Wikipedia Sucks! (And So Do Its Critics.): More David Gerard bits-and-pieces

More stuff found in the notes or online.

The Great "uh, er, um" Interview of 2012

David Gerard with presented Eddie Mair on the Radio 4 PM program, 17 January 2012, with Sandra Aistars, executive director of the copyright alliance.

Eddie Mair: The website Wikipedia is going to be offline tomorrow and you may be wondering why. Let's ask David Gerard from Wikipedia, who's organising what amounts to a blackout. What's your thinking?
David Gerard: Um, Sopa and bills like it are basically ...
EM: Could you just explain what Sopa is please
DG: oh sorry - stop online piracy act - it's a law designed to stop internet piracy of copyright materials. Now ...
EM: originating from the US
DG: Um, the law is originating in the US and it's designed to affect specifically countries outside the US as well, so that all websites anywhere have to operate according to US law.
EM: But presumably you are against online piracy
DG: Well, yes, I mean theft is bad, that's fine, but it's as if, say, cars were invented 15 years ago, everyone's got a car, then someone says 'wait! cars are used in bank robberies! we'll have to ban cars'. If someone says 'that's really silly', they say 'What! Are you in favour of bank robbery?! It's actually ... the debate is actually about that level of silliness.
EM: And, tell me about the plan for tomorrow - it's not just Wikipedia is it?
DG: Um, there's quite a few websites around the world - Wikipedia's probably the biggest one - um, basically the idea is that they're going to go dark for 24 hours. Now this is only happening on English Wikipedia, the other languages will still be up, um, several of them are running banners of support and solidarity but they're not actually blanking.
EM: And you want to presumably give people some idea of how life might be if this law is enacted.
DG: Exactly, um, the thing is that theft is bad but breaking the internet is probably worse.Um, we have an entire economy that runs on computers and the internet, and strangling the golden goose for one valuable but tiny industry probably isn't actually a good idea.
EM: Well, stay with us and let me talk now to Sandra Aistars, executive director of the copyright alliance, what do you say to those arguments?
Sandra Aistars: Well, thank you very much for having me on this program.
EM: You're welcome.
SA: The bill as, er, described, er, is not quite what Wikipedia is wanting you to believe. The bill applies only to foreign sites that are primarily designed or operated to infringe copyrighted materials by distributing either counterfeit goods or complete copies of copyrighted works for commercial advantage or for private financial gain, and the sites that it applies to are nothing like Wikipedia. Er, courts are directed when they enforce this law not to impose any restraints on free speech when they are enforcing claims, not to alter the operation of copyright or trademark law, not to impose any duty on sites to monitor the activities of users and to limit any orders that they issue to ensure there is no effect on the security and functioning of the domain name system.
EM: Is that a long-winded way of saying you would never go after Wikipedia?
SA: We would never go after Wikipedia. The provision is not at all aimed at Wikipedia and it's frankly irresponsible to make people believe that it is.
EM: David Gerard.
DG: Um, that may be what the law claims to do but it isn't actually what it says. What it really says, what the actual wording says, is that any website can be taken down on a complaint, without any of that tedious mucking about with judges, procedure, evidence, trials, etc. and,um, your payment process can be switched off, again, on a complaint, before the complaint is investigated.
EM: What about due process?
SA: Er, yes, unfortunately Wikipedia must not have read the bills. There's a lot of misinformation going around ..
DG: That would be incorrect.
SA: .. but if you look at the amendments to the bills it very specifically requires judicial process for any, er, any takedown
DG: So UK users can go to the lawyers
EM: Sorry, David Gerard, please let Sandra Aistars finish
SA: The bill requires both the attorney general and any private actor who seeks remedy under the bill to go to a federal court to seek an order and that order can then be served upon internet's payment processors, advertising networks, ISPs who provide your internet service but it's only after an order is issued by a federal court after a full examination of the facts
EM: and how big a crime is it that you are going to crack here? The suggestion from David Gerard and others is that you are trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
SA: The internet is a critical resource for businesses and for artists and for entrepreneurs across America and across the world, and for my constituency it is incredibly important to have better connection and better communication with their consumers and with their fans. But if it's steadily being eroded by criminal foreign website operators that you can't reach because they are outside the reach of US law enforcement and they refuse to abide by international norms. We have about 11m people in the United States who are artists and creators and whose living depends on being able to enforce their copyrights online and elsewhere, and it's incredibly important to have legislation for those sorts of people.
EM: David Gerard.
DG: I'd like to imagine you're a UK business. One day you get a random complaint from an American competitor. Suddenly, you can't take payments any more because Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, they're all American companies. If you want to appeal this decision, you will have to go to America to do it, if you still exist.
EM: Is that true, Sandra Aistars, is that how it would work?
SA: Er, it's not how it would work but, er, first off it's important to remember that the bill only applies to sites that are primarily designed or operated for the purpose of infringing.
EM: Well thank you both ...

Reddit Ethereum fanboys not happy David Gerard controlled the Wikipedia article, 2018

Why do we keep letting "David Gerard", who obviously has a negative agenda against Ethereum and crypto in general, curate the Ethereum Wikipedia article? self.ethereum

Submitted 1 year ago by silkblueberry

And this was a year after Gerard's Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain came out. Gerard is going to be riding the cryptocurrency thing "for the lulz" until it collapses or it is forced out of business by various governments for being a pointless waste of electricity.

The Andrew Landeryou fiasco, 2009

This one is long and convoluted - Gerard slammed Landeryou, an Australian conservative blogger at the time, after Landeryou complained about his Wikipedia biography's treatment. Gerard did this at his blog (post since deleted) and on Twitter in November, 2009. Everybody from CoolHandLuke to NewYorkBrad to Jimmy, Lord of the Wales himself commented on the Wikimedia email list. Guaranteed less boring then those IRC files I copypaste. Stolen from Wikipediocracy, where Cla68 had reposted it in 2014 because Wikipedia Review might vanish at any time.

The original blog post:

Andrew Landeryou appears to be a waste of skin.
Friday, November 27th, 2009

I tweeted the following, in a discussion with someone else:

@jeamland mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet investigation.)

Mr Landeryou saw fit to send me a threat for this:
Delivered-To: dgerard@gmail.com Received: by 10.239.151.6 with SMTP id p6cs401193hbb; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:27:38 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: <landeryou@gmail.com> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of landeryou@gmail.com designates 10.229.39.69 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.229.39.69; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of landeryou@gmail.com designates 10.229.39.69 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=landeryou@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=landeryou@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.229.39.69]) by 10.229.39.69 with SMTP id f5mr129158qce.107.1259332057425 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:27:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=0G/XzHLlSo2SxTE1gp1Tl/TntKHZ7atJ1j9+z0HZb/s=; b=FcUJCtkfTqLtC0mkJIREVbSziuWOyrIFgpkZpx2ctXFSee0cuYlkYhK+6GWHwn7mxk fBP407ffpUin7OiLQScQuIMNl+hmxtnU5fCMxVY9+bHjQ2f0gY+hV86VJnhB7UYrkjE8 31uxhBtdTTurlqduNredG6vMOmqXWOmAc7/es= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; b=ADFGNwK9B+mwBMHcPg6+CRAIPz4tSQGAbhH5swQM6XaPC8LZ/lCFTJAcvRphM1WJln +xVXRJ4oI33RVWx8w/SsY0+qLkWmxeXg0z2a8+zHFiWqOEIgriFG5zhBXiJAZ+KkrqmS 8AtX0pozl7MCjoudYqcXmKZM/ZcaBtwgj7oyc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: landeryou@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.39.69 with SMTP id f5mr129158qce.107.1259332057419; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:27:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:27:37 +1100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2eb9e638f8d73878 Message-ID: Subject: Twit From: Andrew Landeryou &editor@vexnews.lt;com> To: dgerard@gmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364275f7efd07804795b1708

--0016364275f7efd07804795b1708
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

dgerard@gmail.com

Mr Gerard,

I am told you made reference to me in your musings on Twitter. I don't know
you, would rather not have to become familiar with who you are and what on
Earth possessed you to comment so freely about me or to edit Wikipedia to
say absurd things about me.

Your entitled to your opinion of me but I think it might be best for you to
discuss claims you make about me with me first. If you don't, I'll promise
to return the favour after an investigation into exactly what ails you. And
that really would be a waste of time for me and a very unpleasant outcome
for you, so I urge you to Twit more carefully in future.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Landeryou

I look forward to an exchange involving pie charts.
p.s.: if you don’t want your months-long-running Wikipedia shenanigans remembered, it helps not to have done them. Oops, too late.

Which birthed this:

From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 00:48:45 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:48:45 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

I hate to bring this up because it's circling Wikipedia Review, but I find
it even more troubling that Gerard's "joke" posts about Scientology, etc.
See:
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/ ... e-of-skin/

Somebody posted a twitter message about about vandalism then on the page of
right-wing Australian bloger Andrew
Landeryou<http://twitter.com/jeamland/status/6096776618>.
In response, David Gerard
tweeted<http://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/6096819270>,
"mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet
investigation.)" I think this troubling enough itself; it's unseemly for a
current checkuser to brag about catching somebody on Wikipedia, presumably
engaged in self-promotion. Andrew Landeryou sent Gerard an angry email
stating that Gerard should have talked to him before making the claim, then
adding a threat that Mr. Landeryou would investigate Gerard if he did it
again and it would be a "very unpleasant outcome for you, so I urge you to
Twit more carefully in future."

Gerard posts the whole thing, with headers, along with his original tweet.

Why does David Gerard still have checkuser? He used it a few weeks ago for
Amorrow, but prior to that had not used in eight months (and hardly any
checks for the last 17 months). I find Gerard's comments embarrassing to
Wikipedia and perhaps even chilling. Why would any notable person want to
edit Wikipedia when they know a loose cannon CU will publicly brag about
catching him or her later?

I move we remove his CU bit immediately. The rest (oversight, functionary
access), I don't feel so passionate about, but we have to send a signal to
the CU corp and the community that this crap is unacceptable.

Frank

----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 00:57:14 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:57:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

(cc'ed to Jimmy)

Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> I hate to bring this up because it's circling Wikipedia Review, but I
> find it even more troubling that Gerard's "joke" posts about
> Scientology, etc. See:
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/ ... e-of-skin/

Again?!

We need to show him the door. I'm sorry, but he's a liability for the
project(s) and his apparent status gives him the credibility to cause
real harm. It's a shame he's on so many rolodexes, but he still
blusters around as though he is speaking from the project when we are
consistently ashamed of his behavior.

He's had numerous chances before; we all tried several time to ask him
to tone his rhetoric down and he is unwilling or unable to. We need to
make it very clear that his behavior is unwelcome and unbecoming, and
that any pretension of speaking for the project is entirely illusory.

That he discusses his checkuser work is just the proverbial straw.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:04:05 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:04:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

I'm also remarkably unimpressed by his posting the e-mail with the routing
information.

However, we probably do need to let him know we're considering action before
we finalize anything.

Newyorkbrad

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:

> (cc'ed to Jimmy)
>
> Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> > I hate to bring this up because it's circling Wikipedia Review, but I
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 01:04:56 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:04:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

Totally agree. See my posts from 6 months ago.

R
----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:05:32 2009
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:05:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

I third it.
~W

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:04 PM, <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:

> Totally agree. See my posts from 6 months ago.
>
> R
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:13:13 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:13:13 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

Wizardman wrote:
> I third it.
> ~W

Money -> Mouth.

http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dis ... vid_Gerard

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:21:10 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:21:10 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also remarkably unimpressed by his posting the e-mail with the routing
> information.

The routing information only gives details about Google.

