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.

Who would have thunk it? He was so mature and drama free.....

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.

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.

He found out weeks ago.

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

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

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.

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?

And you managed to keep it a secret?

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.

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!



Not the best strategy, was it?



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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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


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.

Had nothing to do with that. Nothing at all.

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

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.

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.

So did anyone put the popcorn on yet?

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

That is a wonderful defense. Pray tell, who were your previous courtroom clients: Jesus Christ and Joan of Arc?

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.

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.



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.

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


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

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

Ya, ya. WHITE PAR! o/


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.

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 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.

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.

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".)

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

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.

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.


Amen to that!

I find your invective tiresome.

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


Right, right. We already went over this. White par and all that. \o (I turned around for that 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.

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.

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.

A project to...what? Are we talking about the same Wikipedia?

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.

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.

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).

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?