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

2011-12-06 10:57:58   [WWW]Pot, kettle, black. —WilliamLewis

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

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 [WWW]my assessment of the events in terms of the officers defending themselves. —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

, u

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

2011-12-07 10:20:27   Jeff, are you stating that you intend to edit unilaterally, without any regard for fellow editors? —JabberWokky

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

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 [WWW]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

2011-12-07 14:55:50   I almost want to accuse Jeff of being a DCR member —StevenDaubert

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.

arrow-insightful.png 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

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

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.