As far as I can see, the only private information is the email
address, the timezone, and the contents of the email.

This is cyber-gonzo encyclopedia writing.

> However, we probably do need to let him know we're considering action before
> we finalize anything.

We have a process. We should follow it.

Coren has started a vote on the arbcom wiki.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:23:25 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:23:25 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

Does the process include telling the person we're considering sanctioning
that we are considering sanctioning him?

Newyorkbrad
----------
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:27:47 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> Does the process include telling the person we're considering
> sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?
>

Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. But really,
Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
him being copied) in the past.

He's been warned -- repeatedly.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:27:59 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:27:59 +1100

subject was: Re: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Cool Hand Luke
<User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com> wrote:
> I hate to bring this up because it's circling Wikipedia Review, but I find
> it even more troubling that Gerard's "joke" posts about Scientology, etc.
> See:
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/ ... e-of-skin/
>
> Somebody posted a twitter message about about vandalism then on the page of
> right-wing Australian bloger Andrew Landeryou.? In response, David Gerard
> tweeted, "mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet
> investigation.)"? I think this troubling enough itself; it's unseemly for a
> current checkuser to brag about catching somebody on Wikipedia, presumably
> engaged in self-promotion.? Andrew Landeryou sent Gerard an angry email
> stating that Gerard should have talked to him before making the claim, then
> adding a threat that Mr. Landeryou would investigate Gerard if he did it
> again and it would be a "very unpleasant outcome for you, so I urge you to
> Twit more carefully in future."
>
> Gerard posts the whole thing, with headers, along with his original tweet.

The BLP was prodded by 99.35.128.68 a day ago with e/s "not the
Premier of the USSR; prod"

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... =327069534

In addition to dealing with David Gerard, we need to monitor the
content aspect as it will likely be used as a weapon by one or more
camps.

It would be good to find out what checkuser David actually performed,
what actions were taken, etc.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 01:29:29 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:29:29 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

That's an understatement. Time's up.

R

---- "Marc A. Pelletier" <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> > Does the process include telling the person we're considering
> > sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?
> >
>
> Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. But really,
> Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
> down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
> him being copied) in the past.
>
> He's been warned -- repeatedly.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:31:00 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:31:00 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

John's started a separate thread about this and the article about Andrew
Landeryou, in which he asks about David's self-reported checkusering
involving the subject of the article.

I can't see anything obvious based on edit summaries or usernames, but it
isn't anything that has been done in the past year.

Anne
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:31:35 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:35 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>
> He's been warned -- repeatedly.
>

Put another way, if he doesn't have enough judgment to realize that his
latest exploits would not lead to this despite the number of times his
off-wiki behavior has been raised, he doesn't have the judgment to hold
a position of trust in the first place.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:31:37 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:31:37 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
>> Does the process include telling the person we're considering
>> sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?

Yes, that is required.

> Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. ?But really,
> Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
> down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
> him being copied) in the past.
>
> He's been warned -- repeatedly.

This is the procedure we agreed upon:

Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behaviour is
inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated
advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is
forthcoming.

The procedure for removal of permissions is as follows:

1. The initiating arbitrator will (a) leave a message on the
account's talk page, asking the account to contact arbcom-l, and (b)
send a similar message to the account by Wikipedia e-mail, if enabled.
2. The initiating arbitrator will then send a message to arbcom-l
(a) stating the name of the account, (b) briefly describing the issue,
providing examples of inappropriate conduct, and © recommending
removal of permissions.
3. The Committee will then schedule deliberations on the matter.
4. A request for removal of advanced permissions may be made once a
motion to do so has been endorsed by a majority of active arbitrators.
5. Once temporary removal has been approved, an arbitrator will
post a notice, including the text of the motion and the names of
arbitrators endorsing it, to the Meta-Wiki permissions page, the
Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the
user's talk page.

