Arbitrator mocks Trump in April 1st Signpost: BLP issue?

[DHeyward]

Kelapstick more or less stated already on the ArbCom noticeboard that Doug Weller was mistaken. Auerbach thanked Kelapstick for the information. Doug Weller himself has said nothing so far. Obviously, he is under no obligation to reveal anything which Gamaliel emailed to the committee. Auerbach understands this, but he is digging because he is a journalist.

Doug Weller did change his vote to "oppose" on the same day when he posted the information, so conceivably this could have mattered in his calculations. In my opinion, since Gamaliel had already "retired" and resigned from ArbCom, the extra effect would have been marginal.

The rest is drama which carries on because this is Wikipedia.

In my totally speculative opinion, Gamaliel made a diva quit (or a show of doing so), but his WMDC colleagues convinced him to stay (or he changed his mind). Nothing Earth shattering and not a crime. Not even anything unethical.

Kelapstick restated a logical truth, which is different from being simply mistaken. It is true that Gamaliel is on the WMDC Board, therefore the statement he resigned the board is false. It doesn't mean Weller didn't accurately reflect what Gamaliel wrote. In fact, he resign CU/OS at the same time and emailed ArbCom to take responsibility on the same day. What's very absent is the correction. ArbCom would have us believe that resigning from WMDC was notable on the day of reckoning, but now, it is of no consequence and beyond their remit. Further, no one is rushing to strike the statement as a lie or aspersion or falsehood and this question has been raised for months. Today, Weller declined to expand why he said that nor did he fix it as an aspersion or apologize where he attributed a false statement to Gamaliel (or falsely attributed a statement to Gamaliel). Occam's razor points to a resignation statement by Gamaliel that ArbCom no longer wishes to convey but cannot deny. Their choice of protecting WMDC over being transparent further erodes their position of looking out solely for Wikipedia.

[Kingsindian]

Kelapstick more or less stated already on the ArbCom noticeboard that Doug Weller was mistaken. Auerbach thanked Kelapstick for the information. Doug Weller himself has said nothing so far. Obviously, he is under no obligation to reveal anything which Gamaliel emailed to the committee. Auerbach understands this, but he is digging because he is a journalist.

Doug Weller did change his vote to "oppose" on the same day when he posted the information, so conceivably this could have mattered in his calculations. In my opinion, since Gamaliel had already "retired" and resigned from ArbCom, the extra effect would have been marginal.

The rest is drama which carries on because this is Wikipedia.

In my totally speculative opinion, Gamaliel made a diva quit (or a show of doing so), but his WMDC colleagues convinced him to stay (or he changed his mind). Nothing Earth shattering and not a crime. Not even anything unethical.

Kelapstick restated a logical truth, which is different from being simply mistaken. It is true that Gamaliel is on the WMDC Board, therefore the statement he resigned the board is false. It doesn't mean Weller didn't accurately reflect what Gamaliel wrote. In fact, he resign CU/OS at the same time and emailed ArbCom to take responsibility on the same day. What's very absent is the correction. ArbCom would have us believe that resigning from WMDC was notable on the day of reckoning, but now, it is of no consequence and beyond their remit. Further, no one is rushing to strike the statement as a lie or aspersion or falsehood and this question has been raised for months. Today, Weller declined to expand why he said that nor did he fix it as an aspersion or apologize where he attributed a false statement to Gamaliel (or falsely attributed a statement to Gamaliel). Occam's razor points to a resignation statement by Gamaliel that ArbCom no longer wishes to convey but cannot deny. Their choice of protecting WMDC over being transparent further erodes their position of looking out solely for Wikipedia.

