Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

[Vigilant]

Sumana Harihareswara: "If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly." I agree with this, and with Vigilant, above, that Kevin's done an excellent summary of an excellent speech. The only thing I would add is that the criteria for exclusion need to be rational and used intelligently.

Sure.

Who gets to decide who to exclude explicitly?

How do they decide who to exclude explicitly?

How is this "excluding specific people" any different than what they did to Greg recently?

That appears to have been neither rational nor intelligent. I probably should have included "informed and transparent" in the above.

Fixing attribution.

[Vigilant]

So you listened to it and caught her point: link

My position is that she doesn't have a point.

To paraphrase just a part: 'With these rules, I felt that I could tell someone when they were being aggressive or domineering'.

What childish rubbish. If you need rules and formulae to be able to stand up and tell someone that their actions in a group are inappropriate, then you still belong in school. Adults should not need formulaic rules to tell them how to behave.

'Oh, but how will you stop aggressive people from grandstanding and making it uncomfortable for other people?'

Yeah, sure. The very best way to stop aggressive psychopaths taking over is to give them a legislative framework to exploit. That's works sooo well in the past.

If there are to be rules, they must be the unwritten that are established by social precedence, not by fiat from above.

Substitute formulaic rules for a workable social interface and you end up with Wikipedia, whether the rules are bent and twisted to suit the elite.

Two things adolescent boys want to know:
1) Who is in charge?
2) What are the rules?

[Randy from Boise]

Two things adolescent boys want to know:
1) Who is in charge?
2) What are the rules?

1. The cabal.
2. We want a "friendly space" for us and ours. If you rock our boat, you will find yourself banned off and swimming...

RfB

[greyed.out.fields]

Are there any editors in good standing in the house? Your intervention is needed.

Are you all cowards here?

I'm heading up towards 45 000 edits and 800 articles, and I've never posted on Jimbo's talk page. I intend to keep it that way.

[Notvelty]

Two things adolescent boys want to know:
1) Who is in charge?
2) What are the rules?

There is that. Rules are necessary for children. Why? So that those rules can be used by the adults for control.

[greyed.out.fields]

Two things adolescent boys want to know:
1) Who is in charge?
2) What are the rules?

There is that. Rules are necessary for children. Why? So that those rules can be used by the adults for control.

You don't have children, do you? (Probably best you keep quiet when the grown-ups are talking. You'll understand why when you're older.)

[Notvelty]

Two things adolescent boys want to know:
1) Who is in charge?
2) What are the rules?

There is that. Rules are necessary for children. Why? So that those rules can be used by the adults for control.

You don't have children, do you? (Probably best you keep quiet when the grown-ups are talking. You'll understand why when you're older.)

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you seriously trying to say that children do not require rules and routine? Or that these are not put in place to allow adults to exercise some modicum of control?

Of course I have children. Are you trying to be deliberately offensive?

I invite you to make the same comment of Vigilant, with whom I was agreeing, because frankly I do not have the inclination to further bandy words with a failed public servant.

[Triptych]

...

...

I think Greyed was condescending to Notvelty, perhaps misunderstanding him or her, and Notvelty fired back hard, which was fair play. But it's best to drop it now because bickering among ourselves on non-issues doesn't move forward the purposes of this website, and because Zoloft might get his bloody axe out.

[Vigilant]

Two things adolescent boys want to know:
1) Who is in charge?
2) What are the rules?

There is that. Rules are necessary for children. Why? So that those rules can be used by the adults for control.

And by adolescent boys so that they know where they an push...right up to the line.

[thekohser]

Jimbo has spoken, and the discussion has been closed. The multiple instances of conflict of interest resting with New York Law School, Jimmy Wales is "not likely to take any interest in it".

I really don't understand how some of you can continue to give away your talent and labor working on Wikipedia for free, while its board of trustees has this fraud as "Emeritus Chair", collecting five-figure payments for hour-long presentations.

[dogbiscuit]

Jimbo has spoken, and the discussion has been closed. The multiple instances of conflict of interest resting with New York Law School, Jimmy Wales is "not likely to take any interest in it".

I really don't understand how some of you can continue to give away your talent and labor working on Wikipedia for free, while its board of trustees has this fraud as "Emeritus Chair", collecting five-figure payments for hour-long presentations.