<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Level_II_procedures>

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:33:36 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:33:36 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
>
>> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
>>
>>> Does the process include telling the person we're considering
>>> sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?
>>>
>
> Yes, that is required.
>
>
>> Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. But really,
>> Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
>> down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
>> him being copied) in the past.
>>
>> He's been warned -- repeatedly.
>>
>
> This is the procedure we agreed upon:
>
> Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behaviour is
> inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated
> advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is
> forthcoming.
>

Good point. My brain associations have attached this to "admin" but it
obviously applies to the other bits too. I'll handle the notifications
given I don't remember having had spats with him in the past.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:34:30 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:34:30 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

I agree that his post was unacceptable. Perhaps what we should be doing is
asking him to resign. Recall the 80,000 words of drama we avoided in
Raul654's case when he agreed to resign quietly when he realized where the
committee's discussion was going. A similar outcome might be for the best
here (although of course there is no guarantee whatsoever that David would
indeed agree to resign).

Newyorkbrad
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:37:47 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:37:47 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [[Andrew Landeryou]]

David Gerard believed in 2006 that Landeryou was behind several vandal socks
who, among other things, vandalized articles of an acquaintance.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/pri ... 01485.html

Frank
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:40:12 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:40:12 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

2009/11/29 Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org>

> <snip>
>
> Good point. My brain associations have attached this to "admin" but it
> obviously applies to the other bits too. I'll handle the notifications
> given I don't remember having had spats with him in the past.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>

Thanks, Marc. It's worthwhile to try to get him to step down rather than
remove the bits. We put that process in place for a lot of reasons, so it's
to our advantage to carry it out. I'll head over to the arbwiki now.

Anne
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:42:11 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:42:11 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> I agree that his post was unacceptable. Perhaps what we should be
> doing is asking him to resign. Recall the 80,000 words of drama we
> avoided in Raul654's case when he agreed to resign quietly when he
> realized where the committee's discussion was going. A similar
> outcome might be for the best here (although of course there is no
> guarantee whatsoever that David would indeed agree to resign).
>

Of course. I never have objections to an honorable withdrawal; it is
reasonable to offer him the opportunity. But we also need to make it
clear that this is under controversial circumstances.

Seppuku rather than execution? Well, it worked for the 47 ronin.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:43:46 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:43:46 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Fwd: Copy of your message to David Gerard: Please
Contact ArbCom]

Also on talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =327113023

-- Coren / Marc

-------- Original Message --------
Return-Path: <wiki at wikimedia.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on
beryl.uberbox.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=5.0
tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham version=3.2.5
X-Original-To: marc at uberbox.org
Delivered-To: marc at uberbox.org
Received: from wiki-mail.wikimedia.org (wiki-mail.wikimedia.org
[208.80.152.133]) by mail.uberbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id
E6B7E1070250 for <marc at uberbox.org>; Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:40:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from srv139.pmtpa.wmnet ([10.0.2.139]:38374) by
mchenry.wikimedia.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from
<marc at uberbox.org>) id 1NEYlc-0003c6-As for marc at uberbox.org; Sun, 29
Nov 2009 01:40:01 +0000
Received: by srv139.pmtpa.wmnet (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 29 Nov
2009 01:40:00 +0000
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:40:00 +0000
To: Coren <marc at uberbox.org>
Subject: Copy of your message to David Gerard: Please Contact ArbCom
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
From: Coren <marc at uberbox.org>
Message-Id: <E1NEYlc-0003c6-As at mchenry.wikimedia.org>

Hello David,

Please contact ArbCom via its mailing list (arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org) at your earliest convenience.

-- Coren / Marc; for the Committee

--
This e-mail was sent by user "Coren" on the English Wikipedia to user "David Gerard". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 01:44:12 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:44:12 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

Following process is fine, but I'm saying he's gone too far too often.