Let's recall Weller's statement in context:

He apparently accepted responsibility privately to Arbcom, which is good. Still, he hasn't apologized to the community or told us that he knows he acted poorly and accepts responsibility for it. That's all any of us wanted in the first place, and his continued refusal stoked the fires even more. If he had just said in the beginning "Sorry, I acted rashly and won't do that again. I'm going to go get some fresh air now" everybody would have been satisfied and this case would never have happened. I feel that if the community is to heal and move on, Gamaliel should tell them (even by proxy) that he accepts responsibility for his actions. Not necessarily a huge essay, just a simple acknowledgement that he understands he made a mistake. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to reiterate that at the moment he is retired and cannot post to Wikipedia for reasons that the Committee knows and sympathises with. He's also resigned from the WMDC. Doug Weller talk 16:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
[...]
I'm not going to go into details as private correspondance is exactly what it is. I do not fully echo Doug's statement above, and i'm not sure the rest of the committee stands in hand with it. That's not saying I'm not sympathetic, nor that a reason hasn't been given, but purely stating that it's not as strong, in my opinion, as Doug puts forward. [...] Amanda (aka DQ) 19:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Weller (or anyone in ArbCom) is under no obligation to reveal what Gamaliel wrote - in fact, emails to ArbCom are, as a rule, not revealed. I also do not think that "resigning from WMDC" is within ArbCom's remit - it was simply a mention. The WMDC part was simply a parenthetical mention and if Doug Weller had said nothing at all about WMDC, it would have been totally fine. In fact, it would be better if ArbCom members don't run off their mouths unnecessarily.

Suppose, for the sake of argument (and as I myself speculated above), Gamaliel had indeed said that he was resigning from WMDC and then he took it back. Suppose Weller reveals this. What would this achieve? At the most, it is embarrassing for Gamaliel and WMDC. Gamaliel did not have to resign from WMDC in the first place, so if he took it back, that's not a problem for me. It's WMDC's business who they hire and let go.

As I said, this is little different from the diva quits when people put up a "Retired" tag during an ArbCom case and then take it back. The difference is that a WMDC job has even less to do directly with editing Wikipedia, so I care even less about it.

[DHeyward]

Let's recall Weller's statement in context:

He apparently accepted responsibility privately to Arbcom, which is good. Still, he hasn't apologized to the community or told us that he knows he acted poorly and accepts responsibility for it. That's all any of us wanted in the first place, and his continued refusal stoked the fires even more. If he had just said in the beginning "Sorry, I acted rashly and won't do that again. I'm going to go get some fresh air now" everybody would have been satisfied and this case would never have happened. I feel that if the community is to heal and move on, Gamaliel should tell them (even by proxy) that he accepts responsibility for his actions. Not necessarily a huge essay, just a simple acknowledgement that he understands he made a mistake. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to reiterate that at the moment he is retired and cannot post to Wikipedia for reasons that the Committee knows and sympathises with. He's also resigned from the WMDC. Doug Weller talk 16:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
[...]
I'm not going to go into details as private correspondance is exactly what it is. I do not fully echo Doug's statement above, and i'm not sure the rest of the committee stands in hand with it. That's not saying I'm not sympathetic, nor that a reason hasn't been given, but purely stating that it's not as strong, in my opinion, as Doug puts forward. [...] Amanda (aka DQ) 19:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Weller (or anyone in ArbCom) is under no obligation to reveal what Gamaliel wrote - in fact, emails to ArbCom are, as a rule, not revealed. I also do not think that "resigning from WMDC" is within ArbCom's remit - it was simply a mention. The WMDC part was simply a parenthetical mention and if Doug Weller had said nothing at all about WMDC, it would have been totally fine. In fact, it would be better if ArbCom members don't run off their mouths unnecessarily.

Suppose, for the sake of argument (and as I myself speculated above), Gamaliel had indeed said that he was resigning from WMDC and then he took it back. Suppose Weller reveals this. What would this achieve? At the most, it is embarrassing for Gamaliel and WMDC. Gamaliel did not have to resign from WMDC in the first place, so if he took it back, that's not a problem for me. It's WMDC's business who they hire and let go.

As I said, this is little different from the diva quits when people put up a "Retired" tag during an ArbCom case and then take it back. The difference is that a WMDC job has even less to do directly with editing Wikipedia, so I care even less about it.

