Davy Gothic Meets The Metz, El Reg's Cade Metz on Gerard's Defrocking Options

[thekohser]

I've been following this discussion, and it seems to me that the case for removing David Gerard's checkuser and oversight functions has not been made in any way that meets what I as a lawyer would characterize as due-process and evidentiary standards...

Please communicate to all involved my strong personal and professional preference that they reconsider this decision.

--Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

That's it, folks...

In Godwin's defense, he did say on Wikipedia somewhere in the last 24 hours, but I can't be bothered with re-digging-up the diff, that he had accidentally attached his "official" .sig file signature to that note, which was intended to be of a personal nature.

[Random832]

In Godwin's defense, he did say on Wikipedia somewhere in the last 24 hours, but I can't be bothered with re-digging-up the diff, that he had accidentally attached his "official" .sig file signature to that note, which was intended to be of a personal nature.

And are you under the impression that he wouldn't have said that if his intention had been to attach the official sig (for intimidation value)?

[EricBarbour]

I'm going to quote the entire discussion between Godwin and Cla68 here, just in case the Golden Mister Godwin decides to get it oversighted. WP rants involving Godwin and Gerard seem to be disappearing all over the place.

Register article on you and David Gerard

Still think you did the right thing? Cla68 (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Please communicate to all involved my strong personal and professional preference that they reconsider this decision." Sounds to me like you were implying that you were acting in your formal capacity as the Foundation's attorney. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely think I did the right thing. What makes you think I should believe otherwise? Cade deliberately omits the messages in which I said later that I was expressly speaking for myself rather than as a function of my position. The reason he does this is that he is inherently dishonest. MikeGodwin (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You know how important appearances are. Why didn't David Gerard simply communicate his opinion and demand directly to the ArbCom? Why did he get a lawyer to do it for him? You don't think that choosing you over anyone else sends some kind of message? Imagine how it feels to be ArbCom and to get an email from the Foundation's attorney telling them, using legal terminology, that they screwed-up, in spite of the fact that you tried to make it look like it was just a personal request? Furthermore, if you weren't willing to be involved in your official capacity, then if it comes out in public about what was going on, as happened here, it looks like back-room dealing using an unofficial "heavy", videlicet, you, doesn't it? Cla68 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

David Gerard did not get a lawyer to do anything for him. You need to get your facts straight. I spoke out about the issue on my own behalf, based on my own perceptions. The very fact that you think David got me to represent him shows you don't know what you're talking about.MikeGodwin (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the ArbCom Noticeboard: "The Arbitration Committee has...suppressed the motion in an accord between the subject and the Arbitration Committee (brokered by Mike Godwin)." On your own, you contacted both David Gerard and the ArbCom and offered to broker an accord? Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That is in fact what happened. I raised my concerns on the Functionaries list, and after I voiced them, it was suggested that I mediate the dispute and try to come up with a resolution of it. MikeGodwin (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you read Wikipedia Review, but in that forum Kelly Martin has defended your handling of the situation, saying that you did the right thing. By the way, you referred to a living person, by name, as "inherently dishonest". That is a violation of the WP:BLP policy. If it matters to you, I suggest editing your comment to delete that phrase. Cla68 (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[thekohser]

And are you under the impression that he wouldn't have said that if his intention had been to attach the official sig (for intimidation value)?

I don't care enough to form an impression. I've held my own opinion of hot-headed and impulsive Mike Godwin for about a year now, and interpretations of his motives are not worthy of any of my brain cells that could be reserved for more useful things, such as memorizing the claim check number on my most recent batch of dry cleaning, or contemplating whether the Spartans will advance to the Final Four this year without any credible big man in the front court.

[Somey]

And are you under the impression that he wouldn't have said that if his intention had been to attach the official sig (for intimidation value)?

Well, let's not mince words here. Either he signed it that way deliberately or he didn't, but in all (probably undeserved) fairness to him, it probably wouldn't have mattered either way. His title is known to all who would have read that message, and whatever he wrote would have carried the same weight regardless.

To suggest otherwise is highly disingenuous of him, but if he can get away with it (i.e., making this distinction seem significant and making his claim of signing the message "incorrectly" believable to a majority of WP'ers), then more power to him. The important thing is that his actions have generated vastly more drama than would otherwise have occurred, and drawn far more attention to both Dave Gerard's and Godwin's actions as a result, and those can only be considered good things.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

So far, it appears that Mr. Godwin and Mr. Wales are hiding. Well, it's only been a few hours. They may respond soon.

So Mike Godwin's reply is to slander Cade Metz.

Cade didn't write your emails, Godwin. You did.

Wikipedia's leaders are "inherently dishonest" based on literally a dozen incidents where its behaviour has been exposed off-WP. Consistently so. It's almost embarassing to watch the backtracking and mumbling all the way to the top of your rotten, scummy organisation.

Jimbo has denied being involved.

Well of course he does!
He is far too busy just being Jimbo!
Do you know how much effort it takes to be THAT awesome and cool all the time!?
I'm surprised he can find enough hours in the day...but it only shows how wonderful he is.


This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine): Fri 4th December 2009, 2:23am

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

it waved a kind of goodbye to another member of the old Wikiguard - a group that once ruled the site with an iron fist

An iron ham-fist more like.
But Cade supports the notion that this is an old vs new guard spat.