2009-11-24 13:43:15 What was inaccurate on Ari Kalfayan? You can't just delete things you don't like on here. In the future, please add to the pages you edit, don't gut them.
You may have written some useful information. However, as long as you replace the page wholesale, it will just have to be put back as it was. I have neither the time nor patience to integrate this information.
P.S. You don't have to keep on creating new accounts.
2009-11-24 13:52:34 1. the old account was under my UC Davis email address and has been deleted. My new username is dlabs. the changes made last weekend were not by me but a separate user who is familiar with the situation.
To find an adequate solution, lets integrate the old page and updated page and also create discussion page separate from Ari Kalfayan for the now outdated conversation from 2005. This is important since there are multiple statements on the page that are slanderous as well as inaccurate. i believe a discussions page will reflect the conversation as exactly that, not fact as it seems on the current page. how does that sound? —dlabs
2009-11-24 13:53:37 Discussion pages are for discussing the page in question, not discussing the subject the page is about. For example, if you want to discuss the edits you want to make to Ari Kalfayan, you would discuss this at Ari Kalfayan/Talk. However, if you want to talk about Ari Kalfayan himself, it would go on Ari Kalfayan.
Also, why do you need to "clean up" the page? Anyway, by "clean up," you seem to mean removing the opinions of others that reflect negatively on Ari. It's not like people are claiming Ari eats babies for lunch every day and being absolutely serious about it. If anything is being said that is factually incorrect, that's another issue.
Anyway, please write about your concerns at Ari Kalfayan/Talk. —WilliamLewis
2009-11-24 14:11:08 You are claiming that there are slanderous statements on Ari Kalfayan.
Slander is spoken, ephemeral defamation. If anything, you must be alleging libel, which is defamation put into a fixed medium.
The elements of libel are as follows
-
There must be a statement.
-
The statement must name a specific person or group or imply a specific person or group.
-
The statement must be false.
-
The statement must be disseminated.
-
The statement must cause injury.
Additionally, libel against a public figure must be made with actual malice. As an ASUCD senator, Ari counts as a public figure here.
I see plenty of statements on the page that name Ari in particular. These statements are being disseminated. The actual injury and actual malice here are dubious, but for the sake of argument, I'll give you those two as well.
The remaining element is the factual correctness of the statements.
The factual statements on the page are as follows.
- Ari Kalfayan was an ASUCD senator.
- Ari was the president of SOS.
- Ari was affiliated with Student Focus.
- Ari used a laptop at an ASUCD senate meeting.
- Travis Grathwell claims that Ari was using AIM during a senate meeting.
- Jenn del la Vega and Kristen Birdsall requested that Ari not use his laptop during senate meetings.
- Ari claimed he needed to use his laptop to look things up during the meeting.
- Ari said he wouldn't stop using his laptop during senate meetings unless a bill was passed to that effect.
- A bill was passed to that effect, 11-1, with the sole opposing vote coming from Ari.
If any of these statements are incorrect, please let me know. If I missed a factual statement that you believe to be incorrect, please let me know as well.
2009-11-24 15:13:36 I have updated the content of the page to include pertinent personal information as well as updated the picture.
My recommendation based on your notes is to move the discussions on the laptop usage to a page called "Ari Kalfayan laptop usage" because the discussions is on laptop usage, not about Ari Kalfayan as a person.
Furthermore, based on your guidelines, the quotes that people have written are inaccurate and harmful, thus I would ask for them to be removed.
I would also ask you to change the picture to the current picture provided as the page is on Ari kalfayan, not Ari Kalfayan Senator. —dlabs
There is no good reason to create a page on Ari's laptop usage. It's pretty notable that the senate had to pass a bill on it. Thus, it belongs on the main page.
Furthermore, if you are going to claim that there is anything inaccurate on the page, please state EXACTLY what you're talking about. It's getting frustrating when you continue to say things are wrong on the page and yet you refuse to identify what they are. This is the last time I am going to ask you to put up or shut up. I've listed all the statements of fact so it should be easy for you to pick the ones you believe to be false.
