Describe Users/JeffWood here.
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2011-12-06 10:07:22 How would you describe Pike's demeanor when he was pepper spraying students? Watch the video. It doesn't get much more casual than that. And are you asserting that insults amount to threats? If so, there's a huge weight of law which would beg to differ. As an officer of the law, threatened to uphold the law, he was legally unthreatened. —TomGarberson
2011-12-06 10:09:51 You are not a judge, stop acting like one and let the legal job do the job they are supposed to. As long as the page describes an inquiry going on, I find it abhorent that the wiki be used for such propoganda as this. —JeffWood
2011-12-06 10:10:09 I think Mr. Wood just wants to let readers come to thier own conclusions. I found his edit resonable. —jefftolentino
2011-12-06 10:12:07 Thank you, and exactly. I did not put in 'threatened' or 'after careful deliberation', I just removed the bias under inquiry —JeffWood
2011-12-06 10:16:31 You're right that I'm not a judge. I am, however, familiar with 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 9th Circuit jurisprudence holding that the use of pepper spray against nonviolent protesters with their arms linked is excessive force. I'm also familiar with the true threat doctrine and the difference between constitutionally protected speech (which may be rude, childish, and inappropriate) and legally threatening speech. Are you? —TomGarberson
2011-12-06 10:19:33 I'm comfortable with the removal of "unthreatened." Removing "casually" is disingenuous, though. His demeanor was extraordinarily casual while he was deploying the spray. —TomGarberson
2011-12-06 10:26:46 There are plenty of photos and video for people to see now. Let's just let people develop thier own opinions on the matter. —jefftolentino
POI: The video was always there. —MeggoWaffle
Actually, the video from the 28th I find the most compelling on the protester activities, as the famous initial one remains the most compelling on the police activities —JeffWood
2011-12-06 11:00:35 Some people are able to rationally consider subjects, including compromise, avoiding knee-jerk reactionary preaching of absolutes in favor of unbiased review. :) —JeffWood
Have you read 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 9th Circuit jurisprudence that Tom referred? I have not but I would like to know what you think also. —EdgarWai
I have read an overview by a couple law firms, it seems to be the rallying cry of every charge of police misconduct, after all. In this case, I would submit the protesters deprived the police of their constitutional right to liberty first and should be held accountable under this statute for that, if I was truly sadistic. For the rest, the ruling as explained to me mainly asks for the officer to act in an objectively reasonable manner for non-lethal general force, which I feel the police may be able to make a good case for given the evidence I have seen. The clauses do not specifically identify types of force except under broad categories from what I see. So all in all, the protesters that were sprayed can sue for redress, but the police may also tender material to show their objective reasoning. Right now, I see an unreasoning circular bias to believe there can't be any objective reason solely based on the type of force used, which may be argued in court, but is not a limit of action in practice. —JeffWood
The key of section 1983 is that very first part: "Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, . . . subjects . . . any citizen . . . or other person . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured..." That initial phrase is generally paraphrased as "under color of law." It's basically saying that officials and officers who use the law in an improper way that deprives others of their civil rights are liable to the person they've wronged. So, yes, it is the rallying cry of every charge of police misconduct. It's a code section enacted by Congress specifically to give people civil redress for civil rights violations. It means that officers have to act reasonably in executing their duties. I think we can all agree that that's a reasonable requirement, can't we? Of course, as in any area of the law, there are some ridiculous shenanigans and a few ridiculous court rulings saying various innocuous things are civil rights violations. The use of violence isn't innocuous. So the only question, in a practical sense, is whether it was unreasonable. I've already addressed on the page for the subject why I think your assertion that there were threats, even if accurate, has little bearing on the pepper spraying when and how it occurred. —TomGarberson
2011-12-06 13:26:29 What do you mean "dissenting"? —JabberWokky
2011-12-07 10:02:59 I'm genuinely curious about your interpretation of the events. I'd be interested to know where you disagree with my assessment of the events in terms of the officers defending themselves. —TomGarberson
Frankly, I didn't respond as I felt you had made up your four key points out of thin air, designed for your own arguments, not my own. Not that they aren't points, but I do not feel they were key. As you then remarked on each one, answering your own questions to your satisfaction, I didn't feel I could add anything to your debate and simply took away, again as you stated, that you do not feel my position is reasonable (or apparently rational). I had nothing to gain, including pleasure in debate, by answering directly.
OK. What's inaccurate about the premise, then? Is self-defense not essentially the justification for spraying protesters after being threatened? Does it not matter if the officers thought they were in danger? Does it not matter if the danger was imminent? Does it not matter if the pepper spraying was necessary to prevent the danger? I honestly don't understand your position, if those questions aren't at least highly relevant. Could you explain? One reason I'm trying figure this out is so I can add something to the entry explaining that interpretation of events. I'd also still be interested in getting info on the time at which the threats occurred (e.g. in X video at y:yy time), so that can be included, in context, in the entry. The purpose of the entry is to cover what happened and what people thought about it. Your viewpoint is part of that. I don't agree with removing the unthreatened language if I don't see some logical basis for it (even one I don't agree with). I do think the viewpoint belongs on the page, though. —TomGarberson
2011-12-07 10:12:15 I'm also still not quite sure where you think you have a dissenting view. I don't think you *can* have a dissenting view, as your view can easily be reflected in the entry. I certainly have never stated my take on what happened (at least not on the wiki). My position on the wiki is based on content and community perspectives, not personal view. My personal view does not match much of the current writeup on the entry. Consensus does not mean unanimity. —JabberWokky
If everyone agreed that pi was equal to 4, then I still wouldn't care about the consensus. Right now, the only thing I see is some ham-fisted attempt to enforce only one bias to that page, under the name of 'Majority Rules'. — JeffWood
2011-12-07 10:19:34 Apologies if the link was offensive. Feel free to remove it, or I'll be happy to do so if you'd prefer. —TomGarberson
Oh my no, why should I revert it and then have others revert to the same under this majority rule consensus? Sheesh. Do it yourself if you actually are apologizing. —JeffWood
2011-12-07 10:20:27 Jeff, are you stating that you intend to edit unilaterally, without any regard for fellow editors? —JabberWokky
I would say they intend to edit without regard for me or the community's other viewpoints, is my problem. The changes made were reverted without discussion or even notice or attribution, just that it 'makes the page important'. I do not feel anyone else is having regard for my editing. And if this is some oh-god-obvious way of getting a documentation trail, note I am not answering the question, please rephrase. —JeffWood
I am absolutely and clearly asking you this question specifically to see if a temporary ban to allow for a cool down period is needed. I will not act purely on the answer, but it will guide my interpretation of your acts and edits in the near future. I am asking you so that you can clearly and unequivocally state your intent. Again: are you stating that you intend to edit unilaterally, without any regard for fellow editors? -jw
I don't think a ban is necessary for this at all. I have simply tried to make the wiki more readable and reduce unnecessary bias the main text does well enough...in fact, I changed one word in all. If you wish to take that as tone for my acts and edits in the the near future, I can't help that. Isn't that what the wiki is for? What I do dislike is the fact the consensus building that was happening immediately prior to the 'vote' posting was curtailed by this vote with the express purpose of killing the discussion. —JeffWood
As for your question, I don't know. I do feel strongly about this, and I feel that the rest of the group is reacting with emotion based on their need to justify the contents of the page at all levels, in a couple cases childishly so given recent edits and the personal attacks via edit comments. I find it offensive, but I probably will just go an try to edit the main block entry instead to reduce the need for the caption's presence, honestly, if that is the only way to make my viewpoint part of the entry. There are many other parts that claim fact for opinions (usually of the OUCD group) that I feel should be clarified so fellow readers can get all their fellow davisite's opinions. —JeffWood
It would only be a ban if you started a revert war, and only a temporary wiki chill pill ban anyway. Sometimes people get such a singular focus that they wind up being self-destructive and engage in patterns that intentionally block any path to resolution, and are basically emotional outbursts that have no hope of a positive outcome. You might be surprised how much actual support you have: you've locked into a single word, but edits like the fix you made to the Featured Page are certainly a good edit, and there are probably several more that should be made. If you're in the mood for advice and help, I can suggest some tactics that tend to work in terms of presenting (and keeping) alternate views on a wiki entry with strong emotional resonance among other editors. Of course, I can't promise it'll stay, but I know from experience that some methods of editing are more likely to work than others. On the other hand, if you're frustrated, walking away and coming back later tends to work wonders. -jw
Frustrated does not mean I think that it is not worth doing. Just that it is hard and thankless Thank you, I might take you up on that later, but I kinda doubt such will apply (or I need to learn through failure, there is that) to editing if there is all this uproar on one word on the initial picture caption. Perhaps I should have changed it to 'Thug causually pepper-sprays peaceful, sitting candidates for future sainthood' to appease the viewpoints and still remove 'unthreatened'. ;) —JeffWood
