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?

[Peter Damian]

Revenge: best served cold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253892048

Delicious.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Revenge: best served cold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253892048

Delicious.

I don't follow - who are you saying is getting revenge on whom?

[InkBlot]

Revenge: best served cold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253892048

Delicious.

I don't follow - who are you saying is getting revenge on whom?

Peter is rummaging through his own personal luggage. The link is to a discussion from a year ago when Giano discovered David Gerard had oversighted an edit of FT2's on grounds of...well, on grounds of DG thinking it ought to go away. Kerflufle errupts much later, but fails to gain much steam on-wiki, since oversighting was new, not everybody knew how to use it right, DG meant well, etc., etc.

If David Gerard was going to lose oversight privileges, that would have been a good precedent...but he didn't. No audit committee existed yet, and as Thatcher points out in that link, not much thought had ever been given to how one might audit oversighting activity. In fact, I'd say it's that event plus Thatcher's persistence that eventually made the audit subcommittee a reality, but I digress.

I believe Peter's saying this is his revenge, for all the muck he tried to rake back then failing to gain sufficient attention. For more on his side of things, look here - since most of the topics there are from him.

[Apathetic]

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#David_Gerard:_statement_by_ArbCom

Someone might want to webcite this and the resulting discussion!

[TungstenCarbide]

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#David_Gerard:_statement_by_ArbCom

Someone might want to webcite this and the resulting discussion!

Oh this is just too much. Gerard uses his position as checkuser, along with printing a private email on his blog, to ridicule someone. And when called on it, goes into slash and censor mode, demanding that any review of his actions be removed, because pointing his childish behavior, which was clearly harmful, might cause him harm. This is hypocracy^2 - you just can't make this shit up.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[No one of consequence]

Oh this is just too much. Gerard uses his position as checkuser, along with printing a private email on his blog, to ridicule someone. And when called on it, goes into slash and censor mode, demanding that any review of his actions be removed, because pointing his childish behavior, that was meant to harm someone, might cause him harm. This is hypocracy^2 - you just can't make this shit up.

He objected to the specific language of the announcement, which was more strongly worded than was perhaps appropriate.

[TungstenCarbide]

Oh this is just too much. Gerard uses his position as checkuser, along with printing a private email on his blog, to ridicule someone. And when called on it, goes into slash and censor mode, demanding that any review of his actions be removed, because pointing his childish behavior, that was meant to harm someone, might cause him harm. This is hypocracy^2 - you just can't make this shit up.

He objected to the specific language of the announcement, which was more strongly worded than was perhaps appropriate.

Oh yes, after calling someone a "waste of skin". What a fucking hypocritical crybaby.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Oh yes, after calling someone a "waste of skin". What a fucking hypocritical crybaby.

I don't think "waste of skin" could possibly be held to be defamatory. "Has abused checkuser in a manner contrary to policy", or whatever the wording was, probably could be.

(Defamation is one of the few areas of law that I understand reasonably well outside of exam time.)

[TungstenCarbide]

Oh yes, after calling someone a "waste of skin". What a fucking hypocritical crybaby.

I don't think "waste of skin" could possibly be held to be defamatory. "Has abused checkuser in a manner contrary to policy", or whatever the wording was, probably could be.

(Defamation is one of the few areas of law that I understand reasonably well outside of exam time.)

I don't recall the arbcom announcement stating that DG abused CU. I think they said he failed to live up to the level of decorum expected, or something along those lines. Of course it's all been censored now.

But just think about door that Godwin opened in demanding this oversight. By this standard, pretty much anyone with a RL identity connected to their account name who's ever been in a heated argument on wikipedia can go have wide swaths of history wiped from the project.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[CharlotteWebb]

I think they said he failed to live up to the level of decorum expected, or something along those lines.

Beer, beer, beer, beer, and BEER. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/letsgetdrunk.gif)

That is, for future reference it would be helpful if arbcom (or somebody) ever managed to figure out what level of decorum is "expected" exactly.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: