Gerard blocks Giano for sockpuppetry, invokes good/bad hand accounts policy - wrongly Options

[privatemusings]

hee hee

impressively dumb!

(sorry DG, you're a pussycat, I know... but that was spectacularly useless!)

[Doc glasgow]

David Gerard was obviously trolling, but he's also in the clear in terms of abuse.


Q1:Did he abuse checkuser?

A: He CU'd a publicly undisclosed sock that was running for arbcom. Whilst his motives are strongly smelly here, there's no way he'd be sectioned sanctioned for that. He had "probably cause". The socking was obvious, and technically there's no way to dispute the contention Giano was either gaming or being disruptive. (I don't actually think he doing either - but Gerard's contention here is easily defensible enough to get him off the hook).

Q2: Did he breach the privacy policy?

A: No. No IP or personal information was disclosed. Linking to pseudonym accounts breaches nothing.

Q3: Did he misuse his admin blocking powers?

A:Probably the easiest charge to sustain, but also the least serious. Blocking was unnecessary, he could have removed the arbcom candidature with "checkuser confirms undeclared sock of established user". He could have e-mailed Giano and asked him to declare the sock (however, Giano had already blown off Thatcher's communique - so that was maybe pointless). Indef blocking a disruptive sock is standard policy, and although I don't see too much disruption the case can be made. So we are left with the 24 hour block of Giano - pointless really, and obviously for dramatic effect - but we've been here before.

Verdict: no sanctionable abuse, but he does get a "troll of the year" nomination. However the competition for the actual award will be tough.

[Giano]

David Gerard was obviously trolling, but he's also in the clear in terms of abuse.


Q1:Did he abuse checkuser?

A: He CU'd a publicly undisclosed sock that was running for arbcom. Whilst his motives are strongly smelly here, there's no way he'd be sectioned sanctioned for that. He had "probably cause". The socking was obvious, and technically there's no way to dispute the contention Giano was either gaming or being disruptive. (I don't actually think he doing either - but Gerard's contention here is easily defensible enough to get him off the hook).

Q2: Did he breach the privacy policy?

A: No. No IP or personal information was disclosed. Linking to pseudonym accounts breaches nothing.

Q3: Did he misuse his admin blocking powers?

A:Probably the easiest charge to sustain, but also the least serious. Blocking was unnecessary, he could have removed the arbcom candidature with "checkuser confirms undeclared sock of established user". He could have e-mailed Giano and asked him to declare the sock (however, Giano had already blown off Thatcher's communique - so that was maybe pointless). Indef blocking a disruptive sock is standard policy, and although I don't see too much disruption the case can be made. So we are left with the 24 hour block of Giano - pointless really, and obviously for dramatic effect - but we've been here before.

Verdict: no sanctionable abuse, but he does get a "troll of the year" nomination. However the competition for the actual award will be tough.

I just don't like the thought of David Gerard knowing my name and address - he might want an invitation to tea or something. What would my wife think, if DG turned up on the doorstep? Saying: "Hello, I'm David a friend of Giano's?" All very worrying.

Giano