R

---- John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> > Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> >> Does the process include telling the person we're considering
> >> sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?
>
> Yes, that is required.
>
> > Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. ?But really,
> > Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
> > down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
> > him being copied) in the past.
> >
> > He's been warned -- repeatedly.
>
> This is the procedure we agreed upon:
>
> Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behaviour is
> inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated
> advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is
> forthcoming.
>
> The procedure for removal of permissions is as follows:
>
> 1. The initiating arbitrator will (a) leave a message on the
> account's talk page, asking the account to contact arbcom-l, and (b)
> send a similar message to the account by Wikipedia e-mail, if enabled.
> 2. The initiating arbitrator will then send a message to arbcom-l
> (a) stating the name of the account, (b) briefly describing the issue,
> providing examples of inappropriate conduct, and © recommending
> removal of permissions.
> 3. The Committee will then schedule deliberations on the matter.
> 4. A request for removal of advanced permissions may be made once a
> motion to do so has been endorsed by a majority of active arbitrators.
> 5. Once temporary removal has been approved, an arbitrator will
> post a notice, including the text of the motion and the names of
> arbitrators endorsing it, to the Meta-Wiki permissions page, the
> Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the
> user's talk page.
>
> <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Level_II_procedures>
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:44:49 2009
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:44:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

Hopefully someone will send him a message soon then. Give him a time limit
for a response though so this doesn't carry on forever.
~W

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:

> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> > I agree that his post was unacceptable. Perhaps what we should be
> > doing is asking him to resign. Recall the 80,000 words of drama we
> > avoided in Raul654's case when he agreed to resign quietly when he
> > realized where the committee's discussion was going. A similar
> > outcome might be for the best here (although of course there is no
> > guarantee whatsoever that David would indeed agree to resign).
> >
>
> Of course. I never have objections to an honorable withdrawal; it is
> reasonable to offer him the opportunity. But we also need to make it
> clear that this is under controversial circumstances.
>
> Seppuku rather than execution? Well, it worked for the 47 ronin.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
-----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:58:00 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:58:00 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

Wizardman wrote:
> Hopefully someone will send him a message soon then. Give him a time
> limit for a response though so this doesn't carry on forever.
> ~W

[Draft -- not sent]

Hello David,

You recent blog post (see link at the end) has come to the attention of
the Committee, and we are disappointed that you were unable or unwilling
to heed the concerns expressed by the arbitrators and other
functionaries over the past year. Such outbursts are completely
unacceptable as they reflect poorly on the project and, given your
status as a functionary, particularly damaging. In particular,
disclosing past checkuser results (especially with a bragging tone) and
publishing email including private information are not compatible with
the trust and decorum expected of holders of advanced rights.

Given the warnings you have already received on that subject, the
Committee is voting to suspend both checkuser and oversight permissions,
and to remove you from the func-l mailing list. It appears at this time
that the motion will carry, but we wanted to extend the opportunity of
stepping down willingly of your own volition beforehand to reduce the
likelihood of drama and the possible embarrassment.

If you have comments to offer, please respond to this email before Dec
2; at which point we will otherwise close the pending motion.

For the Committee, Marc A. Pelletier (Coren)

http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/ ... e-of-skin/

[end draft]

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 02:00:48 2009
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:00:48 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

Looks good to me. I'd even move it up to the 1st, though that is reducing
the time quite a bit.
~W
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 02:02:42 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:02:42 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

Good to me too. Although I would second kicking it up to the 1st. Is the
2nd so that it doesn't collide with first day voting drama?

Frank
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 02:05:26 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:26 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Wizardman wrote:
>
>> Looks good to me. I'd even move it up to the 1st, though that is
>> reducing the time quite a bit.
>> ~W
>>
>
> It's a weekend; I didn't want to be unreasonable either.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>

That being said, at least four of us said 1st or 48h. I'll set with Dec
1 as the deadline (which will still give two whole days including a weekday)

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 02:13:03 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:13:03 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Motion regarding your recent blog post

Hello David,

You recent blog post (see link at the end) has come to the attention of
the Committee, and we are disappointed that you were unable or unwilling
to heed the concerns expressed by the arbitrators and other
functionaries over the past year. Such outbursts are completely
unacceptable as they reflect poorly on the project and, given your
status as a functionary, are particularly damaging. In particular,
disclosing past checkuser results (especially in a bragging tone) and
publishing email including private information are not compatible with
the trust and decorum expected of holders of advanced rights.

Given the warnings you have already received on that subject, the
Committee is voting to suspend both checkuser and oversight permissions,
and to remove you from the func-l mailing list. It appears at this time
that the motion will carry, but we wanted to extend the opportunity of
stepping down of your own volition beforehand to reduce the likelihood
of drama and the possible embarrassment.

If you have comments to offer, please respond to this email before
2009-12-01; at which point we will otherwise close the pending motion.

For the Committee, Marc A. Pelletier (Coren)

ref: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/ ... e-of-skin/
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 02:14:10 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:14:10 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

I'm not opposed to this draft .. but .. ;-)

I dont think we should be focused on asking him to stand down _in
order to_ minimise drama. We should be asking him to stand down _in a
manner_ which minimises drama. i.e. he needs to admit that he has
been a twit, and accepts the consequences.

I doubt there will be drama if we did it ; I suspect that there will
be drama if he is allowed to frame it however he wants. even more
drama if there is no explanation at all.
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 02:14:32 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:14:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Motion regarding your recent blog post

[list only]

Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Hello David,
>

I went ahead despite the limited feedback given we intend to move
swiftly; the short delay makes it imperative that he is notified as
quickly as possible to give him the whole two days.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 02:17:43 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:17:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

John Vandenberg wrote:
> I'm not opposed to this draft .. but .. ;-)
>

Too late for but(t)s. :-)

At any rate, reducing drama pretty much implies that he shouldn't raise
it himself. I don't expect he'll go down quietly, though, and we're
more likely than not going to have to do so forcibly and publicly.
More's the pity.

-- Coren / Marc
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 02:56:52 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:56:52 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

Yes, I think you are right that there will be *relatively* little drama if
we forcibly removed him. He's not in the middle of a Giano/Bishonen
intrigue, and would be hard pressed to frame this as ArbCom 2009
incompetence. His post was just plain stupid.

That said, it's still relative drama, and I agree that we would prefer him
to withdraw in a classy way like Raul654. However, he doesn't seem to like
us--I doubt he will want to make it drama-free, even for the sake of the
project. I think you're right that we should expect some kicking.

Frank

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:14 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not opposed to this draft .. but .. ;-)
>
> I dont think we should be focused on asking him to stand down _in
> order to_ minimise drama. We should be asking him to stand down _in a
> manner_ which minimises drama. i.e. he needs to admit that he has
> been a twit, and accepts the consequences.
>
> I doubt there will be drama if we did it ; I suspect that there will
> be drama if he is allowed to frame it however he wants. even more
> drama if there is no explanation at all.
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 03:53:44 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:53:44 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

But he can't say he didn't have his chance now.

R

-----Original Message-----
From: arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Marc A. Pelletier
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 9:18 PM
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

John Vandenberg wrote:
> I'm not opposed to this draft .. but .. ;-)
>
-----------
From: szvest at gmail.com (Fayssal F.)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:02:05 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

I am supporting every measure that has been taken so far. The unacceptable
behaviour of David shows that he's not fit for the trusting job (not
acceptable even for an admin). Imagine law enforcement officers bragging
online about their actions and ridiculing people via multiple venues
(twitter, blog, etc). It's a pity to see people in their 40's or so getting
themselves dragged into such childish attitudes.

That's was the real drama, not what would follow! Our job is to protect the
integrity of this project and this is what we should focus on.

Fayssal F.
----------
From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 11:14:27 2009
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:14:27 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Contact ArbCom
In-Reply-To: <E1NEYlb-0003an-A3@mchenry.wikimedia.org>
References: <E1NEYlb-0003an-A3@mchenry.wikimedia.org>

Cheers, and what on earth?

- d.