But his reply basically says it is unethical of the NYLS - his views on conflict of interest are well known and he has no need to repeat himself further, he has no need to say more. He is clearly and unambiguously complaining about both the NYLS and the organisers. How we are supposed to act on this opprobrium is unclear, but I think he has delegated to the community.

[Hex]

his reply basically says it is unethical of the NYLS

How on Earth did you get that out of "I am very strongly supportive of the decision taken to exclude Gregory Kohs from WikiConference USA"?

[dogbiscuit]

his reply basically says it is unethical of the NYLS

How on Earth did you get that out of "I am very strongly supportive of the decision taken to exclude Gregory Kohs from WikiConference USA"?

I got it out of "My position on conflict of interest editing is well known and has been explained many times, so there should be nothing else for me to say about that in this context."

[Randy from Boise]

his reply basically says it is unethical of the NYLS

How on Earth did you get that out of "I am very strongly supportive of the decision taken to exclude Gregory Kohs from WikiConference USA"?

Agreed. He expresses no view about NYLS, supports Ms. Baek & Co. and their decision to preemptively ban Mr. Kohs, and shuts it down because Mongo and Writegeist are getting personal...

RfB

Personal to Mongo: Hey, dumbass, I'm nobody's "meatpuppet"....

Addenda: I see the criticism of NYLS for violating so-called "bright line" now that Greg points it out below.

[thekohser]

his reply basically says it is unethical of the NYLS

How on Earth did you get that out of "I am very strongly supportive of the decision taken to exclude Gregory Kohs from WikiConference USA"?

I got it out of "My position on conflict of interest editing is well known and has been explained many times, so there should be nothing else for me to say about that in this context."

Right, in Jimbo's defense, he is basically saying two different things. First, he thinks the conference organizers did the right thing to block me from the conference, regardless of where it was held. Second, he thinks that the New York Law School editing its own Wikipedia article and associated BLPs is wrong by the Bright Line Rule, and that this is regardless of my being banned from their property on one weekend in May.

Third, though, is that he completely dodged the problem of Andrew Crowell saying that the conference was "independent" of the NYLS, when in fact it was directed by a NYLS employee who negotiated $40,000 of relief on space rental costs.

[Vigilant]

This is an interesting exchange:

It would have been encouraging to read an answer that conveyed genuinely open engagement with the concerns expressed. And even perhaps an intention to act. Writegeist (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I dunno...he could have responded as I did, which would have been to remove this nonsense from his page as soon as he saw it. I don't see any reason to give a banned editor and or his meatpuppets a place to post their conspiracy theories. Like I stated above...this should be hatted.--MONGO 01:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A banned editor, meatpuppets, a bonehead---takes all sorts, huh? Writegeist (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Did Writegeist really just call the great Mongo a bonehead?

[thekohser]

Did Writegeist really just call the great Mongo a bonehead?

Well, MONGO is in fact removing COI templates from New York Law School (T-H-L), Anthony Crowell (T-H-L), and Carole Post (T-H-L), which would have helped to inform Wikipedia readers that these articles have been substantially (if not mostly) written by paid PR employees of New York Law School. MONGO is basically saying, "banned user is BANNED!", and that is the end of his duty of care to the readers of Wikipedia.

[Midsize Jake]

Well, MONGO is in fact removing COI templates from New York Law School (T-H-L), Anthony Crowell (T-H-L), and Carole Post (T-H-L), which would have helped to inform Wikipedia readers that these articles have been substantially (if not mostly) written by paid PR employees of New York Law School.

MONGO just pawn in game of life...

I have to say though, in many respects this should be a bigger scandal than their decision to ban (or "disinvite" if they prefer) you from the conference itself. IMO, most uninvolved people who follow such things could probably forgive the Wikimedia NYC people for keeping certain people out even if they just think they have a good reason, despite what they actually say or how the conference was advertised. But this thing with the NYLS is, like Jimbo has said in the past, a "Bright Line Rule," being violated by the very people who have given them free space for a fairly important conference.

People are much more likely to believe there was a quid pro quo going on there, because that sort of thing happens in the real world, all the time.

