Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Bureaucracy _ My complaint to ArbCom
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
From: Daniel Brandt, pirnamebase at yahoo.com
Date: September 8, 2012
Subject: Wikipedia complaint
Dear Mr. Matetsky:
I am not an editor on Wikipedia, and apparently have no standing
to address the Arbitration Committee directly. However, I have
been active on Wikipedia Review since late 2005, and wish to
file a complaint with the Arbitration Committee on Wikipedia in
an effort to sanction the off-wiki behavior of User:Tarc.
Mr. Tarc has been cyberbullying on Wikipedia Review for over a year.
I created a page at http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/tarc3.html
that quotes a number of his comments. I could have doubled the
number of abusive quotes on this page, but the half I did not
include requires registration at WR to see them. I felt it was
best to restrict this page to quotes than can be linked for public
viewing and confirmation.
...
There was an ArbCom complaint filed against Tarc just over one
year ago concerning his behavior on WR. Tarc was informed of
this by Jclemens on 8 August 2011, as shown in section 66,
"Your WR comments" on this page:
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/arbcom.html
Can you provide me with specifics about this complaint?
Can this complaint be reconsidered in light of my request?
If not, can I at least get a statement regarding ArbCom's position
on off-wiki behavior by Wikipedia editors, when that behavior
involves matters that concern Wikipedia itself or other
Wikipedia editors? It seems to me that the recent decision
regarding User:Michaeldsuarez establishes at least one
precedent for ArbCom with respect to relevant off-wiki behavior.
Thank you,
Daniel Brandt, president
Public Information Research
(a tax-exempt nonprofit)
Posted by: Retrospect
If nasty Tarc has been stealing your lunch money on WR, go complain to Selina. What do you think fatso will do about it? Ban him from WP? In your bloody dreams!
Posted by: dtobias
And why the fuck should Wikipedia (or any other site) take action against somebody for saying things that wound your poor, poor ego over here?
Posted by: Tarc
Wow, Danny, this is a pretty epic amount of butthurt we've seen from you the last week or two. See, I think the real source of this is simple frustration. You're used to getting your way, whether it is cowed Wikipedia admins afraid of exposure, getting ED kicked off the .ch site, or exposing whatever evil-of-the-day contained in Wikipedia articles, back when you were an active critic.
But now? Quite a string of defeats of late.
1. ED chugs along out of the grasp of your chubby fingers, untouchable, better than ever.
2. Suarez humiliated you with the leaked 300 Club screencaps.
3. You went whining to Arbcom, NYB specifically, about me being mean on the internet. Seriously bro, that had to be rather demeaning. How does it feel to grovel before a board of a website that holds you up as more or less their Public Enemy #1? Actually scratch that; see below.
4. Me. I think when you threw up (literally) that wiki-watch page, you expected instant capitulation, and are rather frustrated when it didn't happen. You didn't expect to be wrong, and to be so badly wrong, about who I am. Or maybe, just maybe, it really is me and I've been joe-jobbing you all week. THAT'S what is galling you the most, Danny; the uncertainty. You're pathetic, used to getting his way, used to dictating the events of his life, 100% of the time. What's been going only lately though is like an itch you just can't scratch, and it infuriates you.
What this has come to is you're like the athlete who realizes he's lost a step, or the singer who is getting upstaged by younger and sexier competition. You're a fading light, a once-Wicked Witch of the Wiki-West who most Wikipedians wouldn't even recognize by name anymore, you're a relic form the old days.
Its hard to imagine that there was a time, only 5-6 years ago, when attempted outings on wiki-watch actually meant something. Nowadays you're just one voice among a billion bloggers, tweeters, podcasters, and the like.
You.
Are.
Obsolete.
Begone from my sight, you pathetic, draft-dodging, man-child coward. I re-read your bio recently; if you were never even willing to take a bullet for this country, then you damn well don't have a moral or ethical leg to stand on criticizing anyone.
Be silent.
Posted by: Ottava
And why the fuck should Wikipedia (or any other site) take action against somebody for saying things that wound your poor, poor ego over here?
Because they have done the same for less? Remember the Fae ArbCom? They opened the door for it.
Edit - I'm not saying either side is right, but ArbCom did f'up pretty hard by charging right into that one in such a complete 180 of Wikipedia standards.
