Between Jayjg, Raul654 and David Gerard, I think a clear message has been sent.

I'm with Miss Manners on this one: "All children are a gift from God." Simply put, it is impolite to inquire into or speculate about the origins of someone else's children.

You'd think a freak like Gerard would be a little more circumspect in labeling other people

I agree, and if he contacts us and asks us to delete it, we probably will. However, in order to avoid the dreaded "hypocrite" tag, before he does that he'll probably want to use his admin powers on Uncyclopedia to delete things like this....

Given this and his ego, I wonder if he will go begging for his supah powahs' return.

He's probably kissing Jimbeau's ass right now.

I wonder if the arbcom listens to Jimbo any more.

Is Gerard on the Meta "Public Speakers" page? If so, could someone please make sure to note on his listing his "tools revoked by ArbCom" status? I hear that it's okay for unaffiliated editors to modify the listings of other public speakers.

So, does David Gerard join wikipedia review now?

He's probably kissing Jimbeau's ass right now.

For a while we thought this might be him, and if it is then he's been a member for some time now... but I've since decided it probably isn't him. And if it isn't, then he's not likely to register here as long as I'm around. (Not that I would deny him an account or anything like that.)

I would think you'd know the answer to that question... you spent considerable effort to get the page cleaned up recently. But in any case he is not currently listed on that page.

I'm with Miss Manners on this one: "All children are a gift from God." Simply put, it is impolite to inquire into or speculate about the origins of someone else's children.

Sorry, Lar. I really didn't remember, and I'm on vacation and didn't want to waste effort looking it up on my BlackBerry. Probably best not to add drama to that page. Has someone yet removed the "banned from English Wikipedia" from my listing, or will that be up to me when I return to Philly?

It's not like it's a secret: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arkady_Rose

I like this one better. Whose the other (non-girlfriend, none wife) vampire?

Dave's wife's girlfriend at the time, if I recall.

Looking at the current list of CheckUsers, it looks pretty clean to me at this point. Might be nice to remove one or two people for inactivity, but most the problematic old guard seems to have been removed.

One of Dominic's platform items in the Audit subcommittee election was removal of privileges for inactivity.

Looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/Statistics#Checkuser_statistics_.28Monthly.29, I have a hard time understanding why James, Jimbo, and VOA retain the right.

I suppose Jimbo fits in this category, heaven knows why.

I thought Jimbo only gave himself that userright temporarily, to deal with something Bruce Edwards Ivins-related?

I thought Jimbo only gave himself that userright temporarily, to deal with something Bruce Edwards Ivins-related?

I thought Jimbo only gave himself that userright temporarily, to deal with something Bruce Edwards Ivins-related?

I don't feel like arguing about whether it is appropriate for him to be able to add or remove this right from his own account at any time (without requiring approval from any other entity), but…

…as long as this is the case, I think it would be best to just leave it enabled so that observers know exactly how many people have access to this tool. You know, to avoid surprises.

I mean it's not really fair to the other checkusers, who cannot simply use this tool and then obscure the fact that they had access to it.

Self-awareness is not one of the Gerroid's strong suits.
Given this and his ego, I wonder if he will go begging for his supah powahs' return.

Please contact ArbCom

Hello David,

Please contact ArbCom via its mailing list (arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org) at your earliest convenience. — Coren (talk), for the Committee, 01:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You realise of course this consists of me emailing and going "OK, what?" - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this appears to be concerning me receiving a personal threat, posting it to my blog and the arbcom deciding it doesn't like this. I have been asked to resign functionaries-en or be pushed. The reasoning is unclear, and perhaps you should do this publicly - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(This comes a few months after arbitrators telling me a few months ago I should resign or be pushed over this humour post, and several ex-arbs calling them "pompous idiots" for the suggestion. I said I'd like it done publicly, and nothing was heard of the notion again. The 2009 arbcom's thinking in these matters needs more transparency and public review.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

David, your response was unacceptable to this committee. Motion carried. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To make things perfectly clear, the blog post you referred to was considered the last of a string of incidents and public posturing that the committee unanimously felt was incompatible with holding a position of high trust and access to private data. That we offered you the opportunity to explain or step down privately was borne entirely of a desire to avoid possible drama or embarrassment to you; but the motion having passed in no way prevents you from making a public appeal where you will be able to present a case in detail if you feel it warranted. — Coren (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So the reason is a dislike of adult supervision, but the excuse is a specific allegation of actual malfeasance. You realise you can't vote the latter into existence, right? - David Gerard (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're in the wrong cabal. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to urge David to reflect on this experience and conduct himself in a more responsible and respectful manner in the future. Everyking (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If we want to look at it precedentially, Arbcom has respectively established the principles that:

1. You may not have higher-level userrights if your actions threaten to bring the project into extreme disrepute;
2. You may not use higher-level userrights in such a manner as to repeatedly inflict disproportionate collateral damage;
3. You may not use higher-level userrights in an offensive manner; they may only be used in defense of the project.

That's nice.

While Arbcom are about it, why don't they pull SV's powers? She's definitely been "bringing the project into extreme disrepute", not to mention the collateral damage.

He deleted my comments on his talk page.

He didn't delete Everyking's comment, however. I suspect if one simply typed the words "Wikipedia Review" on his talk page and hit enter he would delete it immediately.

There is a concept in US law that courts will not issue advisory opinions, but that they will only rule on actual cases and controversies. At the most simple interpretation, . . . blah, blah, blabitty, blah.

Going back to the original business, involving right-wing blogger Andrew Landeryou:

Gerard's history of disputes with him goes back at least 3 years.

I believe it originated with the Darren Ray/2006BC sockfests.
One of the articles they were fighting to "protect": Landeryou's BLP.

Yeah, I agree. Being able to grant yourself sensitive user rights at will, no matter who you are, isn't really fair. For transparencies sake, it's best that he keep it.

He didn't delete Everyking's comment, however. I suspect if one simply typed the words "Wikipedia Review" on his talk page and hit enter he would delete it immediately.

Although, back in the days of the BADSITES Wars, he was one of the few well-connected, politically powerful insiders who actually took a stand on the mailing lists against banning links to so-called attack sites.

Um? Any steward can do that. It's logged in a central place, but they can do it at will. Are you suggesting that all stewards should give themselves all rights on all wikis? I expect not so I must be confused by what you are suggesting.

I know that, but I was under the impression that arbcom and the "community" expected "normal" stewards not to assign "advanced user-rights" to themselves or anyone else on enwiki unless the local arbcom locally appoints the local user in question to that local position, on a permanent and local basis.

Do you not remember how the "community" had a fit when DerHexer empowered himself with oversight in what he felt was a bona fide emergency (to redact what he mistook for Rlevse's personal info). Yet somehow it's okay when Jimbo does it, though I'd estimate that he's even further out of touch (with the English Wikipedia) than the Angry German Kid.

Sure, acting in good faith is always nice, but hardly worth what it takes to convince anyone of it. Plus half will never believe it anyway.

I was asking Cimorene a question. Sorry for any confusion there.

Yes, arbcom expects that.
Yes, I remember the DerHexer oversight situation.

I was asking Cimorene a question. Sorry for any confusion there.

Looks to me like Cimorene was basically agreeing with my position, which you either misunderstood or misrepresented in your reply.

So I figured I should at least clarify it (even if for no other reason than to make sure she still agrees with it).

I think Cimorene's point is that since Jimbo could re-grant himself CU at a moment's notice for any reason, or for no reason, asking him to resign CU for reason of inactivity does not really accomplish anything.

I could block you for any reason or no reason at all, but policy prevents me from doing so. The global policy is rather explicit that it is only granted with Arbcom approval on wikis with Arbcoms. Why is something permissible if it violates policy?

And that's my point, which I don't think Cimorene or Charlotte got.

Okay, but does policy prevent Jimmy from assigning himself userrights at will? Insofar as policy is a description of actual practice, it appears not.