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

[TheySeeMeTrollin]

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

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

[trenton]

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

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

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

[MZMcBride]

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

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

He found out weeks ago.

[Law]

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

He found out weeks ago.

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

[Viridae]

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

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

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

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

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

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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

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

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

Nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Cla68]

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

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Silverman]

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

And you managed to keep it a secret?

[Abd]

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

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

He found out weeks ago.

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

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

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

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

[One]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by One:

[everyking]

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

[carbuncle]

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

[Tarc]

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

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[Friday]

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

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

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

And you managed to keep it a secret?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Had nothing to do with that. Nothing at all.

[CharlotteWebb]

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

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

[Moulton]

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

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

[Apathetic]

So did anyone put the popcorn on yet?

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

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

That is a wonderful defense.

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

That is a wonderful defense.

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

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

That is a wonderful defense.

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

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

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

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

Also, tits.

[trenton]

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

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

[Random832]

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

Also, tits.

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

[One]

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

I'm assuming bad faith?

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

Ya, ya. WHITE PAR! o/

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

I'm assuming bad faith?

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

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

[One]

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

[GlassBeadGame]

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

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

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

[Friday]

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

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

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

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

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

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


This post has been edited by Friday:

[One]

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

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

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

[trenton]

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

[Somey]

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

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

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

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

Also, tits.

Amen to that!

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

I find your invective tiresome.

[LaraLove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[everyking]

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

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

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

[One]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by One:

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

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

[Friday]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kelly Martin]

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

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

[everyking]

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

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

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

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does that say to you?

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

[Friday]

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

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

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

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

[Kelly Martin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[everyking]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Somey]

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

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

[Somey]

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

So did anyone put the popcorn on yet?

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

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Milton Roe]

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

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

[Peter Damian]

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Random832]

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

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

[CharlotteWebb]

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

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

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

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

[CharlotteWebb]

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

Reviewing this:

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

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

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

CODE

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

CODE

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

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

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

[SirFozzie]

Someone rang?

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

[MBisanz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Apathetic]

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

CODE

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

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

epic lulz

plz do go on

[LaraLove]

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Bonar Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[One]

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

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

This post has been edited by One:

[Moulton]

Epic levels of unprofessionalism.

[Kelly Martin]

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

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

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

[The Wales Hunter]

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

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

[Deodand]

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Bonar Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tarc]

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

Had nothing to do with that. Nothing at all.

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

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

[The Joy]

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

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

[SirFozzie]

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

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

This post has been edited by SirFozzie:

[One]

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

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

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

[No one of consequence]

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

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

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

[SirFozzie]

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

[Noroton]

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

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

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

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

Doesn't Wikipedia look crazy, though.

[Kelly Martin]

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

[SirFozzie]

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

[Noroton]

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

Spoke too soon. Georgewilliamherbert just announced the block.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still, who'd want to unblock the jackass?

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[LaraLove]

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

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

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

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

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

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

[Apathetic]

Eesh, is it a full moon or something?

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

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[SirFozzie]

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

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

[One]

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

[Kelly Martin]

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

[Milton Roe]

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

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

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

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

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

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

[trenton]

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

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

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

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

Doesn't Wikipedia look crazy, though.

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

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

[Cedric]

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

You never understand why, Abner.

[Malleus]

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

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

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

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

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

[Random832]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Random832:

[lone-wolf]

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

[everyking]

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

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

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Kelly Martin]

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

[Malleus]

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

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

[Wiki Witch of the West]

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

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

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

[Wiki Witch of the West]

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

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

[MBisanz]

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

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

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

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

[Alison]

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

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

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

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

[Grep]

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

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

[Kelly Martin]

Stand by all dramacopters!

[the_undertow]

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

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

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

Chip

[MBisanz]

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

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

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

Chip

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

[Anonymous editor]

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

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

He's an epic scumbag.

[the_undertow]

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

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

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

Chip

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by the_undertow:

[Abd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous editor]

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

That was most excellent.

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

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

[Alison]

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

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

[the_undertow]

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

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

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

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

[Cla68]

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

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

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

Chip

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

Also, welcome to WR, Durova.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[victim of censorship]

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

NOT ME Ms Durova....


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

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





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

I not going to be very nice.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Alison]

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

THIEF ( Of [..] human rights )

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

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

BRAIN-DAMAGED PUNK

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

[Anonymous editor]

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

NOT ME Ms Durova....

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

[victim of censorship]

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

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

[the_undertow]

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

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

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

Chip

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

Also, welcome to WR, Durova.

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

[victim of censorship]

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

NOT ME Ms Durova....

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

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


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

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

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[the_undertow]

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

NOT ME Ms Durova....


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

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

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

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

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

[Anonymous editor]

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

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

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

[Cla68]

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[victim of censorship]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HIM

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Alison]

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

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

[the_undertow]

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

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

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

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

[MZMcBride]

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

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

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

[Kelly Martin]

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

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

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

Approximately this.

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

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

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

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

[Deodand]

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

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[the_undertow]

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

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chip Kochendorfer


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

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

[Malleus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malleus]

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

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

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

[Deodand]

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

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chip Kochendorfer


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

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

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

[Malleus]

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

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

[Deodand]

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

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

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

[Lar]

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

Anyone else parse this the way I did?

[the_undertow]

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

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chip Kochendorfer


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Silverman]

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

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

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

[Malleus]

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

Anyone else parse this the way I did?

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Malleus]

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

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

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

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

[Deodand]

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

[Malleus]

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

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

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[the_undertow]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Deodand]

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus. Who cares? He socked. Shocker.

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

<3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

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

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

[Guido den Broeder]

I don't lie on behalf of anyone.

Makes one wonder why you do lie.

[Apathetic]

Casliber just announced his resignation

[Casliber]

In best Oliver Hardy voice:

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

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

[Noroton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Juliancolton]

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

Now, everybody else: go do the same.

[One]

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

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

This is zero for three.

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

Now, everybody else: go do the same.

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

[Wiki Witch of the West]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Friday]

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

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

[Wiki Witch of the West]

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

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

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

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

The more things change, the more they stay insane.

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

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

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

[MBisanz]

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

I suppose a better version of that policy might be:

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

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

[Wiki Witch of the West]

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

I suppose a better version of that policy might be:

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

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

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

[Moulton]

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

[One]

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

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

[the_undertow]

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

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

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Law's Law ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MBisanz]

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

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

[the_undertow]

In best Oliver Hardy voice:

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

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

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

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

Fuck.

[CharlotteWebb]

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

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

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

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

Probably not worth asking.

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

Fuck.

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

[Jim]

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

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

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

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

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

Still, none of my business, sorry to intrude.

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

[Moulton]

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

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

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

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

The opposite of a Learning Organization is a dysfunctional organization.

Which kind is Wikipedia?

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Deodand]

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

[Anonymous editor]

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

That makes very little sense.

[Friday]

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

That makes very little sense.

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

[SirFozzie]

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

[Newyorkbrad]

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

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

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

[Anonymous editor]

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

Anyone else parse this the way I did?

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

It also makes a hell of a lot more sense.

[Peter Damian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Friday]

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

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

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

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

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

[Newyorkbrad]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

[lone-wolf]

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

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

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

[trenton]

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

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

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

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

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

[lone-wolf]

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


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

[LaraLove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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



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

[Tarc]

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

On another vein, was this; (emphasis mine)

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

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

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

[MZMcBride]

Ugh.

[Ahypori]

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

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

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

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

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

[Friday]

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

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

[Deodand]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Guido den Broeder]

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

[Appleby]

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

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

[No one of consequence]

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

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

[victim of censorship]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[nableezy]

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

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

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

[Deodand]

