Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: the fieryangel

http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/27/andrew-landeryou-appears-to-be-a-waste-of-skin/

Does anybody know what this is all about?

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sat 28th November 2009, 5:56am)

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sat 28th November 2009, 6:56am)

Posted by: Doc glasgow

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

This won't end well.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 28th November 2009, 4:09pm)

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

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

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 28th November 2009, 10:43am)

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 28th November 2009, 12:09pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 28th November 2009, 10:43am)

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 28th November 2009, 11:15am)

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 28th November 2009, 5:09pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 28th November 2009, 10:43am)

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

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

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

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

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 28th November 2009, 11:49am)

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 28th November 2009, 4:49pm)

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 28th November 2009, 5:59pm)

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 28th November 2009, 7:16pm)

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 28th November 2009, 2:16pm)

Posted by: everyking

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

"Well, yes."

"But is he at least a nice troll?"

"Well, no..."

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 28th November 2009, 7:12pm)

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sat 28th November 2009, 5:59pm)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 28th November 2009, 2:16pm)

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

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

Posted by: Nerd

ArbCom have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#David_Gerard his checkuser and oversight privs.

Posted by: cyofee

QUOTE(Nerd @ Sun 29th November 2009, 1:46pm)

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(cyofee @ Sun 29th November 2009, 7:25am)

QUOTE(Nerd @ Sun 29th November 2009, 1:46pm)

ArbCom have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#David_Gerard his checkuser and oversight privs.

Owned.

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

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(cyofee @ Sun 29th November 2009, 8:25am)

QUOTE(Nerd @ Sun 29th November 2009, 1:46pm)

ArbCom have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#David_Gerard his checkuser and oversight privs.

Owned.

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

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 2:55pm)

QUOTE(cyofee @ Sun 29th November 2009, 8:25am)

QUOTE(Nerd @ Sun 29th November 2009, 1:46pm)

ArbCom have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#David_Gerard his checkuser and oversight privs.

Owned.

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

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

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(Nerd @ Sun 29th November 2009, 1:46pm)

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 1:55pm)

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sun 29th November 2009, 9:02am)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 2:55pm)

QUOTE(cyofee @ Sun 29th November 2009, 8:25am)

QUOTE(Nerd @ Sun 29th November 2009, 1:46pm)

ArbCom have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#David_Gerard his checkuser and oversight privs.

Owned.

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

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

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

I say that the Arbcom did the right thing here.

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Sun 29th November 2009, 3:20pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 1:55pm)

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

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

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

Posted by: Cedric

Ah. Now I see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard#Please_contact_ArbCom

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 3:25pm)

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sun 29th November 2009, 9:02am)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 2:55pm)

QUOTE(cyofee @ Sun 29th November 2009, 8:25am)

QUOTE(Nerd @ Sun 29th November 2009, 1:46pm)

ArbCom have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#David_Gerard his checkuser and oversight privs.

Owned.

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

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

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

I say that the Arbcom did the right thing here.

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

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

Posted by: dtobias

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

Posted by: the fieryangel

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 29th November 2009, 3:35pm)

Posted by: trenton

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

First Jayjg, and now Gerard.

Also, has anyone noticed he doesn't pop up quite as often as an official spokesman? He seems to have been demoted somewhat after he and Forrester ran Wikimedia UK into the ground

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Nerd @ Sun 29th November 2009, 6:46am)

Posted by: carbuncle

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

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(trenton @ Sun 29th November 2009, 9:50am)

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:19am)

Posted by: Somey

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

I just hope he lets the kid wear "normal" clothes in school...

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:13am)

I just hope he lets the kid wear "normal" clothes in school...

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

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

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

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th November 2009, 12:13pm)

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cedric @ Sun 29th November 2009, 7:31am)

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 29th November 2009, 4:46pm)

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:50am)

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sun 29th November 2009, 2:25pm)

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th November 2009, 1:36pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:50am)

By his wife or his concubine?

