David Gerard's misguided tweets..., Is he really that free and loose on Twitter? Options

[the fieryangel]

This looks like a tasty morsel for all of you drama hounds....

Does anybody know what this is all about?

[Cedric]

This looks like a tasty morsel for all of you drama hounds....

Does anybody know what this is all about?

Nothing much evidently. Andrew Landeryou apparently is a right-leaning political blogger from Australia. He has a BLP, which some IP editor vandalized on November 21 to state that Landeryou was "Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". The IP resolves to Australia. Another IP editor (resolving to the US) reverted the vandalism and prodded the entire article for deletion yesterday, some hours after Landeryou sent Gerard his "threat".

Another Australian IP had showed up on November 9 and removed or toned down some of the more controversial material in the article, but I cannot tell if that has anything to do with the "sockpuppet investigation" that Gerard refers to or not. Gerard being Gerard, instead of laughing off Landeryou's agitated email, he has to go blogging about it. Sheesh!

It appears to me that these two twits deserve one another.

[Jon Awbrey]

david gerard is a wasted skinhead …

Does anybody know what this is all about?

(IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/avtrs94dv219q5/giveadamn.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

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

This won't end well.

[carbuncle]

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

This won't end well.

It will if the article gets deleted.

[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.

[Doc glasgow]

"@jeamland mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet investigation.)"

Where goes the WMF privacy policy? Checkusers blogging and bragging about their investigations?

I'm going to look at the history of this further.

[Somey]

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.

[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...

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.

Ahhh. A dark Ziggy Stardust defending rock and roll against an evil cult. Makes some sense really. Was that one of subplots of Heavy Metal?

[Somey]

Ahhh. A dark Ziggy Stardust defending rock and roll against an evil cult. Makes some sense really. Was that one of subplots of Heavy Metal?

You're probably thinking of the far more Gerardian Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park (T-H-L-K-D)...

Many aspects of Dave Gerard's WP history are actually ironic, even going beyond what he did in my own case. For example, one of the Aussie rock bands Dave was interested in back in the 90's was The Church (T-H-L-K-D), who you'll recall had a fairly big hit with a song called "Under the Milky Way." The Church were fronted by Steve Kilbey (T-H-L-K-D), and if you search the WR archives on the word "Kilbey" you'll find that the only two admitted fans of his around here are me and the now-inactive Piperdown. But Piperdown would never have joined WR if he hadn't been erroneously indef-blocked as an "overstock.com meatpuppet" by... you guessed it, Dave Gerard!

I'm sure there are other examples, but that one always gives me a chuckle for some reason.

[TungstenCarbide]

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.

I seem to recall more of his personal history on his user page, but it seems to be deleted now, or i just missed it. He had a big long spiel about being run out of Australia, or something like that, after giving an obnoxious speech at an awards ceremony while a rock journalist.

[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.

[Jon Awbrey]

"@jeamland mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet investigation.)"

Where goes the WMF privacy policy? Checkusers blogging and bragging about their investigations?

I'm going to look at the history of this further.

Oh good, the Big Bad Internet Highway Cop hiding behind the Internet Billboard pulls his nose out of his Internet Dough-Net long enough to go chase 1 out of a thousand speeders, and Justice Prevails in Wikiland.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[LessHorrid vanU]

"@jeamland mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet investigation.)"

Where goes the WMF privacy policy? Checkusers blogging and bragging about their investigations?

I'm going to look at the history of this further.

Not that it will get you anywhere, in truth. DG is old school, which means there is enough kudos in the WMF to allow DG to get away with what would have you and me banned from Wikipedia. Mind you, it would be ironic if thee and me got into some sort trouble with ArbCom for dissing DG on an off-Wiki site. I would invite it, in truth.

[GlassBeadGame]

which means there is enough kudos in the WMF to allow DG to get away with what would have you and me banned from Wikipedia.

I can't imagine that Sue Gardner is pleased that the likes of DG are rattling around out there acting as "spokespersons."

[LessHorrid vanU]

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.

DG not into cults? Well, I would certainly suggest with those "goff" piccies that people are careless enough to keep posting, that he was most likely into Southern Death Cult, The Cult, and even perhaps Cult Hero. Although, of course, being a wannabe music critic he may not even have been aware of these groups...

[MZMcBride]

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?

[everyking]

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

"Well, yes."

"But is he at least a nice troll?"

"Well, no..."

[GlassBeadGame]

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

"Well, yes."

"But is he at least a nice troll?"

"Well, no..."

"How about this Mr. Kohs then...he looks nice."

"Well you see he doesn't always agree with us. Mr. Gerard is really very loyal to WMF, once you get past the first few impressions...and those nasty websites of his...and all that Skull-Dancing."

[Somey]

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?

It was discussed in this thread, but the three mentioned at that time were thewillpower.org, yourmom.org and k-k-k.com. All are NSFW, of course... I vaguely recall that the latter is an attempt to embarrass the Ku Klux Klan by hosting interracial gay porn as if it were their idea of a good time, which I suppose makes it an admirable endeavor in a way. The others, ehhh, maybe not so much. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[Nerd]

ArbCom have revoked his checkuser and oversight privs.

[cyofee]

ArbCom have revoked his checkuser and oversight privs.

Owned.

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

This post has been edited by cyofee:

[Cedric]

ArbCom have revoked his checkuser and oversight privs.

Owned.

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

Too much skulldancing, I reckon. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

ArbCom have revoked 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.

[the fieryangel]

ArbCom have revoked 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.

[Doc glasgow]

ArbCom have revoked his checkuser and oversight privs.

Tee hee, and I was the only one here who saw that he might be in trouble over this. /smug

[No one of consequence]

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.


This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[GlassBeadGame]

ArbCom have revoked 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.

[the fieryangel]

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the privacy violations happened offwiki (on Twitter), although I haven't read DG's Twitter page. Did anybody else get this impression?

If this is the case, this also leads to some interesting precedent for WP editors being responsible for their offwiki activities, as they relate to WP itself (at least)...

[Cedric]

Ah. Now I see. He jammed 'is thumb up their collet'ive butt'ole.

(IMG:http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/2761/218y.jpg)

"Oi! They're really pissed off now, by cracky!"

[the fieryangel]

ArbCom have revoked 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.

Clearly, you are right about the privacy policy being enforced by an independent entity who answers to the Board/foundation directly. However, since they can ever seem to get around to organizing this (and it will probably take legal action to motivate them to do so....), at least ARBCOM is willing to fill the power vacuum.

If this becomes established precedent, it is indeed a step in the wrong direction...especially since the Arbcom members might have some sort of liability in the case of lawsuits brought by people whose privacy was violated. I don't think that this is quite fair for unpaid volunteers, especially since WMF hasn't actually made any clear statements about what happens when said volunteers are sued...

...but I suppose if people are willing to accept this responsibility, then that becomes their business. I certainly wouldn't.

[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.

[the fieryangel]

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.

Given DG's rather colourful...um...behavior in the past, one would think that this annoucement would have lead to quite a bit of discussion....but nobody seems to have anything at all to say....

That's rather interesting...

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

ArbCom have revoked his checkuser and oversight privs.

At least three years late, but I suppose late is better than never.

It's fairly obvious that Gerard has become bored with Wikipedia, and has been trolling with increasing vigor in an effort to extract some final amusement value out of it. It's ironic in the extreme that he complains about a "lack of adult supervision" in what amounts to his parting shot.

[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.

[Somey]

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

First Jayjg, and now Gerard.

Well, he's still an administrator, let's not forget that. This revocation of privileges only means that his sockpuppetry-suspicion blocks will be based entirely on guesswork, rather than 90-95 percent guesswork.

[dtobias]

has become bored with Wikipedia, and has been trolling

This describes one of the phases you went through yourself; you seem to have gotten over that by now and are in the "cynical commentator" state at present.

[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... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

I just hope he lets the kid wear "normal" clothes in school... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Hell, if he lets the kid go to school at all we can probably consider that a victory.

[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 still listed by the Foundation as a press contact.

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

[GlassBeadGame]

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

By his wife or his concubine?

[Milton Roe]

Ah. Now I see. He jammed 'is thumb up their collet'ive butt'ole.

Actually, merely failed to kiss their collective ass tenderly enough.

Reminds me of the scene in Matrix Reloaded (itself a pretentious film full of pretentious characters and pretentious dialogue) where the Merovingian's jealous wife Persephone demands one sincere kiss from Neo, as her price.

"If you kiss our ass like you were kissing a true love, Gerard, we'll overlook your posturing to the effect that you're so powerful on WP that we can't do anything to you."

But Gerard refused, so they took away some of this magic. Hubris, Gerard.

I suppose if Gerard had actually given them a totally sincere ass-kiss ("Do it like you were kissing Jimbo's ass") they would have accepted it and let it go.

Maybe sent Jimbo an IRC: "We envy you." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

However, as has been pointed out, Gerard retains adminship, and thus still the ability to do one of the things he's infamous for, which is overwide range blocks. And of course, he still retains his big mouth.

One suppose he's going to sulk a while now. He was told he was "in the wrong cabal" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Presumably that means: "not the one that controls ArbCom." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[No one of consequence]

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.

[Somey]

By his wife or his concubine?

Concubine, I believe.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the privacy violations happened offwiki (on Twitter), although I haven't read DG's Twitter page. Did anybody else get this impression?

If this is the case, this also leads to some interesting precedent for WP editors being responsible for their offwiki activities, as they relate to WP itself (at least)...

Aye, tis an ugly win (with Davy, Davy Gothic ex-god king of the Wiki-frontier, can there be any other kind?), but let's take it anyway.

Despite Ms. Martin's exposition piece earlier, I still don't understand how someone who has fought so long against Scientology, can throw himself whole-heartedly into a pedantic, geek cybercult that is only a few dozen pairs of Nikes and much needed castrations away from Heaven's Gate
.

Oh, and hello at long last WP Review! I guess this constitutes my debut.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine):

[GlassBeadGame]

By his wife or his concubine?

Concubine, I believe.

Well call me Ishmeal.

[Kelly Martin]

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.

[Somey]

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.

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.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

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.

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.

That is very true...you'll never see him hit himself with his own cluestick. He'll make a blithering fool, or rather tool, out of himself first.

And thank you, sir! Tis great to be aboard!

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine):

[trenton]

You'd think a freak like Gerard would be a little more circumspect in labeling other people (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[MBisanz]

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.

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.

[Somey]

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 this.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

You'd think a freak like Gerard would be a little more circumspect in labeling other people (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

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.

[TungstenCarbide]

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 this.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Well, let's not get our collective panties in a bunch here. Obviously we are engaged in critical review of Gerard, his character and how it plays into the leadership of Wikipedia. Noting an oddity or two is par for the course, like having a harem or whatever it is. Especially since David himself has advertised this wide and far, with pictures included.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[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.

[MZMcBride]

Looking at the current list of CheckUsers, 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.

[Doc glasgow]

So, does David Gerard join wikipedia review now?

[trenton]

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.

[TungstenCarbide]

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.

I wonder if the arbcom listens to Jimbo any more.

[Kelly Martin]

I wonder if the arbcom listens to Jimbo any more.

I would count it a positive development if they didn't.

[Lar]

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.

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.

[Somey]

So, does David Gerard join wikipedia review now?

For a while we thought this might be him, and if it is then he's been a member for some time now... but I've since decided it probably isn't him. And if it isn't, then he's not likely to register here as long as I'm around. (Not that I would deny him an account or anything like that.)

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

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.

Even Jimbozo must realize it would create a category 5.5 shitstorm if he gave DG back his toys. Besides, let's not forget his habit of abandoning allies like damaged goods once they cease to be useful to him.

[CharlotteWebb]

For a while we thought this might be him, and if it is then he's been a member for some time now... but I've since decided it probably isn't him. And if it isn't, then he's not likely to register here as long as I'm around. (Not that I would deny him an account or anything like that.)

That user doesn't compulsively say "Hoi" by it could just as easily be Gerard Meijssen (or some other Netherlander rather than Brit).

Eight posts is a small sample size but the grammatical errors I do see may support this theory.

[thekohser]

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?

[anthony]

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

[Nerd]

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?

Your friend Guido has, yes.

[GlassBeadGame]

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 this one better. Who is the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

[TungstenCarbide]

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 this one better. Whose the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

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

[Nerd]

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 this one better. Whose the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

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

It's a bit complicated!

[No one of consequence]

Looking at the current list of CheckUsers, 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.

[MBisanz]

Looking at the current list of CheckUsers, 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.

[No one of consequence]

Looking at the current list of CheckUsers, 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.

VOA is the developer who coded most of the CU interface. I don't know if he still works on the code at all, but that would obviously not show up in the log. There are a few people on that list, Stewards and other WMF office folk, who rarely use the tool, but who, realistically, are not going to have it removed by Arbcom for lack of activity. I suppose Jimbo fits in this category, heaven knows why.

[Sarcasticidealist]

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?

[MBisanz]

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 believe someone (MZMcBride iirc) asked him about it a few months ago and the answer was rather vague.

[Cimorene]

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?

According to the user rights log, Jimbo gave himself the right in 2008 to "check some Grawp flood ip numbers" and has just failed to remove it.

[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.

[CharlotteWebb]

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.

[Cimorene]

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.

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.

[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.

[EricBarbour]

You'd think a freak like Gerard would be a little more circumspect in labeling other people (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

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.

Guess you didn't check his talkpage, eh?

Please contact ArbCom

Hello David,

Please contact ArbCom via its mailing list (arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org) at your earliest convenience. — Coren (talk), for the Committee, 01:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You realise of course this consists of me emailing and going "OK, what?" - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this appears to be concerning me receiving a personal threat, posting it to my blog and the arbcom deciding it doesn't like this. I have been asked to resign functionaries-en or be pushed. The reasoning is unclear, and perhaps you should do this publicly - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(This comes a few months after arbitrators telling me a few months ago I should resign or be pushed over this humour post, and several ex-arbs calling them "pompous idiots" for the suggestion. I said I'd like it done publicly, and nothing was heard of the notion again. The 2009 arbcom's thinking in these matters needs more transparency and public review.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

David, your response was unacceptable to this committee. Motion carried. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To make things perfectly clear, the blog post you referred to was considered the last of a string of incidents and public posturing that the committee unanimously felt was incompatible with holding a position of high trust and access to private data. That we offered you the opportunity to explain or step down privately was borne entirely of a desire to avoid possible drama or embarrassment to you; but the motion having passed in no way prevents you from making a public appeal where you will be able to present a case in detail if you feel it warranted. — Coren (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So the reason is a dislike of adult supervision, but the excuse is a specific allegation of actual malfeasance. You realise you can't vote the latter into existence, right? - David Gerard (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're in the wrong cabal. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to urge David to reflect on this experience and conduct himself in a more responsible and respectful manner in the future. Everyking (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

He's a massive dick, right to the bitter end. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

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.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[MBisanz]

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.

There is a concept in US law that courts will not issue advisory opinions, but that they will only rule on actual cases and controversies. At the most simple interpretation, this is to ensure that the judges and juries have actual facts on which to base their decisions and aren't left trying to construct elaborate "what if" situations that may not actually happen. In each of the cases referenced above, there was a factual event that permitted Arbcom to examine and establish a principle. If there are actual events that you think SV has done that in some way violate policy or practice, then email arbcom, but I do not think it is wise to go around saying "I don't like how you generally behave, so you should be punished"; sanctions should be based on hard facts presented for rebuttal and review.

[dtobias]

He deleted my comments on his talk page.

[Cla68]

He deleted my comments 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.

[MBisanz]

He deleted my comments 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.

Um, I think Everyking's comment was made in the middle of the night David's time, so I wouldn't expect an immediate response/removal.

[EricBarbour]

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

Gerard's history of disputes with him goes back at least 3 years.

I believe it originated with the Darren Ray/2006BC sockfests.
One of the articles they were fighting to "protect": Landeryou's BLP.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Cedric]

There is a concept in US law that courts will not issue advisory opinions, but that they will only rule on actual cases and controversies. At the most simple interpretation, . . . blah, blah, blabitty, blah.

"Wikipedia doesn't do due process." --Lar

How many times do we have to remind you? Seriously.

Meanwhile, back in the States:

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

Gerard's history of disputes with him goes back at least 3 years.

I believe it originated with the Darren Ray/2006BC sockfests.
One of the articles they were fighting to "protect": Landeryou's BLP.

(IMG:http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3308/mountaindewbottle.jpg)

"T'aint no feud like an old feud"

[Lar]

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.

[dtobias]

He deleted my comments 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.

Although, back in the days of the BADSITES Wars, he was one of the few well-connected, politically powerful insiders who actually took a stand on the mailing lists against banning links to so-called attack sites.

[Kelly Martin]

Although, back in the days of the BADSITES Wars, he was one of the few well-connected, politically powerful insiders who actually took a stand on the mailing lists against banning links to so-called attack sites.

While at the same time agitating behind the scenes to minimalize and sanction those who did so. Davy was against "BADSITES" because he felt that letting people post links to "attack sites" gave him valuable evidence to discover traitors to the cause, plus the whole process generated drama, which he, of course, loves.

[CharlotteWebb]

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.

[Lar]

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.

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

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

[No one of consequence]

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.

[CharlotteWebb]

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

[Cimorene]

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

Yep. That's it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Sorry for the confusion, Lar.

Edit: Typo

This post has been edited by Cimorene:

[MBisanz]

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 global policy is rather explicit that it is only granted with Arbcom approval on wikis with Arbcoms. Why is something permissible if it violates policy?

[Lar]

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 global policy is rather explicit that it is only granted with Arbcom approval on wikis with Arbcoms. Why is something permissible if it violates policy?

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

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.

[Kelly Martin]

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).

[Cedric]

Meanwhile back in Gerardland, David is now claiming that "my main concern is the serious defamation."

K. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Somey]

Meanwhile back in Gerardland, David is now claiming that "my main concern is the serious defamation."

Why, I wonder? Dave's never been concerned about the consequences of his defamatory WP-related writings in the past... I doubt that Andrew Landeryou is going to sue Dave over this, since they're in different countries, and he's already gotten some publicity out of it. Admittedly, English libel law is stricter than Australia's, but the cost of conducting an international lawsuit of that nature is likely to be prohibitive.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Jimmy believes that he is bound by policy...

"Bound by policy"? Silly Kelly, that's not how we do things over at our anarcho-libertarian Randian paradise.

[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.

[Doc glasgow]

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).

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

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Meanwhile back in Gerardland, David is now claiming that "my main concern is the serious defamation."

K. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

So is he making some sort of veiled legal threat?

He also thanks Everyking for his ''wise counsel''. He can be polite when it serves his purpose, as well as extremely sarcastic.

[CharlotteWebb]

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.

[Sarcasticidealist]

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.

[MBisanz]

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.

Jimbo does have Arbcom permission for Oversight, see Meta request.

[CharlotteWebb]

Jimbo does have Arbcom permission for Oversight, see Meta request.

Ah, thanks. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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

[Milton Roe]

Jimbo does have Arbcom permission for Oversight, see Meta request.

Ah, thanks. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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

Or even worse, switching it on and off for reasons that actually are apparent. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[EricBarbour]

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 this? 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.

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 a mostly absent absolute dictator.

That's more like it. Thank you.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[TungstenCarbide]

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 this? 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.

Actually, that was the admin irc channel, which was supposed to be confidential. You should have seen them go apeshit when they realized an admin on that channel was leaking logs. The next log is even more impressive - Jimbo basically saying he fired Sanger for cause, and calling on his army of admins to do his dirty work at Larry_Sanger (T-H-L-K-D). Seems to me like a pretty solid case of defaming Sanger's professional reputation.

[Lar]

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.

I think I made that point so badly that no one understands it.

Let me try again. The DerHexer incident notwithstanding, if there is a dire enough CU (or OV) emergency and no en:wp CU (or OV, respectively) to be found, any steward can and will turn on the CU (or OV, respectively) bit and do what needs doing. Exceedingly rare, but not in any way against policy. (but the steward better have had a darn good reason or a shitstorm will ensue)

So unless every steward left their CU bit on all the time, on en:wp anyway, Special:Listusers/checkuser will not ever be an exhaustive list of individuals allowed to use this tool by policy. Ditto OV. Because it would omit the stewards. Who are allowed to use the tool by policy.

I think it's silly to suggest that all stewards leave their bits on, but since there is no other way to do that exhaustive list thing, it's not actually a straw man argument I don't think, it's a rebuttal via reductio ad absurdum. (1)

1 - well, the text that is displayed for Special:Listusers/checkuser could be modified to remind you to go look on meta to see the list of stewards and give you the link, so that by addition you yourself could construct the list.

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)

Ah, there's the rub... that's a false assumption. Broken out for emphasis. No Arbcom has the authority to do that (in emergency situations... if the emergency is dire enough).

[CharlotteWebb]

Let me try again. The DerHexer incident notwithstanding, if there is a dire enough CU (or OV) emergency and no en:wp CU (or OV, respectively) to be found, any steward can and will turn on the CU (or OV, respectively) bit and do what needs doing. Exceedingly rare, but not in any way against policy. (but the steward better have had a darn good reason or a shitstorm will ensue)

Okay, has anyone provided a definition of "darn good reason" in this context?

Surely, I would have thought redacting a user's suspected personal info would fall into this category, even if it later proves to be a (very amusing) false alarm, as in the case of…

[Alison]

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 this one better. Who is the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

Guys, will you just knock it off already (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) 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.

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 this particular nuisance, but David was one of then who did. Kudos and respect to him for doing that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

[anthony]

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 this one better. Who is the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

Guys, will you just knock it off already (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) 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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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 this one better. Who is the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

Guys, will you just knock it off already (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) 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.

I would say it would be wrong if anyone posted the child's name, pic or any other information. But not what's been said here. This is more "we make the world anew without regard to convention, rules, morals etc" and if you don't like it then "let's skulldance." Besides if I can't say "concubine" here, when do I ever get to say it?

[anthony]

Besides if I can't say "concubine" here, when do I ever get to say it?

I use the term "baby mama" all the time. It's so much cooler than "child's mother". Not in front of anyone I mind offending, though. I don't see it as an offensive term, but some people do.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Somey]

Guys, will you just knock it off already (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) 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.

Like I say, we'll remove the references if he asks, but he's got quite a few other things to remove himself, preferably before he asks others to do likewise. And like GBG says, we're not referring to the little tyke directly...

Still, whenever I see things like that I'm reminded of the Kathie Lee Gifford (T-H-L-K-D) story. In 1995 she wrote a book entitled Listen to My Heart: Lessons in Love, Laughter, and Lunacy, essentially a memoir of her first 2-3 years raising her son Cody. Unfortunately, the book is little more than her fulminating at great length about how "cute" Cody is (or was), including his propensity to "poop" on things, such as (in most cases) himself. You can still find the book on amazon.com, the page for which includes a Publisher's Weekly review containing a reference to the poop-related content, and two hilarious (though short) customer reviews, one of which reads thusly:

Poor Kathie Lee. Her book is designed to show us that she is such a sweet kind loving attentive mother. If you read the book with any degree of attention, you will see that she is a very disturbed woman, and that dear little Cody is well on his way to serial-killerdom.

In effect, Kathie Lee transferred her extreme-narcissistic psychological issues onto her son by proxy, published a book which inadvertently detailed it (without no self-realization whatsoever), and in so doing saddled the poor boy with an account of his childhood toilet-training issues that will follow him for the rest of his life.

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. Cody is now 19 and hopefully doing well, but who knows how much hell he had to endure growing up because of this?

I can only hope Dave, and other parents, learn from this and try to keep details of their children's development private. He wasn't doing a good job of that around the time of his own child's birth, but to be fair, he seems to have done a lot better since then.