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

Really? What happened? ~~~~

[No one of consequence]

~~~~

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

[NuclearWarfare]

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

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

[Deodand]

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

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

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

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

[CharlotteWebb]

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

Damn Germans. Always seven steps ahead of us.

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

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Tarc]

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

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.

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

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[victim of censorship]

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

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

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

[Deodand]

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

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.

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

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

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

not a direct quote, but strangely enough the beginning of the conversation is at... the beginning of the conversation. Try the first bit of the log, maybe?

My log starts at midnight. I have the full day. I'm guessing you have a portion of the log. So when you say the beginning, is that where Ironholds says he's "busy writing about posh lawyer nutters"? After that he asks Law to do a move, Law says "okay", Ironholds links him, Law asks "why the move?" and the discussion takes off from there. I see nothing about "fuck off" or anything like that near the beginning.

[Deodand]

Okay, so disregarding the "IRL threats," taking only threats to ruin him on the project, what would he do? Ironholds made the first such threat. He got the ball rolling, Law took it and ran.

Err, no he didn't. "I've started a page discussion" "fuck off, I'm going to own you on-wiki" and it degenerated from there.

You're using quotes as if you're quoting from the log, yet I see nothing in the log matching either of those. The first and only "fuck off" that shows up when I search is from Ironholds.

not a direct quote, but strangely enough the beginning of the conversation is at... the beginning of the conversation. Try the first bit of the log, maybe?

My log starts at midnight. I have the full day. I'm guessing you have a portion of the log. So when you say the beginning, is that where Ironholds says he's "busy writing about posh lawyer nutters"? After that he asks Law to do a move, Law says "okay", Ironholds links him, Law asks "why the move?" and the discussion takes off from there. I see nothing about "fuck off" or anything like that near the beginning.

Ahh, sorry, misunderstanding there - I have the #wikipedia-en log (I was in the chan at the time) - the log I was sent is the /query conversation betweeen Law/Undertow and IH. That's what I'm talking about, and the source of the various threats in both directions.

[everyking]

As a side note, the German ArbCom collapsed today, with 7 out of 10 members quitting.

We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

[MBisanz]

As a side note, the German ArbCom collapsed today, with 7 out of 10 members quitting.

We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

it.wiki won that award a long time ago.

[everyking]

As a side note, the German ArbCom collapsed today, with 7 out of 10 members quitting.

We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

it.wiki won that award a long time ago.

I know I'd be interested to hear about how project governance functions on each of the major wikiprojects. Surely someone has developed something better than the severely dysfunctional model prevailing on en-wiki.

[Milton Roe]

As a side note, the German ArbCom collapsed today, with 7 out of 10 members quitting.

We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

it.wiki won that award a long time ago.

That was due to the porn stars and mafia-connected people they insisted run it. But hey, that's just Italy. They should be given some latitude.

[Moulton]

Surely someone has developed something better than the severely dysfunctional model prevailing on en-wiki.

Yes, but Jimbo has expressly rejected the more evolved and enlightened governance models in favor of the anachronistic ad hoc ochlocracy preferred by the entrenched en.wiki cabal.

[everyking]

Surely someone has developed something better than the severely dysfunctional model prevailing on en-wiki.

Yes, but Jimbo has expressly rejected the more evolved and enlightened governance models in favor of the anachronistic ad hoc ochlocracy preferred by the entrenched en.wiki cabal.

Democracy? What--are you suggesting feudalism isn't working well? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Moulton]

Corrupt feudalism didn't work too well for King John, either.

[MBisanz]

As a side note, the German ArbCom collapsed today, with 7 out of 10 members quitting.

We should have a little friendly inter-project rivalry and see who can get rid of their entire ArbCom first.

it.wiki won that award a long time ago.

I know I'd be interested to hear about how project governance functions on each of the major wikiprojects. Surely someone has developed something better than the severely dysfunctional model prevailing on en-wiki.

Well I know fr.wiki has had significant problems with its arbcom, es.wiki forked at one point so I suppose that is a form of governance, it.wiki deleted its arbcom, and now de.wiki's has resigned. I seem to remember some issues with ru.wiki's, but it might not have been DR related.

[Moulton]

Ironically, in the sum of all human knowledge, there is ample academic research on the efficacy of alternative governance models.

[Anonymous editor]

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

WHAT an obnoxious joke... Lets not have any allusions that the rule of law in Wikipedia is in operation. Wikipedia is just a Cyber simulation of an El Rukns Street gang. Lets not have any misunderstanding of that. Only law in wikipeidia is JUNGLE LAW and the JAGOFFS rule on Wikipedia.

More reason why wikipeidia should be shut down.

Wkipeidia a JOKE.

As an aside, how's that IRS complaint going, Joe, any progress?

Classic. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[The Joy]

All of this drama over something that happens every single, freakin' day on Wikipedia is just ridiculous and (pardon my French) full of crap. If I were an administrator, I would have banned probably everyone who's doing the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the whole Law incident. Everyone's out for blood when it does no one any good and will cause more pain and suffering down the road.

The first and foremost goal of Wikipedia should be to the encyclopedia and the readers. I do not care if User:Fluffykittens or whoever is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet/handpuppet/whatever of User:StickyFingers or whoever. I do not care and I do not understand why anyone else should care. As long as the information is correct, accurate, readable, and (to some degree) entertaining, who cares who wrote it?

Has Law caused harm to the encyclopedia? Has Law misused his tools? Has Law driven away good-faith contributors? Has he alienated the readers? Besides coming back under a new account (an event that happens every single day on Wikipedia), what has the man done? Has he recommitted the "sins" that banned him? Or has he moved on? Could someone point with evidence what terrible crime he has done to warrant all of this drama and the suffering of his friends and colleagues?

The people hounding him, Casliber, Lara, etc., are no different than that inspector who kept chasing Jean Valjean in Les Miserables. All the meta noticeboards should just redirect to WP:GLADIATORPIT and we can all stop pretending to be professional, mature people trying to build an encyclopedia. Heck, it would be better if Wikipedia would just start all over and actually get professional, mature people willing to collaborate to build an encyclopedia.

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v386/Warsmith/Pollice_Verso.jpg)

"Come on, Arbcom! Finish off Law and your former colleague, Casliber! We've got more in the queue!"

[Malleus]

Okay, Horsey is a jackass who screwed up big time. Tell me something I don't know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Ain't that the truth. But looking on the bright side, I doubt Horsey will make the same mistake again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

I can't help but to think that if an "old guard" arbitrator knew that a Wikifriend was an arb comm ruling-defying, block-evading, adminship-seeking sock, the reaction to that news on WR would be a little different than it's been here. Cas is no hypocrite: he's acknowledged that it was wrong when he did it, just as it would have been if James Forrester had. He's also done what I consider to be the right thing, and resigned. He's good people, and if he runs again in December, which I gather he won't, I'll vote for him. But I think some of the rest of you could stand to reread WP:SAUCE.

[everyking]

All of this drama over something that happens every single, freakin' day on Wikipedia is just ridiculous and (pardon my French) full of crap. If I were an administrator, I would have banned probably everyone who's doing the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the whole Law incident. Everyone's out for blood when it does no one any good and will cause more pain and suffering down the road.

The first and foremost goal of Wikipedia should be to the encyclopedia and the readers. I do not care if User:Fluffykittens or whoever is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet/handpuppet/whatever of User:StickyFingers or whoever. I do not care and I do not understand why anyone else should care. As long as the information is correct, accurate, readable, and (to some degree) entertaining, who cares who wrote it?

Has Law caused harm to the encyclopedia? Has Law misused his tools? Has Law driven away good-faith contributors? Has he alienated the readers? Besides coming back under a new account (an event that happens every single day on Wikipedia), what has the man done? Has he recommitted the "sins" that banned him? Or has he moved on? Could someone point with evidence what terrible crime he has done to warrant all of this drama and the suffering of his friends and colleagues?

The people hounding him, Casliber, Lara, etc., are no different than that inspector who kept chasing Jean Valjean in Les Miserables. All the meta noticeboards should just redirect to WP:GLADIATORPIT and we can all stop pretending to be professional, mature people trying to build an encyclopedia. Heck, it would be better if Wikipedia would just start all over and actually get professional, mature people willing to collaborate to build an encyclopedia.

Wiki-culture is no longer centered around the production of articles at all. Hardly anyone is interested in the question of whether someone does good or bad (or no) article work; editors are deemed expendable, even though an unimaginable amount of work remains to be done and the rate of work seems to be declining. Now wiki-culture is nothing but political manipulations aimed at obtaining power and getting one's enemies sanctioned or banned. This sad state of affairs is directly attributable to the ArbCom, which embraced and encouraged those tendencies in the community, enabling them to grow out of control. The only real solution is to scrap the ArbCom in favor of some governance mechanism that promotes a harmonious editing environment in which contributions are valued and contributors are respected.

[Moulton]

The only real solution is to scrap the ArbCom in favor of some governance mechanism that promotes a harmonious editing environment in which contributions are valued and contributors are respected.

Last summer, Jimbo expressly rejected a proposal to craft a harmonious editing environment consistent with the published Mission Statement of WMF.

[A Horse With No Name]

Okay, Horsey is a jackass who screwed up big time. Tell me something I don't know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Ain't that the truth. But looking on the bright side, I doubt Horsey will make the same mistake again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again? And I said: No, I'd make a whole bunch of new ones! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Oh, and tonight on Wiki-TV, it's "The Caine Mutiny" starring Protonk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFA...ment_by_Protonk (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Ahypori]

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

Correct: Bishonen has done far worse than Jennavecia's ever done.

Look at the oppose section for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

[A Horse With No Name]

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

What can I say? I move in obtuse circles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you going to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not? If not, you'd probably want to repeat at least some mistakes. There's a lot of wisdom in the experience of mistakes. You don't necessarily have to make all of these mistakes personally-- but some, you do. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Look at the oppose section for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.

Funny how the Arbcom team isn't exactly rushing into this one. Brad deserves a Horsey kiss (or at least a knish from the Carnegie Deli - his choice) for being quick on draw -- if only to withdraw. But where is everyone else? I bet they're over at Hulu watching "I Dream of Jeannie" reruns. (Not a bad idea, come to think of it -- really, who wouldn't want Barbara Eden circa 1968 versus Protonk circa 2009?). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Oh, as an update -- after I posted this, Fayassal chimed in. I am not quite certain what he said -- he seems to be using a lot of words to go in circles and come to absolutely no conclusion whatsoever. Either that or he is reprinting a portion of the libretto of "Four Saints in Three Acts." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[LaraLove]

Ahh, sorry, misunderstanding there - I have the #wikipedia-en log (I was in the chan at the time) - the log I was sent is the /query conversation betweeen Law/Undertow and IH. That's what I'm talking about, and the source of the various threats in both directions.

Ah, okay. I don't have those. Ironholds was the first to tell me what was going on, then I spoke to Chip. Neither sent me logs of the pm and I didn't ask for them.

All of this drama over something that happens every single, freakin' day on Wikipedia is just ridiculous and (pardon my French) full of crap. If I were an administrator, I would have banned probably everyone who's doing the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the whole Law incident. Everyone's out for blood when it does no one any good and will cause more pain and suffering down the road.

The first and foremost goal of Wikipedia should be to the encyclopedia and the readers. I do not care if User:Fluffykittens or whoever is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet/handpuppet/whatever of User:StickyFingers or whoever. I do not care and I do not understand why anyone else should care. As long as the information is correct, accurate, readable, and (to some degree) entertaining, who cares who wrote it?

Has Law caused harm to the encyclopedia? Has Law misused his tools? Has Law driven away good-faith contributors? Has he alienated the readers? Besides coming back under a new account (an event that happens every single day on Wikipedia), what has the man done? Has he recommitted the "sins" that banned him? Or has he moved on? Could someone point with evidence what terrible crime he has done to warrant all of this drama and the suffering of his friends and colleagues?

The people hounding him, Casliber, Lara, etc., are no different than that inspector who kept chasing Jean Valjean in Les Miserables. All the meta noticeboards should just redirect to WP:GLADIATORPIT and we can all stop pretending to be professional, mature people trying to build an encyclopedia. Heck, it would be better if Wikipedia would just start all over and actually get professional, mature people willing to collaborate to build an encyclopedia.

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v386/Warsmith/Pollice_Verso.jpg)

"Come on, Arbcom! Finish off Law and your former colleague, Casliber! We've got more in the queue!"

Exactly!

Wiki-culture is no longer centered around the production of articles at all. Hardly anyone is interested in the question of whether someone does good or bad (or no) article work; editors are deemed expendable, even though an unimaginable amount of work remains to be done and the rate of work seems to be declining. Now wiki-culture is nothing but political manipulations aimed at obtaining power and getting one's enemies sanctioned or banned.
<snip>

This is very true. No one is considering my contributions in this mess of attacks. The hypocrisy is beyond laughable. It is more than clear that this is a political matter and has nothing to do with protecting the project. There is no evidence that anything I did in support of Chip caused damage to the project. I didn't support him in everything because I didn't agree with everything he did. But where I felt he should be defended or supported, I did. Some alphabet soup be damned. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Done.

Funny how the Arbcom team isn't exactly rushing into this one. Brad deserves a Horsey kiss (or at least a knish from the Carnegie Deli - his choice) for being quick on draw -- if only to withdraw. But where is everyone else? I bet they're over at Hulu watching "I Dream of Jeannie" reruns. (Not a bad idea, come to think of it -- really, who wouldn't want Barbara Eden circa 1968 versus Protonk circa 2009?). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Oh, as an update -- after I posted this, Fayassal chimed in. I am not quite certain what he said -- he seems to be using a lot of words to go in circles and come to absolutely no conclusion whatsoever. Either that or he is reprinting a portion of the libretto of "Four Saints in Three Acts." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Emails are flying. Investigation goes on. Waiting to see what other names come out during this mess where two are singled out. The two that were honest from the start of the questioning.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not?

If you didn't have the accumulated wisdom from your first go-round, you'd hardly have the option of avoiding the same mistakes, making the question moot.

[LaraLove]

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not?

If you didn't have the accumulated wisdom from your first go-round, you'd hardly have the option of avoiding the same mistakes, making the question moot.

I don't think that's the point of the question. To me it seems as though you're supposed to reflect on your life and where you are at the time you're asked the question. If you're pleased overall with where you've ended up in life, then to change even one mistake would change where you are. Butterfly effect.

A huge mistake in my life led to great things. Would I make that same mistake again? For sure. Would my life be far better than it is right now if I had not made that mistake? I cannot say for sure, but chances are surely high. Many opportunities lost. Many sacrifices had to be made. However, in avoiding that mistake, amongst the ripples of change, I would not have my children.

You look at the question in too simple of terms. It's not a simple question. It's supposed to provoke thought and reflection.

[Anonymous editor]

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

Correct: Bishonen has done far worse than Jennavecia's ever done.

Oh, absolutely. The worst part is that Bishonen is one of the guiltiest parties on Wikipedia when it comes to doing what she's accusing Jenna of doing. Bishonen has consistently performed abusive actions in support of her wikifriends.

If Jenna gets desysopped for this, then perhaps Bishonen should be desysopped about a dozen times (if only it were possible).

This makes me sick. I can see where someone would have a problem with what Jenna and GlassCobra did, but these are the last people that should be making a stink over it, considering their collective histories.

Look at the oppose section for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.

Naturally. The people who didn't like Jenna would jump at the opportunity to get her for something she did. They were just waiting for a big enough issue.

Jehochman, Bishonen, KC, and JoshuaZ are some of the most vomit-inducing editors on Wikipedia. Their abuses go a long way back.

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not? If not, you'd probably want to repeat at least some mistakes. There's a lot of wisdom in the experience of mistakes. You don't necessarily have to make all of these mistakes personally-- but some, you do. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Precisely.

[Sarcasticidealist]

You look at the question in too simple of terms. It's not a simple question. It's supposed to provoke thought and reflection.

Then it probably shouldn't be so stupid.

[LaraLove]

You look at the question in too simple of terms. It's not a simple question. It's supposed to provoke thought and reflection.

Then it probably shouldn't be so stupid.

Stupid because you don't grasp the point.

[LaraLove]

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

Correct: Bishonen has done far worse than Jennavecia's ever done.

Oh, absolutely. The worst part is that Bishonen is one of the guiltiest parties on Wikipedia when it comes to doing what she's accusing Jenna of doing. Bishonen has consistently performed abusive actions in support of her wikifriends.

If Jenna gets desysopped for this, then perhaps Bishonen should be desysopped about a dozen times (if only it were possible).

This makes me sick. I can see where someone would have a problem with what Jenna and GlassCobra did, but these are the last people that should be making a stink over it, considering their collective histories.

Look at the oppose section for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.

Naturally. The people who didn't like Jenna would jump at the opportunity to get her for something she did. They were just waiting for a big enough issue.

Jehochman, Bishonen, KC, and JoshuaZ are some of the most vomit-inducing editors on Wikipedia. Their abuses go a long way back.

I pointed this out in my email response to the case to an Arb, along with some other stuff. What it basically boils down to is if they want to make an example of me, then I'm fine with that. But it needs to set a precedent allowing for the removal of actual bad admins, including the hypocrites that came after me for this.

I'll gladly go out if I can take out some bad apples with me.

[Anonymous editor]

I'm with Sarcasticidealist. If I could start over again with the accumulated knowledge I now have, I certainly would.


Avoiding mistakes would change me as a person, but I don't mind. I'd most likely be better off had I avoided a few critical errors at certain points.

I find it mildly ironic that Bishonen is such a strong proponent of desysopping here.

She might want to consider her own behaviour.

Correct: Bishonen has done far worse than Jennavecia's ever done.

Oh, absolutely. The worst part is that Bishonen is one of the guiltiest parties on Wikipedia when it comes to doing what she's accusing Jenna of doing. Bishonen has consistently performed abusive actions in support of her wikifriends.

If Jenna gets desysopped for this, then perhaps Bishonen should be desysopped about a dozen times (if only it were possible).

This makes me sick. I can see where someone would have a problem with what Jenna and GlassCobra did, but these are the last people that should be making a stink over it, considering their collective histories.

Look at the oppose section for Jennavecia's oversight candidacy: Jehochman, Bishonen, and KillerChihuahua (JoshuaZ as well) all opposed her. These recent issues are just a good way for them to continue getting revenge, not because they're concerned about what's happened.

Naturally. The people who didn't like Jenna would jump at the opportunity to get her for something she did. They were just waiting for a big enough issue.

Jehochman, Bishonen, KC, and JoshuaZ are some of the most vomit-inducing editors on Wikipedia. Their abuses go a long way back.

I pointed this out in my email response to the case to an Arb, along with some other stuff. What it basically boils down to is if they want to make an example of me, then I'm fine with that. But it needs to set a precedent allowing for the removal of actual bad admins, including the hypocrites that came after me for this.

I'll gladly go out if I can take out some bad apples with me.

You would be a hero if this actually caused a change and got the tools removed from some of the long time abusive administrators. Fat chance of that happening, though. They're simply too good at playing the game, I suppose.

[Casliber]

You look at the question in too simple of terms. It's not a simple question. It's supposed to provoke thought and reflection.

Then it probably shouldn't be so stupid.

Stupid because you don't grasp the point.

You guys (who are about the same age) should meet up some time - would it be like "When Harry Met Sally" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Grep]

Interesting to see how the discussion continues the move away from the admin-is-no-big-deal position to the admins-are-better-than-us-and-so-can-be-trusted-with-arbitrary-power.

[Milton Roe]

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not?

If you didn't have the accumulated wisdom from your first go-round, you'd hardly have the option of avoiding the same mistakes, making the question moot.

No, there are many SF scenarios where it's a mixed bag. Guy makes mistake, wants to change it. Goes back and advises himself not to do it. Guy he advices has no idea whether to trust his judgement. Nor should he fully, since even the guy who decided it was a mistake, as NO idea what would certainly happen if he avoided it.

If you want a fun movie about a guy trying to go back to change main past mistakes, doing it but getting in deeper every time, I suggest indeed a film called The Butterfly Effect. Incidentally one of the actors (playing an abusive father) in THAT film is played by Eric Stolz. Who was once fired from the set of Back to the Future and replaced by Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly. Bummer. But then went on to do Mask, and get a Golden Globe. A part he probably would not otherwise have taken. Would he go back and change his life? What would he advise himself?

One scenario is where you keep your wisdom to the point that you advise yourself not to make the mistake, but when you don't, suddenly the old "you" that you are fades out, and you lose the wisdom you HAD from the mistake. Your actions in the past change your own future, and yourself. Now you're dumber. Etc. See the film above. It's quite gut wrenching, and much better ride than Back to the Future.

[SB_Johnny]

Wow, 248 posts... idle hands, eh?

couple things:

1. Wikipedia is not a state, and looks to me like the charge here is something akin to "treason".

2. If Wikipedia was a state, I'd hope it wasn't the kind of state where failing to report your friends for having counterrevolutionary thoughts would be cause for sending someone to the gulag.

3. Since everyone denies that Wikipedia is not a state, maybe they should follow the doctrine (by some British dude) of having no "eternal enemies". If Law had in fact become an asset (as most people seem to think), then what's the problem?

[Guido den Broeder]

Well I know fr.wiki has had significant problems with its arbcom, es.wiki forked at one point so I suppose that is a form of governance, it.wiki deleted its arbcom, and now de.wiki's has resigned. I seem to remember some issues with ru.wiki's, but it might not have been DR related.

The nl:arbcom is dead most of the time.

The concept simply does not work, and will never work, for two reasons:
- it's treating the environment as a community instead of a project, i.e. content comes last;
- it's easy as well was attractive for wikipediots to make it to the top.

[Mathsci]

John Vandenberg's apology

This post has been edited by Mathsci:

[A Horse With No Name]

A message to Law/Undertow: Hey there, how is the day treating you? I hope today will be a better one for you.

And remember what the Wizard told the Tin Man: "'A heart is not measured by how much you love, but how much you are loved by others." You have a lot of friends here who have been willing to stand up for you -- you must be doing something right! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

John Vandenberg's apology

An "oh shit" moment (reprinted in its entirety):
<<<

Question for John

Thanks for explaining this. I see no reason you should resign for a simple oversight. But I'd like to ask you why the functionary was telling you by email that Law was The undertow, and didn't simply block him, or take it to AE. This seems to me to go to the heart of the problem here. There's a feeling that The undertow was being treated differently from any other editor violating a ban, and it would be good to know why. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Who was the functionary? This should not need to be confidential. Jehochman Talk 12:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>


Wasn't MBisanz recently elevated to bureaucrat? Boy, the "community" can really trust these characters, eh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

You know, this is turning into the Wikipedia equivalent of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World" -- you never know which star is going turn up next! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Casliber]

Someone asked me once: If you had your life to live over, would you make the same mistakes again?

That is an unspeakably idiotic question.

Only if you make certain assumptions. If you had your life "to live over again" are you doing to be able to keep your knowledge-from-experience, or not?

If you didn't have the accumulated wisdom from your first go-round, you'd hardly have the option of avoiding the same mistakes, making the question moot.

No, there are many SF scenarios where it's a mixed bag. Guy makes mistake, wants to change it. Goes back and advises himself not to do it. Guy he advices has no idea whether to trust his judgement. Nor should he fully, since even the guy who decided it was a mistake, as NO idea what would certainly happen if he avoided it.

If you want a fun movie about a guy trying to go back to change main past mistakes, doing it but getting in deeper every time, I suggest indeed a film called The Butterfly Effect. Incidentally one of the actors (playing an abusive father) in THAT film is played by Eric Stolz. Who was once fired from the set of Back to the Future and replaced by Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly. Bummer. But then went on to do Mask, and get a Golden Globe. A part he probably would not otherwise have taken. Would he go back and change his life? What would he advise himself?

One scenario is where you keep your wisdom to the point that you advise yourself not to make the mistake, but when you don't, suddenly the old "you" that you are fades out, and you lose the wisdom you HAD from the mistake. Your actions in the past change your own future, and yourself. Now you're dumber. Etc. See the film above. It's quite gut wrenching, and much better ride than Back to the Future.

Butterfly Effect was a damn fine film. Except they had to sneak in a true-lurv-transcends-alternate-universes titbit right at the end but, meh, worked ok (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Apathetic]

It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>


Wasn't MBisanz recently elevated to bureaucrat? Boy, the "community" can really trust these characters, eh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

You know, this is turning into the Wikipedia equivalent of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World" -- you never know which star is going turn up next! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

No it wasnt Matt, and I am not going to say who it was at this stage. The functionary elevated it appropriately to me, and it is my fault that it was not dealt with after that. The functionary would like to avoid being caught up in this, and I respect that as they did the right thing. There are other functionaries involved, and I hope they speak up. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[A Horse With No Name]

It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>


Wasn't MBisanz recently elevated to bureaucrat? Boy, the "community" can really trust these characters, eh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

You know, this is turning into the Wikipedia equivalent of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World" -- you never know which star is going turn up next! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

No it wasnt Matt, and I am not going to say who it was at this stage. The functionary elevated it appropriately to me, and it is my fault that it was not dealt with after that. The functionary would like to avoid being caught up in this, and I respect that as they did the right thing. There are other functionaries involved, and I hope they speak up. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.

Okay, but now this raises two new questions: (1) How the hell did DuncanHill name Matt, of all people? And (2) If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

[Apathetic]

Okay, but now this raises two new questions: (1) How the hell did DuncanHill name Matt, of all people? And (2) If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

I think DuncanHill wrongly deduced it was MB because MB was complaining above about a handful of emails he had sent to Arb about various issues that had gone without answer/action.

As for 2), <speculation>perhaps they were a friend of Law/UT and for them, duty trumps friendship, but they didn't want to act themselves.</speculation>

Let's also not forget the chaos that would ensue if an admin just blocked another admin for sockpuppetry without the attendant desysop. ArbCom is the only body (other than an emergency steward request) that can desysop, so sending it to them rather than acting on their own makes perfect sense to me.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[Kelly Martin]

If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

Well, that one is obvious. Information one has about another editor that could embarrass that editor can be used to manipulate them, but only if it's not publicly known. Acting on that information in such a way as to publicly disclose it is therefore only to be done as a last resort, as doing so reduces the value of that information to zero.

[Moulton]

What with all the cults, kabals, and behind-the-scenes stealth and intrigue, I'm expecting some forthcoming denial along the lines of, "I did not have sects with that woman."

[A Horse With No Name]

If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

Well, that one is obvious. Information one has about another editor that could embarrass that editor can be used to manipulate them, but only if it's not publicly known. Acting on that information in such a way as to publicly disclose it is therefore only to be done as a last resort, as doing so reduces the value of that information to zero.

But then go back to JV's original apology:

"It was brought to my attention this morning, about 9 hours ago, that a functionary had privately informed me on August 21 about the connection between Law and The undertow. The email that I received, which was sent to the audit subcommittee this morning and will be send to arbcom-l shortly, did not spell out the connection explicitly, and I can't be certain that I had even read the email until this morning."

This is like a Jackie Mason routine: I got an e-mail that said something, but maybe it didn't say something, so I forwarded it six weeks later even though I didn't read it in the first place, or maybe I did read it... Something is not adding up. And why did the functionary e-mail JV only and not the full Arbcom committee? And how and when did this functionary add two and two?

I am no fan of GlassCobra and I know that Lara hates me, but I have to say that they are being held up as scapegoats. This whole thing smells. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

[No one of consequence]

People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.

Lost their senses in the drama, I expect.

And (2) If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

Are you kidding? Do you remember the shitstorms that followed when Giano's "open sock" Catherine de Burgh and Geogre's "open sock" Utgard Loki were blocked? If you come across evidence that Law is a sockpuppet, but you also see that lots of other people seem OK with it, who wouldn't be hesitant to take unilateral action.

[A Horse With No Name]

Are you kidding? Do you remember the shitstorms that followed when Giano's "open sock" Catherine de Burgh and Geogre's "open sock" Utgard Loki were blocked?

Actually, I don't. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[No one of consequence]

Let's also not forget the chaos that would ensue if an admin just blocked another admin for sockpuppetry without the attendant desysop. ArbCom is the only body (other than an emergency steward request) that can desysop, so sending it to them rather than acting on their own makes perfect sense to me.

What he said.

Are you kidding? Do you remember the shitstorms that followed when Giano's "open sock" Catherine de Burgh and Geogre's "open sock" Utgard Loki were blocked?

Actually, I don't. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Lucky you.

[MBisanz]

It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>


Wasn't MBisanz recently elevated to bureaucrat? Boy, the "community" can really trust these characters, eh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

You know, this is turning into the Wikipedia equivalent of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World" -- you never know which star is going turn up next! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

No it wasnt Matt, and I am not going to say who it was at this stage. The functionary elevated it appropriately to me, and it is my fault that it was not dealt with after that. The functionary would like to avoid being caught up in this, and I respect that as they did the right thing. There are other functionaries involved, and I hope they speak up. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.

Probably worth pointing out three things.

1. I'm not a functionary so I can't of been the person Jay was referring to.

2. I wasn't involved with the Law thing.

3. My comment here with regard to tipsters seems very prophetic right now.

[A Horse With No Name]

Probably worth pointing out three things.

1. I'm not a functionary so I can't of been the person Jay was referring to.

2. I wasn't involved with the Law thing.

3. My comment here with regard to tipsters seems very prophetic right now.

My apologies for not being faster in getting Duncan's retraction up here. You are a good man, MB -- any new photos online? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[LaraLove]

People asking Arb to out their anonymous tipsters? Yea - that'll really give people a lot of confidence in notifying them of wrongdoing discreetly.

Lost their senses in the drama, I expect.

And (2) If the "functionary" was an admin, why didn't s/he block the sock account?

Are you kidding? Do you remember the shitstorms that followed when Giano's "open sock" Catherine de Burgh and Geogre's "open sock" Utgard Loki were blocked? If you come across evidence that Law is a sockpuppet, but you also see that lots of other people seem OK with it, who wouldn't be hesitant to take unilateral action.

The block of Giano's Catherine de Burgh sock was stupid. That one was clearly linked to him and was a joke account. If we want to start blocking joke sock accounts, hit this atrociously unfunny account. At least Giano is amusing.

It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
>>>

Nice how Duncan just made a random guess and stated it as fact. My, the things those who feel they are in a position to judge do. I mean, stating something you don't know (which is actually wrong) as fact... isn't that lying?

[Friday]

There's a lot of idiocy going on here.

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"? That seems to be what a great many people are saying here.

This is an argument a child would make. Any reasonable adult should see right through it.

[Malleus]

The block of Giano's Catherine de Burgh sock was stupid. That one was clearly linked to him and was a joke account. If we want to start blocking joke sock accounts, hit this atrociously unfunny account. At least Giano is amusing.

I find that account astonishing, but I guess if you were around in the days when ... you can do whatever you like. Actually, I don't have to guess, because recent events have proven that's exactly the way that wikipedia "works".

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Friday]

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.

That's funny. If you take other people's word for it, that's the exact opposite of what's happening here. This is apparently merely a grudge between rival factions of admins.

I don't deny that such grudges and factions exist. But it's very easy to ignore all that, and still see a problem here.

[trenton]

Time for a nice old fashioned purge. Well deserved, and it should get rid of a lot of the "social club" admins.

[Malleus]

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.

That's funny. If you take other people's word for it, that's the exact opposite of what's happening here. This is apparently merely a grudge between rival factions of admins.

I don't deny that such grudges and factions exist. But it's very easy to ignore all that, and still see a problem here.

Sorry, don't understand your banter. Are you suggesting that similar grudge matches between groups of regular editors would be tolerated?

Time for a nice old fashioned purge. Well deserved, and it should get rid of a lot of the "social club" admins.

The Good Articles project started a Sweeps process, reassessing every article promoted before August 2007. Perhaps the admin corps needs a similar reassessment.

[MBisanz]

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.

That's funny. If you take other people's word for it, that's the exact opposite of what's happening here. This is apparently merely a grudge between rival factions of admins.

I don't deny that such grudges and factions exist. But it's very easy to ignore all that, and still see a problem here.

Sorry, don't understand your banter. Are you suggesting that similar grudge matches between groups of regular editors would be tolerated?

At Bates method the grudge match among non-admins lasted over two years among four editors, and consumed over 5,000 edits, before arbcom was finally willing to step in and ban the unreasonable party.

[Friday]

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"?

What I find curious about this is that administrators would never excuse the behaviour of a regular editor in that way, but are falling over themselves to excuse each other's behaviour using exactly the same rationale.

That's funny. If you take other people's word for it, that's the exact opposite of what's happening here. This is apparently merely a grudge between rival factions of admins.

I don't deny that such grudges and factions exist. But it's very easy to ignore all that, and still see a problem here.

Sorry, don't understand your banter. Are you suggesting that similar grudge matches between groups of regular editors would be tolerated?

Oh.. I thought you were trying to say something like "Typical admins.. always circling the wagons for each other." And I don't believe that's the case at all- history is full of all sorts of petty, stupid grudges between admins. Sure, _some groups_ of admins tend to protect people in their groups, and yes, this is a problem. But it's hardly a case of admins forming a single coherent group.

We get grudge-based bullshit from non-admin editors all the time, too. The easy solution, in all these cases, is to ignore the bullshit and focus on what's relevant. Yet so many people seem completely unable to do this.

I believe this problem would be much easier to handle if editors stopped making "friends" or "enemies" with other editors. It's a huge time-sink, and I cannot possibly imagine that such ersatz friendships are a good substitute for the real-life kind.

[trenton]

And look at how easy it is for all these sockpuppets to gain power once they know the system. The most extreme case, Sam Blacketer, went from account creation to arbcom in about 1 1/2 years I believe. You just have to know how to play the game. Rack up thousands of edits using automated tools / vandalism reversion. Hang out and "debate" at article deletion debates. Vote frequently at requests for adminship. Generally be polite and nice until you've achieved your desired power level, then revert back to being your asshole self, because there's zero accountability after you gain power.

Of course it also help to have buddies who will lie, cheat, and steal for you. Especially if they're admins.

[Tintomara]

Butterfly Effect was a damn fine film. Except they had to sneak in a true-lurv-transcends-alternate-universes titbit right at the end but, meh, worked ok (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Heyy...I was going to watch that... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

[Friday]

Wow. Apparently, on wikipedia, "NO YOU!" is what passes for rational discourse.

[Cla68]

Could someone summarize why this particular incident is getting so much attention and commentary? I think I understand some of the reasons but I'm not confident that I get all of it.

[Noroton]

You guys (who are about the same age) should meet up some time - would it be like "When Harry Met Sally" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

No, it would be like one of those Star Trek movies with female Klingons. Sarcastic would be some kind of mind meld between McCoy and Spock ("I'm a doctor, Jim! Not a Wikipedic dramaturgist soliloquizing with a keyboard! That would be illogical -- not to mention unspeakably idiotic!") Phasers would not be set to stun. Everybody would be demanding that Scotty beam them up because there's no intelligent life on the Wikipedia drama boards.

Speaking of drama and trodding the notice boards, the Arbcom pages are looking like the last scene in Hamlet.

Like a Klingon, Lara fights when a diplomatic apology is called for. What do they call that in soccer when you knock the ball into your own net -- "own goal"? What she did was something like that. Daniel, of course, had the worst own goal.

Notice that Hochman moderates his criticism and doesn't ask for a ban or anything, which is a lot smarter than Sandstein's move at AN/I. Hochman would've been even smarter if, at AN/I, he'd just stuck to asking questions of Lara and pointing out what was wrong with what she'd done. She couldn't have accused him of drama, and she'd be stuck answering questions. SlimVirgin is very good at that tactic.

It's so much easier to be a sports fan than to play on the field. When I played, I wasn't playing, just fighting (and therefore spent time in the penalty box), and so much of this is a strategy game.

If you come across evidence that Law is a sockpuppet, but you also see that lots of other people seem OK with it, who wouldn't be hesitant to take unilateral action.

Georgewilliamherbert.

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[Friday]

Could someone summarize why this particular incident is getting so much attention and commentary? I think I understand some of the reasons but I'm not confident that I get all of it.

This specific case is bringing up general questions of whether obvious cronyism should be a sanctionable offense.


In this case, there was some guy (undertow) who was desysopped and banned. I don't know the story. But, a few of his chat-room buddies (Jennavecia and Glasscobra) helped support him in passing an RFA under a new account.

The new admin account didn't really get noticed until it did an obviously stupid thing- unblocking some other guy (child of midnight) for no good reason. Apparently, the unblocked guy was an old crony of undertow.

Anyway, the new account of undertow was discovered, and desysopped. So then the question comes up of whether the other people involved should face any sanctions.

So basically it's obvious, stupid cronyism all around. And some of the people involved are standing up proudly and saying "So what? There's no rule against cronyism. I help my friends. That's what I do."

Some people think this is an obvious ethical violation, whether it's against some formal rule or not. Some people are insisting that as long as no articles were harmed, nothing bad could have happened. Some people are saying that it's unreasonable to expect people to _not_ stand up for their friends. Arbcom is sitting on their hands, doing nothing.

I believe that's pretty much the case.

[LaraLove]

There's a lot of idiocy going on here.

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"? That seems to be what a great many people are saying here.

This is an argument a child would make. Any reasonable adult should see right through it.

Oh God. More with the "adult" argument. Get off it already, Friday.

This whole thing is such bullshit. How possibly can anyone with an ounce of clue jump my ass or anyone else's for pointing out that the people bringing this case against me are KNOWN for doing far worse actions that are strangely similar at the root? Don't even start with me Friday.

I never supported Chip for things I didn't agree with. I never shared sensitive information with him. I didn't support his RFA so that there would be another admin to advance my position in anything. You want to go at me while the people trying to bring me down have conspired off-wiki to skew POV, ban and harass editors, and protect each other from punishment for deeds that actually served to damage the project and run editors off?

Uh uh. I'm not losing my bit unless it serves to take out the bad apples. I will gladly be the first to be taken out by the community in some desysop process if it sets a precedent for easy removal of shitty admins who actually manipulate and damage the project.

[Milton Roe]

There's a lot of idiocy going on here.

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"? That seems to be what a great many people are saying here.

This is an argument a child would make. Any reasonable adult should see right through it.

The problem is that it's not entirely childish. Selective enforcement of a law violates equal protection. That's why the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.

Also see the concept of "clean hands." Not childish at all.

[Friday]

There's a lot of idiocy going on here.

Do people really buy the argument of "Don't do anything about the bad thing I did, because someone else did a bad thing also"? That seems to be what a great many people are saying here.

This is an argument a child would make. Any reasonable adult should see right through it.

The problem is that it's not entirely childish. Selective enforcement of a law violates equal protection. That's why the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.

Also see the concept of "clean hands." Not childish at all.

Not sure what country you live in, but where I'm at, cops pull over speeders without some bizarre requirement that they pull over _every_ speeder.

I understand clean hands. But in this case, it's being misused as a distraction technique. Look at how people are responding.. it's pure nonsense. People come to Jennavecia saying "You did a bad thing here" and she responds with "But you're bad too!"

[LaraLove]

Time for a nice old fashioned purge. Well deserved, and it should get rid of a lot of the "social club" admins.

The Good Articles project started a Sweeps process, reassessing every article promoted before August 2007. Perhaps the admin corps needs a similar reassessment.

A process I started, might I add.

Of course it also help to have buddies who will lie, cheat, and steal for you. Especially if they're admins.

See, this is where things are getting exaggerated. Lie, cheat, and steal? I didn't take it to the community to be overblown, because CLEARLY drama is more important to some people than anything else. I kept a secret and the project was improved.

But, a few of his chat-room buddies (Jennavecia and Glasscobra). . .

Wrong. Not chatroom buddies. Chip and I have been friends, outside of the project, for two years. He's not some editor I chat with on IRC a couple days a week.

Not sure what country you live in, but where I'm at, cops pull over speeders without some bizarre requirement that they pull over _every_ speeder.

I understand clean hands. But in this case, it's being misused as a distraction technique. Look at how people are responding.. it's pure nonsense. People come to Jennavecia saying "You did a bad thing here" and she responds with "But you're bad too!"

This is people too corrupt to be cops trying to pull me over and have me arrested. This analogy sucks, by the way.

I also don't appreciate you misrepresenting me. Stop doing the fake quotes thing. I never said I did a bad thing. I said people coming after me have done far worse than what they're after me for. I let down people that trusted me and that is unfortunate, but I don't believe I did anything "bad" or "wrong." Did I break a rule? Apparently an unwritten one. Do I have a policy to fall back on? I damn well do, and I've yet to see anyone even attempt to demonstrate that it doesn't apply.

[Kelly Martin]

The Good Articles project started a Sweeps process, reassessing every article promoted before August 2007. Perhaps the admin corps needs a similar reassessment.

Every admin should be required to stand for reconfirmation at least once every two years. It is of no concern whatsoever to me that this could possibly require ten or more confirmations each week, every week. If nothing else, it would trim the number of administrators to a reasonable number.

Here's the proposal: Admins shall be automatically deadmined two years from the date of when they were most recently promoted or reconfirmed. For the purpose of assisting with transition, the following deadlines apply, based on date of last promotion or reconfirmation: Prior to 2001, October 31, 2009; prior to 2002, November 14; prior to 2003, November 28; prior to 2004, December 12; prior to 2005, December 26; prior to July 2006, January 9, 2010; prior to December 2006, January 23; prior to April 2007, February 6; prior to June 2007, February 20; prior to October 2007, March 6; prior to December 2007, March 20. All others must reconfirm prior to two years after their anniversary or be deadmined.

Show some balls, Wikipedia: adopt this proposal. What do you have to lose but your administrative deadweights?

I believe this problem would be much easier to handle if editors stopped making "friends" or "enemies" with other editors. It's a huge time-sink, and I cannot possibly imagine that such ersatz friendships are a good substitute for the real-life kind.

We've already established that you have no idea what friendship entails.

[A Horse With No Name]

stand up for their friends. Arbcom is sitting on their hands, doing nothing.

Actually, DuncanHill is stealing my shtick. He specifically asked the Arbcom fun bunch whether they were in on the game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFA...all_arbitrators

So far, all of the Arbcom team except Brad has refused to answer that question. John V. claims that he didn't know, but I think his "oopsie, I forgot to read my e-mail" excuse isn't kosher.

I know betting is frowned upon here, but I would be willing to put money on the table that at least half of Arbcom knew that Law and Undertow were the same person.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Guido den Broeder]

So would I, Horsey, if I had any. Money, that is.

Even more interesting may be: how many arbcom members have similar backgrounds?

[Abd]

With few exceptions, it's not the people, it's the structure. Human beings always interact structurally; people who don't are immediately rejected as insane or dangerous. Wikipedia structure creates the problems that we can see. Put the same people in a different structure, their behavior would be different, generally.

Ochlocratic structures are murder on the participants. Crowds will at one point encourage leaders, cheering their actions, and at the next point, send them to the guillotine, cheering a new set of champions of "community values."

Consider the situation: ArbComm is nowhere near breaching the limits of its power. It could ignore the jeers of the crowd, but to do this, it would need to elevate itself above any desire to appease the crowd; as long as enough members of the committee are vulnerable to crowd pressure, ArbComm will remain almost paralyzed in dealing with the real problems.

ArbComm needs to know, in order to facilitate the project, what the real community supports, not what is supported only by the most-active core. By failing to distinguish between the two groups, ArbComm supports the effective oligarchy of the gathering crowds, which are not representative of the "people," but only of the most-highly-motivated, and that filters for attachment and against wisdom.

And what the real community supports will depend on the leadership of ArbComm; a healthy wiki would only result from voluntary cooperation between the real community and those who represent it.

There is a segment of the community, highly vocal in this case, which imagines its own responsibility as being a watchdog over ArbComm, demanding the highest standards of Committee members. However, they do not, in fact, have any authority except as members of ArbComm bow to their pressure. ArbComm would wisely set up dispute resolution channels to handle complaints about the behavior of the committee or members of the committee, and then should cheerfully ignore anything in those channels that doesn't find broad consensus, for there is no body that represents the community more accurately than ArbComm. Because of defective election methods, ArbComm is not fully representative, so it is merely the best, and the best may even be far short of adequate.

ArbComm could fix this, it has the power to do so, practically. The community, unless directly organized, which is probably impossible on-wiki, can't do it by itself. If there were ways for the community, absent coherent organization, to fix the problem, it would have done so; the problem is precisely the lack of such modality. Paradoxically, if the ochlocratic community could function well enough to decide on how to structure itself, it would not need to structure itself.

Out of this understanding, two immediate comments:

1. Casliber should not have resigned, and if he can, he should retract that. Rather, he should elevate himself beyond any conception that he is directly responsible to the crowd. He was elected by the crowd or the community (it's unclear which) to serve the project, and serving the project, according to his own best judgment, is exactly what he should do. He should listen to the community, but not imagine that the currently active crowd is the community or even that it represents the community. Amidst the shouting, there may be only one small voice that is truly speaking for the community, if that. Any arbitrator could set up off-wiki structures whereby the real community could coherently advise him or her, and through the arbitrator, the Committee. If even a few arbitrators did this, or maybe even as few as one, those structures would seed the process by which Wikipedia could move beyond the limitations of ochlocracy. If Casliber or any arbitrator has any desire for advice on how to do this, they should email me.

2. The sociologist Piotrus, in his paper studying Wikipedia structure and its supposed freedom from the limitations of the Iron Law of Oligarchy, mentioned Esperanza as an example of direct organization of editors, and the mention was as if he was not aware that Esperanza was crushed.

[Peter Damian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madness_of_crowds

[A Horse With No Name]

1. Casliber should not have resigned, and if he can, he should retract that. Rather, he should elevate himself beyond any conception that he is directly responsible to the crowd. He was elected by the crowd or the community (it's unclear which) to serve the project, and serving the project, according to his own best judgment, is exactly what he should do.

Sorry, character, but I have to differ. Casliber is actually among the very few open and honest people in this sorry affair: he acknowledged that he allowed this charade to go on in violation of policies and he took responsibility by resigning. If he retracts his resignation, then he is just a glutton for power.

And what the real community supports will depend on the leadership of ArbComm; a healthy wiki would only result from voluntary cooperation between the real community and those who represent it.

You cannot have that without a "real community." Sorry to be the broken record, but it is hard not to notice the same names in this smackdown as in every other similar smackdown.

There is no community - there is a clique. The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors are either not aware of this situation or don't particularly care.

[Random832]

...the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.

This is... sarcasm?

[Apathetic]

...the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.

This is... sarcasm?

If all the traffic is traveling over the speed limit, you have to keep up with the flow or you can get a ticket for impeding traffic.

So a cop can't pick out someone in the middle and pull them over.

It's all about the convoy!

[Milton Roe]

Not sure what country you live in, but where I'm at, cops pull over speeders without some bizarre requirement that they pull over _every_ speeder.

No requirement that cops pull over every speeder. They can decide to pull over the NEXT speeder (and let many go by while dealing with that one). Or they can look at two and pull over the fastest. What they cannot do is arbitrarily select speeders out of a pack of people who are all seen by them to be equally guilty. Or look at two speeders and decide to go after the slowest, due to not liking the color of the car or the driver. Or even for the hell of it.

[A Horse With No Name]

It's all about the convoy!

I used to love CB radio.

[Apathetic]

It's all about the convoy!

I used to love CB radio.

Shake the trees and rake the leaves!

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[LaraLove]

If all the traffic is traveling over the speed limit, you have to keep up with the flow or you can get a ticket for impeding traffic.

So a cop can't pick out someone in the middle and pull them over.

It's all about the convoy!

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

[Apathetic]

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

yes, you need to try and get the sweet spot in the middle.

[LaraLove]

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

yes, you need to try and get the sweet spot in the middle.

Sweet spot in the middle, huh?

Keep it clean, boys. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Apathetic]

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

yes, you need to try and get the sweet spot in the middle.

Sweet spot in the middle, huh?

Keep it clean, boys. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Hey, at least I wasn't the one trying to get a look at your bits!

[Milton Roe]

The key is to not be in the back. I was the third of three and I got pulled over. This, by the way, is not an analogy. Actual speeding ticket a few years back.

yes, you need to try and get the sweet spot in the middle.

Sweet spot in the middle, huh?

Keep it clean, boys. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Hey, at least I wasn't the one trying to get a look at your bits!

Cf. Anthony Bourdain's book of essays, The Nasty Bits. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

Of course it also help to have buddies who will lie, cheat, and steal for you. Especially if they're admins.

My, what intolerance... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

The problem is that it's not entirely childish. Selective enforcement of a law violates equal protection. That's why the cop can't pick a random speeder out of a whole back of cars all going at the same group speed, and decide to pull him over as an example.

Well they've got either a de jure or de facto quota to meet. While there is no bag limit per se, there is a point of diminishing return with respect to one's performance evaluation. Beyond this the probability of retribution outweighs whatever reward system is in place.

There's an old fable about the driver asking the cop "why did you pull me over when everyone else was just as guilty of speeding?" to which the cop says replies something vaguely philosophical like When you go fishing... but it is never entirely random.

Of course they don't target the fastest drivers, not the ones posing the greatest threat to "safety", but rather those which they estimate to most likely to pay the ticket and least likely to attack the officer.

The candid law-man might use a different metaphor: When wolves go hunting, do they catch all the caribou or...

Well, y'all know the answer to that.

Casliber is actually among the very few open and honest people in this sorry affair: he acknowledged that he allowed this charade to go on in violation of policies and he took responsibility by resigning. If he retracts his resignation, then he is just a glutton for power.

Candor never does go unpunished does it?

There are fundamental flaws in a system which allows the most "open and honest" people to resign (or "be recalled" etc.) in the face of minor complaints.

I'll start by saying there's nothing wrong with holding yourself to higher standards than others. It's a good way to live, really, but if you overdo it, if it becomes conspicuous... sure, a few people will hate you for it all the while, but the rest will just reciprocate by holding you to a higher standard than themselves. Once the resident sycophants drink of the meme that you can do no wrong, some of them will defend you based on reputation alone when you do fuck up, and convince you that you made no mistake (as if they want you to repeat it, having not learned a thing). Others will see the elephant and call you on it, demanding a full crucifixion for this error because, well... they expected better from you, damn it!

Secondly, since the community reacts only to things it knows about (and defeats only those willing to surrender) it ends up selecting against the traits it claims to promote, steadily pushing the moral gene-pool to a darker shade of black.

[Guido den Broeder]

Meanwhile, the number of stewards is going down rapidly.

[Peter Damian]

Endorse. I guess Law's indef should have been left alone. Lara 21:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

[MZMcBride]

Any chance of getting this forum software's BadWordsFilterâ„¢ to block all posts by Friday that include "maturity" or "adult"? Who cares about false positives, this shit is old and tired.

[SB_Johnny]

Meanwhile, the number of stewards is going down rapidly.

Gawd. Last time around people were trying to talk me into that. I've already got a full time job, don't need another (drama-filled) one!

[Ahypori]

Oh, absolutely. The worst part is that Bishonen is one of the guiltiest parties on Wikipedia when it comes to doing what she's accusing Jenna of doing. Bishonen has consistently performed abusive actions in support of her wikifriends.

If Jenna gets desysopped for this, then perhaps Bishonen should be desysopped about a dozen times (if only it were possible).

This makes me sick. I can see where someone would have a problem with what Jenna and GlassCobra did, but these are the last people that should be making a stink over it, considering their collective histories.

Naturally. The people who didn't like Jenna would jump at the opportunity to get her for something she did. They were just waiting for a big enough issue.
Jehochman, Bishonen, KC, and JoshuaZ are some of the most vomit-inducing editors on Wikipedia. Their abuses go a long way back.

Yes; plus, if this really wasn't all being done out of vengeance, why their heavy focus on Jennavecia over everyone else?

This was funny though, considering what Majorly said before, and Jenna's response was good too.

But, a few of his chat-room buddies (Jennavecia and Glasscobra) helped support him in passing an RFA under a new account.

Is there anyone who isn't a chatroom buddy? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Any chance of getting this forum software's BadWordsFilterâ„¢ to block all posts by Friday that include "maturity" or "adult"? Who cares about false positives, this shit is old and tired.

Can that actually be done? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[The Joy]

What with all the cults, kabals, and behind-the-scenes stealth and intrigue, I'm expecting some forthcoming denial along the lines of, "I did not have sects with that woman."

Still preferable compared to "insects." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Cla68]

Lara, do you understand why it's not a good idea to allow banned editors to become admins under an alternate account? I saw that someone tried to use the police citing a traffic violator analogy, but I think a better analogy is running an organization's network. If you were an administrator on some company's network, and you secretly made someone who had been kicked-off the network an admin, can you understand why the other network administrators and network security technicians would be extremely concerned?

[Kelly Martin]

Lara, do you understand why it's not a good idea to allow banned editors to become admins under an alternate account? I saw that someone tried to use the police citing a traffic violator analogy, but I think a better analogy is running an organization's network. If you were an administrator on some company's network, and you secretly made someone who had been kicked-off the network an admin, can you understand why the other network administrators and network security technicians would be extremely concerned?

Wikipedia admins are in no way comparable to a network administrator; neither the level of competency nor the level of responsibility required are even remotely the same. The Wikipedia equivalent to a network administrator is "developer", or perhaps "steward".

[A Horse With No Name]

Yes; plus, if this really wasn't all being done out of vengeance, why their heavy focus on Jennavecia over everyone else?

Because she and GlassCobra are being held up as scapegoats for something that was supposedly an "open secret." Clearly, they were not the only two people who were aware of this.

I am finding it more than a little unlikely that Casliber was the only Arbcom member who was aware of what was going on -- the obfuscation (not to mention the perjury) from the digital Sanhedrin is getting to be a little bit obvious.

[Friday]

Lara, do you understand why it's not a good idea to allow banned editors to become admins under an alternate account? I saw that someone tried to use the police citing a traffic violator analogy, but I think a better analogy is running an organization's network. If you were an administrator on some company's network, and you secretly made someone who had been kicked-off the network an admin, can you understand why the other network administrators and network security technicians would be extremely concerned?

Wikipedia admins are in no way comparable to a network administrator; neither the level of competency nor the level of responsibility required are even remotely the same. The Wikipedia equivalent to a network administrator is "developer", or perhaps "steward".

It's not all that accurate, but I wouldn't say it's completely incomparable. It's just an analogy.. and a reasonably useful one.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Lara, do you understand why it's not a good idea to allow banned editors to become admins under an alternate account? I saw that someone tried to use the police citing a traffic violator analogy, but I think a better analogy is running an organization's network. If you were an administrator on some company's network, and you secretly made someone who had been kicked-off the network an admin, can you understand why the other network administrators and network security technicians would be extremely concerned?

Gotta chime in with Cla68 here. It's not so much that The Undertow had been sanctioned and you believed he was trustworthy, but that you knew he hadn't jumped through all the hoops on his way back.

There are times when helping a friend means pulling him aside and saying "It sounds like you want to hear 'yes' instead of my real opinion. But the thing you're about to do could come back and bite you."

That's tough to say at the outset and harder to acknowledge in retrospect if the situation goes haywire because then other factors intervene. Yes, you're being singled out. It's possible that's political. There's a real temptation to point back and say that's wrong. I don't like the looks in that direction either.

What several people have asking in different ways is for you to acknowledge a role in the problem. Policy may not have covered it, but reasonable varieties of common sense do. Perhaps those aren't your favorite brands of common sense, but those brands seem to be doing brisk business this week. Maybe it's time to reevaluate. Good intentions don't necessarily make you right.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[LaraLove]

Endorse. I guess Law's indef should have been left alone. Lara 21:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight.

Lara, do you understand why it's not a good idea to allow banned editors to become admins under an alternate account? I saw that someone tried to use the police citing a traffic violator analogy, but I think a better analogy is running an organization's network. If you were an administrator on some company's network, and you secretly made someone who had been kicked-off the network an admin, can you understand why the other network administrators and network security technicians would be extremely concerned?

Not an apt analogy. Chip tried to appeal his ban and was completely ignored. I'm sure half the people on this website have BTDT. So he went with the Law account. Considering the circumstances around his case, what some of the members of this community did and what everyone else let them get away with, there was no point in taking it to the community. We know how these people are. It's demonstrated this week. Look what happened to you. Look what happened to Everyking. This community can't handle shit. Too much focus on politics and drama. Why do you think so many people are silent all of a sudden? Because if they speak up now and they're found out later, they're ruined too. Politics. It's not about content. It's not about what is "good" and "bad" for the project, it's about drama. It's about what they don't approve of, which is secrets they're not privy to.

You wanna tell me that SlimVirgin has some fucking right to have her nose up in this mess? SlimVirgin has a right to be questioning the use of oversight? Someone remind the readers here what Jayjg did with oversight for SlimVirgin. Someone remind the readers who ClearBlueWater is.

Friday wants to get pissy that I'm bringing up the shit other people have done. It's not that Friday, I'm not just bringing up "other people." It's the people that completely lack self-awareness who have come after me for this, something that did no damage to the project.

Talking about dirty secrets and backdoor tactics. Watch this case and you see it in action.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Chip tried to appeal his ban and was completely ignored.

Dangit, I wish I'd known. Suspected more instances like that were happening.

Almost exactly a year ago an editor came to me whose ban appeal was completely ignored. He didn't tell me that; he just gave an apology for his previous conduct and asked if I might support his appeal to ArbCom. His user talk was protected and he couldn't post an unblock request. He more than satisfied the standard offer so I answered yes and wrote the Committee immediately. A day later an arbitrator replied and asked for more background. Gave that promptly too.

One month afterward the banned editor wrote me again. Nothing had happened. It came as a surprise that things had stagnated so I told him this was the community's ban; the community could take it back. Started an ANI thread and within three days he was reinstated with modest restrictions. Those restrictions are repealed now and he's gotten barnstars.

But during that discussion a big surprise came: an administrator stepped forward to say he'd been watching and advising in the background during the appeals process. That hadn't been a one month delay: it had been an eight month delay. Four arbitrators and a clerk had all replied with initially positive messages, then stopped answering. The banned editor's communications were entirely polite and proper (in the administrator's observation, and also in mine). They didn't even tell him no; just left him hanging.

Now with a community ban review, as you know, the usual first step is to contact the blocking administrator. At least a quick inquiry to ask about the background. I can guarantee you that for over half a year nobody took that first step. Because the blocking administrator had been me.

We need a better system for ban reviews. ArbCom's 'black box' approach has too many downsides and almost no safeguards. Lara, I wish we had touched bases about The Undertow months ago. Without drama. Rather than this way.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[LaraLove]

Chip tried to appeal his ban and was completely ignored.

Dangit, I wish I'd known. Suspected more instances like that were happening.

Almost exactly a year ago an editor came to me whose ban appeal was completely ignored. He didn't tell me that; he just gave an apology for his previous conduct and asked if I might support his appeal to ArbCom. His user talk was protected and he couldn't post an unblock request. He more than satisfied the standard offer so I answered yes and wrote the Committee immediately. A day later an arbitrator replied and asked for more background. Gave that promptly too.

One month afterward the banned editor wrote me again. Nothing had happened. It came as a surprise that things had stagnated so I told him this was the community's ban; the community could take it back. Started an ANI thread and within three days he was reinstated with modest restrictions. Those restrictions are repealed now and he's gotten barnstars.

But during that discussion a big surprise came: an administrator stepped forward to say he'd been watching and advising in the background during the appeals process. That hadn't been a one month delay: it had been an eight month delay. Four arbitrators and a clerk had all replied with initially positive messages, then stopped answering. The banned editor's communications were entirely polite and proper (in the administrator's observation, and also in mine). They didn't even tell him no; just left him hanging.

Now with a community ban review, as you know, the usual first step is to contact the blocking administrator. At least a quick inquiry to ask about the background. I can guarantee you that for over half a year nobody took that first step. Because the blocking administrator had been me.

We need a better system for ban reviews. ArbCom's 'black box' approach has too many downsides and almost no safeguards. Lara, I wish we had touched bases about The Undertow months ago. Without drama. Rather than this way.

No doubt.

[Hell Freezes Over]

You wanna tell me that SlimVirgin has some fucking right to have her nose up in this mess? SlimVirgin has a right to be questioning the use of oversight? Someone remind the readers here what Jayjg did with oversight for SlimVirgin. Someone remind the readers who ClearBlueWater is.

There's no connection there at all. I had early edits oversighted because of real-life concerns. If the oversighting in this case was for similar reasons, there won't be a problem. But if it was done to remove that Law was The undertow, that raises questions. I haven't seen the edit, so I don't know which was the case.

As for Sweet Blue Water, this was an account at the end of 2004, shortly after I joined Wikipedia, that I was going to start editing with, but changed my mind about and continued as SV. It made 21 edits. There's no comparison with this situation.

If I don't respond again, it's only because this isn't a thread I want to keep posting to, because the issues are better dealt with onwiki.

[LaraLove]

If I don't respond again, it's only because this isn't a thread I want to keep posting to, because the issues are better dealt with onwiki.

Yes. We know how opposed you are to manipulating wiki-rules. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

It's not so much that The Undertow had been sanctioned and you believed he was trustworthy, but that you knew he hadn't jumped through all the hoops on his way back.

And why the hell should that matter? Wikipedia's "hoops" are randomly erected, moved, and pulled down anyway, so even if you do "jump through all the hoops" it won't matter, as someone will pull a secret hoop out of a closet that you missed just because they want you gone anyway, and poof you're gone just like that.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

It's not so much that The Undertow had been sanctioned and you believed he was trustworthy, but that you knew he hadn't jumped through all the hoops on his way back.

And why the hell should that matter? Wikipedia's "hoops" are randomly erected, moved, and pulled down anyway, so even if you do "jump through all the hoops" it won't matter, as someone will pull a secret hoop out of a closet that you missed just because they want you gone anyway, and poof you're gone just like that.

Because when the hoops are in disarray with people jumping in random chaotic directions, there are three choices:

1. Move forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities.
2. Endeavor to fix the hoops.
3. Taunt the disarray.

One of those three options is known as trolling.

[victim of censorship]

It's not so much that The Undertow had been sanctioned and you believed he was trustworthy, but that you knew he hadn't jumped through all the hoops on his way back.

And why the hell should that matter? Wikipedia's "hoops" are randomly erected, moved, and pulled down anyway, so even if you do "jump through all the hoops" it won't matter, as someone will pull a secret hoop out of a closet that you missed just because they want you gone anyway, and poof you're gone just like that.

Because when the hoops are in disarray with people jumping in random chaotic directions, there are three choices:

1. Move forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities.
2. Endeavor to fix the hoops.
3. Taunt the disarray.

One of those three options is known as trolling.

HELLO TROLL....

For the record Mr. Kato pretty much sums up Wikipedia, in comparison to the real world and it's values.
Mr. Kato wisdom on wiki

Did You Know... Wikipedia contains incorrect, misleading, and biased information. Whether through vandalism, subtle disinformation, or the prolonged battling over biased accounts, many of Wikipedia’s articles are unsuitable for scholarly use. Because of poor standards of sourcing and citation, it is often difficult to determine the origin of statements made in Wikipedia in order to determine their correctness. Pursuit of biased points of view by powerful administrators is considered a particular problem, as opposing voices are often permanantly banned from Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s culture of disrespect for expertise and scholarship (see below) make it difficult to trust anything there.

Did You Know... Wikipedia’s articles are used to spread gossip, abet character assassination, and invade the privacy of the general public. So-called “Biographies of Living Persons” are often the result of attempts by powerful but anonymous editors and administrators at humiliating or belittling those real-world people with whom they disagree. Wikipedia’s “anyone can edit” culture has allowed baseless defamation of various individuals to spread widely through the Internet. When the family, friends, associates, or subjects of these biographies attempt to correct errors or insert balance, they are often banned from Wikipedia for “Conflicts of Interest”. Subjects of these hatchet jobs usually must resort to legal action to get the articles removed or corrected, a course not available to all.

Did You Know... Wikipedia over-emphasizes popular culture and under-emphasizes scholarly disciplines. Wikipedia contains more articles, of greater depth, on television shows, toy and cartoon characters, and other emphemera of popular culture than on many prominent historical figures, events, and places. Massive effort is spent on documenting fictional places and characters rather than science, history, and literature.

Did You Know... Wikipedia violates copyrights, plagiarizes the work of others, and denies attribution to contributions. Wikipedia contains no provision to ensure that the content it hosts is not the work of another, or that content it hosts is properly attributed to its author. It contains thousands of photographs, drawings, pages of text and other content that is blatantly plagiarized from other authors without permission.

Did You Know... Wikipedia, frequently searched and prominently positioned among results, spreads misinformation, defamation, and bias far beyond its own site. Wikipedia is searched by Google and is usually one of the top results. Its database is scraped by spammers and other sites, so misinformation, even when corrected on Wikipedia, has a long life elsewhere on the network, as a result of Wikipedia’s lack of controls.

Did You Know... Wikipedia disrespects and disregards scholars, experts, scientists, and others with special knowledge. Wikipedia specifically disregards authors with special knowledge, expertise, or credentials. There is no way for a real scholar to distinguish himself or herself from a random anonymous editor merely claiming scholarly credentials, and thus no claim of credentials is typically believed. Even when credentials are accepted, Wikipedia affords no special regard for expert editors contributing in their fields. This has driven most expert editors away from editing Wikipedia in their fields. Similarly, Wikipedia implements no controls that distinguish mature and educated editors from immature and uneducated ones.

Did You Know... Wikipedia’s culture of anonymous editing and administration results in a lack of responsible authorship and management. Wikipedia editors may contribute as IP addresses, or as an ever-changing set of pseudonyms. There is thus no way of determining conflicts of interest, canvassing, or other misbehaviour in article editing. Wikipedia’s adminsitrators are similarly anonymous, shielding them from scrutiny for their actions. They additionally can hide the history of their editing (or that of others).

Did You Know... Wikipedia’s administrators have become an entrenched and over-powerful elite, unresponsive and harmful to authors and contributors. Without meaningful checks and balances on administrators, administrative abuse is the norm, rather than the exception, with blocks and bans being enforced by fiat and whim, rather than in implementation of policy. Many well-meaning editors have been banned simply on suspicion of being previously banned users, without any transgression, while others have been banned for disagreeing with a powerful admin’s editorial point of view. There is no clear-cut code of ethics for administrators, no truly independent process leading to blocks and bans, no process for appeal that is not corrupted by the imbalance of power between admin and blocked editor, and no process by which administrators are reviewed regularly for misbehaviour.

Did You Know... Wikipedia’s numerous policies and procedures are not enforced equally on the community — popular or powerful editors are often exempted. Administrators, in particular, and former administrators, are frequently allowed to trangress (or change!) Wikipedia’s numerous “policies”, such as those prohibiting personal attacks, prohibiting the release of personal information about editors, and those prohibiting collusion in editing.

Did You Know... Wikipedia’s quasi-judicial body, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt. ArbCom holds secret proceedings, refuses to be bound by precedent, operates on non-existant or unwritten rules, and does not allow equal access to all editors. It will reject cases that threaten to undermine the Wikipedia status quo or that would expose powerful administrators to sanction, and will move slowly or not at all (in public) on cases it is discussing in private.

Did You Know... The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the organization legally responsible for Wikipedia, is opaque, is poorly managed, and is insufficiently independent from Wikipedia’s remaining founder and his business interests. The WMF lacks a mechanism to address the concerns of outsiders, resulting in an insular and socially irresponsible internal culture. Because of inadequate oversight and supervision, Wikimedia has hired incompetent and (in at least one case) criminal employees. Jimmy Wales’ for-profit business Wikia benefits in numerous ways from its association with the non-profit Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Wiki Witch of the West]

HELLO TROLL....

Why hello, pleased to meet you. I don't come to this site with that particular aim, but you'll notice I give as good as I get. Now get over the excitement; this business with Lara and The Undertow is serious.

[Kelly Martin]

Because when the hoops are in disarray with people jumping in random chaotic directions, there are three choices:

1. Move forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities.
2. Endeavor to fix the hoops.
3. Taunt the disarray.

You forgot the most sensible option: Get the hell out of Dodge. Optionally, warn others to keep away as well.

Wikipedia needs a big sign on it: "Abandon hope, all ye who edit here."

[victim of censorship]

HELLO TROLL....

Why hello, pleased to meet you. I don't come to this site with that particular aim, but you'll notice I give as good as I get. Now get over the excitement; this business with Lara and The Undertow is serious.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH I WOULD LOVE TO MEET AN ADMIN FROM WIKIPEIDIA IN THE FLESH AND BLOOD tell them why their a fucking ASS.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[One]

Chip tried to appeal his ban and was completely ignored.

Dangit, I wish I'd known. Suspected more instances like that were happening.

Next time, he should try appealing his block before he starts socking. His first unblock request in the archive seems to have been forwarded from an arbitrator and was made after he already started editing as Law.

[victim of censorship]

Because when the hoops are in disarray with people jumping in random chaotic directions, there are three choices:

1. Move forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities.
2. Endeavor to fix the hoops.
3. Taunt the disarray.

You forgot the most sensible option: Get the hell out of Dodge. Optionally, warn others to keep away as well.

Wikipedia needs a big sign on it: "Abandon hope, all ye who edit here."

LIKE THIS???
(IMG:http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/7455/wikifish.jpg)

[A Horse With No Name]

One month afterward the banned editor wrote me again. Nothing had happened. It came as a surprise that things had stagnated so I told him this was the community's ban; the community could take it back.

The tragedy of Wikipedia (or the comedy -- depending how you prefer your entertainment) is that people confuse this game with freeze tag. It appears that to some people, a slap on the bottom means that you have to remain in a state of silent, frozen immobility -- and you cannot get defrosted until someone gives you the okay. To their credit, Law and his friends proved otherwise.

And then there are those who do not put nostalgia or sentiment into disposable Internet accounts, realizing that a block or a ban is nothing more than the disabling of a free and unverified account. Again, more power to Law and his friends on this front.

Furthermore, we have to stop this crap about a "community" -- it doesn't exist, and people who insist that there is a "community" are delusional. And if such a community had a real life equivalent, it would never exclude intelligent adults like Petey or Guido or Moulton or our friends here while allowing idiot children like Daniel and Ironholds to run amok without supervision.

The moral of this affair is simple for anyone who prefers reality to fantasy: the Wikipedia working model doesn't work. Maybe it did at one time, but today it is a blubbery, fumbling, disorganized mess that has dragged down the web site's reputation and wrecked the morale of those who invested their time and energy into its operation.

I am genuinely angry that someone like Law has to state that this situation has brought him to tears -- no one should be made to cry over this crap. I am furious that people who value the true currency of friendship over the meaningless rot of make-believe rules are being held up to ridicule. And I am furious that people who are supposed to be in charge of things lack the ethics to do their duties properly.

I am glad for WR for playing to wise outspoken child to WP's naked king.

[nableezy]

this business with Lara and The Undertow is serious.

No its not. There are a lot of "serious" problems with and in Wikipedia, this is not one of them.

[One]

The tragedy of Wikipedia (or the comedy -- depending how you prefer your entertainment) is that people confuse this game with freeze tag. It appears that to some people, a slap on the bottom means that you have to remain in a state of silent, frozen immobility -- and you cannot get defrosted until someone gives you the okay. To their credit, Law and his friends proved otherwise.

Well, people can no more be banned from Wikipedia than they can be banned from having fun. Most banned users realize this pretty quickly... if they want to continue editing anyway.

On the other hand, some of the best editors never return after a bite... or one bad block.

It's not a good system, but I don't see how we could make a better one without discarding non-negotiable foundation policy. So, here we are. People evade bans because it's ridiculously easy to do, and sometimes others know about them. We're not going to make much progress in this scenario.

This post has been edited by One:

[Cedric]

Because when the hoops are in disarray with people jumping in random chaotic directions, there are three choices:

1. Move forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities.
2. Endeavor to fix the hoops.
3. Taunt the disarray.

You forgot the most sensible option: Get the hell out of Dodge. Optionally, warn others to keep away as well.

Wikipedia needs a big sign on it: "Abandon hope, all ye who edit here."

I would use the word "optimally" rather than "optionally". Otherwise, I could not agree more.

Incidentally, how does one "taunt the disarray"? Is that anything like insulting a verruca?

[A Horse With No Name]

Well, people can no more be banned from Wikipedia than they can be banned from having fun. Most banned users realize this pretty quickly...

So do Arbcom members, especially when questioned about their role in facilitating the fun -- as witnessed in this ongoing RfArb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[One]

Well, people can no more be banned from Wikipedia than they can be banned from having fun. Most banned users realize this pretty quickly...

So do Arbcom members, especially when questioned about their role in facilitating the fun -- as witnessed in this ongoing RfArb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

What's with this pet theory? I wouldn't be surprised if more than those two had the means to know, but a majority of the committee certainly didn't. After the shit The_undertow did last year, it's hard to imagine any of the pre-2009 arbs consenting. If Randy had known, Law would have been blocked by him--Rlevse hates this crap more than anyone I know on the site.

Many of the others have already denied knowing--some pretty convincingly from my perspective. But YMMV, I guess.

This post has been edited by One:

[A Horse With No Name]

It's not a good system, but I don't see how we could make a better one without discarding non-negotiable foundation policy. So, here we are. People evade bans because it's ridiculously easy to do, and sometimes others know about them. We're not going to make much progress in this scenario.

Nothing is chiseled in stone, and this situation shows that something has to give. The system obviously doesn't work, and this shitstorm du jour has shown that those who are supposed to be enforcing policy aren't making any pretense of doing their duties. And it isn't a double standard -- at the very least, it is a quadruple standard.

If WMF has to fix it, then put pressure on them to do so. Until such time, laissez les bon temps roulez and don't take any of this junk seriously. Rules were made to be broken, so everyone should take a piece and start bending. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[The Joy]

Besides an early kerfuffle over "white pride," which ended amicably, the only major sin I can find that the undertow committed was unblocking Moulton. What exactly did he do that warranted an ArbCom sanction and why are people upset over his return? His ArbCom punishment was done privately on the ArbCom mailing list and his sentence ended in April 2009 (if I counted 9 months from June 2008 correctly).

So why the drama?

[One]

Besides an early kerfuffle over "white pride," which ended amicably, the only major sin I can find that the undertow committed was unblocking Moulton. What exactly did he do that warranted an ArbCom sanction and why are people upset over his return?

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

This post has been edited by One:

[The Joy]

Besides an early kerfuffle over "white pride," which ended amicably, the only major sin I can find that the undertow committed was unblocking Moulton. What exactly did he do that warranted an ArbCom sanction and why are people upset over his return?

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Was there a formal public case and/or announcement regarding this?

[A Horse With No Name]

What's with this pet theory? I wouldn't be surprised if more than those two had the means to know, but a majority of the committee certainly didn't. After the shit The_undertow did last year, it's hard to imagine any of the pre-2009 arbs consenting. If Randy had known, Law would have been blocked by him--Rlevse hates this crap more than anyone I know on the site.

The majority (including Randy) have conveniently ignored the question put forward by DuncanHill in the RfArb discussion: were they aware of this situation and are they aware of similar situations? A simple yes or no answer -- where is the problem?

It says very little for the Arbcom members when they are asked a simple question and will not give an answer.

[One]

Besides an early kerfuffle over "white pride," which ended amicably, the only major sin I can find that the undertow committed was unblocking Moulton. What exactly did he do that warranted an ArbCom sanction and why are people upset over his return?

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Was there a formal public case and/or announcement regarding this?

ArbCom didn't do that so much last year. WP:AC/N was one of the things that the 2009 arbs set up. If this were to happen again today, it would have been different. It wouldn't have been a former arb, and it would have been announced publicly with a vote tally. But I have no doubt that we would block in this situation again. It probably would have been indefinite though, with instructions to appeal when X obtains.

[A Horse With No Name]

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Possibly? Either he did or he didn't. Can't have it both ways.

[One]

What's with this pet theory? I wouldn't be surprised if more than those two had the means to know, but a majority of the committee certainly didn't. After the shit The_undertow did last year, it's hard to imagine any of the pre-2009 arbs consenting. If Randy had known, Law would have been blocked by him--Rlevse hates this crap more than anyone I know on the site.

The majority (including Randy) have conveniently ignored the question put forward by DuncanHill in the RfArb discussion: were they aware of this situation and are they aware of similar situations? A simple yes or no answer -- where is the problem?

It says very little for the Arbcom members when they are asked a simple question and will not give an answer.

Do you think that every arb reads every comment at RFAR every day? Really? A majority of them haven't even weighed in at all!

To satisfy Horse, I'm going to ask each individually on their talk page. If they ignore the question then, you can conclude they're stonewalling.

Actually, someone else can do it if they really care. There's now a plenty visible section to link to them to if you ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...n_4_days_ago.3F

This post has been edited by One:

[No one of consequence]

Besides an early kerfuffle over "white pride," which ended amicably, the only major sin I can find that the undertow committed was unblocking Moulton. What exactly did he do that warranted an ArbCom sanction and why are people upset over his return?

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Was there a formal public case and/or announcement regarding this?

Here is the announcement. It's a bit obscure, but there are more clues in the comments afterwards.

[The Joy]

Besides an early kerfuffle over "white pride," which ended amicably, the only major sin I can find that the undertow committed was unblocking Moulton. What exactly did he do that warranted an ArbCom sanction and why are people upset over his return?

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Was there a formal public case and/or announcement regarding this?

ArbCom didn't do that so much last year. WP:AC/N was one of the things that the 2009 arbs set up. If this were to happen again today, it would have been different. It wouldn't have been a former arb, and it would have been announced publicly with a vote tally. But I have no doubt that we would block in this situation again. It probably would have been indefinite though, with instructions to appeal when X obtains.

Before 2009, ArbCom announcements were usually placed on WP:AN.

Ah, I found them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...of_The_undertow

Following inquiries from the Arbitration Committee, The undertow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) has requested that his sysop privileges be removed temporarily. Prior to any application to reinstate The_undertow's sysopship, the Arbitration Committee should be consulted.

For the Arbitration Committee.

James F. (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Further explanation of his block here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...related_dispute

I may be getting confused, but just to clarify: the ArbCom never decided to indef. block or ban the undertow, correct? He could come back after Raul's 9 month block with no restrictions?

[No one of consequence]

I may be getting confused, but just to clarify: the ArbCom never decided to indef. block or ban the undertow, correct? He could come back after Raul's 9 month block with no restrictions?

Right, except that he would have to get Arbcom's permission if he wanted to be an admin again.

The problem, of course, is not that he came back, but that he came back during his ban with another account and was made an admin with a rather significant omission at his RFA.

[One]

...

This post has been edited by One:

[A Horse With No Name]

Do you think that every arb reads every comment at RFAR every day? Really? A majority of them haven't even weighed in at all!

Thank you for acknowledging that Arbcom is ignoring the comments on RFAR. Obviously, the people who go out of their way and take the time and energy to post their concerns about how Wikipedia functions are not being taken seriously by those who were elected to listen to the "community" (or clique or population or whatever).

To satisfy Horse, I'm going to ask each individually on their talk page. If they ignore the question then, you can conclude they're stonewalling.

I don't need to be satisfied. Besides, they were already asked in RfArb by DuncanHill. The fact that would ignore a question by a regular editor but answer the same question posed by one of their circle doesn't carry water.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[One]

Thank you for acknowledging that Arbcom is ignoring the comments on RFAR. Obviously, the people who go out of their way and take the time and energy to post their concerns about how Wikipedia functions are not being taken seriously by those who were elected to listen to the "community" (or clique or population or whatever).

ArbCom should actually do less to reward people that interject at every possible dispute. I do my part by skipping past those who habitually do so. Typically, users don't even read each others comments, and I doubt its fair to require arbitrators to savor every word. Every arbcom page becomes repetitive enough that it starts to look like a vote to others. And if it's a vote, shouldn't they too interject?

RFAR is something like 70,000 words at this moment, which doesn't include emails (80 per day average), case pages (topping 500,000 words in a recent example), and all the other stuff thrown at ArbCom. If you can find fifteen people in the "community" who say they can and will read this morass every two weeks so that people like you can have the pleasure of attacking them, I will show you fifteen liars.

This post has been edited by One:

[The Joy]

I may be getting confused, but just to clarify: the ArbCom never decided to indef. block or ban the undertow, correct? He could come back after Raul's 9 month block with no restrictions?

Right, except that he would have to get Arbcom's permission if he wanted to be an admin again.

The problem, of course, is not that he came back, but that he came back during his ban with another account and was made an admin with a rather significant omission at his RFA.

Ah, well then. That changes everything, doesn't it? I didn't see or remember an official arbcom case against the undertow except for his 9 month ban mentioned on his talk page.

I still think the amount of drama over this is way overboard. As Law, the undertow committed no offenses or repeated his previous problems. If anything, Law is a success story about how the fallen can rise again and be redeemed in wiki's glow.

[Messedrocker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312524681

Interesting. I have to say that I didn't see this coming, but hindsight being what it is, it makes sense.

I don't care.

[A Horse With No Name]

If you can find fifteen people in the "community" who say they can and will read this morass every two weeks so that people like you can have the pleasure of attacking them, I will show you fifteen liars.

Actually, you don't need to spell out "fifteen" -- writing "15" is adequate. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[tarantino]

Actually, someone else can do it if they really care. There's now a plenty visible section to link to them to if you ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...n_4_days_ago.3F

Risker has removed your poll. It's hardly surprising, given that she never addressed the fact she knew her admin pal Geogre was using another account deceptively.

[A Horse With No Name]

Risker has removed your poll. It's hardly surprising, given that she never addressed the fact she knew her admin pal Geogre was using another account deceptively.

Mr. T., I was wondering when you were going to show up here! Seriously, what is your take on all of this stuff? And do you think Arbcom knew about the whole shenanigans?

P.S. Risker removed it but didn't answer it. Also...how is it that Risker only blocked Law but not The Undertow? Is that worth an arched eyebrow of suspicion? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Abd]

Actually, someone else can do it if they really care. There's now a plenty visible section to link to them to if you ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...n_4_days_ago.3F

Risker has removed your poll. It's hardly surprising, given that she never addressed the fact she knew her admin pal Geogre was using another account deceptively.

Cool Hand Luke reverted Risker, but then moved the discussion to the Talk page. There were hints on CHL's talk page that a block might come down for edit warring.... My, my, I really should make some popcorn, my excuse for eating lots of butter.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Actually, someone else can do it if they really care. There's now a plenty visible section to link to them to if you ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...n_4_days_ago.3F

Risker has removed your poll. It's hardly surprising, given that she never addressed the fact she knew her admin pal Geogre was using another account deceptively.

Cool Hand Luke reverted Risker, but then moved the discussion to the Talk page. There were hints on CHL's talk page that a block might come down for edit warring.... My, my, I really should make some popcorn, my excuse for eating lots of butter.

...steals a handful from Abd's bowl. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Oy gevalt.

[MBisanz]

Actually, someone else can do it if they really care. There's now a plenty visible section to link to them to if you ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...n_4_days_ago.3F

Risker has removed your poll. It's hardly surprising, given that she never addressed the fact she knew her admin pal Geogre was using another account deceptively.

Cool Hand Luke reverted Risker, but then moved the discussion to the Talk page. There were hints on CHL's talk page that a block might come down for edit warring.... My, my, I really should make some popcorn, my excuse for eating lots of butter.

CHL knows I would not have hesitated to use Special:ClerkBlock if needed, which besides stopping a user from editing, has the added feature of third grade teacher reaching out of the screen and smacking the user on the knuckles with a ruler.

[Cla68]

Lara, do you understand why it's not a good idea to allow banned editors to become admins under an alternate account? I saw that someone tried to use the police citing a traffic violator analogy, but I think a better analogy is running an organization's network. If you were an administrator on some company's network, and you secretly made someone who had been kicked-off the network an admin, can you understand why the other network administrators and network security technicians would be extremely concerned?

Wikipedia admins are in no way comparable to a network administrator; neither the level of competency nor the level of responsibility required are even remotely the same. The Wikipedia equivalent to a network administrator is "developer", or perhaps "steward".

I know that WP admins are more like "super users" on organizational networks, but I didn't want to make the analogy too convoluted by trying to explain all that. My point is, I can understand why there is concern over Law's appointment as an admin.

[Appleby]

My, my, I really should make some popcorn, my excuse for eating lots of butter.

...steals a handful from Abd's bowl.

A handful of butter? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

A handful of butter? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

When did this conversation turn into "Last Tango in Paris"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

(And the sad thing is that no one under the age of 45 is going to have any clue what that comment means without having to pause and look it up! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) )

[A Horse With No Name]

Cool Hand Luke reverted Risker, but then moved the discussion to the Talk page. There were hints on CHL's talk page that a block might come down for edit warring.... My, my, I really should make some popcorn, my excuse for eating lots of butter.

And on the latest episode of "As the Stomach Turns," we find CHL inexplicably deleting the poll from the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=317587699 -- adding a reference to "McCarthy" to justify this abrupt deletion (which, I am assuming, came with a bit of off-Wiki pressure from people who would rather not talk openly on-Wiki).

Obviously, few people will confuse Dalton Trumbo with Risker, and the "McCarthy" reference shows a shocking ignorance of U.S. political history.

If there is a political analogy, it would probably be the Watergate investigations, and the paraphrase here is "What did Arbcom know and when did they know it?"

The funny thing is that Lara and GC have been completely open and honest in acknowledging that they knew Law and Undertow shared a toothbrush. Other people have also stepped up to say that. But how can Arbcom claim any authority (moral or otherwise) to consider this case when it is not clear whether most of their membership also had this information prior to the Daniel-Ironholds "I'm gonna tell on you!" antics?

Of course, the McCarthy reference could be about someone other than Joseph?

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Kelly Martin]

It's not a good system, but I don't see how we could make a better one without discarding non-negotiable foundation policy.

Discard the people who are responsible for making that "non-negotiable foundation policy" non-negotiable.

I may be getting confused, but just to clarify: the ArbCom never decided to indef. block or ban the undertow, correct? He could come back after Raul's 9 month block with no restrictions?

Oh, they definitely decided to toss him in the doghouse. They just didn't bother to tell anyone outside the cabal of that decision.

See what I mean about "secret hoops"? There was no possible course of action that the undertow could have undertaken, at any determinate point in time, that could have, with any degree of certainty, satisfied all of the parties that are empowered to object to his status on Wikipedia. Given the vagueness of his punishment and the legendary vindictiveness of Wikipedians, I'd say that his course of conduct was quite reasonable indeed.

Right, except that he would have to get Arbcom's permission if he wanted to be an admin again.

That's not what Jamesie said. He said that the "Arbcom should be consulted". What that was was a general tarring and feathering, without specifics, not responsible governance; as such, it should simply be ignored. So Jamesie's little wish wasn't respected. So what? If the ArbCom wanted him prohibited from regaining adminship without their permission, it should bloody well have said so, and given reasons therefore. Drumhead trials, and the pseudojudgments issuing thereforth, lack all moral standing and should simply be ignored for the farces they are.

[Obesity]

A handful of butter? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

When did this conversation turn into "Last Tango in Paris"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

(And the sad thing is that no one under the age of 45 is going to have any clue what that comment means without having to pause and look it up! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) )

Yes, Douche, I agree it's such a minor scene from an obscure and wholly forgotten movie. And I've never met any college and grad students who watch art films from the 70s. It's simply unheard of.

Your knowledge of cinema is breathtaking.

[A Horse With No Name]

Yes, Douche, I agree it's such a minor scene from an obscure and wholly forgotten movie. And I've never met any college and grad students who watch art films from the 70s. It's simply unheard of.

Yeah, kids...with their iPhones and their Jonas Brothers videos and their text messaging. Young whippersnappers, they have no appreciation for the finer things in life -- like watching Marlon Brando naked in an Oscar-nominated Bertolucci movie. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Your knowledge of cinema is breathtaking.

You ain't so bad yourself, kiddo. I'd give you a big Horsey kiss, but I don't know where your lips have been. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Friday]

Besides an early kerfuffle over "white pride," which ended amicably, the only major sin I can find that the undertow committed was unblocking Moulton. What exactly did he do that warranted an ArbCom sanction and why are people upset over his return?

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

So these accusations are legit? And did the people who helped him know these things? I cannot understand how anyone could excuse this behavior... Helping a character like this sneak back onto the pedia and gain adminship is simply inexcusable.

Whoever was involved needs to just go away and not come back.. (which is of course impossible to enforce, blah blah blah)

It would surprise me if arbcom, in possession of these facts, would still refuse to act. Yet, I suppose nothing should surprise me.

[A Horse With No Name]

It would surprise me if arbcom, in possession of these facts, would still refuse to act. Yet, I suppose nothing should surprise me.

What if you were in a restaurant and someone wheeled out a giant birthday cake -- and what if SirFozzie popped out of the cake, dressed like Marilyn Monroe when she sang "Happy Birthday" to JFK? Would that surprise you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

So these accusations are legit?

In all seriousness, this is closer to "McCarthy" than CHL's previous misuse of the moniker. "Possibly" is snarky -- either he did or he didn't.

Can CHL or someone else confirm whether or not a lawsuit was filed -- and, if so, in which court of law?

[Peter Damian]

The funny thing is that Lara and GC have been completely open and honest in acknowledging that they knew Law and Undertow shared a toothbrush. Other people have also stepped up to say that. But how can Arbcom claim any authority (moral or otherwise) to consider this case when it is not clear whether most of their membership also had this information prior to the Daniel-Ironholds "I'm gonna tell on you!" antics?

They weren't completely open and honest when it came to Law's RfA though, were they?

[Friday]

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them as mental health issues. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

So these accusations are legit?

In all seriousness, this is closer to "McCarthy" than CHL's previous misuse of the moniker. "Possibly" is snarky -- either he did or he didn't.

Can CHL or someone else confirm whether or not a lawsuit was filed -- and, if so, in which court of law?

Well, an arb could easily be in a position to know that a lawsuit was threatened. He is in much less of an easy position to know if it really was filed. I don't think this is snark or McCarthyism- it's just someone telling us what he knows to be true, and what possibly might be true.

[Moulton]

I am furious that people who are supposed to be in charge of things lack the ethics to do their duties properly.

A year ago last summer, Jimbo expressly issued a ruling that the fundamental principles of managerial ethics were "beyond the scope of the project."

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Your knowledge of cinema is breathtaking.

You ain't so bad yourself, kiddo. I'd give you a big Horsey kiss, but I don't know where your lips have been. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

1. Mr. Happy?
2. Mr. Ed?

[tarantino]

Seriously, what is your take on all of this stuff?

It's happened before. Sam Blacketer managed to level up to arbcom. It'll happen again, because there's no effective way to prevent a reasonably intelligent person from doing it.

And do you think Arbcom knew about the whole shenanigans?

Arbcom knows about a lot of stuff that would surprise the drama board regulars if they found out.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Yes, Douche, I agree it's such a minor scene from an obscure and wholly forgotten movie. And I've never met any college and grad students who watch art films from the 70s. It's simply unheard of.

No shit - I've seen maybe a dozen movies in my life, and that's one of them.

[SB_Johnny]

Arbcom knows about a lot of stuff that would surprise the drama board regulars if they found out.

Hopefully they'll have the sense not to publish it then.

Just curious: is this just an everyday drama, or is this unusual? I've generally tried to ignore these things before, and it's pretty bizarre crap.

This post has been edited by SB_Johnny:

[Noroton]

Right, except that he would have to get Arbcom's permission if he wanted to be an admin again.

That's not what Jamesie said. He said that the "Arbcom should be consulted". What that was was a general tarring and feathering, without specifics, not responsible governance; as such, it should simply be ignored. So Jamesie's little wish wasn't respected. So what? If the ArbCom wanted him prohibited from regaining adminship without their permission, it should bloody well have said so, and given reasons therefore. Drumhead trials, and the pseudojudgments issuing thereforth, lack all moral standing and should simply be ignored for the farces they are.

No, you've got your analogies all screwed up. The proper analogy is to someone on probation who needs to be watched. Courts place certain restrictions on people who have committed crimes. Those restrictions sometimes amount to "You have to get permission from a probation officer to do a certain thing". The exact hoops that the person on probation has to jump through can't always be mapped out in advance. The potential problem with this kind of restriction isn't in the restriction itself but in whether it's justified in a particular case. The links to the announcements about undertow's desysopping and 9-month block make the consult-ArbCom restriction look reasonable enough, especially since aspects of the case needed to be private -- only someone who was in-the-know about the private, sensitive information could make an intelligent decision.

So the restriction on going back to ArbCom before running for admin was justified, and going around that restriction was not justified.

Any admins and arbs who knew Law's previous identity (and knew about the restriction) were gutting the ArbCom decision. Now I think it's a good thing Casliber (who I still respect) resigned. There's simply no way that his failure to act can be tolerated in a member of that committee. If everyone did that then WP governance would be completely corrupt. To tolerate Lara's actions and statements without at least formally admonishing or rebuking her would send the message that her corrupt acts are acceptable. And "corrupt" is the word, regardless of the fact that all involved seemed to think they were acting in the best interests of Wikipedia.

Boldface added for emphasis below:

I may be getting confused, but just to clarify: the ArbCom never decided to indef. block or ban the undertow, correct? He could come back after Raul's 9 month block with no restrictions?

Oh, they definitely decided to toss him in the doghouse. They just didn't bother to tell anyone outside the cabal of that decision.

See what I mean about "secret hoops"? There was no possible course of action that the undertow could have undertaken, at any determinate point in time, that could have, with any degree of certainty, satisfied all of the parties that are empowered to object to his status on Wikipedia. Given the vagueness of his punishment and the legendary vindictiveness of Wikipedians, I'd say that his course of conduct was quite reasonable indeed.

With any degree of certainty for undertow? He doesn't have a right to have certainty that he'd get to run for admin if he did certain things. He's in the position of having violated WP policy, the group set up to enforce policy let him come back to the encyclopedia to edit under certain restrictions and he violated those restrictions. ArbCom must be allowed to do that. We can't know whether or not some of the information they're privy to made the restrictions reasonable or unreasonable.

They just didn't bother to tell anyone outside the cabal of that decision. They announced the decision at AN and AN/I (the links are a page or two back in this thread), so you're either factually wrong or you mean something else. Do you mean that ArbCom didn't announce exactly how they would go about making the decision that it was OK for undertow to run for admin again? That may well have depended on factors that needed to stay private.

When it comes down to it, Wikipedia needs to elect people to ArbCom that Wikipedians trust. That's another reason why Casliber had to go. When you do anything as an ArbCom member that shows Wikipedia can't trust you, you've broken the deal.


This post has been edited by Noroton:

[LaraLove]

Next time, he should try appealing his block before he starts socking. His first unblock request in the archive seems to have been forwarded from an arbitrator and was made after he already started editing as Law.

So you're saying ArbCom knew he was socking and so then he was ignored? No, I don't think so. He would have been ignored either way. That you or anyone else would honestly expect a user to stay away after a ban doesn't make sense to me. People can't walk away when they want to.

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them [. . .]. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Good to know what was intentionally kept private at the time is now freely thrown about in public. Talk about trust issues.

P.S. Risker removed it but didn't answer it. Also...how is it that Risker only blocked Law but not The Undertow? Is that worth an arched eyebrow of suspicion? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

As was explained in the original announcement, Law was blocked and Chip was to be allowed to go on editing as the_undertow. Life would be merry right now with no drama, articles being improved, and work on the BLP front steaming ahead, but instead we've got drama-mongers sinking everyone's time.

[Noroton]

Thank you for acknowledging that Arbcom is ignoring the comments on RFAR. Obviously, the people who go out of their way and take the time and energy to post their concerns about how Wikipedia functions are not being taken seriously by those who were elected to listen to the "community" (or clique or population or whatever).

[...]RFAR is something like 70,000 words at this moment, which doesn't include emails (80 per day average), case pages (topping 500,000 words in a recent example), and all the other stuff thrown at ArbCom. If you can find fifteen people in the "community" who say they can and will read this morass every two weeks so that people like you can have the pleasure of attacking them, I will show you fifteen liars.

ArbCom is in this position of having too much to read partly because it gets so many cases. It would get fewer cases if Wikipedia policy could be adjusted and added to so that predictably common, repeating types of situations would be prevented from happening or nipped in the bud at an earlier stage by admins. That won't happen because policies would have to be changed in a major way, probably with entirely new policies, and such a high consensus is needed for that that it isn't reasonable to expect to do it. And so nobody does. This is one result of WP governance being so dysfunctional.

A while back in this thread, MBisanz mentioned all the disruption in ArbComs for other wikis. It would be interesting to know more. I wonder if they're similarly dysfunctional in getting new policies passed.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Arbcom knows about a lot of stuff that would surprise the drama board regulars if they found out.

Hopefully they'll have the sense not to publish it then.

Just curious: is this just an everyday drama, or is this unusual? I've generally tried to ignore these things before, and it's pretty bizarre crap.

Well, arbitrators don't resign and and misuse rollback on each other very often.

[One]

Next time, he should try appealing his block before he starts socking. His first unblock request in the archive seems to have been forwarded from an arbitrator and was made after he already started editing as Law.

So you're saying ArbCom knew he was socking and so then he was ignored? No, I don't think so. He would have been ignored either way. That you or anyone else would honestly expect a user to stay away after a ban doesn't make sense to me. People can't walk away when they want to.

True that. The ball was dropped on that one.

I think Durova is on to something with this issue.

[Noroton]

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them [. . .]. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Good to know what was intentionally kept private at the time is now freely thrown about in public. Talk about trust issues.

Factually wrong. FT2 mentioned it in his AN/I announcement at the time of the block.

As was explained in the original announcement, Law was blocked and Chip was to be allowed to go on editing as the_undertow. Life would be merry right now with no drama, articles being improved, and work on the BLP front steaming ahead, but instead we've got drama-mongers sinking everyone's time.

So no one can have legitimate concerns when you support an editor who you know is violating an ArbCom restriction? No one can have legit concerns when GlasCobra nominates him for admin? All the opposition to you is simply coming from your enemies or from drama-mongers? No legitimate concerns have been raised here? That won't wash. Turning from the level of principles to the practicalities, consider: If the new identity was an open secret among so many, it was bound to come out. When it came out it was bound to cause drama. When you play catch on the shoulder of a highway, you can predict that some car at some point is going to drift onto the shoulder, disrupting the game and causing drama. So it's not just the driver who's at fault. And if the driver needed to get on the shoulder, well, that's what it's for, so then it's entirely your fault. Editors with legitimate concerns are the equivalent of drivers who needed to get on the shoulder.

And if you become roadkill over all of this, how does that help your BLP activities?

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[CharlotteWebb]

Yeah, kids...with their iPhones and their Jonas Brothers videos and their text messaging. Young whippersnappers, they have no appreciation for the finer things in life -- like watching Marlon Brando naked in an Oscar-nominated Bertolucci movie. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Anyone who's seen the film will remind everyone that Brando and Schneider for some reason remain fully clothed during the infamous "butter scene", making it appear that much more contrived.

I understand by the end of the decade he had switched to Crisco anyway.

Can CHL or someone else confirm whether or not a lawsuit was filed -- and, if so, in which court of law?

Trenton, NJ.

[One]

Good to know what was intentionally kept private at the time is now freely thrown about in public. Talk about trust issues.

It's been discussed in this thread, it was public last year, and it didn't cease to be public since then.

I just don't know whether it was filed. There have been suggestions that it was dropped, that suggests it might have been filed. Or perhaps it's just a way of saying the effort was abandoned. I dunno.

Trenton, NJ.

New to me.

[MZMcBride]

