My complaint to ArbCom Options

[Daniel Brandt]

To: Ira Brad Matetsky, newyorkbrad at gmail.com
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)

[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.