[thekohser]

I wonder if New York Law School realizes that had the Wikimedia NYC just let me peacefully attend the conference, then the world likely would have never heard about the following facts:

* The New York Law School's Dean, Anthony Crowell, blatantly misinformed about the "independent" organizer of the conference (Jennifer Baek) who is their employee

* The Wikipedia COI editing of New York Law School by Andrea Juncos (Director of Communications at NYLS)

* The Wikipedia COI editing of two Wikipedia BLPs about the school's Dean and their Strategy Officer

* The $40,000 value of the meeting space that was transformed into a sinister "Friendly Space"

* The WMF crony Kevin Gorman overslept his Monday morning flight out of New York (which had been completely subsidized by a donor-money grant) because he stayed out partying until 5 AM

* The New York Law School ranks dead last among that state's 15 law schools in terms of percentage of graduates who can pass the bar exam on the first try

* A "Jump Start" bar prep program that Crowell launched to compensate students $500 for studying for the bar, was described by one reporter as "essentially bribing students to study"

Great job, Wikimedia NYC, Jennifer Baek, Ira Brad Matetsky, David Goodman, Dorothy Howard, Kevin Gorman, Anthony Crowell, and all your henchmen and women! You brought about 10 times more negative attention on the New York Law School than any positive attention gained from hosting your sham of an "open" conference.

[Mancunium]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread.

Debate on Banned Wikipedia Speaker Is Cut Off
O'Dwyer's PR News, 19 June 2014 link

Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, has decreed an end to arguing over whether Gregory Kohs should have been allowed to speak at WP’s meeting May 30-June 1 at New York Law School. Wales, who describes himself as the “sole founder” of WP, posted this statement on WP today after more than 10,000 words had been expended on it:

{{hat|This conversation appears to have run its course. I am very strongly supportive of the decision taken to exclude Gregory Kohs from WikiConference USA. I know nothing about the other editors he is complaining about and I'm not likely to take any interest in it. My position on conflict of interest editing is well known and has been explained many times, so there should be nothing else for me to say about that in this context.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 08:10, 19 June 2014
(UTC)}}

"{{hat}}" is a wiki template that "closes" a discussion. WP has an appeal process but whether this will be allowed remains to be seen. Change.org is collecting signatures on a petition to allow Kohs to speak at WP meetings.

Wales, born in Huntsville, Ala., where he "attended Randolph School, a university preparatory school, earning bachelor's and master’s degrees in finance" (according to his bio on WP), co-founded WP in 2001 with "Larry Sanger and others." The WP write-up notes that Wales has "disputed" the co-founding statement, "declaring himself the sole founder." [...]

Change.org
Petitioning Wikipedia
Make Wikipedia conferences truly open to all by allowing Greg Kohs to attend: link

Greg was not allowed to attend the Wikiconference USA in New York 2014, although the conference description stated that it was open to all.

I pledge that I won't attend any Wikipedia-related conferences to which Greg Kohs is not invited if he meets all other criteria of attendees.

The Wikipedia community that I belong to is not about exclusion

To:
Wikipedia
Make Wikipedia conferences truly open to all by allowing Greg Kohs to attend

Sincerely,
[Your name]

[thekohser]

Since Newyorkbrad was being very lazy and/or unresponsive to my requests for more information about why the Wikimedia NYC cancelled my registration and interfered with an income-earning contract I had with O'Dwyer PR, I e-mailed him today, saying that I might give Wikimedia NYC finance guy Peter Hess a call, in hopes that he would be more conversational than Ira Matetsky has been.

That brought a relatively speedy reply from Brad:

Mr. Hess has asked me to advise you that he will not speak to you and that you should not call him.

[Kelly Martin]

Since Newyorkbrad was being very lazy and/or unresponsive to my requests for more information about why the Wikimedia NYC cancelled my registration and interfered with an income-earning contract I had with O'Dwyer PR, I e-mailed him today, saying that I might give Wikimedia NYC finance guy Peter Hess a call, in hopes that he would be more conversational than Ira Matetsky has been.

That brought a relatively speedy reply from Brad:

Mr. Hess has asked me to advise you that he will not speak to you and that you should not call him.

You should ask Mr. Matetsky whether he is actually representing Mr. Hess, or if his communication on behalf of Mr. Hess is merely provided as a courtesy.

[Triptych]

Since Newyorkbrad was being very lazy and/or unresponsive to my requests for more information about why the Wikimedia NYC cancelled my registration and interfered with an income-earning contract I had with O'Dwyer PR, I e-mailed him today, saying that I might give Wikimedia NYC finance guy Peter Hess a call, in hopes that he would be more conversational than Ira Matetsky has been.

