David Gerard's misguided tweets..., Is he really that free and loose on Twitter? Options

[the fieryangel]

This looks like a tasty morsel for all of you drama hounds....

Does anybody know what this is all about?

[Doc glasgow]

The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:

"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"

That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.

[Kelly Martin]

The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:

"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"

That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.

James is not wholly responsible for that travesty; Fred Bauder also has a lot to do with it. Both of them (and several other former arbs) saw their service on the committee as an opportunity to Play Judge, and kitted the entire experience out with the trappings of a court of law, while at the same time denying any of the actual protections that one expects in such an environment.

I argued, both while on the committee and after leaving it, that the committee should resolve most matters before it on summary motion, without detail, sparing the "full monty" for cases that truly demanded it. However, the legal wonks enjoyed their game, and were loath to give it up.

§61 of RONR urges that disciplinary issues be investigated confidentially, and that the assembly refrain from making public statements that might prejudice or defame persons suspected or accused of malfeasance, even after the assembly is satisfied that malfeasance has occurred. The disciplinary body of a voluntary organization should publicly comment on its investigations of a member only in order to respond to the statements of that member, and only to the degree necessary to do so; to do otherwise opens the members of the disciplinary committee (or the members of the organization as a whole) to liability without providing any benefit to the organization or to the members thereof.

Once again, we have a case of Wikipedia ignoring the sage wisdom of those who came before because of their vain belief that they are, in all matters, sui generis.

[TungstenCarbide]

The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:

"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"

That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.

James is not wholly responsible for that travesty; Fred Bauder also has a lot to do with it. Both of them (and several other former arbs) saw their service on the committee as an opportunity to Play Judge, and kitted the entire experience out with the trappings of a court of law, while at the same time denying any of the actual protections that one expects in such an environment.

I argued, both while on the committee and after leaving it, that the committee should resolve most matters before it on summary motion, without detail, sparing the "full monty" for cases that truly demanded it. However, the legal wonks enjoyed their game, and were loath to give it up.

§61 of RONR urges that disciplinary issues be investigated confidentially, and that the assembly refrain from making public statements that might prejudice or defame persons suspected or accused of malfeasance, even after the assembly is satisfied that malfeasance has occurred. The disciplinary body of a voluntary organization should publicly comment on its investigations of a member only in order to respond to the statements of that member, and only to the degree necessary to do so; to do otherwise opens the members of the disciplinary committee (or the members of the organization as a whole) to liability without providing any benefit to the organization or to the members thereof.

Once again, we have a case of Wikipedia ignoring the sage wisdom of those who came before because of their vain belief that they are, in all matters, sui generis.

That sounds like very good advice.

The arbcom did ok on the first half, considering the matter in private, but erred on the second half, making a public announcement. The problem is that's how Wikipedia runs; when the arbcom takes action they generally announce it - and the community demands as much. When someone gets blocked, a reason is generally given. I object to Gerard getting special treatment on this matter, especially after all the personal insults he's spewed over the years on the world's biggest reference site.