Finally, the page on Ari here is about him as he relates to Davis. It seems the most notable thing he did here was being a Senator in ASUCD. The information on what he is doing now is nice in a "where are they now?" kind of way, but it should not be the focus of the page as this wiki is about Davis. —wl
2009-11-24 16:10:43 I repeat myself:
Identify the specific statements on Ari Kalfayan that you believe to be false.
Further discussion with you is fruitless unless you do this or you admit that you do not believe any statement on the page to be false.
2009-11-24 17:39:50 —Let's start from the begining—
"I don't care what you think. There's no rule against it, and until you write a pointless bill to make it so I can't use my laptop I will continue to use it." This was not a direct quote. The conversation was longer than what is quoted. The gist of the conversation was that I did not agree with their opinion and that laptop usage was allowed. I did not say "I don't care what your think".
If you were to paraphrase the statement rather than quote it, it would follow the rest of the conversation more closely. Based on that comment, I am called "an ass" which is a personal attack.
The statement "Senators wrote a bill to keep Kalfayan from using his laptop. It passed 11-1, with Kalfayan voting "No.":" is false. Kirsten Birdsal who authored the bill wrote " for note, it's not necessarily against him."
Although I acknowledge that I am the catalyst of the Laptop Usage discussion, the author of the bill directly states that the Laptop bill was not a personal attack thus the conversation should be moved off the Ari Kalfayan page. At the time, this discussions was pertinent to the senate and the students involved. Looking at this almost 5 years later, the subject is not Ari Kalfayan Laptop Usage, but is the brown act and how to protect the integrity of ASUCD as a institution. The discussion then turns to Ari Kalfayan ASUCD Senator vs Ari Kalfayan's personal page.
For my purposes, I would ask you to either allow me to change the main picture to my own or the picture of the senate meeting with my laptop in front of me. Is there a problem with my recommendation?
These are the minutes from the meeting. If we are going to frame this discussion, lets make sure its accurate and titled appropriately.
"Kalfayan said I am using the computer unless you pass legislation that states otherwise. It has helped me in the past. I disagree with passing something else that's useless. I really feel that there are some things that we shouldn't be passing. Considering that we have spent an hour and thirty minutes on events, I can't even really concentrate on what's at hand. There are thirteen and fourteen events thrown at me at one time during public announcements, with all these dates and times that it is really easy to get lost. I really want a different way of doing this, that's how I feel." —dlabs
2009-11-24 18:24:33 Thank you for identifying the statement you believe to be false, namely that "Senators wrote a bill to keep Kalfayan from using his laptop. It passed 11-1, with Kalfayan voting 'No.'" You justify your belief that this statement is false by noting that Kirsten Birdsal, who authored the bill, wrote that "for note, it's not necessarily against him."
After reviewing the minutes from that meeting, reading what other people have written about the meeting, and consulting with people who were at the meeting, it is clear to me that while the bill does not name Ari specifically and numerous senators said the bill was to deal with issues besides Ari's use, the bill was written in response to Ari's actions. Numerous people who were in attendance attest that Ari was specifically asked not to use a laptop during the meeting. When he responded that it would take a bill to prevent him from doing so, such a bill was written and passed, with Ari providing the sole dissenting vote. The alternative you present is present on the page already.
If you have any other statements of fact that you dispute, please mention them. In the future, however, I ask that you not allege defamation without identifying precisely what you believe to be defamatory. If you don't do that, we can't work with you and your removals of alleged defamation will simply be undone if it isn't obvious why what you removed is defamation. Also, defamation doesn't mean stuff that you don't like that you're trying to remove. Please don't use this term to mean that again.
As for personal attacks, someone calling someone else "an ass" for specific things they've done is generally allowed here. That's Arlen's opinion and he's entitled to it. He stands by his words under his real name, in fact.
As for the picture, again, please remember that Davis Wiki is about Davis and not just people who once went to school here. You will be primarily remembered in Davis as an ASUCD senator, not for what you are doing now. —WilliamLewis
Comments:
You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.