Amusingly, I would have wacked that one down too. The protesters are certainly not saints in the photo... or in general. I believe that there's a pretty large contingent of people who are pissed at them for co-opting the campus they just want to go to classes on and bending it to their own political tool. There are a few other bits that need to be added as well to encompass a full spectrum of views. -jw
2011-12-07 13:28:29 8:56 Protesters threaten police "If you let them go, we will let you leave (we will continue to protest peacefully)"
So it's okay to use threat there? Because to me that reads like extortion rather than a threat. A threat would imply more direct harm "We won't let you leave until you let them go" is a threat. Both are bad but one word fits the phrasing better. IF you were being consistent you wouldn't use a descriptor there at all and then follow up with the "in the opinion of some, this constituted a threat" bs. I think it's bogus you'll use such strong language for your view point but then object to others doing it when the bias runs the other direction. Be consistent and you might sway more people to your side.
And frankly if the wiki had to read dry like that with crappy addenda about "the view of some" it wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable to use AND would make it less fun to edit. Hopefully you can get over your own bias which is fairly self-evident.
"I have read an overview by a couple law firms, it seems to be the rallying cry of every charge of police misconduct, after all." Maybe you ought to actually read the sources Tom cited yourself because your summation seems to be misinformed and very biased. I can't help but wonder how objective your summary readings were.... —OliviaY
And your bias is very self-evident, sorry to say. It was a threat, I call it a threat, many people being told that they must pay some toll to be able to given permission to leave would interpret the tone as a threat (and extortion, a form of threat). Also, I was not the one who proposed 'in the view of some', I chose to omit biased words, both ones I agreed with and another I did not. Read what I did do before rewriting my history, thank you. As for the summary, you have to give me a reason why the summary I did read by two law firms would be unacceptable beyond it does not match or convince me of your own interpretation. To me, I did read one summary, then went to find another for comparison, and then read the statute itself. You sound like you would have me take as gospel just one opinion...which I try not to do without cause and review. —JeffWood
I would be amused to see what you think my bias is and if you can get it correctly. As for biased words well, I know others have told you but the daviswiki is not a NPOV wiki. My question about your sources is summed up by the dismissive tone you used in dismissing the statute as "a rallying cry" and in your earlier note you only mentioned summaries as your source, not that you read it directly. You seem to be including plenty of biased words when it suits you. (Hint: my biggest bias is against hypocrisy)—oy
Perhaps you missed the part where I looked up the statute. And again you decide to misinterpret my tone to me on my page. So now it does suit me to treat you as you believe I should. You're welcome :) —JeffWood
I have read an overview by a couple law firms, it seems to be the rallying cry of every charge of police misconduct, after all. In this case, I would submit the protesters deprived the police of their constitutional right to liberty first and should be held accountable under this statute for that, if I was truly sadistic. For the rest, the ruling as explained to me mainly asks for the officer to act in an objectively reasonable manner for non-lethal general force, which I feel the police may be able to make a good case for given the evidence I have seen. — Where in there does it say you read the actual statute or case? I see only "overview" and "as explained to me" neither of which are direct. If you can point to me where you said "I have read the statute" perhaps that would help me take you more seriously.—oy
At the risk of pointing out the obvious... "To me, I did read one summary, then went to find another for comparison, and then read the statute itself." Ironically, this is after: "Read what I did do before rewriting my history, thank you." :)— JeffWood
Okay. In our exact exchange it went 1) My comment about your not having read it. 2) Your comment stating you have looked it up 3) My comment stating that "earlier you only said you read summaries" as my way of explaining that NOW I know you've read it but you hadn't said that on the wiki yet and I can only go on what you've written, not as a mind reader. 4) Your asserting that I "missed the part where I read the statute" which seemed to imply you'd already said that. 5) My seeking out that information. 6) Your reference is from within our conversation. From this it seems you misread me in number 3. I didn't accuse you at that point of having NOT read it. I said quite plainly " in your earlier note you only mentioned summaries as your source, not that you read it directly" The fault here lies with your misreading rather than mine. You also have yet to state affirmatively if you read the Humboldt case.
Given your tone, both originally and now, I don't think you are as reasonable as you would like to portray. And again you find fault, why am I not surprised... In short, go away please unless you wish to be polite. However, to engage despite your efforts, what is your legal standing to argue these legal arguments? I have not read in detail the Humbolt case, no. Does that matter? No, it does not, unless I wish to debate about that part. I might read it later. It matters naught in my posted judgments on the protesters' actions. There are courts that will debate if the police met any given standard of behavior. I read the statute out of curiosity, both the bare statute and a couple other google'd areas to get how it is interpreted in prosecuting for police misconduct, looking for areas regarding excessive force, chemical weapons, sitting targets, etc. A couple law firms provide this with a bias encourage such (or so I believe, knowing marketing) lawsuits. I thought those would make it as clear as possible if there was possible relevance. Not finding explicit listings, and thinking maybe they only quoted part of the statute at the top, I drilled as best I could and looked it up directly and again found ... not much. —JeffWood
2011-12-07 13:44:03 I've added in a fairly bare account of what happened and a brief bit about the potentially threatening language in this edit. I'm sure it'll need plenty of cleanup, still, but would you mind taking a look at it to see if it seems less biased? —TomGarberson
Thanks, I'll edit as appropriate, if I feel it would not engender backlash for daring to edit it...as the post above by OliviaY shows just for taking the time to review the video. —JeffWood
It looks okay on first reading. I might look into adding the times and quantity of various 'conversations' that Pike had with that sitting line, though that might be handled by the text later in the page. —JeffWood
2011-12-07 14:55:50 I almost want to accuse Jeff of being a DCR member —StevenDaubert
:D I had to look that (DCR) up! Answer enough? —JeffWood
2011-12-07 15:39:45 Hey Jeff,
I've been quietly watching the discussion today and was originally intending to lay low for the interim as the discussion has become somewhat volatile. During an offline discussion however, someone suggested I talk to you, since I've been a bit more agreeable to your view in the past couple days. My goal here is to calm the whole discussion down for a bit. This means all sides, including you, me and everyone else. There are lots of mean-spirited remarks going around and it’s becoming frustrating for everyone.
First off, I had my own experience a couple months ago, where I felt pretty strongly about an issue and was outnumbered by lots of editors. (You can check through my history if you would like to verify). There were a lot of snippy, condescending, and accusational remarks made from both sides, including myself, and in the end it was hurtful all around. Some of the comments may have been made in jest, but when the whole thing was done I personally felt abused, frustrated, and frankly kind of shit on by many editors within the community. Whether this was the true intent or not, the result was real and honestly, quite painful. I was spending the weekend with my brother and sister at the time, and some of the more personal comments really put a damper on what should have been a nice enjoyable weekend with family. Given that experience, I understand your position and acknowledge that the losing side of the many-vs-one argument is not a fun place to be. Try not to take it personally. It sucks and you're not alone.
How do we fix it? Take a break for a bit. I'll put forth here a request to everyone else involved in the discussion to take a day or two off as well. We're all feeling pretty emotional here, and it’s not a reasonable frame of mind to be in in order to make constructive, cooperative contributions to the site. Everybody, please take some time to consider other peoples positions and find ways to integrate a broader, more cumulative approach to both facts and opinions. Try putting your thoughts into a draft first and then sit on it for 12 hours. Re-read it and if it still feels fair, sit on it for another 8 hours and take another look. If you're satisfied then upload it. Just my $0.02. Take a breather here, and let’s try to fix the situation for the better, not beat each other up.
I also want to say, Jeff, that I personally support your right to include your views on the protest page or any other, and more so, to integrate a less biased approach to the whole thing. I think the original intent of your caption edits were to foster a more objective and fair aesthetic within a contentious and emotionally charged page. The NPOV discussion includes lots of comments regarding the merits of unbiased sections and the qualifying of opinions. Many people have argued that, while opinions and commentary are valuable; inclusive and objective copy within the main text is equally important. Jeff, I recognize and support your attempt to make the page less biased and more inclusive. I know a lot of people don't agree with you right now, but in terms of presenting a dissenting view to the protest page, I support you. Thanks for your work.
2011-12-07 16:10:08 Dish but can't take it? You have no problem attempting to point out what you perceived to be my errors in reading through Wiki comments. I point out you were the one to mistakenly derail the conversation and you tell me to desist. As for why I am asking. The community response which you want to censor on the grounds of bias is a combination of yes, emotion, but also from understanding of those specific statutes and cases. For many editors here the emotional response is built from an understanding of the legal issue. I was attempting to isolate how much you actually know to better understand your opposing bias to determine how best to approach the issue. If it were to seem like you are versed in relevant case law I would ask what information you have to support youredit actions. For example I believe the term peaceful as it is applied to the specific group of protesters in question is established as a term used by the court in the Humboldt case and defined therein. I am on my phone atm so I don't have the case to pull up at my fingertips. In establishing you have NOT read that case I would then direct you to it to better understand use of some of the terminology on the page in question. The wiki as established never takes an unbiased view but thanks to efforts of the jd'd folks like tom, and those who have a passion for the law, like William, edits are usually made on issues like this to reflect both community response and education about relevant legal information. Ir your edits were based off the later I was curious to see them as they would lend a different level of credibility to your stubborness. If that were not the case then I would continue to hold that the main entry should represent the majority community response with objections listed in the section dedicated to the minority dissent. Is the majority always right? Of course not but this wiki is not about what is objectively right or wrong, but a view of davis from the perspective of the average davisite. —OliviaY
Oh just a quick review of it shows that Humboldt may not apply, potentially. The ruling there was explicitly for non-violent misdemeanor. If the inquiry finds that the group at OUCD actually did practice kidnapping by encircling the officers, that rises to federal level. If not, then yes, of course the protesters can sue. In either case, the situation is the same, the protesters behaved badly and have given what may be sufficient cause to the police for their actions. Not claiming the police are innocent, of course, but neither do I see that this situation renders them automatically guilty. So, now that I've looked at the cases stated, briefly as befits this, and finding that it does not automatically absolve the protesters of their behavior, I trust I have your permission and indeed encouragement to voice my objections on the relevant pages? If not, what is the basis of your continual disapproval of the depth of my knowledge of this subject to engage in discourse? —JeffWood
last I remember it was 35 officers responding to 50 protestors, and then another 200 people rubbernecked... Also pretty sure that case is applicable because trespassing was the reasons the police were using to ensure that more camping didn't happen. So officers are responding to trespassing protestors before any potential encircling (once again they didn't seem that threatened, and when push comes to shove they are the only one with a car and an an assault rifle nearby) Even after the first spraying, what about this so called second round of spray where they forced open mouths and sprayed? I've only heard mention of this but haven't seen it... But yeah, I would expect UCDPolice to arrest them one at a time, which is what they were doing before the spray, and what they did after the spray... Which begets the question of the spray... Also William stated he heard Pike "... No we will just spray these kids..." Daubert
Federal kidnapping requires that you either kidnap a federal official or transport the person(s) you've kidnapped across state lines. 18 U.S.C. 1201. —TomGarberson
Note well that I was not there and this William character is another William. Two Jeffs. Two Williams. Cats playing with dogs. O tempora o mores. —WilliamLewis
2011-12-07 16:55:30 Hey Jeff,
I asked Olivia in a personal request to take a break for a bit. I know she hasn't responded, but wondering if you'd do the same for the interim. Again, not trying to ruffle feathers, but wanting to preserve a little peace. If you want to respond, maybe you could give it a day? —jefftolentino
One more thing: Whenever the wiki does something that gets looked at nationally (crying girl, occupy page etc) NPOV discussions come out of the woodwork, the Wiki is Davis as current Davisites see it Daubert