That brought a relatively speedy reply from Brad:

Mr. Hess has asked me to advise you that he will not speak to you and that you should not call him.

You should ask Mr. Matetsky whether he is actually representing Mr. Hess, or if his communication on behalf of Mr. Hess is merely provided as a courtesy.

From what you say, Kohser, Brad was blowing off your reasonable requests. That's typically what is occurring when time keeps going by without a response. It's very rude of him. The whole "you can't come to Wikiconference USA, so say we all, however we won't tell you any reason" is very rude of all of them.

At least, by the press accounts, Wikiconference USA turned out to be a weak, sophomoric affair, spliced with nerds proclaiming themselves superior to other nerds because they didn't get as much pizza sauce on their shirts, making sexist remarks to a woman claimed not among their circle and questioning her education level, and later calling a liar the reporter that wrote one of them had started a "Wikipedia babies" article on children of prominent Wikipedians, which was probably true, if not that then a reasonable misunderstanding.

Do you suppose Brad actually checked with Peter Hess, or is he just paraphrasing liberally past communications? It would speak pretty poorly of both that Hess has gofer Matetsky handling his calls that he is not man enough to take himself.

[thekohser]

...he is not man enough to take himself.

Your sexist comment would be a gross violation of the Friendly Space Policy!

[Mancunium]

The Lost and Found Legacy of Barbara Ringer
Remembering one of the architects of American copyright law—and one of the legal world's pioneering women
by Amanda Levendowski
The Atlantic, 11 July 2014 link

I came across a quote a few weeks ago—one that so perfectly encapsulates the outdatedness and skepticism surrounding copyright law—that I couldn’t believe I hadn’t seen before: “The 1976 Copyright Act is a good 1950 copyright law.” It was attributed to someone I didn’t know: Barbara Ringer.

[... biography of Ms Ringer ...]

When I read the existing Wikipedia page about Barbara Ringer, though, I was unimpressed. I had been editing Wikipedia since college, so I decided to learn about Ringer by re-writing her Wikipedia article as part of the WikiCon 2014 article edit-a-thon. What I found was the story of a brilliant woman ahead of her time and—in some ways, still—ahead of ours. [...]

Barbara_Ringer (T-H-L)

Levendowski (T-C-L)

This is the first time I have read of any good that came out of WikiConUSA (30 May - 1 June 2014). Levendowski's 94 edits (link) began on 1 June and continued until 5 June (link), and she is now responsible for 79.9% of the article's content (link).

[Randy from Boise]

...he is not man enough to take himself.

Your sexist comment would be a gross violation of the Friendly Space Policy!

Yes, in friendly Sumanahspeak this should be "...is not person enough to take themself."

RfB

[mac]

Looking at Erik Moeller's userpage, it says he lives on "Planet Wikimedia". Of course, it's just another website, but upon it, there's this:

Creating Safe Spaces
by Amanda Menking
Wikimedia Foundation Blog, July 14, 2014
link

blah blah blah

This past month I’ve been watching, reading and thinking. I’ve also been revisiting my goals. Now, the first goal I’d like to accomplish is to help reinvigorate the gender gap discussion by creating a central place where the international Wikipedia community can document all of the terrific ideas that have been shared, conversations that have taken place and work that has been done to address the gap. Currently, the conversations are, at times, disparate and dispersed. And, sometimes, they aren’t safe. Often the stakeholders–like cyclists and motorists–have such different goals and values that conflict is inevitable. However, as studies[1] have shown, conflict can be productive and collaborative when differing voices are respected, when policies are thoughtfully constructed and when power is shared.

(emphasis added)

Someone should invite this person to Wikipediocracy.

[thekohser]

What, pray tell, is a "safe" conversation?

Would that be like a conversation where someone doesn't in an "informal jokey" way suggest stabbing a woman in the throat with a pen, then gleefully watch as she slowly dies?

[Midsize Jake]

What, pray tell, is a "safe" conversation?

With Wikipedians, there's such a fine line between "a forum where people who disagree with you are not allowed to insult or threaten you" and "a forum where nobody disagrees with you at all." And it doesn't help that they keep blurring that line, either.

This, then, is what we call the "Blurry Fine Line."

[mac]

What, pray tell, is a "safe" conversation?

