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

[TheySeeMeTrollin]

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

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

[trenton]

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

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

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

[MZMcBride]

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

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

He found out weeks ago.

[Law]

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

He found out weeks ago.

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

[Viridae]

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

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

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

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

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

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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

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

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

Nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Cla68]

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

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Silverman]

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

And you managed to keep it a secret?

[Abd]

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

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

He found out weeks ago.

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

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

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

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

[One]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by One:

[everyking]

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

[carbuncle]

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

[Tarc]

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

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[Friday]

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

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

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

And you managed to keep it a secret?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Had nothing to do with that. Nothing at all.

[CharlotteWebb]

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

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

[Moulton]

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

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

[Apathetic]

So did anyone put the popcorn on yet?

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

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

That is a wonderful defense.

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

That is a wonderful defense.

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

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

That is a wonderful defense.

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

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

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

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

Also, tits.

[trenton]

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

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

[Random832]

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

Also, tits.

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

[One]

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

I'm assuming bad faith?

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

Ya, ya. WHITE PAR! o/

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

I'm assuming bad faith?

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

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

[One]

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

[GlassBeadGame]

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

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

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

[Friday]

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

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

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

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

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

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


This post has been edited by Friday:

[One]

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

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

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

[trenton]

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

[Somey]

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

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

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

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

Also, tits.

Amen to that!

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

I find your invective tiresome.

[LaraLove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[everyking]

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

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

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

[One]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by One:

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

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

[Friday]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kelly Martin]

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

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

[everyking]

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

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

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

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does that say to you?

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

[Friday]

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

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

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

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

[Kelly Martin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[everyking]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Somey]

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

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

[Somey]

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

So did anyone put the popcorn on yet?

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

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Milton Roe]

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

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

[Peter Damian]

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Random832]

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

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

[CharlotteWebb]

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

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

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

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

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

[CharlotteWebb]

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

Reviewing this:

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

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

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

CODE

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

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

CODE

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

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

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

[SirFozzie]

Someone rang?

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

[MBisanz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Apathetic]

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

CODE

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

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

epic lulz

plz do go on

[LaraLove]

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Bonar Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[One]

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

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

This post has been edited by One:

[Moulton]

Epic levels of unprofessionalism.

[Kelly Martin]

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

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

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

[The Wales Hunter]

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

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

[Deodand]

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Bonar Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tarc]

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

Had nothing to do with that. Nothing at all.

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

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

[The Joy]

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

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

[SirFozzie]

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

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

This post has been edited by SirFozzie:

[One]

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

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

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

[No one of consequence]

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

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

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

[SirFozzie]

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

[Noroton]

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

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

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

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

Doesn't Wikipedia look crazy, though.

[Kelly Martin]

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

[SirFozzie]

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

[Noroton]

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

Spoke too soon. Georgewilliamherbert just announced the block.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still, who'd want to unblock the jackass?

This post has been edited by Noroton:

[LaraLove]

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

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

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

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

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

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

[Apathetic]

Eesh, is it a full moon or something?

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

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[SirFozzie]

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

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

[One]

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

[Kelly Martin]

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

[Milton Roe]

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

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

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

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

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

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

[trenton]

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

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

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

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

Doesn't Wikipedia look crazy, though.

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

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

[Cedric]

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

You never understand why, Abner.

[Malleus]

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

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

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

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

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

[Random832]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Random832:

[lone-wolf]

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

[LaraLove]

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

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

[everyking]

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

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

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Kelly Martin]

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