In a brief moment of clarity, a rant pushes the Wikipedia community into realising David Gerard is a piece of shit

[Jake Is A Sellout]

Hopefully in light of this empassioned plea for sanity, which surprisingly worked, people will start examining Gerard's conduct around the sham Daily Mail ban, which in his manner of defending and progressing it, is characterised by all the same sorts of evasion and deflection and hostility and general bully boy get out of my way you peasant I Am Wikipedia bullshit.

Then again, pigs might fly.

Still, interesting to note that the primary institigators of the Daily Mail ban are all either currently (Cockram, Gerard) or soon to be (Chapman, if RexxS is to be a precedent) subject to the sort of community sanctions which call their basic integrity into question.

These people freely lied for reasons of personal politics, these people knowingly organised and pushed through a sham process of "consensus" that has nothing useful to say about the Mail to anyone who actually has an academic interest in the reliability of the print media, or indeed, a grounding in any academic discipline whatsoever. Unless, as many in academia do, they too simply hate the Mail for its editorial stance, and would sell their grandmother if they thought there was a way to abuse Wikipedia to harm it (and sadly for them, results so far beyond the Wikipedia fish bowl, are not promising).

I am tempted to say these downfalls are karma in action, but more likely, it's merely the end product of them feeling so confident at what they managed to pull of with that masquerade, they flew too close to the Sun, and forgot that while Wikipedia doesn't have many actual ethics driving its mission, it does typically draw the line somewhere. Somewhere just before pedophilia advocacy, to give you an idea of the sort of person the appropriately named Micheal Cockram was. Gerard was using Wikipedia to call an extrrnal enemy of his a white supremacist, and all he got was a slap on the wrist, and got to keep his Admin role.

[ericbarbour]

Thanks for catching that. It is VERY rare for hardcore insiders to snipe at each other openly on a noticeboard, yet here we are. And this is absolutely typical, classic Gerard bullshit. His arrogance is exceeded only by his incompetence. (Don't worry, Gerard owns dozens of sock accounts, and will use one to mess with the Slate Star Codex content months later.)

Getting the New York Times to print your personal blathering about a right-wing blogger, then using it as a "reliable source". What an "achievement". It must be one of the most evil tricks he's ever pulled. And shows just how pathetic the Times has become in recent years.

One could say similar things for SV or Baranof. Gerard gets away with this partly because of the sick internal culture they helped to foster. If those little fucks had ANY balls he would be on the Global Ban list right now. Slim knows fucking well what Gerard wants to do: use Wikipedia as his private IHATETHISPERSON server. He's pulled this shit dozens of times before. Do you see her blocking him?

David, it seems clear that you have a COI, per WP:COI and WP:BLPCOI. You've acted as a source for a newspaper about this person, and tweeted about him. Now you're writing about him on WP, using that newspaper article as a source and removing criticism of it. SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I was one of many sources, and not even one that rated naming. I was asked to comment as an expert on the LessWrong subculture, and you can read WP:COI on subject-matter experts as well as I can: "Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work." And no, I have no financial interest in the article - David Gerard (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not what's meant by subject-matter expert. You've been tweeting negatively about this person since at least June 2020 (that's based on a five-second Google search, so maybe longer). See WP:BLPCOI, which is policy: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki— ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest". SarahSV (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

See above. None of this is a Wikipedia COI, or even a colloquial COI. Your argument comes down to a claim that non-fans of a subject should not be allowed to edit an article about the subject, and you know that's never been the case at Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"You've been tweeting negatively about this person since at least June 2020" - I'm concerned about the precedent you're proposing to set here. I don't think "has tweeted negatively about someone" constitutes a "significant controversy or dispute" in the context of BLPCOI, and I'm fairly certain that that's not how the policy was understood when it was drafted and approved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I mostly get that argument from the cryptocurrency spammers, who seem to sincerely think that if you're not an advocate you shouldn't be allowed to talk about their favourite thing 'cos that's a conflict of interest - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

And the obvious extension of this concept would be that anyone who tweeted positively about this person must also now have a conflict of interest and be prohibited from editing the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward to the diffs - David Gerard (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Per your wider online activities. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have diffs from Wikipedia? If you don't have those, then your findings are unlikely to be, for example, WP:COIN material. Being a critic of an article subject is not a COI - David Gerard (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You regularly make your personal dislike of Scott Siskind known throughout the internet. This is beyond having a run-of-the-mill personal opinion -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

[boredbird]

I think Baranof's real name is Attendsboi.

https://dissenter.com/comment/5c7afbafd0df0056718a50f3

Here are some people complaining about him and EvergeenFir.

https://archivecaslytosk.onion.my/6K2Ek

[ericbarbour]

I think Baranof's real name is Attendsboi.

Oh god, do we have to talk about the diaper fetish again?......

Presently an "interpretive ranger" for the US Forest Service[1], recently a graduate student at Indiana University. Works part-time for sports blog SBnation. Originally from Richmond, California.

Text of 2006 Wikitruth article:

"You can't find a greater example of Wikipedian-hood for the moment than Travis Mason-Bushman better known to his diaper loving friends as Attendsboi (or on Wikipedia as FCYTravis). A salad of paranoid, power-infused, and constantly-on-alert, you spend half the time wondering who pooped in his diaper. And the other half wondering when someone's going to change him."

"What's most confusing, of course, is why FCYTravis has worked so hard on so many other sites before Wikipedia and deleted all his good works. For example, here is a perfectly well-maintained livejournal he used to keep about his diaper fetish... and now it's gone (except for our copy). Well, at least all his postings on the TeenBaby forums are still there..... and now they're gone! Man, talk about crawling away quickly! Gitchy, gitchy goo!

Apparently you can thank David Gerard for "doxing" him on Wikitruth....is THAT petty and stupid enough for everyone?.....

More disgusting reading if you dare:
https://dramatica.online/index.php?titl ... on-Bushman