Perhaps, but on the same day he unsubscribed from CU/OS and deleted himself from mailing lists. If you recall, all his actions were within hours of the day of reckoning. DQ, IMO, is expressing doubt regarding last hour responsibility, ArbCom wide sympathy and inability to edit.

Doug noted WMDC in which he seems to be believe it is notable especially in tandem with sympathy.

It has little relevance to WP so why not be transparent and speak to the circumstances of the statement? Was it revealed to achieve sympathy?

This is a lot like someone that submits a CV for a job claiming tenure at a University to obtain a speaking bid. A member of the speaker selection committee notes this as fact from their CV even though it's not a requirement for the speaking gig. The CV is not public but known to the committee. A sister organization has them in a place of trust being part of the board and on the audit committee where honesty and integrity is essential.

Someone goes to the University web page and discovers that they are not a tenured professor as was stated by a committee member.

One member makes an observation that the committee member's tenure statement was obviously in error because the University web page shows it to be false.

Another member notes that it was not a requirement for the speaking engagement and therefore not relevant even though it was used at the time of selection. Also he withdrew as speaker. Pursuing details is therefore harassment.

The member who wrote that he was a tenured professor declines to say where he got that information or answer anything about it.

Meanwhile, the sister organization still has them in a position of trust with no explanation as to the discrepancy. All members of the sister organization belong to the main organization and many key members of the sister organization are part of the speaker selection committee and friends with the person in question.

Now, the question is whether the unseen CV claimed tenure or not. It's a basic question of integrity. If the main committee is so detached from the sister org, why are they choosing protection over transparency?

Ethically, false statements are not protected by privacy. Journalists do not protect sources that lie. ArbCom serves Wikipedia, not WMDC privacy. They made a statement that reflected what they had read. They have not struck or disavowed that interpretation and have instead chosen a posture that seeks to protect a different organization over their own transparency. Either Gamaliel inimated he had resigned from WMDC just as he intimated that he resigned Cu and OS tools that same day. Or he didn't. Either Doug made up the statement out of thin air or he didn't. Not answering is not acceptable for the integrity of ArbCom and considering Wikimedia uses WP as fundraising to provide WMDC money, a member of their audit committee that lies to WP would be and is very relevant.

[Jimbo Jambo]

Their main objection is accountability, we saw it in the TDA ban discussion as well.
These Arbs feel they have free rein once elected vs. continuous accountability like admins.

Maybe by policy they do. Is there a procedure to compel Weller to answer?

[Kingsindian]

Doug Weller replies on his talkpage, basically saying "no comment" (which is fine, imo). Auerbach is fine with the answer, but wants the accusation of "hounding" removed. Several other people comment on this request. I wish people would mind their own business and let Doug Weller deal with a request which is directly addressed to him.

[Carcharoth]

Indeed. A lot of arbitration and dispute resolution is telling the difference between dispassionate neutral helpful observers and busybodies, and telling the latter (sometimes the former as well) to mind their own business. Sometimes people who think they are being helpful come across as busybodies. Being able to spot malcontents, trollers and general shit-stirrers is also useful.

[Vigilant]

Indeed. A lot of arbitration and dispute resolution is telling the difference between dispassionate neutral helpful observers and busybodies, and telling the latter (sometimes the former as well) to mind their own business. Sometimes people who think they are being helpful come across as busybodies. Being able to spot malcontents, trollers and general shit-stirrers is also useful.

General rule: Anybody who posts more than 5% of their word count at any of the drama boards is a busybody.

[Earthy Astringent]

Their main objection is accountability, we saw it in the TDA ban discussion as well.
These Arbs feel they have free rein once elected vs. continuous accountability like admins.

Maybe by policy they do. Is there a procedure to compel Weller to answer?

Water boarding.

[Poetlister]

General rule: Anybody who posts more than 5% of their word count at any of the drama boards is a busybody.

Or someone wanting to be an admin, which I suppose is much the same thing.

[Kingsindian]

Auerbach, in his latest newsletter, has written the following on the matter:

Around the turn of 2015, I wrote two articles on the problems of Wikipedia. Encyclopedia Frown and The Wikipedia Ouroboros. They painted Wikipedia as a sclerotic community consumed by internecine warfare, petty feuds, and chronic and unchecked abuses of power, surviving through the funding of the also-troubled Wikimedia Foundation nonprofit. I was only somewhat aware at the time that Wikipedians can hold a grudge like no one else. I summarize this ridiculous saga here as a number of people have expressed curiosity about just what went down. I encourage you to skim unless you are fascinated by the dying throes of a once-vibrant community turned insular and fetid.

One longtime administrator, who goes by "Gamaliel," went on to snipe at me on Wikipedia and Twitter throughout 2015. I ignored him, but he came to my attention again this year when he was the subject of a complicated disciplinary case (not involving me), ending with him being formally reprimanded for multiple abuses of power. Yet that wasn't the whole story: Gamaliel also is a board member of the Wikimedia regional outreach group Wikimedia DC--which coincidentally happens to hold multiple seats on the powerful Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia's highest governing body. (Gamaliel in fact held one of these seats, though he stepped down during the case.) During the case, Gamaliel claimed to have resigned from the board of Wikimedia DC. Either he did not resign, or he rescinded his resignation, as he remains on their board and is being entrusted with the communications chair of the Wikimedia USA conference this year, being funded by a $50,000 grant from the Wikimedia Foundation.

While trying to clear up the sequence of events, I was met with a barrage of attacks from Wikimedians and Wikipedians, which culminated in Gamaliel contacting Slate and New America to suggest I be fired for a variety of offenses I hadn't actually committed, even as he was cheered on by several other highly placed Wikipedians and Wikimedians. (If you really want the details, let me know. I'm trying to keep this short.) His behavior is unacceptable, but I was more troubled that neither Wikipedia, Wikimedia, nor Wikimedia DC seemed to have any problem with Gamaliel lying about me and trying to get me fired. Instead, several of Gamaliel's allies were busy messing with my Wikipedia biography. In April they tried to delete my page altogether. In August, another Arbitration Committee member, with whom I'd tangled in the past, went in and removed mention of my Wikipedia criticism from my page. (He'd previously criticized me for saying that Wikipedia tolerated sexist abuse toward women, a conflict of interest that should have steered him away from my page.)

The situation remains unresolved at this point, but my conclusion at this point is that the declining ranks of Wikipedia admins protect their own at the expense of their integrity and the health of their project, and it is tragic to see. Needless to say, I do not recommend editing Wikipedia under any circumstances, nor can I advocate donating money given the treatment to which non-elite contributors are subjected--and my experiences are far from the worst I have observed there.

[Midsize Jake]

Auerbach, in his latest newsletter, has written the following on the matter...

"Once-vibrant"...?

I've been observing Wikipedia for a very long time, and the WP community has never been the least bit "vibrant." It is now as it has always been, a soul-crushing dystopian pit of anger and despair, inhabited by those whose lives consist of little more than an undying thirst for vengeance against a world they cannot control and can never forgive.

It's almost... Dickensian!

[Kingsindian]

Should there be a blogpost on this matter?

[Randy from Boise]

Auerbach, in his latest newsletter, has written the following on the matter...

"Once-vibrant"...?

I've been observing Wikipedia for a very long time, and the WP community has never been the least bit "vibrant." It is now as it has always been, a soul-crushing dystopian pit of anger and despair, inhabited by those whose lives consist of little more than an undying thirst for vengeance against a world they cannot control and can never forgive.

It's almost... Dickensian!

The drama pages (including ArbCom) are a cross between Game of Thrones and The Godfather Part 3.

Fortunately, all one has to do to avoid the circus is not go to the circus.

RfB

[thekohser]

Auerbach, in his latest newsletter, has written the following on the matter:

Around the turn of 2015, I wrote two articles on the problems of Wikipedia. Encyclopedia Frown and The Wikipedia Ouroboros.
...