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH I WOULD LOVE TO MEET AN ADMIN FROM WIKIPEIDIA IN THE FLESH AND BLOOD tell them why their a fucking ASS.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Yesterday, 10:34pm

Two questions:

1. If this is the edited posted, what could have possibly been in the original draft? This is the seemingly improved version?
2. Where the hell are the mods?

[LaraLove]

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them [. . .]. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Good to know what was intentionally kept private at the time is now freely thrown about in public. Talk about trust issues.

Factually wrong. FT2 mentioned it in his AN/I announcement at the time of the block.

Can someone please provide me with that link? I'll go back through the pages, but if someone has it handy, I'd appreciate it. I don't recall a specific portion of that being included in any public announcements.

So no one can have legitimate concerns when you support an editor who you know is violating an ArbCom restriction? [...] All the opposition to you is simply coming from your enemies or from drama-mongers? No legitimate concerns have been raised here? [...] it was bound to come out. When it came out it was bound to cause drama. <snip poor analogy>

And if you become roadkill over all of this, how does that help your BLP activities?

People can have concerns, but it's being way overblown. I never said all the opposition against me was from my enemies. It was started by my enemies who, yes, are mostly drama-mongers, and this is not the first time [this case] that I've pointed this out. Legitimate concerns have been raised, but a witch hunt is unnecessary, and taking our bits is not for any benefit to the project. We all do good admin work. We are not the admins known to abuse our tools.

And as far as my BLP work goes, keep in mind that the "community" is why this problem isn't fixed. The "community" is my biggest obstacle, so excuse me if I'm not up in arms about the "community" being displeased with me. I'd be damn happy if they'd gtfo of the way and let this problem be solved so I could fucking walk away, but they won't. So I'll fix the damn problem any way I can get it done, then I'm out.

[Peter Damian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...related_dispute

You have to unclick one of those wretched collapsing boxes, but it is all there.

I am documenting the event here

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...int_of_View/Law

Any corrections, further information, welcome. Note you can edit the talk pages of MWB articles, but not the articles themselves.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

He threatened to (and possibly did) file a lawsuit against another editor, also starting a revenge BLP on this person. He made various statements, then excused them [. . .]. ArbCom decided, in essence, that Wikipedia was not therapy.

Good to know what was intentionally kept private at the time is now freely thrown about in public. Talk about trust issues.

Factually wrong. FT2 mentioned it in his AN/I announcement at the time of the block.

Can someone please provide me with that link? I'll go back through the pages, but if someone has it handy, I'd appreciate it. I don't recall a specific portion of that being included in any public announcements.

Actually taking legal action is not against Wikipedia policy, just threatening is.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[MZMcBride]

Can CHL or someone else confirm whether or not a lawsuit was filed -- and, if so, in which court of law?

Trenton, NJ.

Goddamn it, Charlotte, I was just about to make that joke. (For reference: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mr. Treason)

[Peter Damian]

We are not the admins known to abuse our tools.

You are the admins known to abuse your tools. That you (and Lar and others) are unable to see quite how bad this all is, is what is most disturbing about this whole incident.

PS http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...int_of_View/Law - does anyone know where Law boasted that dozens of people knew about this?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Jim]

We are not the admins known to abuse our tools.

You are the admins known to abuse your tools. That you (and Lar and others) are unable to see quite how bad this all is, is what is most disturbing about this whole incident.

PS http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...int_of_View/Law - does anyone know where Law boasted that dozens of people knew about this?

I had 2 clients with entries on Greg's website.

They were happy with their entries - but if they saw that page, they'd make me remove their pages, and I just may do so anyway.

Isn't wikipedia and here enough ?

Do you guys have to fight on every street corner you can find ?

And then invent more...

This post has been edited by Jim:

[Cedric]

That you or anyone else would honestly expect a user to stay away after a ban doesn't make sense to me. People can't walk away when they want to.

What are you talking about? People "walk away" all the time. I certainly did.

[Peter Damian]

I had 2 clients with entries on Greg's website.

They were happy with their entries - but if they saw that page, they'd make me remove their pages, and I just may do so anyway.

Isn't wikipedia and here enough ?

Do you guys have to fight on every street corner you can find ?

And then invent more...

This is simply documenting an event in Wikipedia history. Everything is sourced. The possibly contentious one (by a recused arbitrator) is enclosed in quotation marks. What is the problem?

[Jim]

I had 2 clients with entries on Greg's website.

They were happy with their entries - but if they saw that page, they'd make me remove their pages, and I just may do so anyway.

Isn't wikipedia and here enough ?

Do you guys have to fight on every street corner you can find ?

And then invent more...

This is simply documenting an event in Wikipedia history. Everything is sourced. The possibly contentious one (by a recused arbitrator) is enclosed in quotation marks. What is the problem?

No real problem.

If you're happy - I'm happy.

I just thought maybe the drama had played out on enough stages it didn't need a new one.

But what would I know ?

[One]

Can someone please provide me with that link? I'll go back through the pages, but if someone has it handy, I'd appreciate it. I don't recall a specific portion of that being included in any public announcements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...related_dispute

FT2 can be TL;DR.

This post has been edited by One:

[the_undertow]

bump for lack of activity. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

amazing the amount i can learn about myself from total strangers. i'm not convinced that i'm not writing this from a mental facility as part of my 10 minute Minesweeper break. i think last time all this speculation and accusation was overwhelming and i took it personally. but this time, the picture that has been painted about me is so larger-than-life that i can safely say this is one of the few times ive smiled these last couple of days, in light of what i've done to my friends by putting them in an impossible position. of course that's not to say there's no truth to be found in this thread, but this reputation that i'm the Lex Luthor of wikipedia is one that is a bit exaggerated. except for the haircut. that's pretty right on.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)

[LaraLove]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...related_dispute

You have to unclick one of those wretched collapsing boxes, but it is all there.

I am documenting the event here

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...int_of_View/Law

Any corrections, further information, welcome. Note you can edit the talk pages of MWB articles, but not the articles themselves.

Jesus, that collapse box took out half the page, including every section under it.

Anyway, I don't recall having ever read that before, and it (as I thought) left out the part I was speaking on above. What was kept private appears to have just been made public. Violations of trust, people cry.

As for your page on MWB, seems to be mostly accurate from my scan of it. The implication from my "no matter what" comment is not correct, however. Poor wording on my part. That was meant in broad terms, not just Wikipedia. Regardless of the circumstances, if I believe he is deserving of defense, I'm going to have his back. That's for Wikipedia or elsewhere. If I don't agree with what's he done, that's a different matter. "No matter what" isn't "no matter what he's done." It's more "no matter what people think."

Actually taking legal action is not against Wikipedia policy, just threatening is.

That's not what I was talking about. I removed the portion I was talking about ([...]).

That you or anyone else would honestly expect a user to stay away after a ban doesn't make sense to me. People can't walk away when they want to.

What are you talking about? People "walk away" all the time. I certainly did.

Are you saying that most people who walk away don't go back?

[Peter Damian]

As for your page on MWB, seems to be mostly accurate from my scan of it. The implication from my "no matter what" comment is not correct, however. Poor wording on my part. That was meant in broad terms, not just Wikipedia. Regardless of the circumstances, if I believe he is deserving of defense, I'm going to have his back. That's for Wikipedia or elsewhere. If I don't agree with what's he done, that's a different matter. "No matter what" isn't "no matter what he's done." It's more "no matter what people think."

But this is what you actually said, enclosed in quotes. I can't help it if people draw unintended inferences - although perhaps you can - being careful about what you say is all part of growing up.

[Jim]

being careful about what you say is all part of growing up.

I found the most important part of growing up was controlling my urge to be a smug git.

But we all have different experiences, don't we ?

[Noroton]

But this is what you actually said, enclosed in quotes. I can't help it if people draw unintended inferences - although perhaps you can - being careful about what you say is all part of growing up.

Her explanation of the original statement is also what she said, and you could include that as well.

[Peter Damian]

I found the most important part of growing up was controlling my urge to be a smug git.

Who are you, Jim?

I just thought maybe the drama had played out on enough stages it didn't need a new one.

The drama soon dies down and people forget, and threads like this soon get lost in a forum like this. I just record the more relevant stuff, with permanent links and so on.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[LaraLove]

As for your page on MWB, seems to be mostly accurate from my scan of it. The implication from my "no matter what" comment is not correct, however. Poor wording on my part. That was meant in broad terms, not just Wikipedia. Regardless of the circumstances, if I believe he is deserving of defense, I'm going to have his back. That's for Wikipedia or elsewhere. If I don't agree with what's he done, that's a different matter. "No matter what" isn't "no matter what he's done." It's more "no matter what people think."

But this is what you actually said, enclosed in quotes. I can't help it if people draw unintended inferences - although perhaps you can - being careful about what you say is all part of growing up.

Hey, I'm just correcting an error. If you want to leave it inaccurate, by all means.

[Peter Damian]

Hey, I'm just correcting an error. If you want to leave it inaccurate, by all means.

There is no error. The link follows the quote. This is what you actually said. I copied and pasted it into the article.

[Jim]

I found the most important part of growing up was controlling my urge to be a smug git.

Who are you, Jim?

That's really funny.

Because I knew someone would ask that.

I'm no-one you know - I'm a 46 year old guy in Australia - I'm a computer programmer/web designer, married. with a 6 year old daughter.

I've used wikipedia for ages, and I've taken a passing interest in the drama when I've been bored for a few minutes.

I knew, as soon as I posted an opinion somewhere, someone would want to know "who I was"

All of the above notwithstanding - I think I'm probably entitled to an opinion, and even to post it if I feel like it - hell, it's even my real name...

Thanks for amusing me.

This post has been edited by Jim:

[Peter Damian]

I found the most important part of growing up was controlling my urge to be a smug git.

Who are you, Jim?

That's really funny.

Because I knew someone would ask that.

I'm no-one you know - I'm a 46 year old guy in Australia - I'm a computer programmer/web designer, married. with a 6 year old daughter.

I've used wikipedia for ages, and I've taken a passing interest in the drama when I've been bored for a few minutes.

I knew, as soon as I posted an opinion somewhere, someone would want to know "who I was"

All of the above notwithstanding - I think I'm probably entitled to an opinion, and even to post it if I feel like it - hell, it's even my real name...

Thanks for amusing me.

I only asked because you said you had 2 clients with entries on Greg's website. It suggested you were a lawyer. Sorry for any confusion.

[Noroton]

People can have concerns, but it's being way overblown. I never said all the opposition against me was from my enemies. It was started by my enemies who, yes, are mostly drama-mongers, and this is not the first time [this case] that I've pointed this out. Legitimate concerns have been raised, but a witch hunt is unnecessary, and taking our bits is not for any benefit to the project. We all do good admin work. We are not the admins known to abuse our tools.

Agreed. By acknowledging the legitimate concerns, you make it much less likely that your bit would be taken away.

And as far as my BLP work goes, keep in mind that the "community" is why this problem isn't fixed. The "community" is my biggest obstacle, so excuse me if I'm not up in arms about the "community" being displeased with me. I'd be damn happy if they'd gtfo of the way and let this problem be solved so I could fucking walk away, but they won't. So I'll fix the damn problem any way I can get it done, then I'm out.

Unless you have enough support in the community, which obviously will never get out of the way, you won't fix anything, just like I don't have a chance in hell of fixing mass POV warring and GBG doesn't have a chance in hell of fixing inappropriate images, content and contact regarding kids. You say I'll fix the damn problem any way I can So make it easier for yourself in doing that by helping diffuse this case (especially helping diffuse its drama) by acknowledging legitimate causes for concern with an apology, the way Casliber did and Jay Vandenberg did. You can't stop other people from carting in fuel and lighting it up in the ArbCom square, but you can haul away the fuel you brought there. You'll also reduce the possibility that arbs will remove your bit (I doubt that will happen, but I'm a lousy judge of these things). By making the acknowledgment, you'd shore up your credibility for your good BLP work.

[Jim]

I found the most important part of growing up was controlling my urge to be a smug git.

Who are you, Jim?

That's really funny.

Because I knew someone would ask that.

I'm no-one you know - I'm a 46 year old guy in Australia - I'm a computer programmer/web designer, married. with a 6 year old daughter.

I've used wikipedia for ages, and I've taken a passing interest in the drama when I've been bored for a few minutes.

I knew, as soon as I posted an opinion somewhere, someone would want to know "who I was"

All of the above notwithstanding - I think I'm probably entitled to an opinion, and even to post it if I feel like it - hell, it's even my real name...

Thanks for amusing me.

I only asked because you said you had 2 clients with entries on Greg's website. It suggested you were a lawyer. Sorry for any confusion.

I'm a web designer, as I said

Try recent changes on Greg's website, and you'll see which client's pages I have removed until she confirms she's happy to share a business listing with a kiddie infight...

Clue - she's a dance instructor.

[Random832]

I had early edits oversighted because of real-life concerns.

There is no possible real-life concern for this edit (all of which was yours except for the change to the "French" wikilink at the top).

As for Sweet Blue Water, this was an account at the end of 2004, shortly after I joined Wikipedia, that I was going to start editing with, but changed my mind about and continued as SV. It made 21 edits. There's no comparison with this situation.

I believe this is the first public admission you have made that both accounts were yours. Didn't you vote with both accounts in a featured article candidate?

----

I don't know all of the history here, so someone else can verify if i'm right or not, but I also seem to remember her trying to get someone's checkuser bit removed over this (since IIRC WordBomb broke the story, and therefore anyone who acts on it [meaning they dared to read it] is clearly supporting off-wiki harassment)

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Appleby]

FT2 can be TL;DR.

Usually when he wants to hide something methinks.

[Random832]

Because when the hoops are in disarray with people jumping in random chaotic directions, there are three choices:

1. Move forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities.
2. Endeavor to fix the hoops.
3. Taunt the disarray.

One of those three options is known as trolling.

You seem to have misspelled "one" as "all". But, then, it's always been more about who you are than what you do. If (for example) Peter Damian does #1, he's trolling. If anyone tries to do #2 in a way that others don't agree with, they're trolling. And I'm betting that #3 is the one you had in mind.

[Peter Damian]

Clue - she's a dance instructor.

So you have!

http://www.wikipediareview.com/index.php?title=D...420&oldid=92476

But I don't understand the problem. Is it you don't like the idea of a whole directory devoted to criticism of Wikipedia? It covers a whole range of issues, such as paedophile activism on Wikipedia

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...Wikipaedophilia

promotion of quack therapy

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Neurolinguistic_programming

and an article under development about POV pushing on Balkan articles

http://www.wikipediareview.com/User_talk:Ockham/...litical_Agendas

Or is it you don't like the fact that personalities are involved? I don't like that either but it is hard to present the facts as they are without mentioning the personalities - who are after all pseudonymous. In the article you have objected to I have highlighted the issue of principle in 'Community reaction'.

[LaraLove]

Because when the hoops are in disarray with people jumping in random chaotic directions, there are three choices:

1. Move forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities.
2. Endeavor to fix the hoops.
3. Taunt the disarray.

One of those three options is known as trolling.

You seem to have misspelled "one" as "all". But, then, it's always been more about who you are than what you do. If (for example) Peter Damian does #1, he's trolling. If anyone tries to do #2 in a way that others don't agree with, they're trolling. And I'm betting that #3 is the one you had in mind.

Well, when formulating ways to "destroy" the wiki is moving forward on unrelated worthwhile priorities, then yes, it tends to be viewed as trolling.

[CharlotteWebb]

As for Sweet Blue Water, this was an account at the end of 2004, shortly after I joined Wikipedia, that I was going to start editing with, but changed my mind about and continued as SV. It made 21 edits. There's no comparison with this situation.

That is correct.

I believe this is the first public admission you have made that both accounts were yours.

That is also correct.

Didn't you vote with both accounts in a featured article candidate?

3/3
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=9074635&diff=prev
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=9086625&diff=prev

I don't know all of the history here, so someone else can verify if i'm right or not, but I also seem to remember her trying to get someone's checkuser bit removed over this (since IIRC WordBomb broke the story, and therefore anyone who acts on it [meaning they dared to read it] is clearly supporting off-wiki harassment)

Not sure about that, or what practical effect it would have had if successful (no part of this investigation being based on checkuser evidence). However "Uncle Fred" did make a laughable effort to desysop Cyde. Maybe that's what you were thinking of?

[A Horse With No Name]

Oh, the poll of Arbcom members is back again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=317663405

And, so far, no one else from Arbcom has bothered to give a simple yes or no answer regarding their knowledge of what took place.

When is the next Arbcom election? And are there any new candidates in waiting?

[CharlotteWebb]

Oh, the poll of Arbcom members is back again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=317663405

What's up with all these apologies? Will Luke be resigning too? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

When is the next Arbcom election? And are there any new candidates in waiting?

Yes, worse ones. Just as in all elections previous.

[trenton]

And if you become roadkill over all of this, how does that help your BLP activities?

Well it's a convenient flag to wrap around yourself to try and deflect criticism. Frankly I don't see the current round of "BLP enforcers" as much better than the previous round of "NPOV enforcers". Both are rather deluded in thinking that they're trying to solve the larger problems in Wikipedia.

GlassCobra whines:

I think that users essentially accusing me of allowing the drama to occur is unfair; are we now to accuse the nominators of all admins of allowing their drama to happen?

Well, most nominators don't substitute their own judgement over the "community's", so when somebody goes rogue the blame goes to the "community". In this case GlassCobra decided his judgment was superior so when things go wrong why shouldn't he be held responsible?

In criminal organizations, when you "vouch" for somebody and they turn out to be a cop, you'd better expect some trouble coming your way.

----

It's funny to see Lar getting schooled on history by, of all people, Durova. Sometimes, dude, you just gotta realize that nobody bats .100 ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) and stop digging.

[LaraLove]

<snip>

And who are you on Wikipedia?

[trenton]

I don't edit there. My last edit was probably before you even joined....

[Milton Roe]

It's funny to see Lar getting schooled on history by, of all people, Durova. Sometimes, dude, you just gotta realize that nobody bats .100 ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) and stop digging.

Lots of people bat .100, even me.

Baseball Milt

[Wiki Witch of the West]

It's funny to see Lar getting schooled on history by, of all people, Durova. Sometimes, dude, you just gotta realize that nobody bats .100 ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) and stop digging.

Lots of people bat .100, even me.

Baseball Milt

1.000 (dagnabbit, I've been helping the baseball project)

[Noroton]

And if you become roadkill over all of this, how does that help your BLP activities?

Well it's a convenient flag to wrap around yourself to try and deflect criticism. Frankly I don't see the current round of "BLP enforcers" as much better than the previous round of "NPOV enforcers". Both are rather deluded in thinking that they're trying to solve the larger problems in Wikipedia.

What does that even mean? That editors are not trying to solve problems? Are you questioning motivations?

[Guido den Broeder]

And in the news of today, the ArbCom mailing list appears to have been corrupt for quite a while, discarding mail from many addresses without message.

Caused by parties unknown.

[Apathetic]

And in the news of today, the ArbCom mailing list appears to have been corrupt for quite a while, discarding mail from many addresses without message.

Caused by parties unknown.

I don't know about "corrupt" - "haphazardly configured" would be more accurate.

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[SB_Johnny]

And in the news of today, the ArbCom mailing list appears to have been corrupt for quite a while, discarding mail from many addresses without message.

Caused by parties unknown.

I don't know about "corrupt" - "haphazardly configured" would be more accurate.

Haphazardly corrupted, perhaps.

The more I watch this nonsense play out, the more I think that the primary requirement for Arbcommers is a passion for feeding the trolls.

[Lar]

The more I watch this nonsense play out, the more I think that the primary requirement for Arbcommers is a passion for feeding the trolls.

Who knew?

(and when did they know it?) <--- KIDDING

I suspect that the feeding thing is not actually a deliberate thing, it's just a gift.

It's funny to see Lar getting schooled on history by, of all people, Durova. Sometimes, dude, you just gotta realize that nobody bats .100 ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) and stop digging.

If I could bat .100 at baseball I'd actually be fairly happy. I might as well wear a big K on my back for all the good my swinging does at the plate.

But that said, I think it rather odd how much fuss is being raised over a choice of phrasing... sturm und drang about "what if Howard Baker saw this page" and suchlike... well gee, if someone would have just mailed me and asked for a reword instead of trying to publicly flog me with accusations of unpatriotic behaviour, general ignorance, and thrown in "dignity of a steward" to boot (1)(2), maybe Howard Baker's name would not have been mentioned (3) for spiffy search engines (4) to find at some future date.

I guess I better say it here too. I don't think Watergate was a witch hunt and I don't think Howard Baker was hunting witches.

But is this WP:RFAR-annex now too?

1- a laughable concept, especially if you've seen me actually swinging a baseball bat and batting .000...
2- oh and they forgot to throw in "mopery and dopery of the spaceways"
3- by Durova and KC first, not by me, mind you
4 - maybe only ones that ignore robots.txt, I forget if that page is NOINDEXed or not. It should be.

[RMHED]

The more I watch this nonsense play out, the more I think that the primary requirement for Arbcommers is a passion for feeding the trolls.

Now which of the players will get nailed to the cross?

[Wiki Witch of the West]

It's funny to see Lar getting schooled on history by, of all people, Durova. Sometimes, dude, you just gotta realize that nobody bats .100 ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) and stop digging.

If I could bat .100 at baseball I'd actually be fairly happy. I might as well wear a big K on my back for all the good my swinging does at the plate.

But that said, I think it rather odd how much fuss is being raised over a choice of phrasing... sturm und drang about "what if Howard Baker saw this page" and suchlike... well gee, if someone would have just mailed me and asked for a reword instead of trying to publicly flog me with accusations of unpatriotic behaviour, general ignorance, and thrown in "dignity of a steward" to boot (1)(2), maybe Howard Baker's name would not have been mentioned (3) for spiffy search engines (4) to find at some future date.

I guess I better say it here too. I don't think Watergate was a witch hunt and I don't think Howard Baker was hunting witches.

But is this WP:RFAR-annex now too?

1- a laughable concept, especially if you've seen me actually swinging a baseball bat and batting .000...
2- oh and they forgot to throw in "mopery and dopery of the spaceways"
3- by Durova and KC first, not by me, mind you
4 - maybe only ones that ignore robots.txt, I forget if that page is NOINDEXed or not. It should be.

It's the symbolism of it, which goes over as stubborn inability to distinguish between appropriate questioning of authority and McCarthyism. One post could be honest misunderstanding, but to carry it all day?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Killerchihuahua and I are hardly fellow travelers.

[CharlotteWebb]

Now which of the players will get nailed to the cross?

Depends on what standard they are being held to, see previous.

[Lar]

It's the symbolism of it, which goes over as stubborn inability to distinguish between appropriate questioning of authority and McCarthyism. One post could be honest misunderstanding, but to carry it all day?

You left out "mopery and dopery of the spaceways'. Give it a rest, Durova. I don't know what you're playing at, or why, but I don't want to play.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

It's the symbolism of it, which goes over as stubborn inability to distinguish between appropriate questioning of authority and McCarthyism. One post could be honest misunderstanding, but to carry it all day?

You left out "mopery and dopery of the spaceways'. Give it a rest, Durova. I don't know what you're playing at, or why, but I don't want to play.

No game, Lar. You should know me that well by now. You equated one of the most honorable acts of the Watergate fiasco to McCarthyism--apparently because people onsite were asking a similar question and you wished to discourage it. If you had a better reason, please explain. And why do you keep dodging the fact that it's a living person's legacy you've misused?

[Kelly Martin]

And in the news of today, the ArbCom mailing list appears to have been corrupt for quite a while, discarding mail from many addresses without message.

Caused by parties unknown.

I doubt the parties responsible are unknown; merely unknown to you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[LaraLove]

The more I watch this nonsense play out, the more I think that the primary requirement for Arbcommers is a passion for feeding the trolls.

Who knew?

(and when did they know it?) <--- KIDDING

lawl.

<snip>
. . . I think it rather odd how much fuss is being raised over a choice of phrasing. . . . if someone would have just mailed me and asked for a reword instead of trying to publicly flog me with accusations of unpatriotic behaviour, general ignorance, and thrown in "dignity of a steward" to boot (1)(2), maybe Howard Baker's name would not have been mentioned (3) for spiffy search engines (4) to find at some future date.

I guess I better say it here too. I don't think Watergate was a witch hunt and I don't think Howard Baker was hunting witches.

But is this WP:RFAR-annex now too?

1- a laughable concept, especially if you've seen me actually swinging a baseball bat and batting .000...
2- oh and they forgot to throw in "mopery and dopery of the spaceways"
3- by Durova and KC first, not by me, mind you
4 - maybe only ones that ignore robots.txt, I forget if that page is NOINDEXed or not. It should be.

Lar, honey, clearly you're a liar! It is without doubt. Wholly certain. For you to think that your wording, as similar as it was, would not lead to this historical comparison... I've lost all respect. SHAME be upon you! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/noooo.gif)

Also, why email when public flogging is an option? Transparency, Lar. Transparency.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)
Speaking of unpatriotic, I wonder... if I derobe from the BLP flag I apparently have wrapped around me and light it on fire, what wiki-political statement would that make?

[Lar]

Lar, honey, clearly you're a liar! It is without doubt. Wholly certain. For you to think that your wording, as similar as it was, would not lead to this historical comparison... I've lost all respect. SHAME be upon you!

Gadzooks, I've been found out!! Clearly I never should have tried to outwit the master of semantic analysis!! I was paraphrasing in a similar way!! NOW WHAT DO I DO!!

Speaking of unpatriotic, I wonder... if I derobe from the BLP flag I apparently have wrapped around me and light it on fire, what wiki-political statement would that make?

Lara, sweetie, I'm not sure exactly.

But I think you had Horsey's attention as soon as you said "derobe"... by the way it's "disrobe" but I digress.

No game, Lar. You should know me that well by now. You equated one of the most honorable acts of the Watergate fiasco to McCarthyism--apparently because people onsite were asking a similar question and you wished to discourage it. If you had a better reason, please explain. And why do you keep dodging the fact that it's a living person's legacy you've misused?

WWW: I call BS.

YOU equated all of that, not me. You've built this awesomely complex theory of mind around what was merely a turn of phrase. ANY question, asked over and over is a witch hunt-y question.

[Jim]

Clue - she's a dance instructor.

But I don't understand the problem. Is it you don't like the idea of a whole directory devoted to criticism of Wikipedia? It covers a whole range of issues, such as paedophile activism on Wikipedia

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...Wikipaedophilia

promotion of quack therapy

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Neurolinguistic_programming

and an article under development about POV pushing on Balkan articles

http://www.wikipediareview.com/User_talk:Ockham/...litical_Agendas

Or is it you don't like the fact that personalities are involved? I don't like that either but it is hard to present the facts as they are without mentioning the personalities - who are after all pseudonymous. In the article you have objected to I have highlighted the issue of principle in 'Community reaction'.

No - I have no problem with criticism of Wikipedia - it's all good and healthy - the articles you link to make some very good points.

I guess what upset me about the other one was that it seemed to be pointed commentary on a current "bunfight", when there was altogether enough of that going on already.

Don't worry - I'm over it now - apologies if you felt it was an over-reaction.

Jim

[Doc glasgow]

So Lar got McCarthy and Nixon confused? And we're getting high-and-mighty about "American history" (now that's an oxymoron if ever there was one).

Well, McCarthy didn't invent the witchhunt - we Europeans perfected those before your nation was discovered.

And, of course, some witches were indeed very evil indeed.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[LaraLove]

Lar, honey, clearly you're a liar! It is without doubt. Wholly certain. For you to think that your wording, as similar as it was, would not lead to this historical comparison... I've lost all respect. SHAME be upon you!

Gadzooks, I've been found out!! Clearly I never should have tried to outwit the master of semantic analysis!! I was paraphrasing in a similar way!! NOW WHAT DO I DO!!

CLEARLY, THE ONLY OPTION IS TO RESIGN!

Speaking of unpatriotic, I wonder... if I derobe from the BLP flag I apparently have wrapped around me and light it on fire, what wiki-political statement would that make?

Lara, sweetie, I'm not sure exactly.

But I think you had Horsey's attention as soon as you said "derobe"... by the way it's "disrobe" but I digress.

Ah, indeed I'm sure I did. Thank you for the spelling correction. I normally have MZ (the grammarphile) for that, but he was away. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Lar]

So Lar got McCarthy and Nixon confused?

Eh? I did no such thing. The claim is that I got Howard Baker and Joseph McCarthy confused, try to keep up.

[Milton Roe]

FT2 can be TL;DR.

Usually when he wants to hide something methinks.

He must be trying to hide something all the time then.

[the_undertow]

I was an admin as the_undertow.
I unblocked Moulton.
Raul took me straight to Rfar.
The AC, who did not want to deal with ID Cab, asked me to give up the tools, with the promise that I could have them back upon asking.
4 days later, I asked for them back - they refused.
During my Rfar, SWATjester, who is now OK with me, posted no less than 4 times that I was a white supremacist, during my Rfar and correlating ANI.
I had my lawyer draw up a lawsuit. No action was taken.
My impression at the time was that SWAT was a BLP inclusionist, so I decided to created an article on him.
He agreed the article was fine and NPOV.
I dropped the suit against SWAT and told the (then current) AC that the suit would be attached to them for allowing such libel to occur. Allowing such libel is not acceptable for Arbcon, or ConArbists or Arbitrary Committee. (all trademarked (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif))
Raul, the admin who took me to Rfar, blocked (not banned) for nine months, on behalf of AC.
AC never told me why, but said it was for disruption.
I dropped all suits and created Law. Never told anyone until months later.
I was tired of fucking around with my 'friends' so I unburdened myself by telling them.
All were surprised. So here we are. This is the whole story. The real story. Not much room for speculation. So I would ask the speculation stops with the_undertow/Law shit.

However, I did confide in nearly 3 dozen editors. My remorse is beyond regret. But those who knew are now falling on their swords; except for a few higher-ups. At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up. That is all my fault. One Arb, is still not coming clean and chastising me. I get it - it's your life bro. I never wished anyone would admit to my selfish actions by forcing this information on them. All my fault. I've see enough people go down for my actions.

But Luke, you were the first to know. You want everyone else to fall, when you were the first person I told. You called me a liar for defending Cas - hell yeah, I defend my friends until I die. But you knew first and what's worse, you watched as your AC brother made an example of himself. You are the biggest rat I've ever seen. What did you gain by that? One less AC member to contend with? I fucked up, but I'm here to admit it.

[Peter Damian]

However, I did confide in nearly 3 dozen editors. My remorse is beyond regret. But those who knew are now falling on their swords; except for a few higher-ups. At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up. That is all my fault. One Arb, is still not coming clean and chastising me. I get it - it's your life bro. I never wished anyone would admit to my selfish actions by forcing this information on them. All my fault. I've see enough people go down for my actions.

How many of these were admins? Understand that this is not about you, and however personal it may feel to you, it is not personal. The question is how much of this is evidence of a climate that condones and enables such open deception in violation of policy, undermining the trust of the community. It was even more worrying that this seemed to have been accepted by the Committee itself.

You remember I tried to start a group of editors which would be self-selecting (on the basis of contributions and neutrality, rather than adminstrative skills). This was ruthlessly quashed by the administration, on the grounds that it was a cabal, went against the collectivist and egalitarian ethos of Wikipedia &c &c. Even though the group's membership would not have been secret.

Now we have evidence of a similar cabal operating at apparently high levels of the administration. How extensive was this? That is the question.

[the_undertow]

However, I did confide in nearly 3 dozen editors. My remorse is beyond regret. But those who knew are now falling on their swords; except for a few higher-ups. At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up. That is all my fault. One Arb, is still not coming clean and chastising me. I get it - it's your life bro. I never wished anyone would admit to my selfish actions by forcing this information on them. All my fault. I've see enough people go down for my actions.

How many of these were admins? Understand that this is not about you, and however personal it may feel to you, it is not personal. The question is how much of this is evidence of a climate that condones and enables such open deception in violation of policy, undermining the trust of the community. It was even more worrying that this seemed to have been accepted by the Committee itself.

You remember I tried to start a group of editors which would be self-selecting (on the basis of contributions and neutrality, rather than adminstrative skills). This was ruthlessly quashed by the administration, on the grounds that it was a cabal, went against the collectivist and egalitarian ethos of Wikipedia &c &c. Even though the group's membership would not have been secret.

Now we have evidence of a similar cabal operating at apparently high levels of the administration. How extensive was this? That is the question.

PD, you realize that one diatribe that i exposed contained the sentiment that i did realize what i had done wrong. this includes your block as well - as i concluded that npa and civ were not blocks that i was ever willing to make again. while you mistook my email for aggression, you have my permission to post it. i made it quite clear that i understood it was apologetic as well as that i understood where you were you coming from.

i won't shit on the current AC. however, i have no sympathy for the last round of AC. and since this thread deals directly with me, i actually am somewhat interested that someone thought i might have an opinion here. after 22 pages, i feel like my story may be valid. i take no solace in the fact that so much time has been dedicated to my usernames, but do feel that my silence has come to an end.

[Peter Damian]

i won't shit on the current AC.

OK, what percentage of the few dozen who knew were admins? How many members of the Committee (apart from the two who we know about) knew?

Arbitrator poll: were you aware that Law = The_undertow more than 4 days ago?
Some people would seem to appreciate an answer to this question. Please provide answers for all members of the community. Clerks: feel free to provide links to the answers to this question if they've already been provided on-wiki. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth - No. First I heard of this was when it hit arb-l a few days ago. I'd heard of The_undertow, and was aware of Law, but prior to reading the e-mail on arb-l, I was not aware of anything connecting them. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool Hand Luke - No
Coren -
FayssalF - No.
FloNight - No
John Vandenberg - Statement
Newyorkbrad - No
Risker -
Rlevse - No
Roger Davies -
Stephen Bain -
Vassyana -
Wizardman -
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...n_4_days_ago.3F

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[the_undertow]

i won't shit on the current AC.

OK, what percentage of the few dozen who knew were admins? How many members of the Committee (apart from the two who we know about) knew?

Arbitrator poll: were you aware that Law = The_undertow more than 4 days ago?
Some people would seem to appreciate an answer to this question. Please provide answers for all members of the community. Clerks: feel free to provide links to the answers to this question if they've already been provided on-wiki. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth - No. First I heard of this was when it hit arb-l a few days ago. I'd heard of The_undertow, and was aware of Law, but prior to reading the e-mail on arb-l, I was not aware of anything connecting them. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool Hand Luke - No
Coren -
FayssalF - No.
FloNight - No
John Vandenberg - Statement
Newyorkbrad - No
Risker -
Rlevse - No
Roger Davies -
Stephen Bain -
Vassyana -
Wizardman -
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...n_4_days_ago.3F

just cas and luke

[Peter Damian]

just cas and luke

Thanks. But Luke says he knew nothing about it until four days before it broke. Is this just a confusion over dates, or did Luke know something before the time he claims he did?

Updated list here

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...ator_connivance

Four so far, including Davis who said he heard it on IRC. That means a lot of people knew. And proves that IRC is just as bad as it ever was, in spite of those who claim I am flogging a dead horse.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Anonymous editor]

Oh, absolutely. The worst part is that Bishonen is one of the guiltiest parties on Wikipedia when it comes to doing what she's accusing Jenna of doing. Bishonen has consistently performed abusive actions in support of her wikifriends.

If Jenna gets desysopped for this, then perhaps Bishonen should be desysopped about a dozen times (if only it were possible).

This makes me sick. I can see where someone would have a problem with what Jenna and GlassCobra did, but these are the last people that should be making a stink over it, considering their collective histories.

Naturally. The people who didn't like Jenna would jump at the opportunity to get her for something she did. They were just waiting for a big enough issue.
Jehochman, Bishonen, KC, and JoshuaZ are some of the most vomit-inducing editors on Wikipedia. Their abuses go a long way back.

Yes; plus, if this really wasn't all being done out of vengeance, why their heavy focus on Jennavecia over everyone else?

This was funny though, considering what Majorly said before, and Jenna's response was good too.

Someone ask KC why she and her "chat-room buddies" (in Friday's words) still have the tools if "admins are held to a higher level"?

But, a few of his chat-room buddies (Jennavecia and Glasscobra) helped support him in passing an RFA under a new account.

Is there anyone who isn't a chatroom buddy? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Any chance of getting this forum software's BadWordsFilterâ„¢ to block all posts by Friday that include "maturity" or "adult"? Who cares about false positives, this shit is old and tired.

Can that actually be done? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

I sincerely hope so.

[GlassBeadGame]

I was an admin as the_undertow.
I unblocked Moulton.
Raul took me straight to Rfar.
The AC, who did not want to deal with ID Cab, asked me to give up the tools, with the promise that I could have them back upon asking.
4 days later, I asked for them back - they refused.
During my Rfar, SWATjester, who is now OK with me, posted no less than 4 times that I was a white supremacist, during my Rfar and correlating ANI.
I had my lawyer draw up a lawsuit. No action was taken.
My impression at the time was that SWAT was a BLP inclusionist, so I decided to created an article on him.
He agreed the article was fine and NPOV.
I dropped the suit against SWAT and told the (then current) AC that the suit would be attached to them for allowing such libel to occur. Allowing such libel is not acceptable for Arbcon, or ConArbists or Arbitrary Committee. (all trademarked (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif))
Raul, the admin who took me to Rfar, blocked (not banned) for nine months, on behalf of AC.
AC never told me why, but said it was for disruption.
I dropped all suits and created Law. Never told anyone until months later.
I was tired of fucking around with my 'friends' so I unburdened myself by telling them.
All were surprised. So here we are. This is the whole story. The real story. Not much room for speculation. So I would ask the speculation stops with the_undertow/Law shit.

However, I did confide in nearly 3 dozen editors. My remorse is beyond regret. But those who knew are now falling on their swords; except for a few higher-ups. At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up. That is all my fault. One Arb, is still not coming clean and chastising me. I get it - it's your life bro. I never wished anyone would admit to my selfish actions by forcing this information on them. All my fault. I've see enough people go down for my actions.

But Luke, you were the first to know. You want everyone else to fall, when you were the first person I told. You called me a liar for defending Cas - hell yeah, I defend my friends until I die. But you knew first and what's worse, you watched as your AC brother made an example of himself. You are the biggest rat I've ever seen. What did you gain by that? One less AC member to contend with? I fucked up, but I'm here to admit it.

Just to be clear, was any action ever actually filed in any court? If so, was anyone ever served? If so, did they ever answer or defend?

[LaraLove]

At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up.

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Unless 40 to 50 people fessed up overnight, that's not true. Not that I recommend anyone do it.

And when did you tell Luke? And why?

You remember I tried to start a group of editors which would be self-selecting (on the basis of contributions and neutrality, rather than adminstrative skills). This was ruthlessly quashed by the administration, on the grounds that it was a cabal, went against the collectivist and egalitarian ethos of Wikipedia &c &c. Even though the group's membership would not have been secret.

Now we have evidence of a similar cabal operating at apparently high levels of the administration. How extensive was this? That is the question.

Peter, it's too bad your proposal collapsed. Them's the breaks on Wikipedia. You can't introduce anything new and you can't change anything. That's just the way the model is. There was no undertow/Law cabal, though. Be serious. That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've read throughout this entire thing. When I found out I didn't know who else knew. It wasn't something that was discussed, and we surely weren't coordinating actions. He was just another admin and we happened to know his former identity. You're making this into a whole other type of matter that it surely wasn't.

[Anonymous editor]

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH I WOULD LOVE TO MEET AN ADMIN FROM WIKIPEIDIA IN THE FLESH AND BLOOD tell them why their a fucking ASS.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Yesterday, 10:34pm

Two questions:

1. If this is the edited posted, what could have possibly been in the original draft? This is the seemingly improved version?
2. Where the hell are the mods?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Now we have evidence of a similar cabal operating at apparently high levels of the administration. How extensive was this? That is the question.

Peter, it's too bad your proposal collapsed. Them's the breaks on Wikipedia. You can't introduce anything new and you can't change anything. That's just the way the model is. There was no undertow/Law cabal, though. Be serious. That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've read throughout this entire thing. When I found out I didn't know who else knew. It wasn't something that was discussed, and we surely weren't coordinating actions. He was just another admin and we happened to know his former identity. You're making this into a whole other type of matter that it surely wasn't.

Well there was evidence it was discussed on IRC (see Ched Davis statement). On my making it something it perhaps isn't, it is clear a lot of editors on WP believe there is such a group.

[Doc glasgow]

... it is clear a lot of editors on WP believe there is such a group.

A lot of editors on WP believe they are merely writing an encyclopedia
A lot of editors on WP believe there is a benign service they are doing to humanity
A lot of editors on WP believe that they have the moral right to create articles on anyone
A lot of editors on WP believe that eventualism works
A lot of editors on WP believe that inhouse civility is more important that off-wiki effects
A lot of editors on WP believe that Wikipedia is a microstate
A lot of editors on WP believe that there is a toothfairy, an almighty Jimbo and no cabal.

So what?

[One]

And when did you tell Luke? And why?

Good question.

And what the hell? I had just moved past this crap.

Look undertow, you told me one lie and I flipped out. I'm sorry for that. You don't need to live up to being a liar because it's not part of your person. That is, it's not something that should define you. You need to be your own person.

Thanks. But Luke says he knew nothing about it until four days before it broke. Is this just a confusion over dates, or did Luke know something before the time he claims he did?

For clarity, the first I knew was the forwarded IRC log about four days ago.

"You got your mind right, Luke?" is a quote from the movie I named myself after. This was a lighthearted warning for The_undertow's apparently uncivil statement in the middle of our Cool Hand Luke jokes on CoM's talk page. I wasn't sure whether Law meant it as cruelly as it seemed, so I thought asking the same question as the boss in Cool Hand Luke would be a good way to express my uncertain civility warning (note the link to NPA). In the movie, the boss is asking Luke whether he's got his "mind right" meaning that he won't try to escape again.

Perhaps you haven't seen the film The_undertow? You should. I obviously think highly of it. It would also help defy Horse's prejudice that young people don't watch made before they were born.

This post has been edited by One:

[LaraLove]

Well there was evidence it was discussed on IRC (see Ched Davis statement). On my making it something it perhaps isn't, it is clear a lot of editors on WP believe there is such a group.

I believe you're taking that wrong. Admins talk to each other on IRC all the time, and that's not cabalism. What makes the_undertow being Law a special case? People spilling the secret of his former identity is hardly cabalism. I mean, I literally don't understand how you took it from "people discussed it in IRC" to "people who knew he was Law formed a cabal." It doesn't make sense to me in the least.

[Malleus]

At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up.

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Unless 40 to 50 people fessed up overnight, that's not true. Not that I recommend anyone do it.

And when did you tell Luke? And why?

You remember I tried to start a group of editors which would be self-selecting (on the basis of contributions and neutrality, rather than adminstrative skills). This was ruthlessly quashed by the administration, on the grounds that it was a cabal, went against the collectivist and egalitarian ethos of Wikipedia &c &c. Even though the group's membership would not have been secret.

Now we have evidence of a similar cabal operating at apparently high levels of the administration. How extensive was this? That is the question.

Peter, it's too bad your proposal collapsed. Them's the breaks on Wikipedia. You can't introduce anything new and you can't change anything. That's just the way the model is. There was no undertow/Law cabal, though. Be serious. That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've read throughout this entire thing. When I found out I didn't know who else knew. It wasn't something that was discussed, and we surely weren't coordinating actions. He was just another admin and we happened to know his former identity. You're making this into a whole other type of matter that it surely wasn't.

I'll just say simply that I feel kind of let down and demotivated by this issue. I've got no intention of joining in the hunt for anyone to de desysoped though, and neither do I see much value in pursuing a "Who knew what when" line of questioning. It's surely been very clear for some considerable time that wikipedia's system of governance is corrupt, and all I'm intererested in seing now is what changes are going to be made as a result of this situation.

Sadly though I believe that i already know the answer. None.

[LaraLove]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ike_a_witchhunt

I'm blown away that Rlevse is calling for every admin that participated in the RFA to be questioned. He's actually perpetuating the drama. Unbelievable.

[A Horse With No Name]

Perhaps you haven't seen the film The_undertow? You should. I obviously think highly of it. It would also help defy Horse's prejudice that young people don't watch made before they were born.

Hey, leave me out of this, okay? I was just joking around with Obesity (that poor dull man needs all of the humoring he can get). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

I'm blown away that Rlevse is calling for every admin that participated in the RFA to be questioned. He's actually perpetuating the drama. Unbelievable.

Zomg, an arbitrator perpetuating drama?

That said, his proposal actually makes sense if you accept (which I don't) that what Law/the undertow did was inappropriate. Administrators ought not turn a blind eye to egregious violations, policy, or governing decree just because they disagree with them. I'm entitled to disregard the ArbCom's decisions, because I'm neither an administrator nor an editor. Administrators are not given that freedom. If Wikipedia ever wants to have meaningful governance, it needs to hold people accountable for their actions. And that includes identifying who dropped the ball in situations like these, and dealing with those people appropriately.

[A Horse With No Name]

But I think you had Horsey's attention as soon as you said "derobe"... by the way it's "disrobe" but I digress.

Please, I'm distracted enough as it is! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Besides, I am taking up a new hobby: I am learning do-it-yourself liposuction via the University of Phoenix Online. If anyone wants to shed a few pounds, just PM me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

<snip>

And who are you on Wikipedia?

Trust me, don't answer that question! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm blown away that Rlevse is calling for every admin that participated in the RFA to be questioned. He's actually perpetuating the drama. Unbelievable.

The facts speak for themselves: at least two Arbcom members and one Arbcom clerk knew about this situation. And I am sorry, but John V.'s "Oops, I forgot to read my e-mail" excuse is too silly for words.

We all know it is impossible to keep secrets on Wikipedia. It is a fair question to know whether this information -- which at least two-and-a-half men within the inner chamber knew -- was passed around to others.

[Malleus]

I'm blown away that Rlevse is calling for every admin that participated in the RFA to be questioned. He's actually perpetuating the drama. Unbelievable.

The facts speak for themselves: at least two Arbcom members and one Arbcom clerk knew about this situation. And I am sorry, but John V.'s "Oops, I forgot to read my e-mail" excuse is too silly for words.

We all know it is impossible to keep secrets on Wikipedia. It is a fair question to know whether this information -- which at least two-and-a-half men within the inner chamber knew -- was passed around to others.

What I'm finding a little difficult about this is that Law didn't seem to take any great care to hide his previous identity, so I'm quite certain that it was an open secret shared by a great many people. Back in July I had an email from him after we'd had a minor disagreement over him granting me all sorts of rights that I didn't want, like autoreviewer and rollbacker. In it he suggested that we'd formerly been on good terms on wikipedia, and that I should ask Lara if I wanted to know what his previous account had been. I did, and she told me, but on looking back I see that someone else had already told me, back in May. But the username (the Undertow) meant nothing to me, and so I thought no more about it.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[LaraLove]

<snip>

And who are you on Wikipedia?

Trust me, don't answer that question! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Despite the raging douchebag I think you are, your sense of humor can be nothing but appreciated.

[A Horse With No Name]

Despite the raging douchebag I think you are, your sense of humor can be nothing but appreciated.

Being a raging douchebag is the critical element for success in any field. Leo Durocher wasn't anywhere near wrong when he said "Nice guys finish last." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Appleby]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

[Noroton]

"American history" (now that's an oxymoron if ever there was one).

Obviously, that was silly banter.

Говори русский? Спасибо американской истории, что вам не нужно.

[victim of censorship]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

There are bascily four types of Wikipeidia Administrators...


LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.


A Wikpeidan Admin will have at lest one or more of these basic stated traits.

So, to the Wikpedian admins posting here, which one are you???

[JayT]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

WP:OTHERDOUCHEBAGSEXIST?

[Malleus]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

There are bascily four types of Wikipeidia Administrators...


LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.


A Wikpeidan Admin will have at lest one or more of these basic stated traits.

So, to the Wikpedian admins posting here, which one are you???

I'm a bit puzzled by "THIEF". Could you just explain that one a little more?

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

WP:OTHERDOUCHEBAGSEXIST?

We're all human beings, none of us perfect. Not even me, and certainly not you.

[A Horse With No Name]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

The funny thing is that I don't find the word least bit offensive. I actually giggle when I see it. If it is supposed to hurt me, it is having the exact opposite effect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

We're all human beings, none of us perfect. Not even me, and certainly not you.

An argument can be made that Sophia Loren comes pretty damn close to perfect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Malleus]

An argument can be made that Sophia Loren comes pretty damn close to perfect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I don't think I'd be arguing with that, but the Italian tax authorities might.

[Grep]

Any indications of how many real, content-adding, editors have left in disgust over this echoed buggery?

[A Horse With No Name]

Any indications of how many real, content-adding, editors have left in disgust over this echoed buggery?

Was there evidence that there were real, content-adding editors in the first place? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Oh, since Sophia Loren is more interesting than Rlvese:

[Lar]

Говори русский? Спасибо американской истории, что вам не нужно.

Слишком мало людей понимают это, мой друг. Или я должен сказать "мой товарищ"?

(no I don't speak Russian, that was courtesy of Google's translation facility, I hope the nuances came through. My mother had to learn Russian to keep her job but she never cared for it)

[Grep]

Any indications of how many real, content-adding, editors have left in disgust over this echoed buggery?

Was there evidence that there were real, content-adding editors in the first place? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

All too many dupes I have to say.

[LaraLove]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

I insult them plenty.

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

WP:OTHERDOUCHEBAGSEXIST?

What he said.

The funny thing is that I don't find the word least bit offensive. I actually giggle when I see it. If it is supposed to hurt me, it is having the exact opposite effect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Butt-snorkel... does that sting? Even a little?

[CharlotteWebb]

Being a raging douchebag is the critical element for success in any field. Leo Durocher wasn't anywhere near wrong when he said "Nice guys finish last." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Not last, just 4th out of 6.

[A Horse With No Name]

The funny thing is that I don't find the word least bit offensive. I actually giggle when I see it. If it is supposed to hurt me, it is having the exact opposite effect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Butt-snorkel... does that sting? Even a little?

Honey, I've had newspaper columnists publish articles stating that I don't have talent. I've had a university professor write to me saying that the only job I am qualified to handle is collecting shopping carts from the K-Mart parking lot. I've been the subject of two simultaneous hate mail campaigns. I can go on and on. Trust me, this stuff is a weekend at the beach in comparison. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

Говори русский? Спасибо американской истории, что вам не нужно.

отвали, баллон для спринцевания.

[Lar]

Говори русский? Спасибо американской истории, что вам не нужно.

отвали, баллон для спринцевания.

Темперамент, характер! Будь хорошим.

(I have no idea why "temper, temper!" translates as "temperament, character!" Maybe нет настроения истерику! is more fitting? )

[CharlotteWebb]

(I have no idea why "temper, temper!" translates as "temperament, character!" Maybe нет настроения истерику! is more fitting? )

Probably because it attempts wherever possible to choose idiomatic phrases which a native speaker might actually use.

[A Horse With No Name]

I appreciate the Russian language conversation, considering the persecution and assassination of Law as performed by the inmates of the asylum of Charenton under the direction of the Marquis de Sade appears to have stalled. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Говори русский? Спасибо американской истории, что вам не нужно.

Слишком мало людей понимают это, мой друг. Или я должен сказать "мой товарищ"?

(no I don't speak Russian, that was courtesy of Google's translation facility, I hope the nuances came through. My mother had to learn Russian to keep her job but she never cared for it)

Your mother was a German rocket scientist?

[LaraLove]

The funny thing is that I don't find the word least bit offensive. I actually giggle when I see it. If it is supposed to hurt me, it is having the exact opposite effect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Butt-snorkel... does that sting? Even a little?

Honey, I've had newspaper columnists publish articles stating that I don't have talent. I've had a university professor write to me saying that the only job I am qualified to handle is collecting shopping carts from the K-Mart parking lot. I've been the subject of two simultaneous hate mail campaigns. I can go on and on. Trust me, this stuff is a weekend at the beach in comparison. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

You would mention the beach...

But at least you finally admitted it. Maybe you had before and I missed it. Completely possible as I'm behind on my reading, but this is the first I've seen you actually admit to being Eco.

[Lar]

Говори русский? Спасибо американской истории, что вам не нужно.

Слишком мало людей понимают это, мой друг. Или я должен сказать "мой товарищ"?

(no I don't speak Russian, that was courtesy of Google's translation facility, I hope the nuances came through. My mother had to learn Russian to keep her job but she never cared for it)

Your mother was a German rocket scientist?

Nope, merely a teacher...she told me that to keep that job in the GDR, one had to join the Party and learn Russian. That's partly why she left. (and her leaving, along with millions of others, presumably is why the Berlin Wall was built... her "escape" consisted of leaving everything behind, then taking the U-bahn from East Berlin to West Berlin and then applying for FRG citizenship. I hear that U-bahn section has been reopened now)

[The Joy]

Говори русский? Спасибо американской истории, что вам не нужно.

Слишком мало людей понимают это, мой друг. Или я должен сказать "мой товарищ"?

(no I don't speak Russian, that was courtesy of Google's translation facility, I hope the nuances came through. My mother had to learn Russian to keep her job but she never cared for it)

Your mother was a German rocket scientist?

Nope, merely a teacher...she told me that to keep that job in the GDR, one had to join the Party and learn Russian. That's partly why she left. (and her leaving, along with millions of others, presumably is why the Berlin Wall was built... her "escape" consisted of leaving everything behind, then taking the U-bahn from East Berlin to West Berlin and then applying for FRG citizenship. I hear that U-bahn section has been reopened now)

Did she get out by Trabant?

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Berlin_Wall_Trabant_grafitti.jpg)

[Abd]

I'm going to disclose an operating assumption of mine. People tell the truth as they see it. Most of the time, this assumption is warranted, as long as there isn't some special condition, such as major negative or positive consequences attached to telling the truth or lying. Even then, it's a useful operating assumption, because it almost never benefits anyone to accuse another of lying, unless (1) it's necessary and (2) you have proof, not only of error or falsehood, but of intention to deceive.

Then, if we think that a writer is telling the truth as they see it, we can put more effort into understanding what's behind the words, and if there is any hope of future agreement, we are more likely to find it. AGF used to be WP policy. It's interesting to read the original essay: March 2004. Notice the assumption that the goal is full consensus. That goal has been lost, abandoned. And violation of AGF is routine in core discussions on WP, as well as here on WR.

ArbComm got it right in my case, they found that AGF was consistent with sanctions. I.e., I could be intending to help the project, but if my behavior was damaging, I could be sanctioned. Where I'd say they screwed up was in using a site ban to do it, instead of simply instructing me as appropriate. Did they assume I'd disregard instructions? Apparently. This was a point on which the arbs differed.

I was an admin as the_undertow.
I unblocked Moulton.
Raul took me straight to Rfar.

My sympathy level just pegged the meter.

The AC, who did not want to deal with ID Cab, asked me to give up the tools, with the promise that I could have them back upon asking.
4 days later, I asked for them back - they refused.

Procedurally, they were within their rights. As a human institution, presumably composed of human beings who are individually responsible for the effect they have on people, that sucks. It's even possible that all arbs who were involved in making the original promise supported honoring it. It could be argued -- and is being argued -- that all ArbComm proceedings that result in decisions exercising power would require public voting, if not actual public discussion. Any deliberative body, even an elected one, should have the right to meet privately, under some conditions, but I doubt that those obtained in your case.

During my Rfar, SWATjester, who is now OK with me, posted no less than 4 times that I was a white supremacist, during my Rfar and correlating ANI.

We saw similar accusations here. They were based on a denial of your statements about yourself and the distinctions you drew. Ignorance, basically, and very rude. It's possible to argue that "white pride" leads to racism, and certainly it can be associated with racism, under some conditions, but that's not the same as specifically tagging someone as racist because of a position on pride. Further, "racist" itself isn't identical to "white supremacist," I know plenty of people who, technically, are racist, but who don't subscribe to the particularly pernicious form of racism that represents a doctrine of ethnic superiority/inferiority, which then shades into racial hatred.

I had my lawyer draw up a lawsuit. No action was taken.
My impression at the time was that SWAT was a BLP inclusionist, so I decided to created an article on him.
He agreed the article was fine and NPOV.
I dropped the suit against SWAT and told the (then current) AC that the suit would be attached to them for allowing such libel to occur. Allowing such libel is not acceptable for Arbcon, or ConArbists or Arbitrary Committee. (all trademarked (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif))

Naughty, Undertow, what did you expect them to do with this?

Raul, the admin who took me to Rfar, blocked (not banned) for nine months, on behalf of AC.
AC never told me why, but said it was for disruption.

Like implying you would sue them? Anyway, I think you understand that this was provocative, because:

I dropped all suits and created Law. Never told anyone until months later.
I was tired of fucking around with my 'friends' so I unburdened myself by telling them.
All were surprised. So here we are. This is the whole story. The real story. Not much room for speculation. So I would ask the speculation stops with the_undertow/Law shit.

You can ask for that, but it's not likely to happen, is it?

However, I did confide in nearly 3 dozen editors. My remorse is beyond regret. But those who knew are now falling on their swords; except for a few higher-ups. At the point when I outed myself, it must have been nearly 50 or 60 editors. All have come clean, or fessed up. That is all my fault.

No, you aren't that powerful. The world doesn't turn on your errors. You told them, that was not an error, it was honest, and honest isn't an error. They did with the information what they chose to do, I presume you had no gun held to their heads. And what they did was reasonable. The claim that editors/administrators/arbitrators are obligated to act on what they know instead of keeping private information private is a pernicious one that will lead to no good. Reticence/disclosure and even lying, under some circumstances, are individual choices that we must make based on our own perceptions of responsibility. Telling the truth is a high value, but not the highest.

Certainly I can understand your remorse: unburdening yourself, you burdened them. But you are also human, with limited capacity, and sharing our predicament is positive, not negative. The one who outed you, in the end, is likewise human and is personally responsible according to his or her intentions, ultimately. I do generally believe that we are better off when truth comes out, and this includes all those who kept the secret. Losing status, or even being blocked on Wikipedia, is not a true loss; as many here know, it may, indeed, be a benefit.

One Arb, is still not coming clean and chastising me. I get it - it's your life bro. I never wished anyone would admit to my selfish actions by forcing this information on them. All my fault. I've see enough people go down for my actions.

But Luke, you were the first to know. You want everyone else to fall, when you were the first person I told. You called me a liar for defending Cas - hell yeah, I defend my friends until I die. But you knew first and what's worse, you watched as your AC brother made an example of himself. You are the biggest rat I've ever seen. What did you gain by that? One less AC member to contend with? I fucked up, but I'm here to admit it.

Now, I do have the benefit of having read, before this, Luke's response, which rings true to me. Consider this, my friend, you just failed to assume good faith for Luke. Was this a mere failure of the imagination, or does it represent some deeper problem?

If I read this right -- maybe I'm not doing that -- what you have just done is worse than anything for which you have expressed remorse. Let's see if I got it right.

1. You told Luke about your identity (according to your memory, or perhaps on evidence you possess).
2. He didn't tell anyone, and denies that you told him.
3. You accuse him of lying about this. Publicly.

That is, you set him up, by disclosing to him your secret. Now you use that prior disclosure to impeach him. Is he lying? Perhaps, and though that doesn't seem consistent with his character, I can imagine quite a good motive to lie under the circumstances, and it doesn't have to do with personal power or self-protection.

I will say that if you recall telling him it doesn't prove that he heard you, that he received the message, just as that someone emailed JV about this matter doesn't prove that JV read it. And AGF, if they tell us they didn't notice it, requires that we assume they are telling the truth.

The problem of noise is the basic problem faced by ArbComm; and I intend to address this further today, there is an occasion. When there is too much noise, we start missing much more.

Undertow, stick around! Those who have fallen, even through personal error, are the resource which may save the project, and Wikipedia Review may be a piece of the solution.

As to your allegedly telling Luke, if you want to take personal responsibility for damage you've done, and if you have proof you told Luke, and that he noticed it and so responded, lose it. (The link you gave doesn't show that response.) It is an aspect of personal integrity to take blame for what is not one's own error, even if nobody ever will know about it. I don't say this for Luke's benefit, I say it for yours.

Let's make the situation more dramatic than it is, perhaps. Suppose the Gestapo is after Luke for not telling them that you were an enemy spy. Perhaps under duress or in an unguarded moment, you said that Luke told you, but Luke denies any knowledge. If you have proof somewhere, do you expose him for lying? Or do you take that information to your grave? To make it even more dramatic, suppose they offer you leniency if you expose all those whose loyalty to the regime was weak.

There is no Gestapo here, and nobody lives or dies based on this situation. The moral obligations are therefore weaker, but they do not reverse sense.

[Anonymous editor]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

There are bascily [sic] four types of Wikipeidia [sic] Administrators...


LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.


A Wikpeidan [sic] Admin will have at lest one or more of these basic stated traits.

So, to the Wikpedian [sic] admins posting here, which one are you???

You keep changing the classifications.

Here, you gave the following options:

I consider any wikipeidian [sic] admin to be one of the following..

LIAR (all admins)
THIEF ( Of truth, Intellectual property, human rights )
CON ARTIST (JIMMY)
COWARD (ROB Fernandez)
DEGENERATE (David Gerard)
BRAIN-DAMAGED PUNK (Ryulong )
POWER DRUNK SOCIOPATH (Raul654)
BASEMENT DWELLING FREAK
SEXUAL DEVIATE (see SHANKBONE as typical example of such)
PLAGIARIZER (Essay)


I am willing to say any and more to any Wikipeidan [sic] admin, leader, or JIMMY FUCK HEAD WALES in the real, what have written here, and would be willing to let any coward have the first punch but to bad, Wikipedia are sniveling cowards and it would be just a dream.

I not going to be very nice.

I'm a bit puzzled by "THIEF". Could you just explain that one a little more?

You may want to reconsider that RfA. I'm not sure you could tolerate being called:
LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.

by our dear Joseph. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

just kidding. I know you've been called worse.

The funny thing is that I don't find the word least bit offensive. I actually giggle when I see it. If it is supposed to hurt me, it is having the exact opposite effect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Butt-snorkel... does that sting? Even a little?

Honey, I've had newspaper columnists publish articles stating that I don't have talent. I've had a university professor write to me saying that the only job I am qualified to handle is collecting shopping carts from the K-Mart parking lot. I've been the subject of two simultaneous hate mail campaigns. I can go on and on. Trust me, this stuff is a weekend at the beach in comparison. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

You would mention the beach...

But at least you finally admitted it. Maybe you had before and I missed it. Completely possible as I'm behind on my reading, but this is the first I've seen you actually admit to being Eco.

He vaguely acknowledged it earlier in this thread, in a response alleging hypocrisy.


This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[Malleus]

You may want to reconsider that RfA. I'm not sure you could tolerate being called:
LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.

by our dear Joseph. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

just kidding. I know you've been called worse.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I was called worse only last week in fact, didn't kill me.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[A Horse With No Name]

But Luke, you were the first to know. You want everyone else to fall, when you were the first person I told. You called me a liar for defending Cas - hell yeah, I defend my friends until I die. But you knew first and what's worse, you watched as your AC brother made an example of himself. You are the biggest rat I've ever seen. What did you gain by that? One less AC member to contend with? I fucked up, but I'm here to admit it.

This statement is very interesting, considering that Luke made this completely contradictory statement on WP on October 2:

"I was not aware of The_undertow's undisclosed return to this site before John Vandenburg forwarded the IRC logs less than 3.5 days ago."

Both Undertow and Luke cannot be telling the truth. Which one is telling the truth?

[Abd]

You remember I tried to start a group of editors which would be self-selecting (on the basis of contributions and neutrality, rather than adminstrative skills). This was ruthlessly quashed by the administration, on the grounds that it was a cabal, went against the collectivist and egalitarian ethos of Wikipedia &c &c. Even though the group's membership would not have been secret.

Last I noticed "collectivist and egalitarian" aren't policy, and there is no "administration." There is the administrative Cabal -- and denial that there is any cabal is particularly amusing because that's what Jimbo called it at the very beginning of its existence -- and there are other cabals. The Iron Law of Oligarchy insists that cabals will arise. I'm not aware of your specific attempt -- links would be appreciated -- but the fatal flaw in it, obviously, would have been on-wiki organization. Were it organized off-wiki, and with appropriate precautions, it would not have been possible to crush it. And it's even possible for membership to be open, and documented on-wiki, and for it still to be basically invulnerable to pressure from the jeering mob that passes for the "administration."

Voluntary self-organization of the community is the best key to recovery from the impasse, it's the only distributed-power solution I can imagine, the classic true oligarchal systems are what most people think of first as useful in dealing with the efficiency and noise problems that will be fatal to Wikipedia if not addressed.

(Basically, there are the fascist or totalitarian solutions, and democratic solutions, both involve setting up an empowered oligarchy, small or large; in the latter case, the oligarchs are "elected." The current "administration" is a particularly inefficient and unstable version of the latter, with elected oligarchs -- administrators -- who have indefinite terms, and with, therefore, so many of them that the problem of scale has simply reproduced itself, 1600, or even a few hundred members, is way beyond what classic decision-making systems can handle. If there were 20 or 30 administrators representing the community, and able to personally delegate administrative authority, restricted only under rules by the "council" that the representatives would compose, it would be doable. And there are ways to make this work and keep immediate and continuous responsibility to an awakened community.)

Now we have evidence of a similar cabal operating at apparently high levels of the administration. How extensive was this? That is the question.

No, the question is, "Why should we care?" A "cabal of silence" isn't any kind of a cabal at all, unless there is a coordinated and enforced silence. Even with a mutual agreement to keep silent, it wouldn't rise to the level of "cabal," because there is no expressed power in silence, there is only an allowance for other forces to prevail. When a true cabal is operating, the kind that actually exercises power on Wikipedia, the defection of any individual member is without effect, for the truly effective cabals do not rely on secrecy but on the massing of numbers, of whom a few, at least, are administrators. With a secret, for any member to disclose it reverses the entire action, even making it a hazard to the members.

The cabal that was denied by ArbComm in my case wasn't the dangerous kind of cabal, in fact. I have some suspicion that the whole TINC movement is a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the true situation. On the other hand, that hypothesis isn't necessary. Still, I did show in the RfAr, had anyone been actually reading the evidence, that WMC was aware that he was acting as part of a coherent group, he used "we" in quite a precise reference to cabal activity. He just thinks, probably, of his group as "the sensible editors," as distinct from "the drama queens, attention-seekers, fringe POV-pushers," in which group are easily categorized anyone disagreeing with cabal positions.

How many "sensible editors" are there? Well, the usual suspects in the Global Warming, Anti-Fringe "cabal," the one I seriously offended, seem to be roughly two dozen editors, with occasional sympathy from a few others. What I found was that whenever I went through true dispute resolution process, the CAb position would evaporate. And this has continued in my absence.

In the RfAr, the Cab vigorously opposed restrictions on administrative authority to ban based on individual opinion and decision; my view, as expressed, was that so-called "administrative topic or page bans" were really only strong warnings that an admin considers an editor's behavior with respect to a particular topic or page as generally disruptive, and that a block might ensue with no further warning, and that a unilateral ban like this created no special right to block, whereas community bans and discretionary (ArbComm) sanctions created bans that could, indeed, result in blocks for harmless edits, which is necessary for shared enforcement to be practical.

Vigorously opposed, my position was, even ridiculed. And now it's consensus, only a few weeks later, at WP:BAN, see WP:BAN diff And this happened again and again, in small matters and large.

The power of these small cabals only exists because of the lack of larger ones! For larger cabals to exist and be stable would require organizational structure, and that has been generally rejected on-wiki, because the structures have all been the kinds that are vulnerable, as well as being insufficiently efficient. Esperanza hit a flat spot because of inefficient bureaucracy, and this was an excuse to crush it.

"Efficient" has become somewhat of a by-word for "fascist," which is unearned. Fascist systems are short-term efficient, but in the long term they are unstable and fall, unless they can somehow coerce or otherwise enjoy sufficient continued support. Modern history is proving that some kind of democracy, where at least the illusion of personal freedom exists, is more stable, and my guess is that true freedom, under the right conditions, is more efficient than what often passes for it. People are social animals and naturally cooperate, as long as they identify the other participants as members of the same tribe or interest group.

[The Adversary]

Ok, just to return to the subject for a second. Lara, I don´t want to get involved with the dramah over at WP, but just my 2 cent: you have acted, and are still acting, like an damn idiot.
Yes: Idiot.

Something extremely basic: truly supporting your friends does not mean that you support them in *everything*. Specifically, it does not mean that you should support them when they are doing wrong/stupid things (like we all do, at times). If you had told the Undertow to stay put during his 9 month block, then perhaps retire that account, come back as a fresh user....Hey: we would have avoided all this dramah/tears. Your short-term thinking did not do the Undertow...or anyone else...any good at all. Face up to that. (why do I feel I´m constantly telling people that 2+2=4? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ) (And why on earth did you not think of the obvious? That when people come back as banned/blocked users, they are always open for "blackmail"...or "pressure""...call it what you want. Which is exactly what happened here, if I have understood correctly.)

If there is one word I would use to characterize your behaviour it is unprofessional. And yes, I do expect, no, demand, that anyone in an elected position (even in on online gaming community like WP) act with a minimum of professionalism. All your "standing up for friends -no matter what" makes me go (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) ....it was watching SV and Jayjg protect their "friends" on WP, no matter what, which nearly drove me off WP (and onto WR) years ago. WP-rules were simply not for their "friends." And now you come, makeing the same type of argument? Again: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

I see that many of the people over at WP who are now after your hide are people who were gunning for you earlier. Which is to be expected. You have handed them tons of free ammo. Though reading some of the comments there.....is like reading, say, a lecture from Bill Clinton on "the importance of marital fidelity when elected to high office". Look who´s talking! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

But, that aside, Lara, you have also greatly disappointed some who trusted you.

PS: I would have supported a temporary desysopping of you, for say, 3-6 months.
PPS: keep up the good BLP-work, that is great.
PPPS: sorry if I come off as unbearably pompous/mouldy... I´m old enough to be you mum, sorry if I sound like one.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

Both Undertow and Luke cannot be telling the truth. Which one is telling the truth?

Do you categorically deny the possibility that both are lying?

[Abd]

Both Undertow and Luke cannot be telling the truth. Which one is telling the truth?

Probably both, and that Horse can't imagine how is only a sign of Horse's impoverished imagination. Really, it's not rocket science. Or even Cold fusion.

[A Horse With No Name]

Both Undertow and Luke cannot be telling the truth. Which one is telling the truth?

Do you categorically deny the possibility that both are lying?

Yes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Probably both, and that Horse can't imagine how is only a sign of Horse's impoverished imagination. Really, it's not rocket science. Or even Cold fusion.

It's not even cold beer, though I could use one right now. And while I make no great claims of superior brainpower, I can read English and there is a contradiction where Law/TU claims that he told Luke but Luke claims that he learned of this from John V.'s forwarding of the IRC logs.

I am not going to take sides, because I don't know what transpired. I am only raising this because it is the only part of the story where things fall out of sync.

[Abd]

I can read English and there is a contradiction where Law/TU claims that he told Luke but Luke claims that he learned of this from John V.'s forwarding of the IRC logs.

What's the contradiction? Law/TU says that he told Luke. Luke says that he first learned from IRC. You know, it always amazes me to see people who supposedly had some experience editing Wikipedia, who don't recognize the difference between synthesis and fact.

Just read the claims. TU is making a claim about his own action. What can be derived as a necessary conclusion if we assume TU is not lying? Frankly, practically nothing! We've not been provided with anything like the level of information we'd need to move beyond what was actually written.

What Horse is doing is synthesizing a conclusion that if TU remembers telling Luke, therefore Luke remembers being told. In order for Luke or TU to be lying (one or the other, perhaps), we need at least four necessary conditions, none one of which we have actual knowledge on, AFAIK.

(1) TU's memory is not deficient.
(2) The communication actually was delivered.
(3) Luke actually read or heard it.
(4) Luke remembered that when writing about when he first knew it.

As to the latter, I've read a great deal on Wikipedia. While I'm older than Luke, by quite a bit, I believe, I'm sure there is a great deal that I've read that I don't remember, and that would have been true when I was his age, I think. To remember what I read, it has to have had some impact. Suppose, as an example, TU wrote to Luke that he was TU, but Luke simply didn't think it, at the time, to be important. So what if he was TU? Luke could have dismissed it as a trivial piece of information, and it might even have been before he was elected to ArbComm (does that timing work?). And if he was already elected, I expect, his mail traffic went way up, which could be expected to increase the amount he forgets. And that's just the fourth condition.

Another outrageous aspect of this affair is the cynicism and ABF about arbitrator John V. in his claim to have not noticed the email to him disclosing the identity of Law. This is quite believable, and the claims about it simply show how far ABF goes. It also shows how dangerous a witch-hunt can get on what people knew and when.

Look, I was screwed over by ArbComm, in a sense. While Luke had recused, I had depended on him, in fact, to take a more active role in presenting evidence, because I knew he was aware of much of the history. Instead what he presented was practically trivial. I don't have any need to defend ArbComm or Luke, but .... what amount to personal attacks will never resolve the problems of Wikipedia. ArbComm is failing, sure, and so are, in a sense, the individual arbitrators, but the problem they are faced with is not one that they know how to solve, and they don't know where to look for solutions. They get piles of bad advice. Somewhere buried in it is good advice, and they don't know how to filter it. That I do know what each one of them could do doesn't really help them, because my advice is likewise buried; when I say I know, and if they even notice that, they don't believe me, nor do most people.

This does suggest an obvious solution, but my experience is that "obvious solutions" are mostly overlooked because most people don't even believe that they exist.

[Appleby]

there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

I insult them plenty.

Diffs! Diffs!! We want diffs!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by Appleby:

[One]

Gmail does not forget, and I checked that because memory can be feeble. He did not tell me.

I'd appreciate an answer to Lara's question. He claims to have told me before anyone else, and it certainly does beg the question why. Better yet, I'd appreciate if The_undertow stop lying.

This post has been edited by One:

[SB_Johnny]

I don't have any need to defend ArbComm or Luke, but .... what amount to personal attacks will never resolve the problems of Wikipedia. ArbComm is failing, sure, and so are, in a sense, the individual arbitrators, but the problem they are faced with is not one that they know how to solve, and they don't know where to look for solutions. They get piles of bad advice. Somewhere buried in it is good advice, and they don't know how to filter it. That I do know what each one of them could do doesn't really help them, because my advice is likewise buried; when I say I know, and if they even notice that, they don't believe me, nor do most people.

I haven't seen it directly stated anywhere, but going by other incidents I'm pretty sure the committee members fall outside of the foundation's CYA umbrella. It's pretty amazing, under those circumstances, that they've been as effective as they've managed to be. Personally, I wouldn't do what they're doing without some decent pay and legal backup, but that doesn't mean I don't admire them for doing it.

Lar's right on: this is a witch hunt. Not quite interesting enough (yet) to get a book deal, but I'm a bit surprised the newsfeed isn't pinging on it yet.

[Noroton]

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Of the two of you, which one do you think has more credibility with most of the people reading this? Provide proof. Put up or shut up.

[RMHED]

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Of the two of you, which one do you think has more credibility with most of the people reading this? Provide proof. Put up or shut up.

They should stop suppressing their homoerotic desires.

Kiss and make up,

Luke and Undertow sitting in a tree, K. I. S. S. I. N. G.

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[Abd]

Gmail does not forget, and I checked that because memory can be feeble. He did not tell me.

Or he "told you" in some way that you didn't see and maybe it wasn't gmail. That he told you and remember it and you are lying is highly unlikely because you would be shooting yourself in the foot for no good reason, unless you have some agenda to make him look bad, which is truly unlikely upon unlikely and would be very risky.

I'd appreciate an answer to Lara's question. He claims to have told me before anyone else, and it certainly does beg the question why. Better yet, I'd appreciate if The_undertow stop lying.

He will, after you stop beating your wife. Come on, Luke, you should know better. It should be enough that you stand with what you know, it's totally unnecessary to imply that Law is lying.

Why am I commenting on this? What's my dog in this race? Well, AGF is an essential part of consensus communities, it should be an operating assumption that isn't discarded. It isn't necessary to assume bad faith to protect a group from disruption, it isn't necessary to assume bad faith to protect an article from POV-pushing, and it isn't necessary to assume bad faith in defending oneself against false accusations.

My two daughters get into arguments like this all the time. It's impossible to tell who is lying, or, indeed, if anyone is lying, even though the statements they make are quite contradictory, and each of them accuses the other of lying. Loudly, while literally kicking and screaming. We can sometimes find out who was "right." But that doesn't mean that the other was lying, rather -- perhaps -- the other misinterpreted the evidence she had. There often turns out to have been a basis for that, such as resemblance between two objects.

The older one, especially, accuses me of "not believing" her when I don't immediately conclude she's right and the younger isn't telling the truth, and give her the toy or other item they are fighting over, and so she will throw a huge fit over this larger problem. I can even say to her, "I think you're probably right, but let's wait until Momma comes home, I think she'll remember whose little game this was," and it's useless. Were it not for the fact that, until the younger daughter found the thing and took it and claimed that it had been given to her by her mother, the older daughter had no interest at all in it, I'd be more sympathetic. I am still sympathetic, but in a longer-term sense, I know that she's asserting her independence and authority in the world, and defining her autonomy and all that good stuff. But it's still hard sometimes. Remaining firm without losing my temper is my own work.

By the way, these girls, later the same day, may be hugging and singing together, and they clearly love each other deeply. Unfortunately, the time scale on Wikipedia is different, people are more frozen into their personalities, and the wiki brothers and sisters get locked into this long-term, highly dysfunctional dance of firm opposition and mistrust.

Consensus. When "rough consensus" was deemed adequate, when efforts to find true consensus were abandoned at that point and considered "disruptive" or a "waste of time," that's when the wiki was lost. I understand very well what happened, given the conditions, it is utterly unsurprising. It is known how to move beyond this in organizations, but who is seeking that knowledge? Those who know it either stay away because they know better than to dive into a catfight, or they are themselves driven away as interlopers if they try to share the knowledge. But there is a way around this impasse.

And you will never find consensus by accusing others of lying. How could one even imagine so? Even if people are actually lying, they have their reasons, and only by imagining that somehow we can disregard "liars" would we even think there is an advantage to the accusation.

So, Luke, I hope you will forgive me for suggesting some language here. "I'm sorry, Law, I shouldn't have implied that you were lying, it's just that I've looked at my mail archive and didn't find anything, and I really can't remember you telling me. If it still matters to you, would you let me know how you told me, so I can check, if possible? Or was it accompanied by something else that might jog my memory?" And then, Luke, you would email Law and have a frank and respectful private discussion, seeking to resolve any dispute between you, where no posturing before the entire internet readership is involved on any side, and no need for any pretense. And if either of you didn't trust direct contact like that, then you would involve a mediator who accepts being an intermediary in confidence -- if either of you thought it of sufficient importance. And if you don't, then why in the world would either of you go so far as to call the other a liar?

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Of the two of you, which one do you think has more credibility with most of the people reading this? Provide proof. Put up or shut up.

And this, right here, is the kind of "community" that foments conflict instead of resolving it.

[RMHED]

Blah, blah, blah...

Needs more homoeroticism.

[A Horse With No Name]

Blah, blah, blah...

Needs more homoeroticism.

Someone better ping RMHED -- I think Shankbone is compromising his account. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Abd]

Blah, blah, blah...

Needs more homoeroticism.

Are you making an offer? However, I must say I'm only turned on by people who show an interest in me and what I have to say. I'm like any other bitch in that respect.

[RMHED]

Blah, blah, blah...

Needs more homoeroticism.

Someone better ping RMHED -- I think Shankbone is compromising his account. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Ping!!!

Is that some fucking euphemism?

Don't you get euphemistic with me you fucking cunt.

[A Horse With No Name]

Blah, blah, blah...

Needs more homoeroticism.

Someone better ping RMHED -- I think Shankbone is compromising his account. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Ping!!!

Is that some fucking euphemism?

Don't you get euphemistic with me you fucking cunt.

I think Robert Morley said it best: That's the problem with international events...too many foreigners! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Noroton]

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Of the two of you, which one do you think has more credibility with most of the people reading this? Provide proof. Put up or shut up.

And this, right here, is the kind of "community" that foments conflict instead of resolving it.

Putting up or shutting up would resolve the conflict PDQ. If he can't or won't provide the proof, there's nothing more to say. If he can, there's nothing more to say. If a mistake was made, it's the only way it'll come out. It's a very easy way to resolve the conflict. He should've provided proof immediately, of course, if he has it. The burden, you know, is with the accuser. Try asking the accuser to take the lead in being reasonable first, before asking the accusee.

[RMHED]

Blah, blah, blah...

Needs more homoeroticism.

Someone better ping RMHED -- I think Shankbone is compromising his account. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Ping!!!

Is that some fucking euphemism?

Don't you get euphemistic with me you fucking cunt.

I think Robert Morley said it best: That's the problem with international events...too many foreigners! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Morley was a fat fucker, so fuck him.

But Luke, you were the first to know.

Of the two of you, which one do you think has more credibility with most of the people reading this? Provide proof. Put up or shut up.

And this, right here, is the kind of "community" that foments conflict instead of resolving it.

Putting up or shutting up would resolve the conflict PDQ. If he can't or won't provide the proof, there's nothing more to say. If he can, there's nothing more to say. If a mistake was made, it's the only way it'll come out. It's a very easy way to resolve the conflict. He should've provided proof immediately, of course, if he has it. The burden, you know, is with the accuser. Try asking the accuser to take the lead in being reasonable first, before asking the accusee.

Needs more homoeroticism.

[A Horse With No Name]

Morley was a fat fucker, so fuck him.

Eric and Ernie got there first:

[Noroton]

Don't you get euphemistic with me you fucking cunt.

I think Robert Morley said it best: That's the problem with international events...too many foreigners! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Horsey, I think you owe RMHED an apology for your inappropriate response to what in Britain (so we've been told) is clearly a term of endearment. For a fuller explanation of RMHED's exuberence, check the category on his WP talk page.

Needs more homoeroticism.

More cowbell.

[A Horse With No Name]

Don't you get euphemistic with me you fucking cunt.

I think Robert Morley said it best: That's the problem with international events...too many foreigners! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Horsey, I think you owe RMHED an apology for your inappropriate response to what in Britain (so we've been told) is clearly a term of endearment. For a fuller explanation of RMHED's exuberence, check the category on his WP talk page.

Yes, he is literally in a category by himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiki...it_whilst_drunk

Well, then RHMED deserves more than an apology -- he deserves a Horsey French kiss! Ooo la la, monsieur! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

[The Joy]

So basically this whole tragedy summed up is:

-----

Swatjester: "You're a Nazi, The Undertow!"
The Undertow: "I am not! I'll sue and make a BLP of you to show how much that hurt me!"

Moulton: "Jimbo has created an environment in violation of accepted learning principles."
The Undertow: "I'll unblock you, Moulton!"
Raul: "You're going to ArbCom, Undertow."
Arbcom: "Banned for 9 months. Don't get your bits back without consulting us."

Later.

The Undertow: "Guys? Can I come back? Maybe get the bits back?"
Arbcom: "GAH! FT2 has lost his mind! Get back, FT2! Leave Orangemarlin alone!"
The Undertow: "Guys?"
Arbcom: "Stop it, Giano! For the love of... NO, FT2! Don't block him! Oh, sh...!"
The Undertow: "Guys?"
Arbcom: "Can't talk now. We're in disarray more so than ever before!"
The Undertow: "..."

Later.

The Undertow: "Screw this! I'm becoming Law!"

The Undertow becomes Law.

Law: "Now I can edit peacefully. Oh, but I feel bad about coming back without telling my friends."

Law tells his friends that he is The Undertow and his friends rejoice.

Later

Some of Law's Friends: "You'd make a great admin!"
Law: "Ok."

Law becomes an admin.

Later.

Law unblocks ChildofMidnight. Angers Sandstein and others.

Later on IRC.

Ironholds: "Help me with something, Law."
Law: "No."
Ironholds: "You're stupid."
Law: "No. Won't do it."
Daniel: "Stupid Law!"
Ironholds: "Oh, I hear a little birdie saying you're The Undertow. Naughty! Naughty!"
Daniel: "Ha, ha! You're The Undertow!"

Keegan alerts Arbcom.

Casliber, maybe Luke, and others: "Oh, great. We're screwed."

Slim Virgin, ChildofMidnight, Giano, Mattisse, and many more come on scene.

Them: "Get the Arbcom!"

Others come and form mob.

Mob: "Hang the deceivers! Hang the Arbcom! Hang Law! We need trust!"

Rlevse: "I'll hang everyone who knew about this. If you don't believe me, here's my Eagle badge."
Mob: "That's a Girl Scout badge."
Rlevse: "Never you mind that."

Some rational Wikipedians: "Can't we just forgive and forget?"
Mob and Rlevse: "Never!"

The Undertow: "I know that Luke and Casliber knew of my identity."
Luke: "Liar!"
The Undertow: "Liar!"
Luke: "Liar!"

Et cetera.

Moulton: "I am still blocked. Hello?"

-----

Is this the gist of what all happened?

[Kelly Martin]

Is this the gist of what all happened?

Needs more cowbell.

[TungstenCarbide]

Rlevse: "I'll hang everyone who knew about this. If you don't believe me, here's my Eagle badge."
Mob: "That's a Girl Scout badge."
Rlevse: "Never you mind that."

Thank you, Joy.

[SirFozzie]

Hee Hee. Thanks Joy, that's the first smile that any of this crap has brought to me.

[One]

So, Luke, I hope you will forgive me for suggesting some language here. "I'm sorry, Law, I shouldn't have implied that you were lying, it's just that I've looked at my mail archive and didn't find anything, and I really can't remember you telling me. If it still matters to you, would you let me know how you told me, so I can check, if possible? Or was it accompanied by something else that might jog my memory?" And then, Luke, you would email Law and have a frank and respectful private discussion, seeking to resolve any dispute between you, where no posturing before the entire internet readership is involved on any side, and no need for any pretense. And if either of you didn't trust direct contact like that, then you would involve a mediator who accepts being an intermediary in confidence -- if either of you thought it of sufficient importance. And if you don't, then why in the world would either of you go so far as to call the other a liar?

Did you read what he wrote? This isn't a polite good faith misunderstanding, Abd.

He should produce details to back up his attack in public. If these details are not forthcoming, I cannot intelligently respond in any more detail than I already have. So, The_undertow, please produce whatever you can. Complete emails (with headers), logs, diffs, whatever--or best yet, a really good apology.

What's the contradiction? Law/TU says that he told Luke. Luke says that he first learned from IRC.

Wrong. He says that I knew first. He's says he told me and that I knew before anyone else, which is false and does directly contradict me. He also makes assertions on my motives--it's simply an attack. Nothing more or less.

This post has been edited by One:

[Cedric]

So basically this whole tragedy summed up is:
. . . .

Is this the gist of what all happened?

More or less, without getting into that idiotic sideshow about historical analogies.

Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things;
Some shall be pardon'd, and some punished;
For never was a story of more wiki-woe
Than this of ArbCom and The Undertow.

Play us out, Bette Midler:

. . . and apologies to Will

[A Horse With No Name]

Rlevse: "I'll hang everyone who knew about this. If you don't believe me, here's my Eagle badge."
Mob: "That's a Girl Scout badge."
Rlevse: "Never you mind that."

Thank you, Joy.

As funny as Joy is, the real McCoy is even funnier:

"Demanding the arbs answer "When did you know about Law" without any evidence of a particular arb being culpable is a witch hunt. Why aren't all those who !voted in his RFA being asked to answer? Just for the record, I did not know til this all blew up a few days ago." Rlvese, 13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)"

Evidence of culpability: Casliber immediately acknowledged being aware of what transpired and resigned from Arbcom. John V. abruptly announced that he was informed of this fact six weeks earlier, but claimed that he wasn't certain if he read the e-mail that provided the information -- he remains on Arbcom despite his admission of incompetence. Daniel, the Arbcom clerk whose off-Wiki harassment of Law triggered this event, obviously knew of the Law/TU connection prior to his role in outing Law -- but said nothing. He was briefly blocked, but was then unblocked because of his alleged invaluable role in "clerking" the Piotrus-based Eastern European snoozefest.

Law/TU has asserted that Luke was aware of his identity -- Luke has denied it and we are awaiting Law/TU to respond. Risker tried to have Luke's Arb poll on Law/TU awareness removed, arguing that it made no sense for a "recused" arbitrator to ask the question -- and she has refused to answer the poll directly, claiming (without a diff) to have answered the question already. (I am not certain if she is referring to her remarks where she acknowledges cherry picking which sock cases she prefers to prosecute and which she would allow to violate policy).

And if we are citing the Divine Miss M, the only way we can truly appreciate this story is "from a distance"! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[victim of censorship]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

There are bascily four types of Wikipeidia Administrators...


LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.


A Wikpeidan Admin will have at lest one or more of these basic stated traits.

So, to the Wikpedian admins posting here, which one are you???

I'm a bit puzzled by "THIEF". Could you just explain that one a little more?

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

WP:OTHERDOUCHEBAGSEXIST?

We're all human beings, none of us perfect. Not even me, and certainly not you.

To STEAL some ones intellectual property, dignity, reputation.

[Abd]

Is this the gist of what all happened?

Needs more cowbell.

I was going to say that the part about having sex with dead horses was left out, but maybe the cowbell would be enough, depending on what is done with it.

[Cla68]

If Wikipedia ever wants to have meaningful governance, it needs to hold people accountable for their actions. And that includes identifying who dropped the ball in situations like these, and dealing with those people appropriately.

This is true, but it doesn't mean that you need to publicly humiliate or fire the people who made a poor decision or a mistake. Usually, some additional training, counsel, and discussion should help them learn the lesson that needs to be learned. The incident and follow-up actions should be documented, however, in case any of the people involved continue to make the same mistakes.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Moulton]

Well done, Joy and Cedric. The comic opera is shaping up nicely.

[Cla68]

Well done, Joy and Cedric.

I agree.

[Random832]

Gmail does not forget, and I checked that because memory can be feeble. He did not tell me.

I'd appreciate an answer to Lara's question. He claims to have told me before anyone else, and it certainly does beg the question why. Better yet, I'd appreciate if The_undertow stop lying.

There is someone else who occasionally shows up on IRC who uses the name "One".

It is possible in theory that he may have revealed all this to someone he believed to be you.

[MBisanz]

Gmail does not forget, and I checked that because memory can be feeble. He did not tell me.

I'd appreciate an answer to Lara's question. He claims to have told me before anyone else, and it certainly does beg the question why. Better yet, I'd appreciate if The_undertow stop lying.

There is someone else who occasionally shows up on IRC who uses the name "One".

It is possible in theory that he may have revealed all this to someone he believed to be you.

WP One = IRC One
WR One = WP Cool Hand Luke
WR One != IRC One



Also, to the best of my knowledge, Cool Hand Luke has never been on IRC, at least not in -en, -en-admins, or any of the other channels I am aware of.

[LaraLove]

Ok, just to return to the subject for a second. Lara, I don´t want to get involved with the dramah over at WP, but just my 2 cent: you have acted, and are still acting, like an damn idiot.
Yes: Idiot.

Something extremely basic: truly supporting your friends does not mean that you support them in *everything*. Specifically, it does not mean that you should support them when they are doing wrong/stupid things (like we all do, at times). If you had told the Undertow to stay put during his 9 month block, then perhaps retire that account, come back as a fresh user....Hey: we would have avoided all this dramah/tears. Your short-term thinking did not do the Undertow...or anyone else...any good at all. Face up to that. (why do I feel I´m constantly telling people that 2+2=4? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ) (And why on earth did you not think of the obvious? That when people come back as banned/blocked users, they are always open for "blackmail"...or "pressure""...call it what you want. Which is exactly what happened here, if I have understood correctly.)

If there is one word I would use to characterize your behaviour it is unprofessional. And yes, I do expect, no, demand, that anyone in an elected position (even in on online gaming community like WP) act with a minimum of professionalism. All your "standing up for friends -no matter what" makes me go (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) ....it was watching SV and Jayjg protect their "friends" on WP, no matter what, which nearly drove me off WP (and onto WR) years ago. WP-rules were simply not for their "friends." And now you come, makeing the same type of argument? Again: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

I see that many of the people over at WP who are now after your hide are people who were gunning for you earlier. Which is to be expected. You have handed them tons of free ammo. Though reading some of the comments there.....is like reading, say, a lecture from Bill Clinton on "the importance of marital fidelity when elected to high office". Look who´s talking! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

But, that aside, Lara, you have also greatly disappointed some who trusted you.

PS: I would have supported a temporary desysopping of you, for say, 3-6 months.
PPS: keep up the good BLP-work, that is great.
PPPS: sorry if I come off as unbearably pompous/mouldy... I´m old enough to be you mum, sorry if I sound like one.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Thanks, Adversary. I posted my response to the RFAR which I think clearly articulates my position. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...t_by_Jennavecia

Blah, blah, blah...

Needs more homoeroticism.

Someone better ping RMHED -- I think Shankbone is compromising his account. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Ping!!!

Is that some fucking euphemism?

Don't you get euphemistic with me you fucking cunt.

Simmer down.

So basically this whole tragedy summed up is:

lawl. That was brilliant.

Only error I see is that Keegan notified JV earlier, by about six weeks, but the email was overlooked. Ironholds notified AC last week. Otherwise, seems spot on. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Mr. Mystery]

Yawn.... Haven't been overly involved, but I do hope Lara and the Undertoe make it out of this one. Or, failing that, take more than a few of their "friends" with them.

* Just read your statement. Thank you Lara that was very professional. [/sarcasm]

This post has been edited by Mr. Mystery:

[Deodand]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

There are bascily four types of Wikipeidia Administrators...


LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.


A Wikpeidan Admin will have at lest one or more of these basic stated traits.

So, to the Wikpedian admins posting here, which one are you???

I'm a bit puzzled by "THIEF". Could you just explain that one a little more?

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

WP:OTHERDOUCHEBAGSEXIST?

We're all human beings, none of us perfect. Not even me, and certainly not you.

To STEAL some ones intellectual property, dignity, reputation.

Firstly, "someone's". Secondly, "steal" implies that the Wikipedian now has the dignity and reputation. Ever met one? You'll find its not the case. Afaik intellectual property is not/has not been stolen other than some copyvio, which is normally got rid of as fast as possible. I appreciate that with the massive amounts of fury searing and melting through your synapses at every mention of the word "Wikipedia", cogent argument is difficult for you, but please, try. For the childrens sake - after all, thats what you claim to be protecting, isn't it? Think of the children, and the poor example your shitty prose and critical thinking sets for them.

Daniel, the Arbcom clerk whose off-Wiki harassment of Law triggered this event, obviously knew of the Law/TU connection prior to his role in outing Law -- but said nothing. He was briefly blocked, but was then unblocked because of his alleged invaluable role in "clerking" the Piotrus-based Eastern European snoozefest.

Actually from the logs I've been given Daniel was unaware of the fact beforehand. Ironholds told him with the intention of having it reported and...it was reported.

[No one of consequence]

Daniel, the Arbcom clerk whose off-Wiki harassment of Law triggered this event, obviously knew of the Law/TU connection prior to his role in outing Law -- but said nothing. He was briefly blocked, but was then unblocked because of his alleged invaluable role in "clerking" the Piotrus-based Eastern European snoozefest.

Actually from the logs I've been given Daniel was unaware of the fact beforehand. Ironholds told him with the intention of having it reported and...it was reported.

Nor did the unblock have anything to do with the Arbitration case he was assigned to at the time.

[victim of censorship]

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

There are basically four types of Wikipeidia Administrators...


LIAR
THIEF
THUG
IDIOT.


A Wikipedia Admin will have at lest one or more of these basic stated traits.

So, to the Wikpedian admins posting here, which one are you???

I'm a bit puzzled by "THIEF". Could you just explain that one a little more?

Douchebag? Look. What Horse did was far from nice and I condemn it as much as anyone. However, there are much nastier people about on Wikipedia who are still admins. Insult them first.

WP:OTHERDOUCHEBAGSEXIST?

We're all human beings, none of us perfect. Not even me, and certainly not you.

To STEAL some ones intellectual property, dignity, reputation.

Firstly, "someone's". Secondly, "steal" implies that the Wikipedian now has the dignity and reputation. Ever met one? You'll find its not the case. Afaik intellectual property is not/has not been stolen other than some copyvio, which is normally got rid of as fast as possible. I appreciate that with the massive amounts of fury searing and melting through your synapses at every mention of the word "Wikipedia", cogent argument is difficult for you, but please, try. For the childrens sake - after all, thats what you claim to be protecting, isn't it? Think of the children, and the poor example your shitty prose and critical thinking sets for them.

Daniel, the Arbcom clerk whose off-Wiki harassment of Law triggered this event, obviously knew of the Law/TU connection prior to his role in outing Law -- but said nothing. He was briefly blocked, but was then unblocked because of his alleged invaluable role in "clerking" the Piotrus-based Eastern European snoozefest.

Actually from the logs I've been given Daniel was unaware of the fact beforehand. Ironholds told him with the intention of having it reported and...it was reported.

See these links for an overview of the concept of "Theft" by Wikipedia

An explanation of Wiki stealing other people's work


Death by Wikipeidia


Theft of reputation by the WIKIPEDIOT EMPIRE


Cult of the Wikipediot hive stealing

Leave you with this quot.....

“What you may not realize is that what is free is actually costing us a fortune,” Mr. Keen writes. “The new winners — Google, YouTube, MySpace, Craigslist, and the hundreds of start-ups hungry for a piece of the Web 2.0 pie — are unlikely to fill the shoes of the industries they are helping to undermine, in terms of products produced, jobs created, revenue generated or benefits conferred. By stealing away our eyeballs, the blogs and wikis are decimating the publishing, music and news-gathering industries that created the original content those Web sites ‘aggregate.’ Our culture is essentially cannibalizing its young, destroying the very sources of the content they crave.” Mr. Keen quoted..

NY times Books of the Times
The Cult of the Amateur

By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Published: June 29, 2007"

"

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Deodand]

Daniel, the Arbcom clerk whose off-Wiki harassment of Law triggered this event, obviously knew of the Law/TU connection prior to his role in outing Law -- but said nothing. He was briefly blocked, but was then unblocked because of his alleged invaluable role in "clerking" the Piotrus-based Eastern European snoozefest.

Actually from the logs I've been given Daniel was unaware of the fact beforehand. Ironholds told him with the intention of having it reported and...it was reported.

Nor did the unblock have anything to do with the Arbitration case he was assigned to at the time.

Well yes, that too. Note, Thatcher (from your posts to Daniel's talkpage) that the "revelation" that Law=The Undertow and the decision to go to ArbCom was not directly related to the move discussion.

[Peter Damian]

Nor did the unblock have anything to do with the Arbitration case he was assigned to at the time.

Sorry this reads heavily like irony. You mean, it did have something to do with it?

[A Horse With No Name]

Nor did the unblock have anything to do with the Arbitration case he was assigned to at the time.

Sorry this reads heavily like irony. You mean, it did have something to do with it?

As per Luke's request to GWH asking that Daniel be unblocked due to his supposedly invaluable role in "clerking" the Eastern European brouhaha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geo...rt#Daniel_block -- though Thatcher claimed the unblock was based on WP:CIVIL overkill. For the record, Daniel never requested an unblock -- Thatcher took his own initiative.

In any event, Daniel viewed the block in sarcastic terms: "If I get "blocked" over something like this, it'll simply be a weekend in the middle of the week, which is something I've been screaming at my university and place of employment to implement anyways." No further comment needed.

The moral of the story: off-Wiki harassment is perfectly acceptable if you are part of the Arbcom crowd or if your friends are connected to that clique.

Actually from the logs I've been given Daniel was unaware of the fact beforehand. Ironholds told him with the intention of having it reported and...it was reported.

Daniel has never acknowledged, one way or the other, whether he was aware of Law/TU before Ironholds went to town. Knowing IRC is logged and that logs get passed around, I wouldn't put it past him to play dumb. Of course, he may not be playing dumb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Since the whole thing broke, he has been conspicuously absent from WP (though he has peeked in here, as confirmed by the "who's peeking in" function at the bottom of the page).

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[A Horse With No Name]

As an FYI, with Mr. McWeenie claiming that far-reaching Bathrobe Cabal members are involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFA..._by_Will_Beback -- nice seeing EVula dragged into this!

Funny, that some negative people cited how a lot of the players involved in this comic opera were also at the recent Nashville meet-up. What is not mentioned, though, is that an Arbcom member was also at that meet-up: FloNight. Now, if one believes the Arb poll, then Flo didn't know.

If people are going to accuse the Nashville meet-up participants of conspiring, then they have to include an Arbcom member of being in on the plot and lying about it. Any takers? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[No one of consequence]

Nor did the unblock have anything to do with the Arbitration case he was assigned to at the time.

Sorry this reads heavily like irony. You mean, it did have something to do with it?

As per Luke's request to GWH asking that Daniel be unblocked due to his supposedly invaluable role in "clerking" the Eastern European brouhaha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geo...rt#Daniel_block -- though Thatcher claimed the unblock was based on WP:CIVIL overkill. For the record, Daniel never requested an unblock -- Thatcher took his own initiative.

Actually, I never read Luke's request to GWH. I noticed the comment about "epic win" and posted my disapproval. Later I noticed he had been blocked, apparently for refusing to withdraw the "epic win" comment. My reason for unblocking is exactly what I posted on Daniel's talk page.

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually, I never read Luke's request to GWH. I noticed the comment about "epic win" and posted my disapproval. Later I noticed he had been blocked, apparently for refusing to withdraw the "epic win" comment. My reason for unblocking is exactly what I posted on Daniel's talk page.

No reason to doubt your version. The problem, however, is that we have a request from an Arbcom member who is trying to finagle most favored status to an unrepentant Arbcom clerk, under the absurd notion that he cannot remain blocked because he is invaluable to "clerking" a grueling Eastern European investigation. The sad thing is that Luke tells GWH "I'd honestly also like to see some acknowledgment from Daniel that it was an inappropriate remark" -- Daniel has never apologized for his actions and he is still an Arbcom clerk, working with the full consent and permission of Arbcom.

[Daniel]

Daniel has never acknowledged, one way or the other, whether he was aware of Law/TU before Ironholds went to town. Knowing IRC is logged and that logs get passed around, I wouldn't put it past him to play dumb. Of course, he may not be playing dumb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I didn't know until the evening that the issue broke. I informed the Committee within an hour of me finding out. I didn't know prior to that, nor did I even suspect it.

And that's about all I'll be saying on the matter. Well, except for the fact that already-lengthened-by-Labour-Day-on-Monday-public-holiday weekends are smashing when they start Thursday morning. Future blocks or not (hopefully the latter), I think I might do that more often.

Now, back to watching the Aussies play in the champions trophy final...

This post has been edited by Daniel:

[LaraLove]

* Just read your statement. Thank you Lara that was very professional. [/sarcasm]

I care a lot about your opinion.

Well yes, that too. Note, Thatcher (from your posts to Daniel's talkpage) that the "revelation" that Law=The Undertow and the decision to go to ArbCom was not directly related to the move discussion.

Bullshit.

Daniel has never acknowledged, one way or the other, whether he was aware of Law/TU before Ironholds went to town. Knowing IRC is logged and that logs get passed around, I wouldn't put it past him to play dumb. Of course, he may not be playing dumb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Since the whole thing broke, he has been conspicuously absent from WP (though he has peeked in here, as confirmed by the "who's peeking in" function at the bottom of the page).

I don't think Daniel knew before Ironholds told him. Daniel is, by the way, a BRC member.

As an FYI, with Mr. McWeenie claiming that far-reaching Bathrobe Cabal members are involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFA..._by_Will_Beback -- nice seeing EVula dragged into this!

Funny, that some negative people cited how a lot of the players involved in this comic opera were also at the recent Nashville meet-up. What is not mentioned, though, is that an Arbcom member was also at that meet-up: FloNight. Now, if one believes the Arb poll, then Flo didn't know.

If people are going to accuse the Nashville meet-up participants of conspiring, then they have to include an Arbcom member of being in on the plot and lying about it. Any takers? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Yea, I had to respond to this. It's ridiculous. The BRC is almost two years old. There are people who joined that I never knew. I didn't know them before they joined and I didn't get to know them after. There are some I didn't particularly care for when they joined and some I don't particularly care for now. There is a group of us that are friends, and we all tried to meetup in Nashville, but it didn't work out. The tightest of those in our group are the ones that helped Chet out. Can't explain it, but a bond formed from that.

But yes, not only do they have to include an Arb and her husband, they also have to include Keegan (who's the one that told ArbCom to begin with, two weeks before the meetup), and an IP editor. What a joke.

Actually, I never read Luke's request to GWH. I noticed the comment about "epic win" and posted my disapproval. Later I noticed he had been blocked, apparently for refusing to withdraw the "epic win" comment. My reason for unblocking is exactly what I posted on Daniel's talk page.

No reason to doubt your version. The problem, however, is that we have a request from an Arbcom member who is trying to finagle most favored status to an unrepentant Arbcom clerk, under the absurd notion that he cannot remain blocked because he is invaluable to "clerking" a grueling Eastern European investigation. The sad thing is that Luke tells GWH "I'd honestly also like to see some acknowledgment from Daniel that it was an inappropriate remark" -- Daniel has never apologized for his actions and he is still an Arbcom clerk, working with the full consent and permission of Arbcom.

Is it even worth the effort to point out the irony?

[CharlotteWebb]

There is someone else who occasionally shows up on IRC who uses the name "One".

It is possible in theory that he may have revealed all this to someone he believed to be you.

Ah yes, the SushiGeek defense... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

If people are going to accuse the Nashville meet-up participants of conspiring, then they have to include an Arbcom member of being in on the plot and lying about it. Any takers? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Is that the one you tried to invite yourself to? Sounds like sour grapes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

If Wikipedia ever wants to have meaningful governance, it needs to hold people accountable for their actions. And that includes identifying who dropped the ball in situations like these, and dealing with those people appropriately.

This is true, but it doesn't mean that you need to publicly humiliate or fire the people who made a poor decision or a mistake. Usually, some additional training, counsel, and discussion should help them learn the lesson that needs to be learned. The incident and follow-up actions should be documented, however, in case any of the people involved continue to make the same mistakes.

Is anybody else scratching their heads at the arbitrator comments at RFAR? It's looking like they're drafting a summary motion instead of conducting an actual case.

This could go one of two ways, neither of which promises to be very edifying:
1. Actual desysopping, banning, etc. (which would be unwise without a full case)
2. Cautions, admonishments, and other bromides.

The latter seems more likely. Generally speaking, counsel isn't a bad thing. But the community is quite capable of doing that themselves (remember conduct RfC?). In this instance particularly, the community would carry more credibility.

The long term result of ineffectual summary motions is political incentive to bypass real dispute resolution, and erosion of the Committee's credibility.

Does the Committee suffer from the Abilene paradox? Collective amnesia? Or am I missing something?

[LaraLove]

Is anybody else scratching their heads at the arbitrator comments at RFAR? It's looking like they're drafting a summary motion instead of conducting an actual case.

This could go one of two ways, neither of which promises to be very edifying:
1. Actual desysopping, banning, etc. (which would be unwise without a full case)
2. Cautions, admonishments, and other bromides.

The latter seems more likely. Generally speaking, counsel isn't a bad thing. But the community is quite capable of doing that themselves (remember conduct RfC?). In this instance particularly, the community would carry more credibility.

The long term result of ineffectual summary motions is political incentive to bypass real dispute resolution, and erosion of the Committee's credibility.

Does the Committee suffer from the Abilene paradox? Collective amnesia? Or am I missing something?

RFCs are generally worthless anyway. Having one now would serve no purpose whatsoever but to prolong the drama. We've already seen what the community thinks. I be damned if I'm going to read it all over again on another page. Waste of time and kb. My statement is up. Let ArbCom do what they're going to do.

A case is pointless. As Flo or Coren, I forget which, pointed out, there's nothing to build a case with. There was no conspiracy. A case, like an RFC at this point would be a waste of time. Let 'em do it by motion. If I lose my bit, I'll know it when my tabs are gone.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Is anybody else scratching their heads at the arbitrator comments at RFAR? It's looking like they're drafting a summary motion instead of conducting an actual case.

This could go one of two ways, neither of which promises to be very edifying:
1. Actual desysopping, banning, etc. (which would be unwise without a full case)
2. Cautions, admonishments, and other bromides.

The latter seems more likely. Generally speaking, counsel isn't a bad thing. But the community is quite capable of doing that themselves (remember conduct RfC?). In this instance particularly, the community would carry more credibility.

The long term result of ineffectual summary motions is political incentive to bypass real dispute resolution, and erosion of the Committee's credibility.

Does the Committee suffer from the Abilene paradox? Collective amnesia? Or am I missing something?

RFCs are generally worthless anyway. Having one now would serve no purpose whatsoever but to prolong the drama. We've already seen what the community thinks. I be damned if I'm going to read it all over again on another page. Waste of time and kb. My statement is up. Let ArbCom do what they're going to do.

A case is pointless. As Flo or Coren, I forget which, pointed out, there's nothing to build a case with. There was no conspiracy. A case, like an RFC at this point would be a waste of time. Let 'em do it by motion. If I lose my bit, I'll know it when my tabs are gone.

If you had it to do over, knowing what you know now, would you change anything?

[LaraLove]

If you had it to do over, knowing what you know now, would you change anything?

That question isn't really relevant. I don't think that's the question to ask to get the information you want, but I'll answer anyway. Knowing what I know now, I can see that the best course of action would have been to pester the AC until they responded. There was a consensus forming to accept his request. I think that was in September 2008. A few reminders would probably have bumped up his request and it would have seen some action instead of falling unanswered into archives. With that, all drama would have been avoided, he would have again been editing as the_undertow, and there would have been no deception.

[A Horse With No Name]

Is that the one you tried to invite yourself to? Sounds like sour grapes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Honey, the idea of being witness to Lara at poolside can drive the sane and serene into extraordinary heights of libido-fueled frenzy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

...the sane and serene...

Or so you're told?

[A Horse With No Name]

Is anybody else scratching their heads at the arbitrator comments at RFAR? It's looking like they're drafting a summary motion instead of conducting an actual case.

It's obvious they don't want anything to do with this case. The attempt to scapegoat GC and Lara completely failed the moment Cas stepped down and John V. admitted having knowledge of the facts six weeks earlier. Not helping was Luke's recusal, which openly accused Law/TU of deceitful lying -- those opinions were conspicuously not echoed by the other Arbcom members on WP. Whatever moral authority Arbcom possessed to investigate the matter evaporated, and it is impossible for them to conduct an impartial case -- especially one that involves self-policing.

...the sane and serene...

Or so you're told?

Grrrrr, I looooooooooooooooove it when you look askew at me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

If you had it to do over, knowing what you know now, would you change anything?

That question isn't really relevant. I don't think that's the question to ask to get the information you want, but I'll answer anyway. Knowing what I know now, I can see that the best course of action would have been to pester the AC until they responded. There was a consensus forming to accept his request. I think that was in September 2008. A few reminders would probably have bumped up his request and it would have seen some action instead of falling unanswered into archives. With that, all drama would have been avoided, he would have again been editing as the_undertow, and there would have been no deception.

That's a pretty good answer.

It's also one of the reasons I bristle at the summary motion idea. Your dilemma was harder than mine, but here's more background; they're related closely enough. In the immediate aftermath of the eight month fall through the cracks I dealt with (see much earlier in this thread), I wrote up a proposal to the Committee that would have devolved most ban reviews to the Community on an open basis. It was a structured plan, but its details aren't pertinent to this discussion.

We'll take it under advisement was the Committee's bland response (they didn't seem to get the basic idea that the community really could review community-based bans on its own initiative). The Committee already had at least two other internal proposals to improve ban reviews--both of which were very top-down--and hadn't acted upon either of them. Very frustrating, especially when they implement no actual reform for many months afterward. The only reason I didn't bring my proposal directly to the community was because the fellow who finally got unbanned had been through the mill: he needed a quiet return. When ArbCom finally implemented something that purports to be reform it's a top-down system that reduces the number of eyes on an appeal--when more eyes rather than less is what's really needed.

Really recently, they've started to publish some of the appeals. Don't let that fool you: I still know multiple appeals that they've sat on for long periods of time without publishing. They don't know who's talking to me.

I wonder whether the Committee's summary motions will acknowledge their own share in the debacle: neglecting an appeal was an organizational failure, as opposed to the later failure to relay information that was one single arbitrator's error. That analysis doesn't vindicate you, Lara, but my experience with this Committee is that they're more interested in deflecting attention from their shortcomings than in setting things right. There is a bureaucratic expedience to pointing fingers, and this doesn't seem to be your week.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[No one of consequence]

Is anybody else scratching their heads at the arbitrator comments at RFAR? It's looking like they're drafting a summary motion instead of conducting an actual case.

The best use of the arbitration case format (and yes, there are occasional well-heard cases) is to allow the parties to gather the evidence in one place, give them the chance to respond to each other's evidence, and give the parties and the community an opportunity to provide feedback to the arbitrators about the evidence should be interpreted and what the remedies should be.

Here, the facts are either known (the admins who have admitted to knowing about Law) or unknowable (since there is no mediawiki extension to scan someone's hard drive for incriminating emails and chat logs), and the community has given more than enough feedback. The only element of a formal case that is missing from the request page is the votes on the proposed decision.

[Kelly Martin]

Here, the facts are either known (the admins who have admitted to knowing about Law) or unknowable (since there is no mediawiki extension to scan someone's hard drive for incriminating emails and chat logs), and the community has given more than enough feedback. The only element of a formal case that is missing from the request page is the votes on the proposed decision.

The formal case format that Fred was so fond of was a great way to increase drama. Most cases that reach the ArbCom are suitable for summary adjudication, perhaps with an appeal to a slower, more deliberate process. The ArbCom has long been enthralled with the trappings of a court, and its process has been deliberately overblown without any good reason therefore. It's especially silly that they go to such lengths to set forth principles and such while at the same time refusing to be bound by precedent, which is the only good reason for setting forth such detailed arguments.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Here, the facts are either known (the admins who have admitted to knowing about Law) or unknowable (since there is no mediawiki extension to scan someone's hard drive for incriminating emails and chat logs), and the community has given more than enough feedback. The only element of a formal case that is missing from the request page is the votes on the proposed decision.

The formal case format that Fred was so fond of was a great way to increase drama. Most cases that reach the ArbCom are suitable for summary adjudication, perhaps with an appeal to a slower, more deliberate process. The ArbCom has long been enthralled with the trappings of a court, and its process has been deliberately overblown without any good reason therefore. It's especially silly that they go to such lengths to set forth principles and such while at the same time refusing to be bound by precedent, which is the only good reason for setting forth such detailed arguments.

But the shortcoming of that approach is that it creates an incentive to bypass all rational discussion and dispute resolution. Think about it; observe who filed this case. That individual could have dealt with the matter at user talk pages, or sought consensus for clearer policy, or headed to conduct RfC. Instead he turned ANI dysfunctional and darted to RFAR (which frames the case's focus upon Lara and places his own actions outside scrutiny). Watch ANI and RFAR over the course of a year or two; see which individuals do this repeatedly. The same names do arise.

[LaraLove]

Grrrrr, I looooooooooooooooove it when you look askew at me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

I didn't realize horses growled.

But the shortcoming of that approach is that it creates an incentive to bypass all rational discussion and dispute resolution. Think about it; observe who filed this case. That individual could have dealt with the matter at user talk pages, or sought consensus for clearer policy, or headed to conduct RfC. Instead he turned ANI dysfunctional and darted to RFAR (which frames the case's focus upon Lara and places his own actions outside scrutiny). Watch ANI and RFAR over the course of a year or two; see which individuals do this repeatedly. The same names do arise.

Do you recall how the_undertow's case came about? It started at AN/I and was fast-tracked to RFAR.
If ArbCom passes a motions to strip me of my bit and Jehochman requests the removal on Meta, we'll have come full-circle. Not that I would be opposed to that, but surely others would get their thongs up in a wad.

Blocking someone on behalf of the AC that you're not a sitting member of, following the closure of the case you requested is a bit more extreme, though.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

But the shortcoming of that approach is that it creates an incentive to bypass all rational discussion and dispute resolution. Think about it; observe who filed this case. That individual could have dealt with the matter at user talk pages, or sought consensus for clearer policy, or headed to conduct RfC. Instead he turned ANI dysfunctional and darted to RFAR (which frames the case's focus upon Lara and places his own actions outside scrutiny). Watch ANI and RFAR over the course of a year or two; see which individuals do this repeatedly. The same names do arise.

Do you recall how the_undertow's case came about? It started at AN/I and was fast-tracked to RFAR.

If ArbCom passes a motions to strip me of my bit and Jehochman requests the removal on Meta, we'll have come full-circle. Not that I would be opposed to that, but surely others would get their thongs up in a wad.

No need to remind me of that sequence. Seeing it unfold was why I offered to certify an RfC against either of you. On the merits of the principle at stake I happen to agree with him, but I'm appalled at the way he's gone about it.

[LaraLove]

And this proves that GlassCobra and I are the chosen scapegoats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ernate_accounts

[SB_Johnny]

But the shortcoming of that approach is that it creates an incentive to bypass all rational discussion and dispute resolution. Think about it; observe who filed this case. That individual could have dealt with the matter at user talk pages, or sought consensus for clearer policy, or headed to conduct RfC. Instead he turned ANI dysfunctional and darted to RFAR (which frames the case's focus upon Lara and places his own actions outside scrutiny). Watch ANI and RFAR over the course of a year or two; see which individuals do this repeatedly. The same names do arise.

Do you recall how the_undertow's case came about? It started at AN/I and was fast-tracked to RFAR.

If ArbCom passes a motions to strip me of my bit and Jehochman requests the removal on Meta, we'll have come full-circle. Not that I would be opposed to that, but surely others would get their thongs up in a wad.

No need to remind me of that sequence. Seeing it unfold was why I offered to certify an RfC against either of you. On the merits of the principle at stake I happen to agree with him, but I'm appalled at the way he's gone about it.

I was rather appalled that he started a *second* case when the drama bladder seemed to have emptied on the first. It seems to have disappeared now though (I have no idea why, but I really don't know much about how Arbcom functions and/or is supposed to function).

Maybe someone should start a "research project" on Wikiversity tracing how Arb cases make their way from the various noticeboards and such to the committee itself.

BTW, I had no idea they rejected the idea of precedent. That's just stupid, if true.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

But the shortcoming of that approach is that it creates an incentive to bypass all rational discussion and dispute resolution. Think about it; observe who filed this case. That individual could have dealt with the matter at user talk pages, or sought consensus for clearer policy, or headed to conduct RfC. Instead he turned ANI dysfunctional and darted to RFAR (which frames the case's focus upon Lara and places his own actions outside scrutiny). Watch ANI and RFAR over the course of a year or two; see which individuals do this repeatedly. The same names do arise.

Do you recall how the_undertow's case came about? It started at AN/I and was fast-tracked to RFAR.

If ArbCom passes a motions to strip me of my bit and Jehochman requests the removal on Meta, we'll have come full-circle. Not that I would be opposed to that, but surely others would get their thongs up in a wad.

No need to remind me of that sequence. Seeing it unfold was why I offered to certify an RfC against either of you. On the merits of the principle at stake I happen to agree with him, but I'm appalled at the way he's gone about it.

I was rather appalled that he started a *second* case when the drama bladder seemed to have emptied on the first. It seems to have disappeared now though (I have no idea why, but I really don't know much about how Arbcom functions and/or is supposed to function).

Maybe someone should start a "research project" on Wikiversity tracing how Arb cases make their way from the various noticeboards and such to the committee itself.

BTW, I had no idea they rejected the idea of precedent. That's just stupid, if true.

They moved his second proposal to RFAR talk because it wasn't really formulated in an operable manner.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[Moulton]

Alienation and scapegoating is the fourth phase of the generic five phase model of WikiDrama.

[Cedric]

And this proves that GlassCobra and I are the chosen scapegoats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ernate_accounts

Yep:

Some of my colleagues may want to suggest more than those three motions, but I think that 1 and one of the 2 should allow us to close this matter. — Coren (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But then, surely most of us here saw that coming. What I am waiting to see is if anyone gets blocked, banned, desysopped or otherwise hung out dry for criticizing this "closure".

[No one of consequence]

BTW, I had no idea they rejected the idea of precedent. That's just stupid, if true.

They just don't want to be bound by a one-size-fits-all approach and harangued by disgruntled combatants, "Last year in RFAR/Smith you banned Smith for a year but now in RFAR/Jones you are only giving Jones a topic ban." In practice, Arbcom follows precedent all the time, especially with respect to general case principles, although remedies and sanctions tend to be fairly consistent as well.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[Apathetic]

And this proves that GlassCobra and I are the chosen scapegoats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ernate_accounts

Jayron32 added

[cyofee]

And this proves that GlassCobra and I are the chosen scapegoats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ernate_accounts

Who else should be desysopped?

[Appleby]

WP One = IRC One
WR One = WP Cool Hand Luke
WR One != IRC One

A clear violation of WP:SYNTH. It's also faulty logic unless you can prove

WP One != WP Cool Hand Luke

[Deodand]

Well yes, that too. Note, Thatcher (from your posts to Daniel's talkpage) that the "revelation" that Law=The Undertow and the decision to go to ArbCom was not directly related to the move discussion.

Bullshit.

The page move led to the decision to go to arbcom. This is acceptable. The idea that the user in question just went "he won't move a page, lets get him desysopped as punishment" is not acceptable. I found the IRC log of the PM, btw; starts:

01[12:26] <Ironholds> just a ping that I'm setting up a talkpage discussion now (in case you were doing the same and we'd ec)
[12:26] <The_Law> thats funny because i don't give a fuck about you
[12:27] <The_Law> i will pwn u every time. and that sucks.

Kind of undermines the idea that Ironholds went "waah, he won't move my page! Blam goes his Mighty Tools!"

[One]

And when did you tell Luke? And why?

Hey Lara, if you could get your good friend to answer these reasonable questions (along with any other supporting evidence), I would appreciate it.

[Peter Damian]

And this proves that GlassCobra and I are the chosen scapegoats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ernate_accounts

Jayron32 added

How do we know that Jayron knew?

[Wiki Witch of the West]

BTW, I had no idea they rejected the idea of precedent. That's just stupid, if true.

They just don't want to be bound by a one-size-fits-all approach and harangued by disgruntled combatants, "Last year in RFAR/Smith[/] you banned Smith for a year but now in [i]RFAR/Jones you are only giving Jones a topic ban." In practice, Arbcom follows precedent all the time, especially with respect to general case principles, although remedies and sanctions tend to be fairly consistent as well.

The usual line is that they aren't bound by precedent. The theory behind it, at its best, is that it allows them to tailor responses to particular situations. As the precedents accumulate, two things happen though. One is that a decreasing number of arbitrators actually know what the precedents are (the old saying comes to mind about people who fail to learn the lessons of history being doomed to repeat them); the other is that it's politically convenient to cherry pick one's precedents. One guaranteed way to make oneself unpopular with the arbitrators is to know about five dozen arbitration cases well enough to quote them.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[Apathetic]

Jayron32 added

How do we know that Jayron knew?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=317425028

[A Horse With No Name]

Jayron32 added

How do we know that Jayron knew?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=317425028

Jayron deserves a big Horsey kiss -- and more -- for being upright and honest.

The page move led to the decision to go to arbcom. This is acceptable. The idea that the user in question just went "he won't move a page, lets get him desysopped as punishment" is not acceptable. I found the IRC log of the PM, btw; starts:

01[12:26] <Ironholds> just a ping that I'm setting up a talkpage discussion now (in case you were doing the same and we'd ec)
[12:26] <The_Law> thats funny because i don't give a fuck about you
[12:27] <The_Law> i will pwn u every time. and that sucks.

Kind of undermines the idea that Ironholds went "waah, he won't move my page! Blam goes his Mighty Tools!"

It would be helpful if we were all working from the full log and not selected sections that may or may not be out of context.

As the precedents accumulate, two things happen though. One is that a decreasing number of arbitrators actually know what the precedents are (the old saying comes to mind about people who fail to learn the lessons of history being doomed to repeat them); the other is that it's politically convenient to cherry pick one's precedents.

Arbcom should get a barnstar from WikiProject Agriculture -- they have done an amazing job with cherry picking. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

They just don't want to be bound by a one-size-fits-all approach and harangued by disgruntled combatants, "Last year in RFAR/Smith[/] you banned Smith for a year but now in [i]RFAR/Jones you are only giving Jones a topic ban." In practice, Arbcom follows precedent all the time, especially with respect to general case principles, although remedies and sanctions tend to be fairly consistent as well.

In other words, they want to be bound by precedent only when it's convenient to them. I think this is called "having your cake and eating it too".

The principle that precedent must either be followed, or distinguished, is one of the cornerstones of equitable jurisprudence in a society based on common-law principles. Wikipedia's rejection of this principle underscores its lack of commitment to equitable governance.

[A Horse With No Name]

Who else should be desysopped?

Should we go by age, height or alphabetical order? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[No one of consequence]

...

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[Achromatic]

They just don't want to be bound by a one-size-fits-all approach and harangued by disgruntled combatants, "Last year in RFAR/Smith[/] you banned Smith for a year but now in [i]RFAR/Jones you are only giving Jones a topic ban." In practice, Arbcom follows precedent all the time, especially with respect to general case principles, although remedies and sanctions tend to be fairly consistent as well.

In other words, they want to be bound by precedent only when it's convenient to them. I think this is called "having your cake and eating it too".

The principle that precedent must either be followed, or distinguished, is one of the cornerstones of equitable jurisprudence in a society based on common-law principles. Wikipedia's rejection of this principle underscores its lack of commitment to equitable governance.

Or, to summarize:

"We don't do due process. Why should we do precedent, either?"

[CharlotteWebb]

BTW, I had no idea they rejected the idea of precedent. That's just stupid, if true.

With precedent would come some consistency of outcome, but based on what I've seen with my own eyes I'd rather choose "inconsistent" over "consistently poor", because the former implies the defendants have a fighting chance. I think the notion of binding precedents would just give the committee the excuse they need to willfully and knowingly repeat the same mistakes when convenient.

WP One = IRC One
WR One = WP Cool Hand Luke
WR One != IRC One

A clear violation of WP:SYNTH. It's also faulty logic unless you can prove

WP One != WP Cool Hand Luke

This is a common source of confusion, but they are in fact different people. I'm 100% certain sure of this (though I'm not about to prove this in a public forum—others will be less prudent I'm sure).

You might as well be asking someone to prove the user "Guy" here was not "Guy (JzG)" on Wikipedia, or that "Kato" here was not "Cato" on Wikiquote, etc.

I mean... coincidences happen!

One guaranteed way to make oneself unpopular with the arbitrators is to know about five dozen arbitration cases well enough to quote them.

Otherwise it's certainly a good way for lawyers to make themselves unpopular in real life. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

I think the notion of binding precedents would just give the committee the excuse they need to willfully and knowingly repeat the same mistakes when convenient.

They do that quite well already.

[A Horse With No Name]

Next time, run a spell Czech! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[CharlotteWebb]

I think the notion of binding precedents would just give the committee the excuse they need to willfully and knowingly repeat the same mistakes when convenient.

They do that quite well already.

And there's no excuse for it (so far)! They ought to quit that shit rather than...

Heh. I guess I've found the dark side of "policy follows practice".

[LaraLove]

And this proves that GlassCobra and I are the chosen scapegoats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ernate_accounts

Who else should be desysopped?

Who else? I don't believe anyone should be.

[LaraLove]

Next time, run a spell Czech! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Haha, you got a shout out. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318106334

[Apathetic]

Next time, run a spell Czech! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Haha, you got a shout out. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318106334

editing on behalf of a banned user lawl

[CharlotteWebb]

I have significant involvement with one of a parties who is a regular on ''Wikipedia Review'' such that my my participation could lead to lead to the perception of prejudice.

Hmm... it it reads almost as if as if he is he is doubly prejudiced doubly prejudiced due to due to involvement with both with both parties.

Nah, probably just needs some coffee. Err wait... I didn't mean it like that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[No one of consequence]

I have significant involvement with one of a parties who is a regular on ''Wikipedia Review'' such that my my participation could lead to lead to the perception of prejudice.

Hmm... it it reads almost as if as if he is he is doubly prejudiced doubly prejudiced due to due to involvement with both with both parties.

Nah, probably just needs some coffee. Err wait... I didn't mean it like that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I wonder what impact Luke's recusing himself from any case involving a WR participant will have on the next elections.

[A Horse With No Name]

Next time, run a spell Czech! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Haha, you got a shout out. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318106334

editing on behalf of a banned user lawl

It appears that elementary English is not pre-requisite for Arbcom membership. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

'''Law of the Horse''' is a term that was used in the mid-1990s to define the state of [[cyberlaw]] during the nascent years of the Internet’s development as a socio-economic force of information.

The term first gained prominence in a 1996 cyberlaw conference presentation by Judge [[Frank H. Easterbrook]] of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]]. Easterbrook, who was also a professor at the [[University of Chicago]], later published his presentation in the University of Chicago Law Review as ''Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse,'' in which he argued against the notion of defining cyberlaw as a unique section of legal studies and litigation.<ref>{{cite news | author =Amy Harmon | title =The Law Where There Is No Land; A Legal System Built on Precedents Has Few of Them in the Digital World | publisher =The New York Times | date =March 16, 1998 | url =http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/16/business/law-where-there-no-land-legal-system-built-precedents-has-few-them-digital-world.html?pagewanted=2 | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref> Easterbrook cited [[Gerhard Casper]] as coining the expression “law of the horse,” and stated that Casper’s arguments against specialized or niche legal studies applied to cyberlaw:
<blockquote>
“...the best way to learn the law applicable to specialized endeavors is to study general rules. Lots of cases deal with sales of horses; others deal with people kicked by horses; still more deal with the licensing and racing of horses, or with the care veterinarians give to horses, or with prizes at horse shows. Any effort to collect these strands into a course on 'The Law of the Horse' is doomed to be shallow and to miss unifying principles.”<ref>{{cite news | author =Frank H. Easterbrook | title =Cyberspace and the Law of the House | publisher =University of Chicago Law Review | date =1996 | url =http://www.law.upenn.edu/fac/pwagner/law619/f2001/week15/easterbrook.pdf | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref></blockquote>

Easterbrook’s theory was challenged by [[Lawrence Lessig]], a professor at [[Stanford Law School]], in an April 1997 article ''The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach.'' Lessig’s article, which was first presented at the [[Boston University]] Law School Faculty Workshop, argued that legal perceptions and rules would need to evolve as the cyberspace environment developed and expanded.<ref>{{cite news | author =Wired News Staff | title =Newly Appointed 'Special Master' To Probe MS Issues | publisher =Wired Magazine | date =December 11, 1997 | url =http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1997/12/9118 | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news | author =Bret A. Fausett | title =Hooray RIAA | publisher =Dr. Dobb’s Journal | date =February 12, 2003 | url =http://www.ddj.com/architect/184411637 | accessdate=2009-09-25}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Computer law]]
[[Category:Cyberspace]]



(Mod note) Removed code that broke the thread. -Derktar

Sorry about that, Derktar. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Milton Roe]

I have significant involvement with one of a parties who is a regular on ''Wikipedia Review'' such that my my participation could lead to lead to the perception of prejudice.

Hmm... it it reads almost as if as if he is he is doubly prejudiced doubly prejudiced due to due to involvement with both with both parties.

Nah, probably just needs some coffee. Err wait... I didn't mean it like that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I wonder what impact Luke's recusing himself from any case involving a WR participant will have on the next elections.

And as a side note, this nifty background HTML tag is going to make WR lots more colorful. Ripe for abuse!

[Abd]

BTW, I had no idea they rejected the idea of precedent. That's just stupid, if true.

Depends on what the purpose is. The purpose is to prevent the formation of any settled "law," to allow actual practice to be superior to policy. And the purpose of that is to empower the "masses," in theory, which, as is well know, means empowering the active core, the oligarchy which is known to always form per the Iron Law. The absence of law means that the mob is in charge, and the mob can block reform. Until the general "public" wakes up and asserts its power, it will remain helpless, because only a few editors who see the problem will act at any one time, and the massing power of the mob can overwhelm them.

Now, this is an extreme description. In fact, there is some level of deliberative process on Wikipedia, but it's unreliable and easily overcome by mass reactions.

The problem with "practice over policy" is that it's possible to deliberate policy, to document and find a settled consensus, based on careful and thoughtful examination and experience, at least temporarily. Actual practice, involving hundreds or thousands or more editors, isn't amenable to deliberation, because the discussion size becomes impossible. Hence there is ArbComm, which can in theory deliberate and make policy decisions, but it is confused about its own role. Does it "represent" the community, or is it an "instrument" of the community through which the community deliberates? Can it make policy? Or is its only role to express and apply "actual practice"?

Revolutionaries classically called upon the oppressed masses to rise up and throw out the oppressors. It was backwards, in fact, because rising up and tossing the oligarchy simply opened up an opportunity for a new oligarchy, which the masses were unable to resist, for it appeared at first that it represented them. To move around this hazard, it's necessary that the masses organize for communication only, not for power.

The essential organizational problem is the same as the essential political problem: how can large numbers of people communicate, find consensus, and act coherently -- which means efficiently as well as effectively. How can this be done while avoiding the Scylla and Charybdis of excessive volatility and noise, leading to paralysis and thus vulnerability to crowd behavior, which often is like a dumb and vicious beast, on the one hand, or fascism or heavy central control, on the other?

Before it can be done, it's necessary that enough people recognize the problem. That's difficult enough for one day! Or one year, probably! Most people readily fall into the habit of considering that the problem is the bad guys, the corrupt, the incompetent, you know, them. Get rid of them, and things will be fine. Not.

Consider the current arb cases. Where in these cases is the attempt to find an inclusive consensus? It seems to be all about judging a contest, where the winners will be vindicated and the bad guys punished. ArbComm does attempt to find some internal consensus, usually, though that attempt can also be notably absent. But it seems to do this, too often, only to "settle" a dispute without actually resolving it. People usually misbehave for a reason. Unless the reason is addressed, the misbehavior will return, with or without a new face or new name.

I find it very dangerous that ArbComm allows normal dispute resolution to be bypassed, and one of the consequences of this is that disputes come to ArbComm not being well defined much beyond "He's bad!" "No, she's bad!" This makes questions large and complex, and deliberative bodies have learned, over the centuries, to avoid those without first engaging on small questions.

[LaraLove]

Nah, probably just needs some coffee. Err wait... I didn't mean it like that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

OMG, I love this website.

Next time, run a spell Czech! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Haha, you got a shout out. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=318106334

editing on behalf of a banned user lawl

It appears that elementary English is not pre-requisite for Arbcom membership. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

<article>

I would post it, but I'd surely be banned before I got back from class tonight.

[A Horse With No Name]

I would post it, but I'd surely be banned before I got back from class tonight.

No prob, Lara. Nonetheless, this shows the ironic stupidity of Wikipedia -- for all of the commotion about the scapegoating of yourself, GC, Jayron and Law/TU, the core mission of "building an encyclopedia" and "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" turns out to be a bunch of horseshit.

This article relating to cyberlaw won't go online -- not because it stinks (it doesn't) or because it is incorrect (it is not), but because of who wrote it. It shows the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is really a private club, with a clique deciding who can play and who has to stay outside. That is emetic at a moral, ethical and intellectual level.

Next time anyone claims that Wikipedians should be focusing on "building an encyclopedia," give 'em a smack in the chops -- and ask them what they've done to write an encyclopedia. Because you don't build an encyclopedia - you build a house, a car and a better mousetrap, but you don't "build" a reference text. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Milton Roe]

The essential organizational problem is the same as the essential political problem: how can large numbers of people communicate, find consensus, and act coherently -- which means efficiently as well as effectively. How can this be done while avoiding the Scylla and Charybdis of excessive volatility and noise, leading to paralysis and thus vulnerability to crowd behavior, which often is like a dumb and vicious beast, on the one hand, or fascism or heavy central control, on the other?

Before it can be done, it's necessary that enough people recognize the problem. That's difficult enough for one day! Or one year, probably! Most people readily fall into the habit of considering that the problem is the bad guys, the corrupt, the incompetent, you know, them. Get rid of them, and things will be fine. Not.

Indeed. No sooner does the animal farm get rid of its exploitive farmers, than a bunch of pigs that were no problem before, get up on their hind legs and start to act more human.

[Guido den Broeder]

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

'''Law of the Horse''' is a ...

Done. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Appleby]

A clear violation of WP:SYNTH. It's also faulty logic unless you can prove

WP One != WP Cool Hand Luke

This is a common source of confusion, but they are in fact different people. I'm 100% certain sure of this (though I'm not about to prove this in a public forum—others will be less prudent I'm sure).

I'm not suggesting for a moment that they're the same people, just pointing out that there's a gap in the logic.

You might as well be asking someone to prove the user "Guy" here was not "Guy (JzG)" on Wikipedia, or that "Kato" here was not "Cato" on Wikiquote, etc.

Or indeed that someone here is the same person as a user of the same name on Wikipedia. Surely you can't confuse Cato and Kato. Next you'll confuse Jayvdb and Jayjg! Actually, Cato is an admin on the Norwegian Wikipedia.

http://nn.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...1&username=Cato

Next time, run a spell Czech!

Do you mean "one of a parties" and the repetitions? Not actually spelling errors.

This post has been edited by Appleby:

[Noroton]

I actually wrote up an article for One on "Law of the Horse" (which he half-jokingly requested) but he never put online. If anyone wants to post it, be my guest -- it is all formatted and ready to run:

Added by somebody else, deleted, re-added with explanation on talk page and on an admin's page. All done. (You missed a footnote, but good article.) Now I'm late for dinner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Horse

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[Deodand]

The page move led to the decision to go to arbcom. This is acceptable. The idea that the user in question just went "he won't move a page, lets get him desysopped as punishment" is not acceptable. I found the IRC log of the PM, btw; starts:

01[12:26] <Ironholds> just a ping that I'm setting up a talkpage discussion now (in case you were doing the same and we'd ec)
[12:26] <The_Law> thats funny because i don't give a fuck about you
[12:27] <The_Law> i will pwn u every time. and that sucks.

Kind of undermines the idea that Ironholds went "waah, he won't move my page! Blam goes his Mighty Tools!"

It would be helpful if we were all working from the full log and not selected sections that may or may not be out of context.

That was literally the first section of the log. I don't have permission to further distribute it, nor methods unfortunately. I'm sure Ironholds would completely fail to see the irony if I was to blab the logs to all and sundry (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif).