Gerard blocks Giano for sockpuppetry, invokes good/bad hand accounts policy - wrongly Options

[privatemusings]

hee hee

impressively dumb!

(sorry DG, you're a pussycat, I know... but that was spectacularly useless!)

[Doc glasgow]

hee hee

impressively dumb!

(sorry DG, you're a pussycat, I know... but that was spectacularly useless!)

No, it was first class. Intended to cause drama and drama it will cause.

Wikipedia's two biggest trolls will now feed off each other.

Sit back, break out the popcorn, and enjoy the show.

[LessHorrid vanU]

David Gerard has blocked Giano for operating the Catherine de Burgh account in a run for ArbCom, citing good/bad hand account policy. Nice quiet block with no possibility of drama, if it wasn't for the fact that that section doesn't cover what is happening, and neither does any part of WP:Sock (there is no collusion between the accounts, no false creation of consensus). Mind you, this is the person who got the tenets of WP:IRC wrong, didn't comment publicly at the relevant ArbCom, when it was supposedly his area of expertise...

So, no incipient drama there, then...

[Alex]

This thread is a duplicate. Should be merged.

Moderator's note: the two threads on the same topic have now been merged into this one. HK

[Alex]

Friday's opinion:

This is the best bit of performance art I've seen in a good while. Not sure if you were in on the joke, David, but either way, well done. All talk of ousting David should be disregarded- he is the best parody of himself we could ask for. Friday (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[Son of a Yeti]

Friday's opinion:

This is the best bit of performance art I've seen in a good while.

It's getting better and better.

Wikipedia is rapidly evolving into a reality show.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Giano's handling this with uncharacteristic good humour.

[Alex]

Now a request for arbitration is opened. Phil Sandifer is trying to turn it into something against Giano.

Who wants to bet that this will be accepted?

[Basil]

Phil Sandifer demonstrating that he hasn't lost the ability to win friends and influence people at election time

====Statement by [[User:Phil Sandifer]]====

I encourage the arbcom to accept this case. I cannot see any fault in David's actions here - to my knowledge "commonly known" is not a criterion in [[WP:SOCK]]. However, this adds to the laundry list of instances in which it is obvious that no sanctions can ever be made to stick on Giano regardless of their relationship to policy - even a block that is well-founded in existing sockpuppet policy is, apparently, grounds for swift reversal.

Given that the community has consistently failed to show any capability for regulating the conduct of this user, it falls to the arbcom to do so. I am prepared, should the case be accepted, to document the lengthy history of disruption and incivility on the part of Giano.

But I encourage the arbcom to accept this and deal with this situation for once and for all - either to put an unambiguous sanction on Giano that cannot be overturned by the circle of protection he has managed to gather, or to pass a finding noting that despite his incivility, the arbcom washes their hands of it and accepts that the community has consented to put him above the law such that his special status can be enshrined in policy and we can be done with this idiotic drama surrounding good faith efforts to deal with an uncivil user who serially violates policy.

[Milton Roe]

Friday's opinion:

This is the best bit of performance art I've seen in a good while.

It's getting better and better.

Wikipedia is rapidly evolving into a reality show.

It's been exactly that for some time, man. Where you BEEN?

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

====Statement by [[User:Alex Bakharev|Alex Bakharev]] ([[User talk:Alex Bakharev|talk]])====
*Everybody can make a strange block once in a while but those bad block on Giano, one of our best contributors, have to be stopped. They are very disruptive. Maybe a temporal desysopping is a way to handle this drama



Wikipedia's domain knows no bounds now. Not just satisfied with space, they've apparently conquered time...

[Kato]

I might as well export a post I made to another thread yesterday, as it is equally applicable here - even more so in fact, because it anticipates this latest Giano "climax" before it even happens.

What matters is the CONTENT and how Wikipedia, and "Wikipedians", are dealing with that CONTENT.

The interpersonal stuff - all the bannings and blocks and scraps and hypocrisy - can be an interesting sideshow and can act as a Soap Opera worth watching on occasion, but it is the product of the "dysfunctional social network" and has little to do with the stuff kids bring up on their google searches.

That's why some of Lar's questions were interesting to me. Because they addressed BLP issues, Flagged revisions, and hinted of WPs inevitable failure of "reaching a consensus" to move forward with these serious problems. Another crucial question asked whether people supported editor unaccountability / anonymity, and why? Lar's questions can be used as a survey to ascertain whether long term Wikipedos had learned anything over the past 3 years or so, and whether they are prepared to change, move forward, or at least set an example?

All that blather about those nasty arbcom members, IRC, Giano, and those endless scraps between drama queens, and the feuds over their blocks and bans, is actually getting in the way of WP addressing these core issues. The elections themselves are a farcical irrelevant nonsense; merely shifting deckchairs on The Titanic.

What is the best process for dealing with cravings, withdrawal, or other side effects of addiction? Will the drama-addicts of WP ever find an inner peace, or are they doomed to lives of endless subservience to this nonsense?

[The Joy]

I think it if this is accepted, it'll just be slap on the wrist for all involved. Giano will be reminded to use only one account and Gerard will be admonished for handling the situation poorly.

However, Matthew Brown's statement will likely fan the flames further and some explanation will have to be given for why Giano/Catherine was CheckUsered. Catherine nor Giano has done anything to warrant being CheckUsered. If this issue is to be addressed at ArbCom, things are going to get much more interesting.

[SirFozzie]

I have a sneaky suspicion that all folks who run for ArbCom are checkusered (it makes sense, if you think about it) and that may be what's going on here.

[The Wales Hunter]

I have a sneaky suspicion that all folks who run for ArbCom are checkusered (it makes sense, if you think about it) and that may be what's going on here.

Oh no, they'll find out I'm Poetlister, SlimVirgin and Wordbomb

Interesting thought, but I'm pretty sure Jimbo himself said verification would not be required until after the election (I would search for diffs, but about to head for bed).

[SirFozzie]

That verification is REAL LIFE information (your name/address etecetera)

[The Wales Hunter]

Fair point. Though I wouldn't have any problem with checkusering every candidate, if that was made clear.

Then again, I'd have no problem with checking every RFA candidate - including retroactively - if that was made clear.

[Anonymous editor]

Anonymous editor reacts to Gerard's block

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor: Wed 19th November 2008, 4:36am

[EricBarbour]

All that blather about those nasty arbcom members, IRC, Giano, and those endless scraps between drama queens, and the feuds over their blocks and bans, is actually getting in the way of WP addressing these core issues. The elections themselves are a farcical irrelevant nonsense; merely shifting deckchairs on The Titanic.

I wonder how many articles are being quietly vandalized, whilst these numbnuts squabble.

[everyking]

None of these joke account sockpuppets should be allowed, and they certainly should not be allowed to run for ArbCom. Just before I found about about this incident, I was thinking about asking some tough questions on "Catherine's" questions page about the disruptive nature of the candidacy. On the other hand, this idea that it was a "good hand/bad hand" situation or that it was deceptive sockpuppetry is simply ludicrous, as there was clearly no malice or deception involved in it. Gerard just saw it as an opportunity to take Giano down a notch, to pursue the grudge, and his conduct (in this as well as many, many other instances) certainly warrants desysopping.