Would that be like a conversation where someone doesn't in an "informal jokey" way suggest stabbing a woman in the throat with a pen, then gleefully watch as she slowly dies?

If you’d like to participate in any of this work, please let me know. Creating safe spaces is a truly collaborative effort.

You should let her know that you'd like to participate. It truly is a collaborative effort.

[thekohser]

You should let her know that you'd like to participate. It truly is a collaborative effort.

That is an interesting idea, Mac. Done.

[mac]

You should let her know that you'd like to participate. It truly is a collaborative effort.

That is an interesting idea, Mac. Done.

[Notvelty]

Stop being a victim.

But.. but.. then they can't be -more- of a victim than other victims, thereby displaying their moral superiority.

So how do you tell when one of these "safe places" is actually just a single-view echo chamber? Well, it's easy. It's when they use the term "safe place".

[SB_Johnny]

What, pray tell, is a "safe" conversation?

With Wikipedians, there's such a fine line between "a forum where people who disagree with you are not allowed to insult or threaten you" and "a forum where nobody disagrees with you at all." And it doesn't help that they keep blurring that line, either.

This, then, is what we call the "Blurry Fine Line."

Well, no. It's a bright line that is so blindingly bright that you can't even look at anything that's anywhere near it without a seriously fashionable pair of shades (Sue and Lila keep them on their heads, I've heard). It's so bright that anyone who claims to know where it is is obviously just trolling, because no mere mortal could ever look at the line directly.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

What, pray tell, is a "safe" conversation?

With Wikipedians, there's such a fine line between "a forum where people who disagree with you are not allowed to insult or threaten you" and "a forum where nobody disagrees with you at all." And it doesn't help that they keep blurring that line, either.

This, then, is what we call the "Blurry Fine Line."

Well, no. It's a bright line that is so blindingly bright that you can't even look at anything that's anywhere near it without a seriously fashionable pair of shades (Sue and Lila keep them on their heads, I've heard). It's so bright that anyone who claims to know where it is is obviously just trolling, because no mere mortal could ever look at the line directly.

Is There in Truth No Beauty? (T-H-L)

[mac]

You should let her know that you'd like to participate. It truly is a collaborative effort.

That is an interesting idea, Mac. Done.

Comments are closed.

Is it typical for Wikimedia blogs to close their comments section after less than two days?

[Midsize Jake]

Comments are closed.

Is it typical for Wikimedia blogs to close their comments section after less than two days?

I don't follow it regularly, but from what I gather, it's unusual for them to allow comments at all on most postings. Remember that this is a Wordpress blog, and it doesn't appear to be integrated into Meta or any of the other wikimedia.org wikis - you probably have to request a separate Wordpress User ID to leave comments, and when you do, they don't always display correctly (or display, period). The bloggers themselves are probably given the choice as to whether or not to allow them, with "not" being the default, and they probably read them off the RSS feed if they even see them at all.

[mac]

Comments are closed.

Is it typical for Wikimedia blogs to close their comments section after less than two days?

I don't follow it regularly, but from what I gather, it's unusual for them to allow comments at all on most postings. Remember that this is a Wordpress blog, and it doesn't appear to be integrated into Meta or any of the other wikimedia.org wikis - you probably have to request a separate Wordpress User ID to leave comments, and when you do, they don't always display correctly (or display, period). The bloggers themselves are probably given the choice as to whether or not to allow them, with "not" being the default, and they probably read them off the RSS feed if they even see them at all.

Shoot, I should have commented yesterday when the comment box was open. My guess is that they were alerted to this thread and decided that blog post comments aren't "safe conversations".

[thekohser]

Comments are closed.

Is it typical for Wikimedia blogs to close their comments section after less than two days?

I don't follow it regularly, but from what I gather, it's unusual for them to allow comments at all on most postings. Remember that this is a Wordpress blog, and it doesn't appear to be integrated into Meta or any of the other wikimedia.org wikis - you probably have to request a separate Wordpress User ID to leave comments, and when you do, they don't always display correctly (or display, period). The bloggers themselves are probably given the choice as to whether or not to allow them, with "not" being the default, and they probably read them off the RSS feed if they even see them at all.

Shoot, I should have commented yesterday when the comment box was open. My guess is that they were alerted to this thread and decided that blog post comments aren't "safe conversations".

I do know this -- Amanda sent me an e-mail yesterday, thanking me for my note on Meta, asking if we might talk soon. I replied within minutes, giving her a few times where it is generally good for me to talk. Haven't heard from her again in 18 hours.

[Zoloft]

I would like us to terminate this martial arts sidebar and return to the main topic while noting that I support the message of empowering the young with the arts of self-defense.

OK.
Would you mind splitting the thread?

No problem.
Locking for a minute.

[Zoloft]

I would like us to terminate this martial arts sidebar and return to the main topic while noting that I support the message of empowering the young with the arts of self-defense.

OK.
Would you mind splitting the thread?

No problem.
Locking for a minute.

Split to off-topic area. My mobile device acting up, so no link. Sorry.

[mac]

Girls, avoiding victimhood, and martial arts

[thekohser]

I do know this -- Amanda sent me an e-mail yesterday, thanking me for my note on Meta, asking if we might talk soon. I replied within minutes, giving her a few times where it is generally good for me to talk. Haven't heard from her again in 18 hours.

Amanda conducted her telephone interview with me last night. We spoke for almost 90 minutes. It sounds like she'll have a good amount of material to cover -- the question will be what sort of "position" she takes in her analysis. To me, she sounds dedicated to the principles of objectivity, and her angle is less about understanding why there is a gender gap on Wikipedia, but more about understanding how different people and groups talk about and frame the gender gap discussion.

[thekohser]

We can add MONGO (T-C-L) to the list of Wikipedia henchmen who will go out of their way to polish up the negative information about Wikiconference USA host, New York Law School, making sure that average Wikipedia readers don't become aware that New York Law School employees have been writing much of Wikipedia's content about New York Law School and its senior executives, or that there's anything "bad" happening at New York Law School.

MONGO will preserve New York Law School's fake, polished stories on Wikipedia, won't you MONGO? That's a good MONGO.

[The Devil's Advocate]

[EricBarbour]

We can add MONGO (T-C-L) to the list of Wikipedia henchmen who will go out of their way to polish up the negative information about Wikiconference USA host, New York Law School, making sure that average Wikipedia readers don't become aware that New York Law School employees have been writing much of Wikipedia's content about New York Law School and its senior executives, or that there's anything "bad" happening at New York Law School.

MONGO will preserve New York Law School's fake, polished stories on Wikipedia, won't you MONGO? That's a good MONGO.

Got it, thanks. One would think that third RFA would have dissuaded him by now, but nope!

Perhaps this could be made into a blog post?

[thekohser]

We can add MONGO (T-C-L) to the list of Wikipedia henchmen who will go out of their way to polish up the negative information about Wikiconference USA host, New York Law School, making sure that average Wikipedia readers don't become aware that New York Law School employees have been writing much of Wikipedia's content about New York Law School and its senior executives, or that there's anything "bad" happening at New York Law School.

MONGO will preserve New York Law School's fake, polished stories on Wikipedia, won't you MONGO? That's a good MONGO.

Received this e-mail in response to my complaint about MONGO outing another user:

We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Unfortunately, the edits associated with your request cannot be suppressed under our policy since no outing took place. Spotting a banned user is not outing.

Sincerely,

The English Wikipedia Oversight team

Now that we have this official interpretation of policy, and considering that no CheckUser or sockpuppet investigation was conducted on User55810e7557a3a (to prove it was a "banned user"), what new avenues does this give Wikipedia critics to explore?

[TungstenCarbide]

...

We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Unfortunately, the edits associated with your request cannot be suppressed under our policy since no outing took place. Spotting a banned user is not outing.

Sincerely,

The English Wikipedia Oversight team

Now that we have this official interpretation of policy, and considering that no CheckUser or sockpuppet investigation was conducted on User55810e7557a3a (to prove it was a "banned user"), what new avenues does this give Wikipedia critics to explore?

'At Wikipedia, your anonymity is secure (unless we don't like you).'

[Poetlister]

no CheckUser or sockpuppet investigation was conducted on User55810e7557a3a (to prove it was a "banned user")

An administrator said it was. WP:AGF, we all believe him.

[thekohser]

And wouldn't you know, paid editor David King (a.k.a. CorporateM (T-C-L)) is now on the New York Law School scene, doing 17 kilobytes worth of damage control.

That's it, Wikipedians... silence the guy who brings a problem to your attention, then quietly get a paid specialist to tidy up the embarrassment.