Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/David Gerard

David Gerard
Is this for real?Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Would I lie to you? - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Chutzpah
Did I spell that right?

The worst ArbCom action of the past year was not detooling David Gerard for misuse of administrative powers to protect a personally favored version of Chelsea Manning. His administrative abuse was disgusting and ArbCom's passivity and weakness because they shared his political orientation on the question was pathetic... This is one of the leading POV warriors on the matter, a man that made that historic mess possible... I can't punch the NO button hard enough on this candidate... Trust me I will. Carrite (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dan Murphy on Wikipediocracy: "I urge all to vote for Gerard on the 'Hasten the Day' slate." Wikipedians, you've been warned. Carrite (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't fault this editor's behaviour in the Manning naming dispute. The only POV I saw him pushing was the view that we should not insult our BLP subjects. ArbCom got it wrong. I will definitely be voting for him. (Seems to be stupid.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly - Arbcom sanctioned David for his good-faith actions to uphold BLP, something they had previously given administrators wide authority to do. Upholding BLP was not POV-pushing, it was doing his job as an administrator. He did what he thought was required by BLP, a bunch of people who disagreed started assuming bad faith and making ridiculous accusations, and instead of admonishing those users for failure to AGF Arbcom sanctioned David. An appalling decision that will have a chilling effect on BLP enforcement. Neljack (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess we are going to see a fine example of established editors going on berserk. People - like Carrite - start stating facts which are disputed at best (and possibly false in the worst case) and let their emotions be driven by these. I guess it's fair to argree or disagree with things and people, be that ArbCom or David or Chelsea or whoever you please but I would rather expect you all to do it in a civilised and calm manner. I do not plan to start bold statements about how I disagree with ArbCom decisions (several in the recent past), I simply will not vote for the people I have observed to have bias (in my opinion) and try to vote those who seem to be able to bring in more balance (or inbalance, if that's required to have the balance again) to the Honoured Gang. I have been angry with Gerard several times, he's annoying and often obnoxious but I consider him to be rational and thoughtful enough for the position, not to mention his experience in Wikimedia projects. And I only have one vote, and I try hard not to over-represent it. "Trust me I will - try." --grin ✎ 08:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Lessee, I'm "berserk" for calling Mr. Gerard's administrative abuse "disgusting" and pointing out that as a "leading POV warrior" in the Manning case, Mr. Gerard was "a man that made that historic mess possible." And you come to his support as the voice of reason, noting that Mr. Gerard is "annoying and often obnoxious" but great for the job anyway. Ummm, okay... Sounds perfect for WP in the sensitive decision-making role of ArbCom for the next two years, doesn't he? Thanks for the clarification. Carrite (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

David's competent and dedicated, and has the right kind of drive to change the character of ArbCom in exactly the way it needs. Eithin (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've given Mr. Gerard a fair bit of gruff over the years, much if it rather infantile, but I'd like to classify that under Old Tarc. New Tarc feels that while Mr. Gerard went outside the bounds of how admins are generally expected to use their tools w.r.t. the Chelsea Manning situation, he was doing it for the greater good, i.e. acting in the best interests of the BLP subject. I'm not sure if that translates into a vote of support just yet, but the door is certainly open. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)