Generally speaking, we try to respect copyright here at Wikipediocracy. This is a lengthy excerpt, with no link back to the original content.

[Kingsindian]

You can remove the text if you wish. The text comes from a newsletter by Auerbach which says what he's been up to in the past month or so. There's no link; it came through email subscription through tinyletter (it's free).

[thekohser]

You can remove the text if you wish. The text comes from a newsletter by Auerbach which says what he's been up to in the past month or so. There's no link; it came through email subscription through tinyletter (it's free).

Ah, thanks for explaining. I think that's very suitable, then -- it's like forwarding an e-mail to a larger list.

[Vigilant]

Auerbach, in his latest newsletter, has written the following on the matter...

"Once-vibrant"...?

I've been observing Wikipedia for a very long time, and the WP community has never been the least bit "vibrant." It is now as it has always been, a soul-crushing dystopian pit of anger and despair, inhabited by those whose lives consist of little more than an undying thirst for vengeance against a world they cannot control and can never forgive.

It's almost... Dickensian!

The drama pages (including ArbCom) are a cross between Game of Thrones and The Godfather Part 3.

Fortunately, all one has to do to avoid the circus is not go to the circus.

RfB

Tell that to Michael Hardy.

[TheWordsmith]

Auerbach, in his latest newsletter, has written the following on the matter...

"Once-vibrant"...?

I've been observing Wikipedia for a very long time, and the WP community has never been the least bit "vibrant." It is now as it has always been, a soul-crushing dystopian pit of anger and despair, inhabited by those whose lives consist of little more than an undying thirst for vengeance against a world they cannot control and can never forgive.

It's almost... Dickensian!

The drama pages (including ArbCom) are a cross between Game of Thrones and The Godfather Part 3.

Fortunately, all one has to do to avoid the circus is not go to the circus.

RfB

Tell that to Michael Hardy.

Its a shame the Committee didn't limit the scope of the case to four days in April 2016 and a Signpost prank. Artificially limiting it would have been a great idea in this case to keep out decade-old "evidence" from being judged by 2016 policy and culture. The one niggle that's really getting under my skin is an attempt to present ancient history from the Cowboy Diplomacy era as a violation of modern standards, when in fact things like "incivility" and "wheel warring" meant different things. Stuff we ban for today nobody would have blinked at in 2008.

[Randy from Boise]

Auerbach, in his latest newsletter, has written the following on the matter...

"Once-vibrant"...?

I've been observing Wikipedia for a very long time, and the WP community has never been the least bit "vibrant." It is now as it has always been, a soul-crushing dystopian pit of anger and despair, inhabited by those whose lives consist of little more than an undying thirst for vengeance against a world they cannot control and can never forgive.

It's almost... Dickensian!

The drama pages (including ArbCom) are a cross between Game of Thrones and The Godfather Part 3.

Fortunately, all one has to do to avoid the circus is not go to the circus.

RfB

Tell that to Michael Hardy.

He made his choices. Resigning tools with two middle fingers in the air was the correct answer.

RfB

[Vigilant]

Auerbach, in his latest newsletter, has written the following on the matter...

"Once-vibrant"...?

I've been observing Wikipedia for a very long time, and the WP community has never been the least bit "vibrant." It is now as it has always been, a soul-crushing dystopian pit of anger and despair, inhabited by those whose lives consist of little more than an undying thirst for vengeance against a world they cannot control and can never forgive.

It's almost... Dickensian!

The drama pages (including ArbCom) are a cross between Game of Thrones and The Godfather Part 3.

Fortunately, all one has to do to avoid the circus is not go to the circus.

RfB

Tell that to Michael Hardy.

He made his choices. Resigning tools with two middle fingers in the air was the correct answer.

RfB

Try to read what you wrote and connect that shit to reality.

[Kingsindian]

Also, there was an edit war on Criticism of Wikipedia (T-H-L)regarding an article Auerbach wrote on the GGTF case. It was added by TradingJihadist (T-C-L) who has since been blocked. It was reverted, then re-added, then reverted, then re-added. In my opinion, this particular edit was justified - though the initial editor was probably NOTHERE.

[Randy from Boise]

He had multiple opportunities to disengage. Everybody always does. Escalation was a choice and then fighting to the last trench was another choice.

We all know that the actual merits of the Hardy case are scant to the point of non-existence. That doesn't change the fact that an ArbCom case was entirely avoidable.

RfB

[Vigilant]

He had multiple opportunities to disengage. Everybody always does. Escalation was a choice and then fighting to the last trench was another choice.

We all know that the actual merits of the Hardy case are scant to the point of non-existence. That doesn't change the fact that an ArbCom case was entirely avoidable.

RfB

Once again, you fail to address what you wrote.

Fortunately, all one has to do to avoid the circus is not go to the circus.

I say that he was trying to avoid the circus and that the circus went looking for him.

[Randy from Boise]

He had multiple opportunities to disengage. Everybody always does. Escalation was a choice and then fighting to the last trench was another choice.

We all know that the actual merits of the Hardy case are scant to the point of non-existence. That doesn't change the fact that an ArbCom case was entirely avoidable.

RfB

Once again, you fail to address what you wrote.

Fortunately, all one has to do to avoid the circus is not go to the circus.

I say that he was trying to avoid the circus and that the circus went looking for him.

And I contend that even though drama-mongers sought him out and hauled him in, there were multiple opportunities to disengage from them and to walk away without being sucked into their lynch mob as guest of honor...

RfB

[Vigilant]

He had multiple opportunities to disengage. Everybody always does. Escalation was a choice and then fighting to the last trench was another choice.

We all know that the actual merits of the Hardy case are scant to the point of non-existence. That doesn't change the fact that an ArbCom case was entirely avoidable.

RfB

Once again, you fail to address what you wrote.

Fortunately, all one has to do to avoid the circus is not go to the circus.

I say that he was trying to avoid the circus and that the circus went looking for him.

And I contend that even though drama-mongers sought him out and hauled him in, there were multiple opportunities to disengage from them and to walk away without being sucked into their lynch mob as guest of honor...

RfB

That's not what you said originally.

He's an unwilling victim.

Guy Macon is an STD.

[Poetlister]

That's not what you said originally.

Randy has learnt much from observing Jimbo.

Jimbo is not always consistent.

[Moral Hazard]

Tim has not changed his mind.
He has the same position.
He's just changed the words that he is writing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... a-pierson/

[Jimbo Jambo]

To borrow from Rumsfield, there are 3 classes of Trump statements WRT his beliefs and intentions:

• Truths - statements that accurately reflect them (his beliefs and intentions)
• Known Untruths - statements reasonable people know do not accurately reflect them
• Unknown Untruths - statements that do not accurately reflect them, unbeknownst to reasonable people

The second class of statement (Known Untruths) have generated the most controversy and coverage: round up 11 million illegals, punish women who get abortions, ban all muslims, etc. - despite their financial or legal impossibility.

I have (as I assume most reasonable Trump supporters) disregarded Known Untruths since the beginning the same way I disregard Clinton's promises to "rein in Wall St" and enact meaningful campaign finance reform, as politics rather than policy.

So I see surprise at these reversals as a change in tactics understandable; but as a change in policy, no.

[SB_Johnny]

reasonable Trump supporters

smh

[Randy from Boise]

Tim has not changed his mind.
He has the same position.
He's just changed the words that he is writing.

I know it's really Wikipedian of me to ask this here, but show me some contradictory diffs, Mr. Know It All...

RfB

[Kingsindian]

To borrow from Rumsfield, there are 3 classes of Trump statements WRT his beliefs and intentions:

• Truths - statements that accurately reflect them (his beliefs and intentions)
• Known Untruths - statements reasonable people know do not accurately reflect them
• Unknown Untruths - statements that do not accurately reflect them, unbeknownst to reasonable people

The second class of statement (Known Untruths) have generated the most controversy and coverage: round up 11 million illegals, punish women who get abortions, ban all muslims, etc. - despite their financial or legal impossibility.

I have (as I assume most reasonable Trump supporters) disregarded Known Untruths since the beginning the same way I disregard Clinton's promises to "rein in Wall St" and enact meaningful campaign finance reform, as politics rather than policy.

So I see surprise at these reversals as a change in tactics understandable; but as a change in policy, no.

(This should probably be in the US election thread)

What is there in category 1?

[Moral Hazard]

Tim has not changed his mind.
He has the same position.
He's just changed the words that he is writing.

I know it's really Wikipedian of me to ask this here, but show me some contradictory diffs, Mr. Know It All...

RfB

I'm just having fun with the Katrina Pierson absurdity.

I am having... a vision of her future ... and ... it is ...

ARBCOM CLERK!

[Midsize Jake]

I have (as I assume most reasonable Trump supporters) disregarded Known Untruths since the beginning the same way I disregard Clinton's promises to "rein in Wall St" and enact meaningful campaign finance reform, as politics rather than policy.

So I see surprise at these reversals as a change in tactics understandable; but as a change in policy, no.

Classic binary thinking, I'm afraid. "Reasonable" people do know that as long as the US government can avoid becoming an absolutist autocracy, campaign "promises" are mostly statements of intent. The object here is sincerity, and Trump has zero sincerity - look at how easily he threw his anti-immigration followers under the bus, just the other day. Whereas there's at least some chance Hillary Clinton will try to impose stricter regulations on the financial system and nominate Supreme Court judges who would overturn Citizen's United, if she gets the opportunity to do so.

[Jbhunley]

To borrow from Rumsfield, there are 3 classes of Trump statements WRT his beliefs and intentions:

• Truths - statements that accurately reflect them (his beliefs and intentions)
• Known Untruths - statements reasonable people know do not accurately reflect them
• Unknown Untruths - statements that do not accurately reflect them, unbeknownst to reasonable people

The second class of statement (Known Untruths) have generated the most controversy and coverage: round up 11 million illegals, punish women who get abortions, ban all muslims, etc. - despite their financial or legal impossibility.

I have (as I assume most reasonable Trump supporters) disregarded Known Untruths since the beginning the same way I disregard Clinton's promises to "rein in Wall St" and enact meaningful campaign finance reform, as politics rather than policy.

So I see surprise at these reversals as a change in tactics understandable; but as a change in policy, no.

You missed the most important one:

• Unknown Truths - statements which reasonable people believe are Known Untruths which indeed do accurately reflect his beliefs and intentions.

These are where the dangers lie.

--Jbh

[No Ledge]

Gosh, I didn't recall that this created so much drama that it stirred up a whole 22 pages of talk thread here.

This prank was the gift to Wikipedia that keeps on giving.

The latest Signpost editor took on the very ambitious project of trawling through their archives and creating a better system for organizing and searching them.

They brought this up in the current issue under the subtitle "Miscellaneous spelunking" with a link to my user talk page where I had to take some time out of my morning to explain why I'd deleted a couple of the "joke files".

I guess when I checked "what links here", which I almost surely did, I missed where the pages were pseudo-linked in some Lua data file or something...

[Giraffe Stapler]

They brought this up in the current issue under the subtitle "Miscellaneous spelunking" with a link to my user talk page where I had to take some time out of my morning to explain why I'd deleted a couple of the "joke files".

I laughed when I came across this sentence in the linked Signpost piece:

Everyone else has these, and now so do we. For example, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Author/Michael Snow will bring you an automatically generated index of every article from our first editor-in-chief, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Author/Smallbones will bring you a weal of hard investigative reporting, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Author/JPxG will bring you a bunch of articles written by JPxG.

A "weal" of hard investigative reporting. Yep, that's Smallbones.