Posted by: Tarc
And why the fuck should Wikipedia (or any other site) take action against somebody for saying things that wound your poor, poor ego over here?
Because they have done the same for less? Remember the Fae ArbCom? They opened the door for it.
Edit - I'm not saying either side is right, but ArbCom did f'up pretty hard by charging right into that one in such a complete 180 of Wikipedia standards.
But hold on a sec. Arbcom made rulings in that case regarding Fae vs. DC and Fae vs. Suarez, where the former had to do with (in Arbcom's view) DC using the WR to continue his on-wiki dispute with Fae. The latter (again, in Arbcom's view) was Suarez using an off-wiki site to harass Fae. The thing in common there was on-wiki disputes being taken off-site by a sole party.
That is in no way analogous to this. The beef between myself and Danny Boy has really nothing at all do do with the Wikipedia itself, it is at best utterly tangential point of commonality in the distant past, in that we were both users there. I never interacted with him in any Wikipedia project, no grudge from there has been transposed here.
What Danny Boy is going after here is a Wikipedia version of Morse v. Frederick (T-H-L-K-D), which is just laughable.
Posted by: Ottava
But hold on a sec. Arbcom made rulings in that case regarding Fae vs. DC and Fae vs. Suarez, where the former had to do with (in Arbcom's view) DC using the WR to continue his on-wiki dispute with Fae. The latter (again, in Arbcom's view) was Suarez using an off-wiki site to harass Fae. The thing in common there was on-wiki disputes being taken off-site by a sole party.
That is in no way analogous to this. The beef between myself and Danny Boy has really nothing at all do do with the Wikipedia itself, it is at best utterly tangential point of commonality in the distant past, in that we were both users there. I never interacted with him in any Wikipedia project, no grudge from there has been transposed here.
What Danny Boy is going after here is a Wikipedia version of Morse v. Frederick (T-H-L-K-D), which is just laughable.
There was still a case that considered off-site stuff even though Wikipedia clearly said before that it wasn't considered. Remember, ruling and considering are two different things. ArbCom could still consider your actions here and then find them completely reasonable. Before Fae, it would seem impossible that they would eve consider those actions (which is rather false, they always considered WR, they just left it out of their rationales as we all know).
Posted by: Tarc
But hold on a sec. Arbcom made rulings in that case regarding Fae vs. DC and Fae vs. Suarez, where the former had to do with (in Arbcom's view) DC using the WR to continue his on-wiki dispute with Fae. The latter (again, in Arbcom's view) was Suarez using an off-wiki site to harass Fae. The thing in common there was on-wiki disputes being taken off-site by a sole party.
That is in no way analogous to this. The beef between myself and Danny Boy has really nothing at all do do with the Wikipedia itself, it is at best utterly tangential point of commonality in the distant past, in that we were both users there. I never interacted with him in any Wikipedia project, no grudge from there has been transposed here.
What Danny Boy is going after here is a Wikipedia version of Morse v. Frederick (T-H-L-K-D), which is just laughable.
There was still a case that considered off-site stuff even though Wikipedia clearly said before that it wasn't considered. Remember, ruling and considering are two different things. ArbCom could still consider your actions here and then find them completely reasonable. Before Fae, it would seem impossible that they would eve consider those actions (which is rather false, they always considered WR, they just left it out of their rationales as we all know).
Fae was a douchebag who got what he deserved, end of story.
The only point to be had here is that Danny is trying to lower the bar for bullying/harassment that that near nonexistent threshold would snare almost anyone who argues on the internet. He's been harassing Wikipedia editors for years via his website, then cries when someone dares to punch him in the nose. Y'know that scene in the "you'll shoot your eye out, kid" movie where he whales on the red-headed bully? This is like that; Danny got popped and went home crying.
I always liked that scene, it reminded me of my youth. I grew up in a rough neighborhood in Parkside, we had a playground nearby where a bunch of us used to go play basketball and stuff. I got into a fight once with some of the local gang members there and my mother freaked out, didn't want me to get hurt again so I had to go stay with some relatives for a bit. They had a nice house out in L.A. though.
Posted by: Ottava
The only point to be had here is that Danny is trying to lower the bar for bullying/harassment that that near nonexistent threshold would snare almost anyone who argues on the internet.
Why would you think the Arbitrators would not want to agree? After all, it would give them a good excuse to go after people they just don't like. They already showed that they can disregard any restrictions on them at will.