|
|
|
Gerard blocks Giano for sockpuppetry, invokes good/bad hand accounts policy - wrongly |
|
|
Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
QUOTE(privatemusings @ Tue 18th November 2008, 10:25pm) hee heeimpressively dumb! (sorry DG, you're a pussycat, I know... but that was spectacularly useless!) No, it was first class. Intended to cause drama and drama it will cause. Wikipedia's two biggest trolls will now feed off each other. Sit back, break out the popcorn, and enjoy the show.
|
|
|
|
LessHorrid vanU |
|
Devils Advocaat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 836
Joined:
Member No.: 3,466
|
David Gerard has blocked Giano for operating the Catherine de Burgh account in a run for ArbCom, citing good/bad hand account policy. Nice quiet block with no possibility of drama, if it wasn't for the fact that that section doesn't cover what is happening, and neither does any part of WP:Sock (there is no collusion between the accounts, no false creation of consensus). Mind you, this is the person who got the tenets of WP:IRC wrong, didn't comment publicly at the relevant ArbCom, when it was supposedly his area of expertise... So, no incipient drama there, then...
|
|
|
|
Son of a Yeti |
|
High altitude member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 415
Joined:
From: A hiding place in the Himalaya
Member No.: 8,704
|
QUOTE(Alex @ Tue 18th November 2008, 3:51pm) Friday's opinion: QUOTE This is the best bit of performance art I've seen in a good while.
It's getting better and better. Wikipedia is rapidly evolving into a reality show.
|
|
|
|
Basil |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 38
Joined:
Member No.: 8,782
|
Phil Sandifer demonstrating that he hasn't lost the ability to win friends and influence people at election time (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) QUOTE ====Statement by [[User:Phil Sandifer]]====
I encourage the arbcom to accept this case. I cannot see any fault in David's actions here - to my knowledge "commonly known" is not a criterion in [[WP:SOCK]]. However, this adds to the laundry list of instances in which it is obvious that no sanctions can ever be made to stick on Giano regardless of their relationship to policy - even a block that is well-founded in existing sockpuppet policy is, apparently, grounds for swift reversal.
Given that the community has consistently failed to show any capability for regulating the conduct of this user, it falls to the arbcom to do so. I am prepared, should the case be accepted, to document the lengthy history of disruption and incivility on the part of Giano.
But I encourage the arbcom to accept this and deal with this situation for once and for all - either to put an unambiguous sanction on Giano that cannot be overturned by the circle of protection he has managed to gather, or to pass a finding noting that despite his incivility, the arbcom washes their hands of it and accepts that the community has consented to put him above the law such that his special status can be enshrined in policy and we can be done with this idiotic drama surrounding good faith efforts to deal with an uncivil user who serially violates policy.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Son of a Yeti @ Tue 18th November 2008, 4:00pm) QUOTE(Alex @ Tue 18th November 2008, 3:51pm) Friday's opinion: QUOTE This is the best bit of performance art I've seen in a good while.
It's getting better and better. Wikipedia is rapidly evolving into a reality show. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) It's been exactly that for some time, man. Where you BEEN?
|
|
|
|
Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
I might as well export a post I made to another thread yesterday, as it is equally applicable here - even more so in fact, because it anticipates this latest Giano "climax" before it even happens. QUOTE(Kato @ Mon 17th November 2008, 12:01pm) What matters is the CONTENT and how Wikipedia, and "Wikipedians", are dealing with that CONTENT.
The interpersonal stuff - all the bannings and blocks and scraps and hypocrisy - can be an interesting sideshow and can act as a Soap Opera worth watching on occasion, but it is the product of the "dysfunctional social network" and has little to do with the stuff kids bring up on their google searches.
That's why some of Lar's questions were interesting to me. Because they addressed BLP issues, Flagged revisions, and hinted of WPs inevitable failure of "reaching a consensus" to move forward with these serious problems. Another crucial question asked whether people supported editor unaccountability / anonymity, and why? Lar's questions can be used as a survey to ascertain whether long term Wikipedos had learned anything over the past 3 years or so, and whether they are prepared to change, move forward, or at least set an example?
All that blather about those nasty arbcom members, IRC, Giano, and those endless scraps between drama queens, and the feuds over their blocks and bans, is actually getting in the way of WP addressing these core issues. The elections themselves are a farcical irrelevant nonsense; merely shifting deckchairs on The Titanic.
What is the best process for dealing with cravings, withdrawal, or other side effects of addiction? Will the drama-addicts of WP ever find an inner peace, or are they doomed to lives of endless subservience to this nonsense?
|
|
|
|
The Wales Hunter |
|
Hackenslasher
Group: Regulars
Posts: 869
Joined:
Member No.: 4,319
|
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Wed 19th November 2008, 2:15am) I have a sneaky suspicion that all folks who run for ArbCom are checkusered (it makes sense, if you think about it) and that may be what's going on here.
Oh no, they'll find out I'm Poetlister, SlimVirgin and Wordbomb (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Interesting thought, but I'm pretty sure Jimbo himself said verification would not be required until after the election (I would search for diffs, but about to head for bed).
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |