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)

[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?

[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.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.