Concubine, I believe.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:50am)

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th November 2009, 12:13pm)

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

By his wife or his concubine?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(RDH(Ghost In The Machine) @ Sun 29th November 2009, 12:44pm)

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th November 2009, 7:06pm)

QUOTE(RDH(Ghost In The Machine) @ Sun 29th November 2009, 12:44pm)

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

Posted by: trenton

You'd think a freak like Gerard would be a little more circumspect in labeling other people

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Sun 29th November 2009, 7:28pm)

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 29th November 2009, 4:46pm)

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

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

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 29th November 2009, 12:59pm)

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

QUOTE(trenton @ Sun 29th November 2009, 7:21pm)

You'd think a freak like Gerard would be a little more circumspect in labeling other people

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th November 2009, 7:26pm)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 29th November 2009, 12:59pm)

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

I agree, and if he contacts us and asks us to delete it, we probably will. However, in order to avoid the dreaded "hypocrite" tag, before he does that he'll probably want to use his admin powers on Uncyclopedia to delete things like http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:FEAR_MY_ROOSTER_AND_ITS_SATANICALLY_POWERFUL_DEMON_SEED....

Posted by: thekohser

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

Posted by: MZMcBride

Looking at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/checkuser, it looks pretty clean to me at this point. Might be nice to remove one or two people for inactivity, but most the problematic old guard seems to have been removed.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

So, does David Gerard join wikipedia review now?

Posted by: trenton

QUOTE(RDH(Ghost In The Machine) @ Sun 29th November 2009, 1:34pm)

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(trenton @ Sun 29th November 2009, 8:38pm)

QUOTE(RDH(Ghost In The Machine) @ Sun 29th November 2009, 1:34pm)

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

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 29th November 2009, 2:52pm)

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 29th November 2009, 4:17pm)

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 29th November 2009, 2:29pm)

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

QUOTE(trenton @ Sun 29th November 2009, 8:38pm)

QUOTE(RDH(Ghost In The Machine) @ Sun 29th November 2009, 1:34pm)

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

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

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th November 2009, 9:54pm)

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 29th November 2009, 4:08pm)

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 29th November 2009, 6:59pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:50am)

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th November 2009, 12:13pm)

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

By his wife or his concubine?

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

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:24pm)

QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 29th November 2009, 4:08pm)

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

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

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 29th November 2009, 7:10pm)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 29th November 2009, 6:59pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:50am)

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th November 2009, 12:13pm)

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

By his wife or his concubine?

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

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

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:17am)

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 29th November 2009, 7:10pm)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 29th November 2009, 6:59pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:50am)

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th November 2009, 12:13pm)

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

By his wife or his concubine?

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

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

I like http://reddragdiva.co.uk/displayimage.php?album=11&pos=4 better. Whose the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:24am)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:17am)

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 29th November 2009, 7:10pm)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 29th November 2009, 6:59pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:50am)

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th November 2009, 12:13pm)

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

By his wife or his concubine?

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

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

I like http://reddragdiva.co.uk/displayimage.php?album=11&pos=4 better. Whose the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

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

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sun 29th November 2009, 8:27pm)

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 30th November 2009, 3:20am)

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sun 29th November 2009, 8:27pm)

Looking at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/checkuser, it looks pretty clean to me at this point. Might be nice to remove one or two people for inactivity, but most the problematic old guard seems to have been removed.

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

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Mon 30th November 2009, 2:29am)

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 30th November 2009, 3:20am)

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sun 29th November 2009, 8:27pm)

Looking at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/checkuser, it looks pretty clean to me at this point. Might be nice to remove one or two people for inactivity, but most the problematic old guard seems to have been removed.

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

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:06am)

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 30th November 2009, 4:53am)

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:06am)

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

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

Posted by: Cimorene

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Sun 29th November 2009, 9:53pm)

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:06am)

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

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

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

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 30th November 2009, 3:53am)

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:06am)

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

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

Posted by: Cimorene

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sun 29th November 2009, 10:24pm)

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 30th November 2009, 3:53am)

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:06am)

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: everyking

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

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(RDH(Ghost In The Machine) @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:34am)

QUOTE(trenton @ Sun 29th November 2009, 7:21pm)

You'd think a freak like Gerard would be a little more circumspect in labeling other people

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

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:26am)

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 30th November 2009, 6:33am)

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:26am)

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

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

That's nice.

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

Posted by: dtobias

He http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&diff=328659826&oldid=328657756 on his talk page.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 30th November 2009, 5:50am)

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 30th November 2009, 7:04am)

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 30th November 2009, 5:50am)

He http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&diff=328659826&oldid=328657756 on his talk page.

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

Posted by: EricBarbour

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

Gerard's history of disputes with him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive83#DarrenRay_and_Ben_Cass_and_sockpuppets.

I believe it originated with the Darren Ray/2006BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DarrenRay_and_2006BC.
One of the articles they were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FrozenUmbrella#Andrew_Landeryou: Landeryou's BLP.

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:46pm)

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:21am)

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(Cimorene @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:28am)

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 30th November 2009, 1:04am)

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 30th November 2009, 5:50am)

He http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&diff=328659826&oldid=328657756 on his talk page.

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 30th November 2009, 7:17am)

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:09pm)

QUOTE(Cimorene @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:28am)

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

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

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 30th November 2009, 11:57am)

QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:09pm)

QUOTE(Cimorene @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:28am)

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 30th November 2009, 4:31pm)

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 30th November 2009, 4:31pm)

Posted by: Cimorene

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 30th November 2009, 10:40am)

QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 30th November 2009, 4:31pm)

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

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

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

So I figured I should at least clarify it (even if for no other reason than to make sure she still agrees with it).

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 30th November 2009, 5:37pm)

QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 30th November 2009, 4:31pm)

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

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

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Mon 30th November 2009, 1:08pm)

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 30th November 2009, 5:37pm)

QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 30th November 2009, 4:31pm)

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

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

I could block you for any reason or no reason at all, but policy prevents me from doing so. The http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser is rather explicit that it is only granted with Arbcom approval on wikis with Arbcoms. Why is something permissible if it violates policy?

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 30th November 2009, 3:46pm)

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:53pm)

Posted by: Cedric

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavid_Gerard&action=historysubmit&diff=328774845&oldid=328738343, David is now claiming that "my main concern is the serious defamation."

K.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Cedric @ Mon 30th November 2009, 1:17pm)

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 30th November 2009, 4:02pm)

Posted by: Kelly Martin

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

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 30th November 2009, 7:02pm)

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 30th November 2009, 12:53pm)

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

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

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

QUOTE(Cedric @ Mon 30th November 2009, 7:17pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavid_Gerard&action=historysubmit&diff=328774845&oldid=328738343, David is now claiming that "my main concern is the serious defamation."

K.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 30th November 2009, 6:53pm)

QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 30th November 2009, 3:46pm)

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

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 30th November 2009, 4:58pm)

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 30th November 2009, 8:58pm)

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 30th November 2009, 6:53pm)

QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 30th November 2009, 3:46pm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Mon 30th November 2009, 8:04pm)

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 30th November 2009, 1:07pm)

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Mon 30th November 2009, 8:04pm)

Jimbo does have Arbcom permission for Oversight, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&diff=prev&oldid=361333#English_Wikipedia

Ah, thanks.

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

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Mon 30th November 2009, 11:46am)

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 30th November 2009, 8:36pm)

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Mon 30th November 2009, 11:46am)

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

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

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 30th November 2009, 3:59pm)

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 30th November 2009, 4:58pm)

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

I agree; I was rebutting Lar's point.

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 30th November 2009, 3:58pm)

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 30th November 2009, 9:52pm)

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 4:17pm)

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 29th November 2009, 7:10pm)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 29th November 2009, 6:59pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:50am)

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th November 2009, 12:13pm)

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

By his wife or his concubine?

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

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

I like http://reddragdiva.co.uk/displayimage.php?album=11&pos=4 better. Who is the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Alison @ Tue 1st December 2009, 5:37am)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 4:17pm)

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 29th November 2009, 7:10pm)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 29th November 2009, 6:59pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:50am)

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th November 2009, 12:13pm)

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

By his wife or his concubine?

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

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

I like http://reddragdiva.co.uk/displayimage.php?album=11&pos=4 better. Who is the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

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

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 1st December 2009, 11:30am)

QUOTE(Alison @ Tue 1st December 2009, 5:37am)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 4:17pm)

QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 29th November 2009, 7:10pm)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 29th November 2009, 6:59pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 29th November 2009, 11:50am)

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th November 2009, 12:13pm)

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

By his wife or his concubine?

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

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

I like http://reddragdiva.co.uk/displayimage.php?album=11&pos=4 better. Who is the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

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

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

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

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 1st December 2009, 4:42pm)

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Alison @ Mon 30th November 2009, 11:37pm)

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

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 1st December 2009, 1:22pm)

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 1st December 2009, 1:22pm)

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Tue 1st December 2009, 6:32pm)

Posted by: Nerd

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&action=history

Posted by: trenton

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

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

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 1st December 2009, 6:20pm)

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st December 2009, 11:29pm)

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 1st December 2009, 6:20pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&action=history

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st December 2009, 8:29pm)

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Tue 1st December 2009, 1:03pm)

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 1st December 2009, 1:22pm)

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

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

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 1st December 2009, 11:29pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st December 2009, 8:29pm)

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

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

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 1st December 2009, 6:40pm)

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 1st December 2009, 11:29pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st December 2009, 8:29pm)

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

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

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

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 1st December 2009, 11:40pm)

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 1st December 2009, 11:29pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st December 2009, 8:29pm)

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

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

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

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 1st December 2009, 11:45pm)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 1st December 2009, 6:40pm)

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 1st December 2009, 11:29pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st December 2009, 8:29pm)

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

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

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

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

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 1st December 2009, 11:59pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 1st December 2009, 11:45pm)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 1st December 2009, 6:40pm)

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 1st December 2009, 11:29pm)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 1st December 2009, 8:29pm)

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

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

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

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

Here's David http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIRC_channels%2Fwikipedia-en-admins&diff=179961725&oldid=179936825 about his beloved super secret admins-irc channel, (you know - the very same one where Jimbo went to http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up to go demolish Sanger's bio). And here's Gerard http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIRC_channels%2Fwikipedia-en-admins&diff=179963833&oldid=179963395, to make sure the censorship sticks.

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

But you are absolutely right, GBG, Gerard loves censoring except when it comes to obscenity, like pictures of men sucking their own wieners. For example, when discussing images on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofellatio, Gerard http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-March/020954.html; "If this looks like becoming the Jesusland Extremely Abridged Encyclopedia, I will be out of here."

Posted by: Kelly Martin

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

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

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 12:46am)

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 1st December 2009, 7:40pm)

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 1st December 2009, 4:59pm)

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 1st December 2009, 5:52pm)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 12:46am)

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

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

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

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 1st December 2009, 8:06pm)

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

Is there a chance that [[autofellatio]] links only to itself?

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 12:46am)

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 1:14am)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 12:46am)

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

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

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 1st December 2009, 7:14pm)

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 1st December 2009, 7:06pm)

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 1:51am)

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 1st December 2009, 7:14pm)

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

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

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 1st December 2009, 7:06pm)

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

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

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 1:51am)

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 1st December 2009, 7:14pm)

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

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

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

I won't believe that Mike Godwin is involved at all until such time that Gerard's name, listed twice on http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room#Regional_contacts, is deleted. That's absolutely the most obvious thing that Godwin should do at this point. But I suspect that Godwin isn't even trying to do his job on this issue.

Posted by: trenton

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

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 1st December 2009, 8:51pm)

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 1st December 2009, 8:51pm)

Posted by: Piperdown

QUOTE(Cedric @ Mon 30th November 2009, 7:17pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavid_Gerard&action=historysubmit&diff=328774845&oldid=328738343, David is now claiming that "my main concern is the serious defamation."

K.

Posted by: Somey

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

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

Posted by: trenton

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

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

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 1st December 2009, 7:26pm)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 1st December 2009, 8:51pm)

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

How http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law!

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

Can someone please tell me what Gmaxwell is doing on the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FAudit_Subcommittee&action=historysubmit&diff=329174097&oldid=329173036 list? Is there a global list of checkusers somewhere?
<edit>
Nevermind, Gmaxwell is a http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 3:46am)

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 1st December 2009, 9:26pm)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 1st December 2009, 8:51pm)

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

How http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law!

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Tue 1st December 2009, 6:09pm)

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 1st December 2009, 8:06pm)

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

Is there a chance that [[autofellatio]] links only to itself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Autofellatio is all incoming links to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Autofellatio&namespace=0 is only articles that link to "Autofellatio."

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(Alison @ Mon 30th November 2009, 11:37pm)

I'm no massive fan of David 'skull dancing' Gerard, but this is just wrong. BTW - there aren't a whole lot of admins who had the cojones to deal with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amorrow, but David was one of then who did. Kudos and respect to him for doing that

Posted by: SirFozzie

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

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 1st December 2009, 10:18pm)

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 1st December 2009, 5:14pm)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 12:46am)

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

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

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

Posted by: EricBarbour

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

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

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 30th November 2009, 8:36pm)

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Mon 30th November 2009, 11:46am)

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

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

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:24am)

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:24am)

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 6:18am)

Posted by: MBisanz

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

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

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

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:59am)

Posted by: Doc glasgow

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

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Maybe Godwin saw things http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=27610&view=findpost&p=207067 and is sticking up for the B/D's ability to enforce their own policies without a "community" organ such as Arbcom interfering? But that would make too much sense so it probably has more to do with old rivalries and such that I can't understand.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:42am)

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 3:42pm)

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 1:35pm)

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 6:18am)

If yes, then get your own piece.

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

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:57am)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 3:42pm)

Maybe Godwin saw things http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=27610&view=findpost&p=207067 and is sticking up for the B/D's ability to enforce their own policies

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

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:01pm)

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:57am)

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:03pm)

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 11:03am)

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:57am)

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

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

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 11:02am)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:01pm)

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

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

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:12pm)

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 11:02am)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:01pm)

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

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

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:12am)

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:18pm)

Bear in mind:

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

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#A_brief_statement_by_one_Arbitrator

Which rather explains it, doesn't it?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:24am)

Posted by: Doc glasgow

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

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

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 5:40pm)

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:48pm)

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 5:40pm)

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

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

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

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 11:51am)

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:48pm)

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 5:40pm)

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

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

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

With a few high profile exceptions, yes.

Posted by: Somey

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

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

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:26pm)

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:24am)

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

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

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 12:32pm)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:26pm)

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:24am)

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

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

Giano has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FAudit_Subcommittee&action=historysubmit&diff=329268769&oldid=329268673 straight up. Remember, a legal threat, even implied, is grounds for immediate banning from the site.

Posted by: trenton

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

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(trenton @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 5:55pm)

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

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

Posted by: gomi

Privatemusings (T-C-L-K-R-D) manages to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee&diff=prev&oldid=329186333 to http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/27/andrew-landeryou-appears-to-be-a-waste-of-skin/ that started the whole thing, without that being oversighted (yet). I wonder when the rest of the bits will re-appear.

It appears that Wikipedia identifies Mike Godwin as damage to the network and routes around him.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 6:08pm)

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 12:08pm)

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:08am)

Posted by: MBisanz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#What_we_are_not_being_told shoot numerous large holes in what my understanding was thus far and concerns me on several levels.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

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

Posted by: trenton

All this crap for a decision that is pretty much spot on with regards to Gerard being a jackass.

Congrats Godwin....

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

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

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

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 7:15pm)

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 12:23pm)

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 7:26pm)

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 12:23pm)

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

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 2:26pm)

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 6:23pm)

Posted by: trenton

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

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 12:38pm)

Posted by: Random832

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

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 7:42pm)

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 12:38pm)

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

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 2:47pm)

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 6:15pm)

Posted by: Random832

So we've got:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#John.27s_resignation
• this thread
• http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27655

Posted by: Kelly Martin

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

Posted by: Doc glasgow

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

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

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 1:13pm)

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 7:13pm)

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 7:23pm)

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 1:13pm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:13pm)

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 1:46pm)

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

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:23pm)

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 1:13pm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Peter Damian

Revenge: best served cold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=253894113&oldid=253892048

Delicious.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 3:56pm)

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 7:32pm)

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:13pm)

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

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

Posted by: InkBlot

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 1:58pm)

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 3:56pm)

Revenge: best served cold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=253894113&oldid=253892048

Delicious.

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(InkBlot @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:21pm)

Posted by: Apathetic

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#David_Gerard:_statement_by_ArbCom

Someone might want to webcite this and the resulting discussion!

Posted by: cyofee

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:26pm)

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:26pm)

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 12:26pm)

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(cyofee @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:33pm)

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:33pm)

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

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

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:36pm)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:33pm)

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

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:39pm)

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:39pm)

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:41pm)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:39pm)

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

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

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:45pm)

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 7:58pm)

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 3:56pm)

Revenge: best served cold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=253894113&oldid=253892048

Delicious.

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

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:26pm)

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:46pm)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:45pm)

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

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

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:45pm)

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:41pm)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:39pm)

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Rhindle

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

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:52pm)

Posted by: Peter Damian

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

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:45pm)

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:56pm)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:45pm)

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

Beer, beer, beer, beer, and BEER.

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

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:56pm)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:45pm)

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

Beer, beer, beer, beer, and BEER.

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

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:58pm)

like pornography - you know it when you see it?

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:55pm)

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:52pm)

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

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

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 3:10pm)

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 7:32pm)

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:13pm)

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

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:01pm)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 3:10pm)

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 7:32pm)

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:13pm)

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

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:55pm)

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:52pm)

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

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

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:02pm)

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 5:04pm)

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:56pm)

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:08pm)

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:56pm)

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

Cade Metz, reporter for the Register, contacted David and Mike Godwin about a http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/the_end_of_the_wikipedia_good_old_boys_club/ he was writing about David losing his privileges. He had copies of at least one of Godwin's emails to the functionaries mailing list. This raised the sense of urgency at the discussion.

Posted by: Random832

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 3:01pm)

Posted by: Random832

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 3:26pm)

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 5:15pm)

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:15pm)

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:02pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:01pm)

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 3:10pm)

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 7:32pm)

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:13pm)

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

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: Looking up an example (hopefully).

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 1:25pm)

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:15pm)

QUOTE(Thatcher)

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

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

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

Posted by: Random832

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 5:35pm)

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:30pm)

Posted by: EricBarbour

I'm always seeing blather about what Wikipedia is not, especially on AN.
It's not a battleground, it's not a court of law, it's not this, not that etc etc.

What I do see is "This is an encyclopedia". Over and over.

With this nonsense, Wikipedia may have just created a new concept for an encyclopedia:
an encyclopedia with an ongoing bizarre soap-opera permanently attached thereto.

They need a new name for this thing they've created.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 3:35pm)

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 1:45pm)

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 1:45pm)

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:25pm)

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 6:09pm)

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:53pm)

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 3:35pm)

In the US, at least, "not actually true" is an element of the definition that you forgot to mention.

"Not actually true" is not an absolute element for defamation even in the US; some states have allowed defamation actions to proceed when the libelee is a private person, the libel amounts to an invasion of privacy, and the state has recognized a right of privacy greater than that protected by the federal Constitution. Such claims are as likely to be captioned as "invasion of privacy" as of "defamation", but they are fundamentally defamation claims.

"Not actually true" is not an element of defamation under English law, in any case.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

In fairness, complaining that a post is defamatory and asking for it to be removed does not constitute a legal threat. I may be asking that you remove it because you will not want to leave something which unfairly impugns my character, rather than asking you to remove it to avoid legal action.

One of the problems with wikipedia is that people too quickly pretend to be lawyers and ask what's going to get them sued, rather than simply worrying about what is accurate and what might tend to harm someone.

If the arbcom statement gave the impression (or could be read as giving the impression) that Gerard had actively misused his tools, and all that arbcom wanted to say was he'd been indiscreet with his reference to his use of them, then it is not unreasonable for him to request them to clarify or retract - and it is not unreasonable for them to do so.

The problem emerges because legal counsel got involved and asked the committee questions about how a court would view this. Now either counsel is acting on Gerard's behalf and implying he could sue, or counsel is acting for the Arbcom's protection and implying WMF/Arbcom might get sued. However, I strongly suspect Godwin intervened (or was asked to) because he has clout, rather than because anyone was in risk of being sued.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:10pm)

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 6:09pm)

Off-wiki legal threats are not a form of intimidation meant to interfere with collaborative editing, then?

Well, most of the people with whom one is supposed to collaborate would have no way of knowing about an off-wiki (that is, privately communicated) legal threat.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 6:17pm)

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:53pm)

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:45pm)

Posted by: Random832

Durova,

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:26pm)

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(RDH(Ghost In The Machine) @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 5:26pm)

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:45pm)

I'm always seeing blather about what Wikipedia is not, especially on AN.
It's not a battleground, it's not a court of law, it's not this, not that etc etc.

What I do see is "This is an encyclopedia". Over and over.

With this nonsense, Wikipedia may have just created a new concept for an encyclopedia:
an encyclopedia with an ongoing bizarre soap-opera permanently attached thereto.

They need a new name for this thing they've created.

WP:ISNOT = Bizarro Code:

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 11:04pm)

QUOTE(RDH(Ghost In The Machine) @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 5:26pm)

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:45pm)

I'm always seeing blather about what Wikipedia is not, especially on AN.
It's not a battleground, it's not a court of law, it's not this, not that etc etc.

What I do see is "This is an encyclopedia". Over and over.

With this nonsense, Wikipedia may have just created a new concept for an encyclopedia:
an encyclopedia with an ongoing bizarre soap-opera permanently attached thereto.

They need a new name for this thing they've created.

WP:ISNOT = Bizarro Code:

WP:CIVILITY = Kangaroo Courtesy

Ja Ja

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:45pm)

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 5:18pm)

QUOTE(Alison @ Mon 30th November 2009, 11:37pm)

I'm no massive fan of David 'skull dancing' Gerard, but this is just wrong. BTW - there aren't a whole lot of admins who had the cojones to deal with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amorrow, but David was one of then who did. Kudos and respect to him for doing that

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

Is the bad guy packing a piece?

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

If yes, then get your own piece.

You will live longer and feel healthier this way.

Posted by: gomi

[Moderator's note: I moved a post about acceptable image-hosting sites to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27663&hl=, in WRR. -- gomi]

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Seems http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee&diff=prev&oldid=329268673


I'm no copyright expert, but I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&curid=5149102&diff=329361583&oldid=329358998.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:43pm)

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 5:43pm)

Posted by: Random832

It's simpler than that - Durova has committed to the position that it is absolutely unacceptable to reproduce - for any purpose, including legitimate criticism - the content any email. If she backs down from this position, she has some explaining to do about a certain block of Giano, so she has to hold to it.

Posted by: InkBlot

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 7:43pm)

1. Piss in someone's cornflakes.
2. When called out, express your high admiration for them in the past and how disappointed you are in them now.
3. Really, really disappointed. You could do so much better. (Because it worked so well for Mom.)
4. Insist you were just trying to diffuse things.
5. Point out the massive amounts of photo editing you'd rather be doing and, oh, wouldn't you like to go edit some articles too?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(InkBlot @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 9:42pm)

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 7:43pm)

Seems http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee&diff=prev&oldid=329268673


I'm no copyright expert, but I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&curid=5149102&diff=329361583&oldid=329358998.

I just read the conversation on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scott_MacDonald#The_RfC. Good Lord, she's got the shortest playbook I've ever seen!

1. Piss in someone's cornflakes.
2. When called out, express your high admiration for them in the past and how disappointed you are in them now.
3. Really, really disappointed. You could do so much better. (Because it worked so well for Mom.)
4. Insist you were just trying to diffuse things.
5. Point out the massive amounts of photo editing you'd rather be doing and, oh, wouldn't you like to go edit some articles too?

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:52pm)

Posted by: trenton

You guys should refactor your hurtful comments.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Lar @ Thu 3rd December 2009, 4:03am)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:52pm)

That "I have important restoration work to do" creeps me out. I wonder if she knows how much of a loser it makes her appear?

That "my work is more important than yours " undertone is probably the most annoying part of it all, in my view.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 11:30pm)

QUOTE(Lar @ Thu 3rd December 2009, 4:03am)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:52pm)

That "I have important restoration work to do" creeps me out. I wonder if she knows how much of a loser it makes her appear?

That "my work is more important than yours " undertone is probably the most annoying part of it all, in my view.

Ironically, becoming skilled at digitally restoring old photographs might actually be a useful skill that could conceivably get someone a job. If so, then it would be an example of Wikipedia/Commons volunteer work helping someone with their employment prospects.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 3rd December 2009, 4:33am)

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 11:30pm)

QUOTE(Lar @ Thu 3rd December 2009, 4:03am)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 10:52pm)

That "I have important restoration work to do" creeps me out. I wonder if she knows how much of a loser it makes her appear?

That "my work is more important than yours " undertone is probably the most annoying part of it all, in my view.

Ironically, becoming skilled at digitally restoring old photographs might actually be a useful skill that could conceivably get someone a job. If so, then it would be an example of Wikipedia/Commons volunteer work helping someone with their employment prospects.

There are people who actually possess the skills, not pretend on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 11:18pm)

Posted by: trenton

So Godwin comes out swinging

Apparently its bad to be a wikilawyer (except if it's him editing his own article). Also he want's us to believe that out of all the cases where the arbcom has undoubtedly royally screwed up, he chose this particular case to correct things.

Apparently the wmf lawyer considers wikipedians to be as stupid as most people here do if he expects people to believe this bull.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(trenton @ Thu 3rd December 2009, 12:59am)

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I have now actually seen the full email that Godwin sent to the ArbCom; it is substantially larger than what Cade quoted, and Cade's selective quotation of it (or perhaps the selective quotation that was provided to him by whomever leaked the content to him) was exceedingly unfair to Godwin. While I still think that Godwin is a piss-poor lawyer in general, and has serious issues with controlling his temper, his full comments to the ArbCom was actually quite good, and very much in line with the sort of things that most of the serious critics here on Wikipedia Review have expressed to be flaws with the ArbCom's way of doing things.

Godwin's initial email was reasonable; some of his followups, not so much. The ArbCom acted with consistent stupidity throughout.

As for Mike Godwin's pity, he can keep it for himself. It also seems to me that his commentary regarding both me and Cade Metz could be perceived as defamatory, and as such should probably be revdeleted, but somehow I doubt that will happen.

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 3rd December 2009, 1:14am)

Posted by: MBisanz

Besides the liability protection of Sec. 230, the other great thing about it is that it saves service providers a fortune in complaint department costs. If they know the only things they are responsible for are removing copyright violations, they only need to hire enough complaint department staff to handle those requests. If they didn't have Sec. 230, they'd need to hire enough staff to regularly monitor the goings-on at their site (think the level of staff required for watching for spills, fights, etc at a supermarket or department store). But, as soon as people realize they will occasionally come out if a person yells loudly enough, then everyone starts baying at the moon every time they have an issue, since they that at least it has been done once before and maybe they'll be lucky enough to get it again.

I remember thinking the same thing when Jimbo said he would review the Scientology banning verdict and being relieved weeks later when I realized he had probably forgotten it. I expect that nearly every WP:AE matter and ever WP:RFAR will now have something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Boycott attached to it by the losing party indicating why they don't need to follow the decision since it has not been approved by the "highest power" that makes decisions on the site.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Thu 3rd December 2009, 1:29am)

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 3rd December 2009, 8:42am)