Well, the statement posted by ArbCom makes it very clear that the expulsion did happen, and that ArbCom was standing by it.

...and the Geroid is allowed to ceremonially lay down his supah powahs instead of having them taken from him.

No, ArbCom's statement makes it clear that they were taken from him.

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

It's 6PM Mike's time, so I suspect he is doing non-work related things.

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.

Wikipedia's leaders are "inherently dishonest"

Jimbo has denied being involved.

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

What a shame. How often do you even get to hear the word "videlicet?"

If David chose to challenge this impression in court, would the relevant ArbCom members be able successfully to defend it (assuming an English court had jurisdiction over them)?

There are really two issues here: was David Gerard punished fairly for a *substantive* violation of administrative standards, and has he been unfairly defamed by the implications of ArbCom's recent actions. My strong suggestion is that ArbCom reconsider its decisions, which seem more like arbitrariness than arbitration.

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

What a shame. How often do you even get to hear the word "videlicet?"

Yet its key author resigns, all public record of it remains memory holed, and the Geroid is allowed to ceremonially lay down his supah powahs instead of having them taken from him.

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.

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)

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)?

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)?

Jimbo has denied being involved.

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