2009/11/29 Coren <marc at uberbox.org>:
> Hello David,
>
> Please contact ArbCom via its mailing list (arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org) at your earliest convenience.
>
> -- Coren / Marc; for the Committee
>
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:15:37 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:15:37 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:05 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
> >> David, do you want this discussion to be conducted on functionaries-en ?
> > Actually, it should be conducted publicly on the wiki.
>
> I'll take that as a yes.
>
> If you don't discuss it with us privately, the next action from the
> committee will be a motion on the noticeboard.

(ArbCom list only)

David has taken this pubic on his talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... act_ArbCom

He mentions the past caution but does it in a way that dismisses the
problem.

Sydney
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:24:59 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:24:59 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post

I say we publish? he can appeal. that is how the level II procedure works.

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:15 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:05 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
>> >> David, do you want this discussion to be conducted on functionaries-en
>> >> ?
>> > Actually, it should be conducted publicly on the wiki.
>>
>> I'll take that as a yes.
>>
>> If you don't discuss it with us privately, the next action from the
>> committee will be a motion on the noticeboard.
>
> (ArbCom list only)
>
> David has taken this pubic on his talk page.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... act_ArbCom
>
> He mentions the past caution but does it in a way that dismisses the
> problem.
>
> Sydney
>
> _______________________________________________
> arbcom-l mailing list
> arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
>
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 12:34:30 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:34:30 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your
recent blog post

Yep. Publish it.
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:37:43 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:37:43 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post

Ready to roll - minor changes being the stripped->revoked, and
mentioning level II procedures at the end.

Subject: David Gerard (we used "nichalp' )

For repeatedly failing to maintain proper decorum in public fora, and
for unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
privileged rights, checkuser and oversight rights are revoked from
{{user|David Gerard}}, and he is removed from the functionary list
effective immediately, in accordance with
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Level_II_procedures|Level
II procedures]]. ~~~~

* Support: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg,
Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Risker, Stephen Bain, Wizardman
* Oppose: None
* Abstain: None
* Not voting: Carcharoth, Roger Davies, Vassyana
* Inactive: FayssalF

Carcharoth could be placed under inactive as he has told us that he is
away for the weekend
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:44:35 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:44:35 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post

I agree that we publish the motion. But then what comes next?

We need to be ready to roll into the next phase.

Sydney
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:47:15 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:47:15 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post

motion posted. meta request done.

Im about to request that he be removed from the lists.
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:56:43 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:56:43 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:47 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> motion posted. ?meta request done.

tools removed by a steward.

> Im about to request that he be removed from the lists.

list admins notified.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:58:13 2009
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:58:13 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post

2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:05 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
>>>> David, do you want this discussion to be conducted on functionaries-en ?
>>> Actually, it should be conducted publicly on the wiki.
>>
>> I'll take that as a yes.
>>
>> If you don't discuss it with us privately, the next action from the
>> committee will be a motion on the noticeboard.
>
> David decided to conduct this
[Breaks off there.]

And it just goes on like this for seven or so blocks which might make up fifty to one-hundred pages if they were printed out on A4 paper. Deep in we get this bit of insanity from Mike Godwin:

Mike Godwin wrote:

And I will say generally and personally that I would rather have one
David Gerard empowered to work on behalf of the projects than a
thousand "rehabilitated" Gregory Kohses. I had thought we tolerated
David's acerbity and wit and snarkiness against our enemies -- and,
yes, we have enemies -- because we believed he had our projects' best
interests at heart. To have this reduced to a question of "personal
gain" on David's part seems immoral to me.

Even when he isn't in the room, Greg Kohs takes it up the pooper. Also, the paranoia about unnamed enemies is right out of 1984.

2 comments:

metasonixApril 6, 2019 at 5:40 PM
YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR and since nobody from Wiki-Land has ever paid Gerard, they get Gerard quality mumblings. Giving a narcissistic crank a public platform is always a bad idea.

Also: fuck you Mike Godwin. Go start a Church of Jimbo. Then you can have a torture dungeon for "unclean ones". And you can get tax-free status too.

Thursday, April 4, 2019

More David Gerard bits-and-pieces

2 comments: