story: use [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Posted by: Moulton

Epic levels of unprofessionalism.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 4:16pm) *
Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.
Didn't I say a while back that most conflicts on Wikipedia are either ideologically-motivated fights or straight-up personality conflicts, and that many of the latter are really grounded in the former?

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

Posted by: The Wales Hunter

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

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

Posted by: Deodand

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 9:58pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 30th September 2009, 3:14pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:01am) *

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

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

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


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

And what role, if any, did Daniel play in ratting out Law? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&diff=317078417&oldid=317073787 it appears tomorrow's legal eagle (by his own admission) had a finger or two in the unmasking. unsure.gif
Andrew Bonar Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 10:20am) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 30th September 2009, 9:31am) *

Probably regretting that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Law&diff=prev&oldid=315036163 now to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=315036758 CoM, eh?
Had nothing to do with that. Nothing at all.


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

Just a dumb aside. Don't mind me. smile.gif

Posted by: The Joy

I see Daniel gloating over his "epic win." hrmph.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ironholds&diff=317090932&oldid=316880621

Posted by: SirFozzie

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

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

Posted by: One

QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:01am) *

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

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

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Apology_from_Casliber

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 30th September 2009, 9:53pm) *

I see Daniel gloating over his "epic win." hrmph.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ironholds&diff=317090932&oldid=316880621

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

Posted by: SirFozzie

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

Posted by: Noroton

QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Wed 30th September 2009, 8:01pm) *

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

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

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

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

Doesn't Wikipedia look crazy, though.


Posted by: Kelly Martin

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

Posted by: SirFozzie

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

Posted by: Noroton

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 30th September 2009, 9:08pm) *

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


Spoke too soon. Georgewilliamherbert just announced the block.

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Still, who'd want to unblock the jackass?

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:16pm) *
Moral of the story: use [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.
Exactly!

QUOTE(Deodand @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:39pm) *

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.
[2009-09-29 06:53:08] <Ironholds> ..Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <Ironholds> Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[2009-09-29 06:53:11] <Ironholds> LAW

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

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

Posted by: Apathetic

Eesh, is it a full moon or something?

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

Posted by: SirFozzie

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

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

Posted by: One

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

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

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE

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

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

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

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


evilgrin.gif

Image
"And just now, that one pleases me. See that it is played in the area."

Posted by: trenton

QUOTE(Noroton @ Wed 30th September 2009, 7:44pm) *

QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Wed 30th September 2009, 8:01pm) *

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

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

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

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

Doesn't Wikipedia look crazy, though.


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

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

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 8:56pm) *

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

You never understand why, Abner.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 6:59am) *

QUOTE(TheySeeMeTrollin @ Wed 30th September 2009, 1:33am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FMotions&diff=317032607&oldid=312524681

Interesting. I have to say that I didn't see this coming, but hindsight being what it is, it makes sense.
Anyone who was paying attention should have known. There were many, many obvious connections.

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

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

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 30th September 2009, 6:38pm) *

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 30th September 2009, 6:17pm) *

In response to a question, silence is not and can not be any different from saying the thing that the person asking you a question will assume silence to mean. It is not a "third option" between being a liar and being a rat.
Guess I'll remember that next time an officer tells me what rights I have. dry.gif
Don't lawyers have to be specifically ordered not to make those sorts of implications in front of a jury? That tells you something: they work. (or is this a result of watching too many courtroom drama shows?)

I'm also pretty sure I remember that that right to remain silent doesn't actually extend to protecting your friends.
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 30th September 2009, 7:09pm) *
QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 30th September 2009, 2:17pm) *
In response to a question, silence is not and can not be any different from saying the thing that the person asking you a question will assume silence to mean. It is not a "third option" between being a liar and being a rat.
I don't agree with that. If your silence implies an answer, then it implies an answer, but it's not a lie.
My point was as much or more that if your silence implies confirmation of someone's suspicion about someone it's as if you ratted them out.

Posted by: lone-wolf

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

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(lone-wolf @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:33pm) *

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

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

Posted by: everyking

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

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

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

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:41am) *

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

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

Posted by: Wiki Witch of the West

QUOTE(One @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:56am) *

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


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

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

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

Posted by: Wiki Witch of the West

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:47am) *

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


Thank you very much. wink.gif

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:35am) *

QUOTE(One @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:56am) *

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


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

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

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

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Wed 30th September 2009, 10:50pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:47am) *

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


Thank you very much. wink.gif

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

Welcome to WR, Durova. It looks llke the audience has arrived, too smile.gif

Posted by: Grep

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:05am) *

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


Ah, the old http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_de_Polichinelle. Funny en.wikipedia doesn't have that article.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Stand by all dramacopters!

Posted by: the_undertow

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

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

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

Chip

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:17am) *

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

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

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

Chip


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

Posted by: Anonymous editor

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:53pm) *

I see Daniel gloating over his "epic win." hrmph.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ironholds&diff=317090932&oldid=316880621


He's an epic scumbag.

Posted by: the_undertow

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 30th September 2009, 10:32pm) *

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:17am) *

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

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

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

Chip


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


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

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

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

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

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:17am) *
my silence here and on wiki is difficult, especially having to relive the accusations of white supremacy and mental instability. Not to mention the worst, which is watching potential heads roll.
For Wikipedia to work according to the original concept, true consensus is required. And one of the poisoners of consensus is the habit of telling other people what they believe. It's offensive even if you are right, and thoroughly stupid if you are wrong. After all, would you trust someone who confidently tells you that you believe what you know you don't believe?

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Anonymous editor

QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Wed 30th September 2009, 9:46pm) *

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


That was most excellent.

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


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

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:49pm) *

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

This whole paragraph made me smile smile.gif Nice one! Your love for your kids shines through.

Posted by: the_undertow

QUOTE(Alison @ Wed 30th September 2009, 10:53pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:49pm) *

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

This whole paragraph made me smile smile.gif Nice one! Your love for your kids shines through.


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

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

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:17am) *

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

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

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

Chip


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

Also, welcome to WR, Durova.

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:47am) *

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


NOT ME Ms Durova....


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

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





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

I not going to be very nice.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:16am) *

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

THIEF ( Of [..] human rights )

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

That'll larn 'em! blink.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif happy.gif

QUOTE

BRAIN-DAMAGED PUNK

Image

Posted by: Anonymous editor

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:16am) *
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:47am) *

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


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

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:20am) *

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


TALK TO SANKBONE and one of the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association&action=history that run in wikipeidia.

Posted by: the_undertow

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:14pm) *

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:17am) *

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

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

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

Chip


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

Also, welcome to WR, Durova.


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

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:26am) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:16am) *
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:47am) *

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


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


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


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

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

Posted by: the_undertow

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:16pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:47am) *

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


NOT ME Ms Durova....


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

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


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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:35am) *
Coherent enough for a little snarky over educated fuck like you to understand
Overeducated? Come now: I'm 27 years old and I don't have any kind of post-secondary degree or diploma. I'm basically your brother in arms, here.

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

Posted by: Anonymous editor

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 3:33am) *

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:20am) *

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


TALK TO SANKBONE and one of the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association&action=history that run in wikipeidia.


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

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:41am) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 3:33am) *

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:20am) *

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


TALK TO SANKBONE and one of the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association&action=history that run in wikipeidia.


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


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

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:40am) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:35am) *
Coherent enough for a little snarky over educated fuck like you to understand
Overeducated? Come now: I'm 27 years old and I don't have any kind of post-secondary degree or diploma. I'm basically your brother in arms, here.

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


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

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

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

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:41am) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 3:33am) *

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:20am) *

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


TALK TO SANKBONE and one of the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association&action=history that run in wikipeidia.


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



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Shankbone

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:49am) *

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

letsgetdrunk.gif popcorn.gif popcorn.gif

Posted by: the_undertow

QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:08am) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:49am) *

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

letsgetdrunk.gif popcorn.gif popcorn.gif


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

This is about me me me hrmph.gif

Posted by: MZMcBride

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

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

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 1st October 2009, 3:16am) *
In a lot of ways, it appears to me (from the peanut gallery) that Daniel is simply stressed in real life and was looking for an out. I personally wouldn't have blocked, though I support it (albeit at a shorter length, say 12 or 24 hours). I imagine someone will reduce the block or unblock before the block expires.
See, this is why Wikipedia's admins are completely unable to maintain any sort of community discipline. You're all so addicted to Wikipedia that you think a brief block, or even the indignity of having been blocked at all, is enough to convince someone that their behavior is unacceptable (presumably because you get the hives if you can't edit for 30 seconds). It doesn't work that way. If you want to send Daniel the message that his behavior is unacceptable, you need to block him for at least a week; frankly I'd block him for at least a month.

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:49am) *
its now time to stand toe to toe and see what kind of stuff your made of..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body.

QUOTE
by the way, I'm 52, and just because my writing is not up to your lofty standards, don't construe that I'm ignorant, stupid, or unaware of the issues.
No, no, the quality of your writing has very little to do with why I so-construe.

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:16am) *
I don't see too much else to discuss in this thread beside the hypocrisy of "nap time" being two words when "daytime" and "nighttime" aren't. (Though I guess it depends which dictionary you use.)
As I believe I've mentioned before, I lost the OED in the divorce, so I basically just guess these days.

Posted by: Deodand

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:39am) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:16pm) *
Moral of the story: use [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.
Exactly!

QUOTE(Deodand @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:39pm) *

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.
[2009-09-29 06:53:08] <Ironholds> ..Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <Ironholds> Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[2009-09-29 06:53:11] <Ironholds> LAW

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

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

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

11:52] <The_Law> http://books.google.com/books?id=9mj2hNGMh6wC&dq=Andrew+Bonar+Law&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=F6tjIcqwHH&sig=UpMNkmsJ5noz7T3ZZdfo4K0sL-w&hl=en&ei=4ebBSovcJNSf8AbMruH-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Andrew%20Bonar%20Law&f=false
[11:52] <Ironholds> ..Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> LAW
[11:52] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[11:52] <Ironholds> what's that book called
[11:53] <Ironholds> "Bonar Law"
[11:53] <Ironholds> in big gold capital letters
Rude, yes. Deliberate "pinging"? No.

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

Posted by: the_undertow

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:16am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:39am) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:16pm) *
Moral of the story: use [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.
Exactly!

QUOTE(Deodand @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:39pm) *

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.
[2009-09-29 06:53:08] <Ironholds> ..Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <Ironholds> Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[2009-09-29 06:53:11] <Ironholds> LAW

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

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

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

11:52] <The_Law> http://books.google.com/books?id=9mj2hNGMh6wC&dq=Andrew+Bonar+Law&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=F6tjIcqwHH&sig=UpMNkmsJ5noz7T3ZZdfo4K0sL-w&hl=en&ei=4ebBSovcJNSf8AbMruH-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Andrew%20Bonar%20Law&f=false
[11:52] <Ironholds> ..Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> LAW
[11:52] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[11:52] <Ironholds> what's that book called
[11:53] <Ironholds> "Bonar Law"
[11:53] <Ironholds> in big gold capital letters
Rude, yes. Deliberate "pinging"? No.

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


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

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

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

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

Chip Kochendorfer


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

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

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:53am) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:49pm) *

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

This whole paragraph made me smile smile.gif Nice one! Your love for your kids shines through.

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

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 1st October 2009, 9:23am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 1st October 2009, 3:16am) *
In a lot of ways, it appears to me (from the peanut gallery) that Daniel is simply stressed in real life and was looking for an out. I personally wouldn't have blocked, though I support it (albeit at a shorter length, say 12 or 24 hours). I imagine someone will reduce the block or unblock before the block expires.
See, this is why Wikipedia's admins are completely unable to maintain any sort of community discipline. You're all so addicted to Wikipedia that you think a brief block, or even the indignity of having been blocked at all, is enough to convince someone that their behavior is unacceptable ...

Is being blocked an indignity? I rather regard it as a sign of honesty and uncompromising integrity. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:53am) *

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

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

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

Posted by: Deodand

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:53am) *

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:16am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:39am) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:16pm) *
Moral of the story: use [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.
Exactly!

QUOTE(Deodand @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:39pm) *

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.
[2009-09-29 06:53:08] <Ironholds> ..Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <Ironholds> Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[2009-09-29 06:53:11] <Ironholds> LAW

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

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

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

11:52] <The_Law> http://books.google.com/books?id=9mj2hNGMh6wC&dq=Andrew+Bonar+Law&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=F6tjIcqwHH&sig=UpMNkmsJ5noz7T3ZZdfo4K0sL-w&hl=en&ei=4ebBSovcJNSf8AbMruH-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Andrew%20Bonar%20Law&f=false
[11:52] <Ironholds> ..Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> LAW
[11:52] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[11:52] <Ironholds> what's that book called
[11:53] <Ironholds> "Bonar Law"
[11:53] <Ironholds> in big gold capital letters
Rude, yes. Deliberate "pinging"? No.

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


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

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

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

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

Chip Kochendorfer


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

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

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

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:20am) *
... his threat to out you was after you threatened to own him and destroy his on- and off-wiki existence.

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

Posted by: Deodand

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:27am) *

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:20am) *
... his threat to out you was after you threatened to own him and destroy his on- and off-wiki existence.

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

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

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 3:49am) *

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


Anyone else parse this the way I did?

Posted by: the_undertow

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:20am) *

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:53am) *

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:16am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:39am) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:16pm) *
Moral of the story: use [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.
Exactly!

QUOTE(Deodand @ Wed 30th September 2009, 5:39pm) *

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.
[2009-09-29 06:53:08] <Ironholds> ..Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <Ironholds> Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[2009-09-29 06:53:11] <Ironholds> LAW

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

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

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

11:52] <The_Law> http://books.google.com/books?id=9mj2hNGMh6wC&dq=Andrew+Bonar+Law&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=F6tjIcqwHH&sig=UpMNkmsJ5noz7T3ZZdfo4K0sL-w&hl=en&ei=4ebBSovcJNSf8AbMruH-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Andrew%20Bonar%20Law&f=false
[11:52] <Ironholds> ..Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> LAW
[11:52] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[11:52] <Ironholds> what's that book called
[11:53] <Ironholds> "Bonar Law"
[11:53] <Ironholds> in big gold capital letters
Rude, yes. Deliberate "pinging"? No.

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


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

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

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

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

Chip Kochendorfer


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

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

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



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

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:19am) *

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:53am) *

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

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

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


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

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

Posted by: Silverman

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:00pm) *

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

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

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

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Lar @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:44am) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 3:49am) *

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


Anyone else parse this the way I did?

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

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:00pm) *

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

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

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

PS. Perhaps not everyone would be, but I'm quite flattered you categorise me with the terrible twins of Ottava and Giano. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Silverman @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:36pm) *

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:00pm) *

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

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

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


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

Posted by: Deodand

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

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:23pm) *

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

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

Posted by: the_undertow

QUOTE(Silverman @ Thu 1st October 2009, 3:36am) *

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:00pm) *

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

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

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



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

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

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

Posted by: Deodand

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:32pm) *

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:23pm) *

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

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

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

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:32am) *
She's also been kind enough to say that I have am a dick of porn star proportions.


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


QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:07am) *

Is being blocked an indignity? I rather regard it as a sign of honesty and uncompromising integrity. biggrin.gif


I guess that means being "banned" has you walking in the company of the saints and apostles. evilgrin.gif


QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:52am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:41am) *

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

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


Awww, Malley gets a big Horsey kiss for that! Mwah! Mwah! Mwah! wub.gif

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 8:02pm) *

QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:01am) *

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

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

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Apology_from_Casliber


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

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

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:16am) *

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

11:52] <The_Law> http://books.google.com/books?id=9mj2hNGMh6wC&dq=Andrew+Bonar+Law&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=F6tjIcqwHH&sig=UpMNkmsJ5noz7T3ZZdfo4K0sL-w&hl=en&ei=4ebBSovcJNSf8AbMruH-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Andrew%20Bonar%20Law&f=false
[11:52] <Ironholds> ..Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> LAW
[11:52] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[11:52] <Ironholds> what's that book called
[11:53] <Ironholds> "Bonar Law"
[11:53] <Ironholds> in big gold capital letters
Rude, yes. Deliberate "pinging"? No.

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

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

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:20am) *

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus. Who cares? He socked. Shocker.

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:32am) *

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

<3

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:38am) *

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

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

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 9:13am) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 8:02pm) *

QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:01am) *

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

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

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Apology_from_Casliber


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

And, for the record, how many members of Arbcom knew about Law's history? And did Daniel, the Arbcom clerk, also know about it in advance?
Upset your sock return wasn't endorsed by a member of the Committee?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 9:33am) *
Upset your sock return wasn't endorsed by a member of the Committee?


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

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

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th September 2009, 6:22pm) *
I don't lie on behalf of anyone.

Makes one wonder why you do lie.

Posted by: Apathetic

Casliber just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&curid=21090546&diff=317278664&oldid=317278457

Posted by: Casliber

In best Oliver Hardy voice:

...another fine mess you got me into Stanley Chipper!!! hrmph.gif

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

Posted by: Noroton

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:59am) *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Juliancolton

QUOTE(Casliber @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:14am) *

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


Now, everybody else: go do the same.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:40am) *

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

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

This is zero for three.

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

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

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Juliancolton @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:16am) *

QUOTE(Casliber @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:14am) *

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


Now, everybody else: go do the same.


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

Posted by: Wiki Witch of the West

QUOTE

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

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

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


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

What grates is how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK#Clean_start_under_a_new_name at this type of situation, then leaves you out in the cold if the past actually surfaces. You and everyone who knew with you. There's been a book called http://www.amazon.com/Aint-Cheatin-You-Dont-Caught/dp/B001L0ZPSK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254406552&sr=1-1, but imagine if they actually wrote that concept into the baseball rulebook. What astounds me is how readily people bounce from "Oh no, Sam Blacketer!" to "Oh no, Pastor Theo!" to "Oh no, Law!" without connecting the dots.

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

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

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

Posted by: Friday

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:35pm) *

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


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


Posted by: Wiki Witch of the West

QUOTE(Friday @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:36pm) *

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:35pm) *

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


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


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

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

The more things change, the more they stay insane.

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

Good heavens. wtf.gif

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Thu 1st October 2009, 3:35pm) *


What grates is how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK#Clean_start_under_a_new_name at this type of situation, then leaves you out in the cold if the past actually surfaces. You and everyone who knew with you. There's been a book called http://www.amazon.com/Aint-Cheatin-You-Dont-Caught/dp/B001L0ZPSK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254406552&sr=1-1, but imagine if they actually wrote that concept into the baseball rulebook. What astounds me is how readily people bounce from "Oh no, Sam Blacketer!" to "Oh no, Pastor Theo!" to "Oh no, Law!" without connecting the dots.



I suppose a better version of that policy might be:

QUOTE

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


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

Posted by: Wiki Witch of the West

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:51pm) *

QUOTE(Wiki Witch of the West @ Thu 1st October 2009, 3:35pm) *


What grates is how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK#Clean_start_under_a_new_name at this type of situation, then leaves you out in the cold if the past actually surfaces. You and everyone who knew with you. There's been a book called http://www.amazon.com/Aint-Cheatin-You-Dont-Caught/dp/B001L0ZPSK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254406552&sr=1-1, but imagine if they actually wrote that concept into the baseball rulebook. What astounds me is how readily people bounce from "Oh no, Sam Blacketer!" to "Oh no, Pastor Theo!" to "Oh no, Law!" without connecting the dots.



I suppose a better version of that policy might be:

QUOTE

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


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


The candor would be an improvement. cthulhu.gif

Posted by: Moulton

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

Posted by: One

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:51pm) *

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

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

Posted by: the_undertow

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:23am) *

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

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

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Law's Law ...

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

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 30th September 2009, 4:46pm) *
That's completely untrue, and you've been told before that it's completely untrue. Lying once can be overlooked as a simple error; repeating the lie, not so much.

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

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

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

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

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

If anyone does not know what Ben Wa Balls are, they are kind of like 'http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&resnum=0&q=Clackers&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi' but for girls.

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(One @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:01pm) *

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


So should I assume then that you will not support my proposal to require http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sec_28a_01000003----000-.html be filed by editors seeking to appeal WP:AE sanctions under the theory that the FRAP and FRCP should be used wherever possible onwiki?

Posted by: the_undertow

QUOTE(Casliber @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:14am) *

In best Oliver Hardy voice:

...another fine mess you got me into Stanley Chipper!!! hrmph.gif

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


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

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

Fuck.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:32am) *

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

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

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:23pm) *

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

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

Probably not worth asking.

QUOTE(One @ Thu 1st October 2009, 2:21pm) *

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

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

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

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:22am) *

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

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

Fuck.


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


Posted by: Jim

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:44am) *


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


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

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

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

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

Still, none of my business, sorry to intrude.

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

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:44am) *
Everybody makes mistakes. The intelligent people are those who learn from their mistakes and go forward to do something wonderful. The stupid ones are those who define others solely by the mistakes they make.

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

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

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

The opposite of a Learning Organization is a dysfunctional organization.

Which kind is Wikipedia?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Jim @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:02pm) *

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

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


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

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

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

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

Posted by: Deodand

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

Posted by: Anonymous editor

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 3:49am) *


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


That makes very little sense.

Posted by: Friday

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:54pm) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 3:49am) *


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


That makes very little sense.


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

Posted by: SirFozzie

and here we go with round 2 on RfArb. hrmph.gif

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:37am) *

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

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

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

Posted by: Anonymous editor

QUOTE(Lar @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:44am) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 3:49am) *

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


Anyone else parse this the way I did?


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

It also makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:02pm) *

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:37am) *

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

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

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


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

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

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

Posted by: Friday

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:02pm) *

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:37am) *

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

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

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


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


Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Friday @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:10pm) *

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:02pm) *

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:37am) *

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

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

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


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


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

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:12pm) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:10pm) *

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:02pm) *

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:37am) *

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

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

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


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


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

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

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:14pm) *

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


Thank you, Brad. You are a gentleman. smile.gif

Posted by: lone-wolf

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:06am) *

QUOTE(lone-wolf @ Wed 30th September 2009, 11:33pm) *

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

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


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

Posted by: trenton

Meaning of the term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_%28terrorism%29 for those who don't know.

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

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

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

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

Posted by: lone-wolf

[quote name='trenton' date='Thu 1st October 2009, 5:32pm' post='197181']
Meaning of the term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_%28terrorism%29 for those who don't know.


And for those of you inclined to think a little deeper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_%28trait%29

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 9:47am) *

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

Of course, that doesn't answer the question, so I will ask it again: how many Arbcom members (including clerks) knew that Law was a sock of The Undertow? ermm.gif
I'm not a waitress anymore. I was doing that and restaurant management. Actions of my unethical boss with an apparent lack of understanding wrt nepotism compelled me to walk. I am nw among the unemployed full-time college students.

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

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:44pm) *

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

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

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:49pm) *
Actions of my unethical boss with an apparent lack of understanding wrt nepotism compelled me to walk.


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



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

Posted by: Tarc

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

On another vein, was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_undertow&oldid=291699706; (emphasis mine)

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

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

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


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


Posted by: LaraLove

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

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

Posted by: MZMcBride

Ugh.

Posted by: Ahypori

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:47am) *

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

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

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

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

I also note that Sandstein is now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&diff=317331070&oldid=317330895 who wanted him desysopped the other week by agreeing with them.

Posted by: Friday

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

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


Posted by: Deodand

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:49pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 9:47am) *

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

Of course, that doesn't answer the question, so I will ask it again: how many Arbcom members (including clerks) knew that Law was a sock of The Undertow? ermm.gif
I'm not a waitress anymore. I was doing that and restaurant management. Actions of my unethical boss with an apparent lack of understanding wrt nepotism compelled me to walk. I am nw among the unemployed full-time college students.

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

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:44pm) *

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

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


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

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

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

Posted by: Appleby

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:52am) *

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

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

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:44pm) *

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

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

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:14pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:12pm) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Thu 1st October 2009, 1:10pm) *

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:02pm) *

QUOTE(the_undertow @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:37am) *

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.

Posted by: nableezy

QUOTE(Appleby @ Thu 1st October 2009, 3:55pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 1st October 2009, 12:52am) *

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

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


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

Posted by: Deodand

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 1st October 2009, 9:44pm) *

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


Really? What happened? ~~~~

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 9:03pm) *
~~~~

Your noob is showing biggrin.gif

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

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

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

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:23pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:49pm) *

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


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

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

Posted by: Deodand

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:15pm) *

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:23pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:49pm) *

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


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

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


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

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:44pm) *

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

Damn Germans. Always seven steps ahead of us.

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

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:57pm) *
WHAT an obnoxious joke... Lets not have any allusions that the rule of law in Wikipedia is in operation. Wikipedia is just a Cyber simulation of an El Rukns Street gang. Lets not have any misunderstanding of that. Only law in wikipeidia is JUNGLE LAW and the JAGOFFS rule on Wikipedia.

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.


As an aside, how's that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOrangejumpsuit&diff=256251275&oldid=256250003 going, Joe, any progress?

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 1st October 2009, 9:26pm) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:57pm) *
WHAT an obnoxious joke... Lets not have any allusions that the rule of law in Wikipedia is in operation. Wikipedia is just a Cyber simulation of an El Rukns Street gang. Lets not have any misunderstanding of that. Only law in wikipeidia is JUNGLE LAW and the JAGOFFS rule on Wikipedia.

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.


As an aside, how's that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOrangejumpsuit&diff=256251275&oldid=256250003 going, Joe, any progress?


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


Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(nableezy @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:00pm) *


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


Okay, Horsey is a jackass who screwed up big time. Tell me something I don't know. unhappy.gif

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



Posted by: Deodand

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:28pm) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 1st October 2009, 9:26pm) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:57pm) *
WHAT an obnoxious joke... Lets not have any allusions that the rule of law in Wikipedia is in operation. Wikipedia is just a Cyber simulation of an El Rukns Street gang. Lets not have any misunderstanding of that. Only law in wikipeidia is JUNGLE LAW and the JAGOFFS rule on Wikipedia.

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.


As an aside, how's that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOrangejumpsuit&diff=256251275&oldid=256250003 going, Joe, any progress?


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

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

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:19pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:15pm) *

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:23pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:49pm) *

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


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

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


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

My log starts at midnight. I have the full day. I'm guessing you have a portion of the log. So when you say the beginning, is that where Ironholds says he's "busy writing about posh lawyer nutters"? After that he asks Law to do a move, Law says "okay", Ironholds links him, Law asks "why the move?" and the discussion takes off from there. I see nothing about "fuck off" or anything like that near the beginning.

Posted by: Deodand

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:53pm) *

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:19pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:15pm) *

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:23pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:49pm) *

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


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

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


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

My log starts at midnight. I have the full day. I'm guessing you have a portion of the log. So when you say the beginning, is that where Ironholds says he's "busy writing about posh lawyer nutters"? After that he asks Law to do a move, Law says "okay", Ironholds links him, Law asks "why the move?" and the discussion takes off from there. I see nothing about "fuck off" or anything like that near the beginning.

Ahh, sorry, misunderstanding there - I have the #wikipedia-en log (I was in the chan at the time) - the log I was sent is the /query conversation betweeen Law/Undertow and IH. That's what I'm talking about, and the source of the various threats in both directions.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 1st October 2009, 9:44pm) *

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


We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:54pm) *

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 1st October 2009, 9:44pm) *

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


We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

it.wiki won that award a long time ago.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 12:03am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:54pm) *

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 1st October 2009, 9:44pm) *

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


We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

it.wiki won that award a long time ago.


I know I'd be interested to hear about how project governance functions on each of the major wikiprojects. Surely someone has developed something better than the severely dysfunctional model prevailing on en-wiki.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:03pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:54pm) *

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 1st October 2009, 9:44pm) *

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


We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

it.wiki won that award a long time ago.

That was due to the porn stars and mafia-connected people they insisted run it. But hey, that's just Italy. They should be given some latitude.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:12pm) *
Surely someone has developed something better than the severely dysfunctional model prevailing on en-wiki.

Yes, but Jimbo has expressly rejected the more evolved and enlightened governance models in favor of the anachronistic ad hoc ochlocracy preferred by the entrenched en.wiki cabal.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 12:17am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:12pm) *
Surely someone has developed something better than the severely dysfunctional model prevailing on en-wiki.

Yes, but Jimbo has expressly rejected the more evolved and enlightened governance models in favor of the anachronistic ad hoc ochlocracy preferred by the entrenched en.wiki cabal.


Democracy? What--are you suggesting feudalism isn't working well? laugh.gif

Posted by: Moulton

Corrupt feudalism didn't work too well for King John, either.

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 12:12am) *

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 12:03am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:54pm) *

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 1st October 2009, 9:44pm) *

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


We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

it.wiki won that award a long time ago.


I know I'd be interested to hear about how project governance functions on each of the major wikiprojects. Surely someone has developed something better than the severely dysfunctional model prevailing on en-wiki.

Well I know fr.wiki has had significant problems with its arbcom, es.wiki forked at one point so I suppose that is a form of governance, it.wiki deleted its arbcom, and now de.wiki's has resigned. I seem to remember some issues with ru.wiki's, but it might not have been DR related.

Posted by: Moulton

Ironically, in the sum of all human knowledge, there is ample academic research on the efficacy of alternative governance models.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:26pm) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 1st October 2009, 4:57pm) *
WHAT an obnoxious joke... Lets not have any allusions that the rule of law in Wikipedia is in operation. Wikipedia is just a Cyber simulation of an El Rukns Street gang. Lets not have any misunderstanding of that. Only law in wikipeidia is JUNGLE LAW and the JAGOFFS rule on Wikipedia.

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.


As an aside, how's that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOrangejumpsuit&diff=256251275&oldid=256250003 going, Joe, any progress?


Classic. laugh.gif

Posted by: The Joy

All of this drama over something that happens every single, freakin' day on Wikipedia is just ridiculous and (pardon my French) full of crap. If I were an administrator, I would have banned probably everyone who's doing the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the whole Law incident. Everyone's out for blood when it does no one any good and will cause more pain and suffering down the road.

The first and foremost goal of Wikipedia should be to the encyclopedia and the readers. I do not care if User:Fluffykittens or whoever is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet/handpuppet/whatever of User:StickyFingers or whoever. I do not care and I do not understand why anyone else should care. As long as the information is correct, accurate, readable, and (to some degree) entertaining, who cares who wrote it?

Has Law caused harm to the encyclopedia? Has Law misused his tools? Has Law driven away good-faith contributors? Has he alienated the readers? Besides coming back under a new account (an event that happens every single day on Wikipedia), what has the man done? Has he recommitted the "sins" that banned him? Or has he moved on? Could someone point with evidence what terrible crime he has done to warrant all of this drama and the suffering of his friends and colleagues?

The people hounding him, Casliber, Lara, etc., are no different than that inspector who kept chasing Jean Valjean in Les Miserables. All the meta noticeboards should just redirect to WP:GLADIATORPIT and we can all stop pretending to be professional, mature people trying to build an encyclopedia. Heck, it would be better if Wikipedia would just start all over and actually get professional, mature people willing to collaborate to build an encyclopedia.

Full-Width Image

"Come on, Arbcom! Finish off Law and your former colleague, Casliber! We've got more in the queue!"

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:29pm) *
Okay, Horsey is a jackass who screwed up big time. Tell me something I don't know. unhappy.gif

Ain't that the truth. But looking on the bright side, I doubt Horsey will make the same mistake again. smile.gif

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

I can't help but to think that if an "old guard" arbitrator knew that a Wikifriend was an arb comm ruling-defying, block-evading, adminship-seeking sock, the reaction to that news on WR would be a little different than it's been here. Cas is no hypocrite: he's acknowledged that it was wrong when he did it, just as it would have been if James Forrester had. He's also done what I consider to be the right thing, and resigned. He's good people, and if he runs again in December, which I gather he won't, I'll vote for him. But I think some of the rest of you could stand to reread WP:SAUCE.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:34am) *

All of this drama over something that happens every single, freakin' day on Wikipedia is just ridiculous and (pardon my French) full of crap. If I were an administrator, I would have banned probably everyone who's doing the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the whole Law incident. Everyone's out for blood when it does no one any good and will cause more pain and suffering down the road.

The first and foremost goal of Wikipedia should be to the encyclopedia and the readers. I do not care if User:Fluffykittens or whoever is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet/handpuppet/whatever of User:StickyFingers or whoever. I do not care and I do not understand why anyone else should care. As long as the information is correct, accurate, readable, and (to some degree) entertaining, who cares who wrote it?

Has Law caused harm to the encyclopedia? Has Law misused his tools? Has Law driven away good-faith contributors? Has he alienated the readers? Besides coming back under a new account (an event that happens every single day on Wikipedia), what has the man done? Has he recommitted the "sins" that banned him? Or has he moved on? Could someone point with evidence what terrible crime he has done to warrant all of this drama and the suffering of his friends and colleagues?

The people hounding him, Casliber, Lara, etc., are no different than that inspector who kept chasing Jean Valjean in Les Miserables. All the meta noticeboards should just redirect to WP:GLADIATORPIT and we can all stop pretending to be professional, mature people trying to build an encyclopedia. Heck, it would be better if Wikipedia would just start all over and actually get professional, mature people willing to collaborate to build an encyclopedia.


Wiki-culture is no longer centered around the production of articles at all. Hardly anyone is interested in the question of whether someone does good or bad (or no) article work; editors are deemed expendable, even though an unimaginable amount of work remains to be done and the rate of work seems to be declining. Now wiki-culture is nothing but political manipulations aimed at obtaining power and getting one's enemies sanctioned or banned. This sad state of affairs is directly attributable to the ArbCom, which embraced and encouraged those tendencies in the community, enabling them to grow out of control. The only real solution is to scrap the ArbCom in favor of some governance mechanism that promotes a harmonious editing environment in which contributions are valued and contributors are respected.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:52pm) *
The only real solution is to scrap the ArbCom in favor of some governance mechanism that promotes a harmonious editing environment in which contributions are valued and contributors are respected.

Last summer, Jimbo expressly rejected a proposal to craft a harmonious editing environment consistent with the published Mission Statement of WMF.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:35pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:29pm) *
Okay, Horsey is a jackass who screwed up big time. Tell me something I don't know. unhappy.gif

Ain't that the truth. But looking on the bright side, I doubt Horsey will make the same mistake again. smile.gif


Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again? And I said: No, I'd make a whole bunch of new ones! laugh.gif

Oh, and tonight on Wiki-TV, it's "The Caine Mutiny" starring Protonk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFARB#Statement_by_Protonk ermm.gif

Posted by: Ahypori

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:27pm) *

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

Correct: Bishonen has done far worse than Jennavecia's ever done.

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/August_2009_election/Oversight/Jennavecia#Votes_in_opposition_to_Jennavecia for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:55pm) *
Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?
That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:11pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:55pm) *
Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?
That is an unspeakably idiotic question.


What can I say? I move in obtuse circles. confused.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:11pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:55pm) *
Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?
That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you going to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not? If not, you'd probably want to repeat at least some mistakes. There's a lot of wisdom in the experience of mistakes. You don't necessarily have to make all of these mistakes personally-- but some, you do. unhappy.gif

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Ahypori @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:09pm) *

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/August_2009_election/Oversight/Jennavecia#Votes_in_opposition_to_Jennavecia for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.


Funny how the Arbcom team isn't exactly rushing into this one. Brad deserves a Horsey kiss (or at least a knish from the Carnegie Deli - his choice) for being quick on draw -- if only to withdraw. But where is everyone else? I bet they're over at Hulu watching "I Dream of Jeannie" reruns. (Not a bad idea, come to think of it -- really, who wouldn't want Barbara Eden circa 1968 versus Protonk circa 2009?). smile.gif

Oh, as an update -- after I posted this, Fayassal chimed in. I am not quite certain what he said -- he seems to be using a lot of words to go in circles and come to absolutely no conclusion whatsoever. Either that or he is reprinting a portion of the libretto of "Four Saints in Three Acts." unsure.gif

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Deodand @ Thu 1st October 2009, 6:02pm) *

Ahh, sorry, misunderstanding there - I have the #wikipedia-en log (I was in the chan at the time) - the log I was sent is the /query conversation betweeen Law/Undertow and IH. That's what I'm talking about, and the source of the various threats in both directions.

Ah, okay. I don't have those. Ironholds was the first to tell me what was going on, then I spoke to Chip. Neither sent me logs of the pm and I didn't ask for them.

QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:34pm) *

All of this drama over something that happens every single, freakin' day on Wikipedia is just ridiculous and (pardon my French) full of crap. If I were an administrator, I would have banned probably everyone who's doing the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the whole Law incident. Everyone's out for blood when it does no one any good and will cause more pain and suffering down the road.

The first and foremost goal of Wikipedia should be to the encyclopedia and the readers. I do not care if User:Fluffykittens or whoever is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet/handpuppet/whatever of User:StickyFingers or whoever. I do not care and I do not understand why anyone else should care. As long as the information is correct, accurate, readable, and (to some degree) entertaining, who cares who wrote it?

Has Law caused harm to the encyclopedia? Has Law misused his tools? Has Law driven away good-faith contributors? Has he alienated the readers? Besides coming back under a new account (an event that happens every single day on Wikipedia), what has the man done? Has he recommitted the "sins" that banned him? Or has he moved on? Could someone point with evidence what terrible crime he has done to warrant all of this drama and the suffering of his friends and colleagues?

The people hounding him, Casliber, Lara, etc., are no different than that inspector who kept chasing Jean Valjean in Les Miserables. All the meta noticeboards should just redirect to WP:GLADIATORPIT and we can all stop pretending to be professional, mature people trying to build an encyclopedia. Heck, it would be better if Wikipedia would just start all over and actually get professional, mature people willing to collaborate to build an encyclopedia.

Image

"Come on, Arbcom! Finish off Law and your former colleague, Casliber! We've got more in the queue!"


Exactly!

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:52pm) *

Wiki-culture is no longer centered around the production of articles at all. Hardly anyone is interested in the question of whether someone does good or bad (or no) article work; editors are deemed expendable, even though an unimaginable amount of work remains to be done and the rate of work seems to be declining. Now wiki-culture is nothing but political manipulations aimed at obtaining power and getting one's enemies sanctioned or banned.
<snip>

This is very true. No one is considering my contributions in this mess of attacks. The hypocrisy is beyond laughable. It is more than clear that this is a political matter and has nothing to do with protecting the project. There is no evidence that anything I did in support of Chip caused damage to the project. I didn't support him in everything because I didn't agree with everything he did. But where I felt he should be defended or supported, I did. Some alphabet soup be damned. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Done.

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:30pm) *

Funny how the Arbcom team isn't exactly rushing into this one. Brad deserves a Horsey kiss (or at least a knish from the Carnegie Deli - his choice) for being quick on draw -- if only to withdraw. But where is everyone else? I bet they're over at Hulu watching "I Dream of Jeannie" reruns. (Not a bad idea, come to think of it -- really, who wouldn't want Barbara Eden circa 1968 versus Protonk circa 2009?). smile.gif

Oh, as an update -- after I posted this, Fayassal chimed in. I am not quite certain what he said -- he seems to be using a lot of words to go in circles and come to absolutely no conclusion whatsoever. Either that or he is reprinting a portion of the libretto of "Four Saints in Three Acts." unsure.gif

Emails are flying. Investigation goes on. Waiting to see what other names come out during this mess where two are singled out. The two that were honest from the start of the questioning.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:27pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:11pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:55pm) *
Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?
That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not?
If you didn't have the accumulated wisdom from your first go-round, you'd hardly have the option of avoiding the same mistakes, making the question moot.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:58pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:27pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:11pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:55pm) *
Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?
That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not?
If you didn't have the accumulated wisdom from your first go-round, you'd hardly have the option of avoiding the same mistakes, making the question moot.

I don't think that's the point of the question. To me it seems as though you're supposed to reflect on your life and where you are at the time you're asked the question. If you're pleased overall with where you've ended up in life, then to change even one mistake would change where you are. Butterfly effect.

A huge mistake in my life led to great things. Would I make that same mistake again? For sure. Would my life be far better than it is right now if I had not made that mistake? I cannot say for sure, but chances are surely high. Many opportunities lost. Many sacrifices had to be made. However, in avoiding that mistake, amongst the ripples of change, I would not have my children.

You look at the question in too simple of terms. It's not a simple question. It's supposed to provoke thought and reflection.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

QUOTE(Ahypori @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:09pm) *

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:27pm) *

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

Correct: Bishonen has done far worse than Jennavecia's ever done.


Oh, absolutely. The worst part is that Bishonen is one of the guiltiest parties on Wikipedia when it comes to doing what she's accusing Jenna of doing. Bishonen has consistently performed abusive actions in support of her wikifriends.

If Jenna gets desysopped for this, then perhaps Bishonen should be desysopped about a dozen times (if only it were possible).

This makes me sick. I can see where someone would have a problem with what Jenna and GlassCobra did, but these are the last people that should be making a stink over it, considering their collective histories.

QUOTE
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/August_2009_election/Oversight/Jennavecia#Votes_in_opposition_to_Jennavecia for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.


Naturally. The people who didn't like Jenna would jump at the opportunity to get her for something she did. They were just waiting for a big enough issue.

Jehochman, Bishonen, KC, and JoshuaZ are some of the most vomit-inducing editors on Wikipedia. Their abuses go a long way back.


QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:27pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:11pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:55pm) *
Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?
That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not? If not, you'd probably want to repeat at least some mistakes. There's a lot of wisdom in the experience of mistakes. You don't necessarily have to make all of these mistakes personally-- but some, you do. unhappy.gif


Precisely.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:05am) *
You look at the question in too simple of terms. It's not a simple question. It's supposed to provoke thought and reflection.
Then it probably shouldn't be so stupid.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 12:52am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:05am) *
You look at the question in too simple of terms. It's not a simple question. It's supposed to provoke thought and reflection.
Then it probably shouldn't be so stupid.

Stupid because you don't grasp the point.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 12:26am) *

QUOTE(Ahypori @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:09pm) *

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:27pm) *

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

Correct: Bishonen has done far worse than Jennavecia's ever done.


Oh, absolutely. The worst part is that Bishonen is one of the guiltiest parties on Wikipedia when it comes to doing what she's accusing Jenna of doing. Bishonen has consistently performed abusive actions in support of her wikifriends.

If Jenna gets desysopped for this, then perhaps Bishonen should be desysopped about a dozen times (if only it were possible).

This makes me sick. I can see where someone would have a problem with what Jenna and GlassCobra did, but these are the last people that should be making a stink over it, considering their collective histories.

QUOTE
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/August_2009_election/Oversight/Jennavecia#Votes_in_opposition_to_Jennavecia for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.


Naturally. The people who didn't like Jenna would jump at the opportunity to get her for something she did. They were just waiting for a big enough issue.

Jehochman, Bishonen, KC, and JoshuaZ are some of the most vomit-inducing editors on Wikipedia. Their abuses go a long way back.

I pointed this out in my email response to the case to an Arb, along with some other stuff. What it basically boils down to is if they want to make an example of me, then I'm fine with that. But it needs to set a precedent allowing for the removal of actual bad admins, including the hypocrites that came after me for this.

I'll gladly go out if I can take out some bad apples with me.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

I'm with Sarcasticidealist. If I could start over again with the accumulated knowledge I now have, I certainly would.


Avoiding mistakes would change me as a person, but I don't mind. I'd most likely be better off had I avoided a few critical errors at certain points.

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:16am) *

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 12:26am) *

QUOTE(Ahypori @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:09pm) *

QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 1st October 2009, 5:27pm) *

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

Correct: Bishonen has done far worse than Jennavecia's ever done.


Oh, absolutely. The worst part is that Bishonen is one of the guiltiest parties on Wikipedia when it comes to doing what she's accusing Jenna of doing. Bishonen has consistently performed abusive actions in support of her wikifriends.

If Jenna gets desysopped for this, then perhaps Bishonen should be desysopped about a dozen times (if only it were possible).

This makes me sick. I can see where someone would have a problem with what Jenna and GlassCobra did, but these are the last people that should be making a stink over it, considering their collective histories.

QUOTE
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/August_2009_election/Oversight/Jennavecia#Votes_in_opposition_to_Jennavecia for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.


Naturally. The people who didn't like Jenna would jump at the opportunity to get her for something she did. They were just waiting for a big enough issue.

Jehochman, Bishonen, KC, and JoshuaZ are some of the most vomit-inducing editors on Wikipedia. Their abuses go a long way back.

I pointed this out in my email response to the case to an Arb, along with some other stuff. What it basically boils down to is if they want to make an example of me, then I'm fine with that. But it needs to set a precedent allowing for the removal of actual bad admins, including the hypocrites that came after me for this.

I'll gladly go out if I can take out some bad apples with me.


You would be a hero if this actually caused a change and got the tools removed from some of the long time abusive administrators. Fat chance of that happening, though. They're simply too good at playing the game, I suppose.

Posted by: Casliber

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:04pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 12:52am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:05am) *
You look at the question in too simple of terms. It's not a simple question. It's supposed to provoke thought and reflection.
Then it probably shouldn't be so stupid.

Stupid because you don't grasp the point.


You guys (who are about the same age) should meet up some time - would it be like "When Harry Met Sally" laugh.gif

Posted by: Grep

Interesting to see how the discussion continues the move away from the admin-is-no-big-deal position to the admins-are-better-than-us-and-so-can-be-trusted-with-arbitrary-power.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:58pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:27pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:11pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:55pm) *
Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?
That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not?
If you didn't have the accumulated wisdom from your first go-round, you'd hardly have the option of avoiding the same mistakes, making the question moot.

No, there are many SF scenarios where it's a mixed bag. Guy makes mistake, wants to change it. Goes back and advises himself not to do it. Guy he advices has no idea whether to trust his judgement. Nor should he fully, since even the guy who decided it was a mistake, as NO idea what would certainly happen if he avoided it.

If you want a fun movie about a guy trying to go back to change main past mistakes, doing it but getting in deeper every time, I suggest indeed a film called The Butterfly Effect. Incidentally one of the actors (playing an abusive father) in THAT film is played by Eric Stolz. Who was once fired from the set of Back to the Future and replaced by Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly. Bummer. But then went on to do Mask, and get a Golden Globe. A part he probably would not otherwise have taken. Would he go back and change his life? What would he advise himself?

One scenario is where you keep your wisdom to the point that you advise yourself not to make the mistake, but when you don't, suddenly the old "you" that you are fades out, and you lose the wisdom you HAD from the mistake. Your actions in the past change your own future, and yourself. Now you're dumber. Etc. See the film above. It's quite gut wrenching, and much better ride than Back to the Future.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Wow, 248 posts... idle hands, eh?

couple things:

1. Wikipedia is not a state, and looks to me like the charge here is something akin to "treason".

2. If Wikipedia was a state, I'd hope it wasn't the kind of state where failing to report your friends for having counterrevolutionary thoughts would be cause for sending someone to the gulag.

3. Since everyone denies that Wikipedia is not a state, maybe they should follow the doctrine (by some British dude) of having no "eternal enemies". If Law had in fact become an asset (as most people seem to think), then what's the problem?

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:35am) *
Well I know fr.wiki has had significant problems with its arbcom, es.wiki forked at one point so I suppose that is a form of governance, it.wiki deleted its arbcom, and now de.wiki's has resigned. I seem to remember some issues with ru.wiki's, but it might not have been DR related.

The nl:arbcom is dead most of the time.

The concept simply does not work, and will never work, for two reasons:
- it's treating the environment as a community instead of a project, i.e. content comes last;
- it's easy as well was attractive for wikipediots to make it to the top.

Posted by: Mathsci

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Apology_from_John_Vandenberg

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

A message to Law/Undertow: Hey there, how is the day treating you? I hope today will be a better one for you.

And remember what the Wizard told the Tin Man: "'A heart is not measured by how much you love, but how much you are loved by others." You have a lot of friends here who have been willing to stand up for you -- you must be doing something right! smile.gif


Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Mathsci @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 6:48am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Apology_from_John_Vandenberg


An "oh shit" moment (reprinted in its entirety):
<<<

Question for John


Thanks for explaining this. I see no reason you should resign for a simple oversight. But I'd like to ask you why the functionary was telling you by email that Law was The undertow, and didn't simply block him, or take it to AE. This seems to me to go to the heart of the problem here. There's a feeling that The undertow was being treated differently from any other editor violating a ban, and it would be good to know why. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Who was the functionary? This should not need to be confidential. Jehochman Talk 12:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>


Wasn't MBisanz recently elevated to bureaucrat? Boy, the "community" can really trust these characters, eh? dry.gif

You know, this is turning into the Wikipedia equivalent of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World" -- you never know which star is going turn up next! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Casliber

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 5:15pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 8:58pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 1st October 2009, 11:27pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 1st October 2009, 7:11pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 1st October 2009, 10:55pm) *
Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?
That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not?
If you didn't have the accumulated wisdom from your first go-round, you'd hardly have the option of avoiding the same mistakes, making the question moot.

No, there are many SF scenarios where it's a mixed bag. Guy makes mistake, wants to change it. Goes back and advises himself not to do it. Guy he advices has no idea whether to trust his judgement. Nor should he fully, since even the guy who decided it was a mistake, as NO idea what would certainly happen if he avoided it.

If you want a fun movie about a guy trying to go back to change main past mistakes, doing it but getting in deeper every time, I suggest indeed a film called The Butterfly Effect. Incidentally one of the actors (playing an abusive father) in THAT film is played by Eric Stolz. Who was once fired from the set of Back to the Future and replaced by Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly. Bummer. But then went on to do Mask, and get a Golden Globe. A part he probably would not otherwise have taken. Would he go back and change his life? What would he advise himself?

One scenario is where you keep your wisdom to the point that you advise yourself not to make the mistake, but when you don't, suddenly the old "you" that you are fades out, and you lose the wisdom you HAD from the mistake. Your actions in the past change your own future, and yourself. Now you're dumber. Etc. See the film above. It's quite gut wrenching, and much better ride than Back to the Future.


Butterfly Effect was a damn fine film. Except they had to sneak in a true-lurv-transcends-alternate-universes titbit right at the end but, meh, worked ok laugh.gif

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 9:05am) *


It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>


Wasn't MBisanz recently elevated to bureaucrat? Boy, the "community" can really trust these characters, eh? dry.gif

You know, this is turning into the Wikipedia equivalent of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World" -- you never know which star is going turn up next! biggrin.gif



QUOTE

No it wasnt Matt, and I am not going to say who it was at this stage. The functionary elevated it appropriately to me, and it is my fault that it was not dealt with after that. The functionary would like to avoid being caught up in this, and I respect that as they did the right thing. There are other functionaries involved, and I hope they speak up. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 9:16am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 9:05am) *


It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>


Wasn't MBisanz recently elevated to bureaucrat? Boy, the "community" can really trust these characters, eh? dry.gif

You know, this is turning into the Wikipedia equivalent of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World" -- you never know which star is going turn up next! biggrin.gif



QUOTE

No it wasnt Matt, and I am not going to say who it was at this stage. The functionary elevated it appropriately to me, and it is my fault that it was not dealt with after that. The functionary would like to avoid being caught up in this, and I respect that as they did the right thing. There are other functionaries involved, and I hope they speak up. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.


Okay, but now this raises two new questions: (1) How the hell did DuncanHill name Matt, of all people? And (2) If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?


Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 9:29am) *


Okay, but now this raises two new questions: (1) How the hell did DuncanHill name Matt, of all people? And (2) If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

I think DuncanHill wrongly deduced it was MB because MB was complaining above about a handful of emails he had sent to Arb about various issues that had gone without answer/action.

As for 2), <speculation>perhaps they were a friend of Law/UT and for them, duty trumps friendship, but they didn't want to act themselves.</speculation>

Let's also not forget the chaos that would ensue if an admin just blocked another admin for sockpuppetry without the attendant desysop. ArbCom is the only body (other than an emergency steward request) that can desysop, so sending it to them rather than acting on their own makes perfect sense to me.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 8:29am) *
If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?
Well, that one is obvious. Information one has about another editor that could embarrass that editor can be used to manipulate them, but only if it's not publicly known. Acting on that information in such a way as to publicly disclose it is therefore only to be done as a last resort, as doing so reduces the value of that information to zero.

Posted by: Moulton

What with all the cults, kabals, and behind-the-scenes stealth and intrigue, I'm expecting some forthcoming denial along the lines of, "I did not have sects with that woman."

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 9:37am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 8:29am) *
If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?
Well, that one is obvious. Information one has about another editor that could embarrass that editor can be used to manipulate them, but only if it's not publicly known. Acting on that information in such a way as to publicly disclose it is therefore only to be done as a last resort, as doing so reduces the value of that information to zero.


But then go back to JV's original apology:

"It was brought to my attention this morning, about 9 hours ago, that a functionary had privately informed me on August 21 about the connection between Law and The undertow. The email that I received, which was sent to the audit subcommittee this morning and will be send to arbcom-l shortly, did not spell out the connection explicitly, and I can't be certain that I had even read the email until this morning."

This is like a Jackie Mason routine: I got an e-mail that said something, but maybe it didn't say something, so I forwarded it six weeks later even though I didn't read it in the first place, or maybe I did read it... Something is not adding up. And why did the functionary e-mail JV only and not the full Arbcom committee? And how and when did this functionary add two and two?

I am no fan of GlassCobra and I know that Lara hates me, but I have to say that they are being held up as scapegoats. This whole thing smells. yak.gif

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:16pm) *

People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.

Lost their senses in the drama, I expect.

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:29pm) *

And (2) If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

Are you kidding? Do you remember the shitstorms that followed when Giano's "open sock" Catherine de Burgh and Geogre's "open sock" Utgard Loki were blocked? If you come across evidence that Law is a sockpuppet, but you also see that lots of other people seem OK with it, who wouldn't be hesitant to take unilateral action.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 9:56am) *

Are you kidding? Do you remember the shitstorms that followed when Giano's "open sock" Catherine de Burgh and Geogre's "open sock" Utgard Loki were blocked?


Actually, I don't. blink.gif

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:34pm) *

Let's also not forget the chaos that would ensue if an admin just blocked another admin for sockpuppetry without the attendant desysop. ArbCom is the only body (other than an emergency steward request) that can desysop, so sending it to them rather than acting on their own makes perfect sense to me.

What he said.

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:57pm) *

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 9:56am) *

Are you kidding? Do you remember the shitstorms that followed when Giano's "open sock" Catherine de Burgh and Geogre's "open sock" Utgard Loki were blocked?


Actually, I don't. blink.gif

Lucky you.

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 2:16pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 9:05am) *


It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>


Wasn't MBisanz recently elevated to bureaucrat? Boy, the "community" can really trust these characters, eh? dry.gif

You know, this is turning into the Wikipedia equivalent of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World" -- you never know which star is going turn up next! biggrin.gif



QUOTE

No it wasnt Matt, and I am not going to say who it was at this stage. The functionary elevated it appropriately to me, and it is my fault that it was not dealt with after that. The functionary would like to avoid being caught up in this, and I respect that as they did the right thing. There are other functionaries involved, and I hope they speak up. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.


Probably worth pointing out three things.

1. I'm not a functionary so I can't of been the person Jay was referring to.

2. I wasn't involved with the Law thing.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=317232013 with regard to tipsters seems very prophetic right now.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 9:58am) *

Probably worth pointing out three things.

1. I'm not a functionary so I can't of been the person Jay was referring to.

2. I wasn't involved with the Law thing.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=317232013 with regard to tipsters seems very prophetic right now.


My apologies for not being faster in getting Duncan's retraction up here. You are a good man, MB -- any new photos online? evilgrin.gif

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 9:56am) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:16pm) *

People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.

Lost their senses in the drama, I expect.

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:29pm) *

And (2) If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

Are you kidding? Do you remember the shitstorms that followed when Giano's "open sock" Catherine de Burgh and Geogre's "open sock" Utgard Loki were blocked? If you come across evidence that Law is a sockpuppet, but you also see that lots of other people seem OK with it, who wouldn't be hesitant to take unilateral action.

The block of Giano's Catherine de Burgh sock was stupid. That one was clearly linked to him and was a joke account. If we want to start blocking joke sock accounts, hit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ceiling_Cat. At least Giano is amusing.

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 9:05am) *


It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>

Nice how Duncan just made a random guess and stated it as fact. My, the things those who feel they are in a position to judge do. I mean, stating something you don't know (which is actually wrong) as fact... isn't that lying?

Posted by: Friday

There's a lot of idiocy going on here.

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"? That seems to be what a great many people are saying here.

This is an argument a child would make. Any reasonable adult should see right through it.



Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:11pm) *
The block of Giano's Catherine de Burgh sock was stupid. That one was clearly linked to him and was a joke account. If we want to start blocking joke sock accounts, hit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ceiling_Cat. At least Giano is amusing.

I find that account astonishing, but I guess if you were around in the days when ... you can do whatever you like. Actually, I don't have to guess, because recent events have proven that's exactly the way that wikipedia "works".

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:37pm) *

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.

Posted by: Friday

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:24pm) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:37pm) *

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.


That's funny. If you take other people's word for it, that's the exact opposite of what's happening here. This is apparently merely a grudge between rival factions of admins.

I don't deny that such grudges and factions exist. But it's very easy to ignore all that, and still see a problem here.

Posted by: trenton

Time for a nice old fashioned purge. Well deserved, and it should get rid of a lot of the "social club" admins.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 4:30pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:24pm) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:37pm) *

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.


That's funny. If you take other people's word for it, that's the exact opposite of what's happening here. This is apparently merely a grudge between rival factions of admins.

I don't deny that such grudges and factions exist. But it's very easy to ignore all that, and still see a problem here.

Sorry, don't understand your banter. Are you suggesting that similar grudge matches between groups of regular editors would be tolerated?

QUOTE(trenton @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 4:35pm) *

Time for a nice old fashioned purge. Well deserved, and it should get rid of a lot of the "social club" admins.

The Good Articles project started a Sweeps process, reassessing every article promoted before August 2007. Perhaps the admin corps needs a similar reassessment.

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 4:39pm) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 4:30pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:24pm) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:37pm) *

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.


That's funny. If you take other people's word for it, that's the exact opposite of what's happening here. This is apparently merely a grudge between rival factions of admins.

I don't deny that such grudges and factions exist. But it's very easy to ignore all that, and still see a problem here.

Sorry, don't understand your banter. Are you suggesting that similar grudge matches between groups of regular editors would be tolerated?


At Bates method the grudge match among non-admins lasted over two years among four editors, and consumed over 5,000 edits, before arbcom was finally willing to step in and ban the unreasonable party.

Posted by: Friday

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:36pm) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 4:30pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:24pm) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:37pm) *

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.


That's funny. If you take other people's word for it, that's the exact opposite of what's happening here. This is apparently merely a grudge between rival factions of admins.

I don't deny that such grudges and factions exist. But it's very easy to ignore all that, and still see a problem here.

Sorry, don't understand your banter. Are you suggesting that similar grudge matches between groups of regular editors would be tolerated?


Oh.. I thought you were trying to say something like "Typical admins.. always circling the wagons for each other." And I don't believe that's the case at all- history is full of all sorts of petty, stupid grudges between admins. Sure, _some groups_ of admins tend to protect people in their groups, and yes, this is a problem. But it's hardly a case of admins forming a single coherent group.

We get grudge-based bullshit from non-admin editors all the time, too. The easy solution, in all these cases, is to ignore the bullshit and focus on what's relevant. Yet so many people seem completely unable to do this.

I believe this problem would be much easier to handle if editors stopped making "friends" or "enemies" with other editors. It's a huge time-sink, and I cannot possibly imagine that such ersatz friendships are a good substitute for the real-life kind.



Posted by: trenton

And look at how easy it is for all these sockpuppets to gain power once they know the system. The most extreme case, Sam Blacketer, went from account creation to arbcom in about 1 1/2 years I believe. You just have to know how to play the game. Rack up thousands of edits using automated tools / vandalism reversion. Hang out and "debate" at article deletion debates. Vote frequently at requests for adminship. Generally be polite and nice until you've achieved your desired power level, then revert back to being your asshole self, because there's zero accountability after you gain power.

Of course it also help to have buddies who will lie, cheat, and steal for you. Especially if they're admins.

Posted by: Tintomara

QUOTE(Casliber @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:16pm) *

Butterfly Effect was a damn fine film. Except they had to sneak in a true-lurv-transcends-alternate-universes titbit right at the end but, meh, worked ok laugh.gif


Heyy...I was going to watch that... angry.gif

Posted by: Friday

Wow. Apparently, on wikipedia, "NO YOU!" is what passes for rational discourse.

Posted by: Cla68

Could someone summarize why this particular incident is getting so much attention and commentary? I think I understand some of the reasons but I'm not confident that I get all of it.

Posted by: Noroton

QUOTE(Casliber @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:33am) *

You guys (who are about the same age) should meet up some time - would it be like "When Harry Met Sally" laugh.gif

No, it would be like one of those Star Trek movies with female Klingons. Sarcastic would be some kind of mind meld between McCoy and Spock ("I'm a doctor, Jim! Not a Wikipedic dramaturgist soliloquizing with a keyboard! That would be illogical -- not to mention unspeakably idiotic!") Phasers would not be set to stun. Everybody would be demanding that Scotty beam them up because there's no intelligent life on the Wikipedia drama boards.

Speaking of drama and trodding the notice boards, the Arbcom pages are looking like the last scene in Hamlet.

Like a Klingon, Lara fights when a diplomatic apology is called for. What do they call that in soccer when you knock the ball into your own net -- "own goal"? What she did was something like that. Daniel, of course, had the worst own goal.

Notice that Hochman moderates his criticism and doesn't ask for a ban or anything, which is a lot smarter than Sandstein's move at AN/I. Hochman would've been even smarter if, at AN/I, he'd just stuck to asking questions of Lara and pointing out what was wrong with what she'd done. She couldn't have accused him of drama, and she'd be stuck answering questions. SlimVirgin is very good at that tactic.

It's so much easier to be a sports fan than to play on the field. When I played, I wasn't playing, just fighting (and therefore spent time in the penalty box), and so much of this is a strategy game.
QUOTE

If you come across evidence that Law is a sockpuppet, but you also see that lots of other people seem OK with it, who wouldn't be hesitant to take unilateral action.
Georgewilliamherbert.

Posted by: Friday

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 4:38pm) *

Could someone summarize why this particular incident is getting so much attention and commentary? I think I understand some of the reasons but I'm not confident that I get all of it.


This specific case is bringing up general questions of whether obvious cronyism should be a sanctionable offense.


In this case, there was some guy (undertow) who was desysopped and banned. I don't know the story. But, a few of his chat-room buddies (Jennavecia and Glasscobra) helped support him in passing an RFA under a new account.

The new admin account didn't really get noticed until it did an obviously stupid thing- unblocking some other guy (child of midnight) for no good reason. Apparently, the unblocked guy was an old crony of undertow.

Anyway, the new account of undertow was discovered, and desysopped. So then the question comes up of whether the other people involved should face any sanctions.

So basically it's obvious, stupid cronyism all around. And some of the people involved are standing up proudly and saying "So what? There's no rule against cronyism. I help my friends. That's what I do."

Some people think this is an obvious ethical violation, whether it's against some formal rule or not. Some people are insisting that as long as no articles were harmed, nothing bad could have happened. Some people are saying that it's unreasonable to expect people to _not_ stand up for their friends. Arbcom is sitting on their hands, doing nothing.

I believe that's pretty much the case.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 10:37am) *

There's a lot of idiocy going on here.

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"? That seems to be what a great many people are saying here.

This is an argument a child would make. Any reasonable adult should see right through it.

Oh God. More with the "adult" argument. Get off it already, Friday.

This whole thing is such bullshit. How possibly can anyone with an ounce of clue jump my ass or anyone else's for pointing out that the people bringing this case against me are KNOWN for doing far worse actions that are strangely similar at the root? Don't even start with me Friday.

I never supported Chip for things I didn't agree with. I never shared sensitive information with him. I didn't support his RFA so that there would be another admin to advance my position in anything. You want to go at me while the people trying to bring me down have conspired off-wiki to skew POV, ban and harass editors, and protect each other from punishment for deeds that actually served to damage the project and run editors off?

Uh uh. I'm not losing my bit unless it serves to take out the bad apples. I will gladly be the first to be taken out by the community in some desysop process if it sets a precedent for easy removal of shitty admins who actually manipulate and damage the project.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 7:37am) *

There's a lot of idiocy going on here.

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"? That seems to be what a great many people are saying here.

This is an argument a child would make. Any reasonable adult should see right through it.

The problem is that it's not entirely childish. Selective enforcement of a law violates equal protection. That's why the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.

Also see the concept of "clean hands." Not childish at all.

Posted by: Friday

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 4:59pm) *

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 7:37am) *

There's a lot of idiocy going on here.

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"? That seems to be what a great many people are saying here.

This is an argument a child would make. Any reasonable adult should see right through it.

The problem is that it's not entirely childish. Selective enforcement of a law violates equal protection. That's why the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.

Also see the concept of "clean hands." Not childish at all.


Not sure what country you live in, but where I'm at, cops pull over speeders without some bizarre requirement that they pull over _every_ speeder.

I understand clean hands. But in this case, it's being misused as a distraction technique. Look at how people are responding.. it's pure nonsense. People come to Jennavecia saying "You did a bad thing here" and she responds with "But you're bad too!"


Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 11:39am) *

QUOTE(trenton @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 4:35pm) *

Time for a nice old fashioned purge. Well deserved, and it should get rid of a lot of the "social club" admins.

The Good Articles project started a Sweeps process, reassessing every article promoted before August 2007. Perhaps the admin corps needs a similar reassessment.

A process I started, might I add.

QUOTE(trenton @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 12:07pm) *

Of course it also help to have buddies who will lie, cheat, and steal for you. Especially if they're admins.

See, this is where things are getting exaggerated. Lie, cheat, and steal? I didn't take it to the community to be overblown, because CLEARLY drama is more important to some people than anything else. I kept a secret and the project was improved.

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 12:51pm) *

But, a few of his chat-room buddies (Jennavecia and Glasscobra). . .

Wrong. Not chatroom buddies. Chip and I have been friends, outside of the project, for two years. He's not some editor I chat with on IRC a couple days a week.

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:03pm) *

Not sure what country you live in, but where I'm at, cops pull over speeders without some bizarre requirement that they pull over _every_ speeder.

I understand clean hands. But in this case, it's being misused as a distraction technique. Look at how people are responding.. it's pure nonsense. People come to Jennavecia saying "You did a bad thing here" and she responds with "But you're bad too!"

This is people too corrupt to be cops trying to pull me over and have me arrested. This analogy sucks, by the way.

I also don't appreciate you misrepresenting me. Stop doing the fake quotes thing. I never said I did a bad thing. I said people coming after me have done far worse than what they're after me for. I let down people that trusted me and that is unfortunate, but I don't believe I did anything "bad" or "wrong." Did I break a rule? Apparently an unwritten one. Do I have a policy to fall back on? I damn well do, and I've yet to see anyone even attempt to demonstrate that it doesn't apply.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 10:39am) *
The Good Articles project started a Sweeps process, reassessing every article promoted before August 2007. Perhaps the admin corps needs a similar reassessment.
Every admin should be required to stand for reconfirmation at least once every two years. It is of no concern whatsoever to me that this could possibly require ten or more confirmations each week, every week. If nothing else, it would trim the number of administrators to a reasonable number.

Here's the proposal: Admins shall be automatically deadmined two years from the date of when they were most recently promoted or reconfirmed. For the purpose of assisting with transition, the following deadlines apply, based on date of last promotion or reconfirmation: Prior to 2001, October 31, 2009; prior to 2002, November 14; prior to 2003, November 28; prior to 2004, December 12; prior to 2005, December 26; prior to July 2006, January 9, 2010; prior to December 2006, January 23; prior to April 2007, February 6; prior to June 2007, February 20; prior to October 2007, March 6; prior to December 2007, March 20. All others must reconfirm prior to two years after their anniversary or be deadmined.

Show some balls, Wikipedia: adopt this proposal. What do you have to lose but your administrative deadweights?

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 10:46am) *
I believe this problem would be much easier to handle if editors stopped making "friends" or "enemies" with other editors. It's a huge time-sink, and I cannot possibly imagine that such ersatz friendships are a good substitute for the real-life kind.
We've already established that you have no idea what friendship entails.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 12:51pm) *
stand up for their friends. Arbcom is sitting on their hands, doing nothing.


Actually, DuncanHill is stealing my shtick. He specifically asked the Arbcom fun bunch whether they were in on the game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFARB#Question_to_all_arbitrators

So far, all of the Arbcom team except Brad has refused to answer that question. John V. claims that he didn't know, but I think his "oopsie, I forgot to read my e-mail" excuse isn't kosher.

I know betting is frowned upon here, but I would be willing to put money on the table that at least half of Arbcom knew that Law and Undertow were the same person.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

So would I, Horsey, if I had any. Money, that is.

Even more interesting may be: how many arbcom members have similar backgrounds?

Posted by: Abd

With few exceptions, it's not the people, it's the structure. Human beings always interact structurally; people who don't are immediately rejected as insane or dangerous. Wikipedia structure creates the problems that we can see. Put the same people in a different structure, their behavior would be different, generally.

Ochlocratic structures are murder on the participants. Crowds will at one point encourage leaders, cheering their actions, and at the next point, send them to the guillotine, cheering a new set of champions of "community values."

Consider the situation: ArbComm is nowhere near breaching the limits of its power. It could ignore the jeers of the crowd, but to do this, it would need to elevate itself above any desire to appease the crowd; as long as enough members of the committee are vulnerable to crowd pressure, ArbComm will remain almost paralyzed in dealing with the real problems.

ArbComm needs to know, in order to facilitate the project, what the real community supports, not what is supported only by the most-active core. By failing to distinguish between the two groups, ArbComm supports the effective oligarchy of the gathering crowds, which are not representative of the "people," but only of the most-highly-motivated, and that filters for attachment and against wisdom.

And what the real community supports will depend on the leadership of ArbComm; a healthy wiki would only result from voluntary cooperation between the real community and those who represent it.

There is a segment of the community, highly vocal in this case, which imagines its own responsibility as being a watchdog over ArbComm, demanding the highest standards of Committee members. However, they do not, in fact, have any authority except as members of ArbComm bow to their pressure. ArbComm would wisely set up dispute resolution channels to handle complaints about the behavior of the committee or members of the committee, and then should cheerfully ignore anything in those channels that doesn't find broad consensus, for there is no body that represents the community more accurately than ArbComm. Because of defective election methods, ArbComm is not fully representative, so it is merely the best, and the best may even be far short of adequate.

ArbComm could fix this, it has the power to do so, practically. The community, unless directly organized, which is probably impossible on-wiki, can't do it by itself. If there were ways for the community, absent coherent organization, to fix the problem, it would have done so; the problem is precisely the lack of such modality. Paradoxically, if the ochlocratic community could function well enough to decide on how to structure itself, it would not need to structure itself.

Out of this understanding, two immediate comments:

1. Casliber should not have resigned, and if he can, he should retract that. Rather, he should elevate himself beyond any conception that he is directly responsible to the crowd. He was elected by the crowd or the community (it's unclear which) to serve the project, and serving the project, according to his own best judgment, is exactly what he should do. He should listen to the community, but not imagine that the currently active crowd is the community or even that it represents the community. Amidst the shouting, there may be only one small voice that is truly speaking for the community, if that. Any arbitrator could set up off-wiki structures whereby the real community could coherently advise him or her, and through the arbitrator, the Committee. If even a few arbitrators did this, or maybe even as few as one, those structures would seed the process by which Wikipedia could move beyond the limitations of ochlocracy. If Casliber or any arbitrator has any desire for advice on how to do this, they should email me.

2. The sociologist Piotrus, in his paper studying Wikipedia structure and its supposed freedom from the limitations of the Iron Law of Oligarchy, mentioned Esperanza as an example of direct organization of editors, and the mention was as if he was not aware that Esperanza was crushed.

Posted by: Peter Damian


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madness_of_crowds

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:55pm) *

1. Casliber should not have resigned, and if he can, he should retract that. Rather, he should elevate himself beyond any conception that he is directly responsible to the crowd. He was elected by the crowd or the community (it's unclear which) to serve the project, and serving the project, according to his own best judgment, is exactly what he should do.


Sorry, character, but I have to differ. Casliber is actually among the very few open and honest people in this sorry affair: he acknowledged that he allowed this charade to go on in violation of policies and he took responsibility by resigning. If he retracts his resignation, then he is just a glutton for power.

QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 1:55pm) *

And what the real community supports will depend on the leadership of ArbComm; a healthy wiki would only result from voluntary cooperation between the real community and those who represent it.


You cannot have that without a "real community." Sorry to be the broken record, but it is hard not to notice the same names in this smackdown as in every other similar smackdown.

There is no community - there is a clique. The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors are either not aware of this situation or don't particularly care.


Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 4:59pm) *
...the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.


This is... sarcasm?

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(Random832 @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 2:48pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 4:59pm) *
...the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.


This is... sarcasm?


If all the traffic is traveling over the speed limit, you have to keep up with the flow or you can get a ticket for impeding traffic.

So a cop can't pick out someone in the middle and pull them over.

It's all about the convoy!

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Friday @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 10:03am) *

Not sure what country you live in, but where I'm at, cops pull over speeders without some bizarre requirement that they pull over _every_ speeder.

No requirement that cops pull over every speeder. They can decide to pull over the NEXT speeder (and let many go by while dealing with that one). Or they can look at two and pull over the fastest. What they cannot do is arbitrarily select speeders out of a pack of people who are all seen by them to be equally guilty. Or look at two speeders and decide to go after the slowest, due to not liking the color of the car or the driver. Or even for the hell of it.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 2:52pm) *

It's all about the convoy!


I used to love CB radio.


Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 2:56pm) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 2:52pm) *

It's all about the convoy!


I used to love CB radio.


Shake the trees and rake the leaves!

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 2:52pm) *

If all the traffic is traveling over the speed limit, you have to keep up with the flow or you can get a ticket for impeding traffic.

So a cop can't pick out someone in the middle and pull them over.

It's all about the convoy!

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:09pm) *

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

yes, you need to try and get the sweet spot in the middle.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:11pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:09pm) *

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

yes, you need to try and get the sweet spot in the middle.

Sweet spot in the middle, huh?

Keep it clean, boys. wink.gif

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:34pm) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:11pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:09pm) *

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

yes, you need to try and get the sweet spot in the middle.

Sweet spot in the middle, huh?

Keep it clean, boys. wink.gif

Hey, at least I wasn't http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jennavecia&diff=317373433&oldid=317372840

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 12:41pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:34pm) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:11pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 3:09pm) *

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

yes, you need to try and get the sweet spot in the middle.

Sweet spot in the middle, huh?

Keep it clean, boys. wink.gif

Hey, at least I wasn't http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jennavecia&diff=317373433&oldid=317372840

Cf. Anthony Bourdain's book of essays, The Nasty Bits. tongue.gif

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(trenton @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 12:07pm) *

Of course it also help to have buddies who will lie, cheat, and steal for you. Especially if they're admins.

My, what intolerance... dry.gif

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 4:59pm) *

The problem is that it's not entirely childish. Selective enforcement of a law violates equal protection. That's why the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.

Well they've got either a de jure or de facto quota to meet. While there is no bag limit per se, there is a point of diminishing return with respect to one's performance evaluation. Beyond this the probability of retribution outweighs whatever reward system is in place.

There's an old fable about the driver asking the cop "why did you pull me over when everyone else was just as guilty of speeding?" to which the cop says replies something vaguely philosophical like When you go fishing... but it is never entirely random.

Of course they don't target the fastest drivers, not the ones posing the greatest threat to "safety", but rather those which they estimate to most likely to pay the ticket and least likely to attack the officer.

The candid law-man might use a different metaphor: When wolves go hunting, do they catch all the caribou or...

Well, y'all know the answer to that.

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 6:12pm) *

Casliber is actually among the very few open and honest people in this sorry affair: he acknowledged that he allowed this charade to go on in violation of policies and he took responsibility by resigning. If he retracts his resignation, then he is just a glutton for power.

Candor never does go unpunished does it?

There are fundamental flaws in a system which allows the most "open and honest" people to resign (or "be recalled" etc.) in the face of minor complaints.

I'll start by saying there's nothing wrong with holding yourself to higher standards than others. It's a good way to live, really, but if you overdo it, if it becomes conspicuous... sure, a few people will hate you for it all the while, but the rest will just reciprocate by holding you to a higher standard than themselves. Once the resident sycophants drink of the meme that you can do no wrong, some of them will defend you based on reputation alone when you do fuck up, and convince you that you made no mistake (as if they want you to repeat it, having not learned a thing). Others will see the elephant and call you on it, demanding a full crucifixion for this error because, well... they expected better from you, damn it!

Secondly, since the community reacts only to things it knows about (and defeats only those willing to surrender) it ends up selecting against the traits it claims to promote, steadily pushing the moral gene-pool to a darker shade of black.