Jimbo vs Bishzilla Part 2, Mortals is tasty Options

[MaliceAforethought]

**************
*Moar backstory*
**************

From: (Risker)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 12:34:30 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Oh for crying out loud

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r9h262sn8n#>

And have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Jimmy, I don't know if you have noticed, but you're not getting a heck of a
lot of support for this block even from Arbcom, and most of us aren't all
that impressed with Bishonen calling someone a little shit either.

I speak only for myself here, but you missed the boat on this block
entirely. You did not take time to inform yourself of the circumstances
that led to the use of unacceptable language (an edit war when Daedelus kept
putting "Retired" templates on a histrionic editor's userpage), and your
entire response since then is to start off by personally attacking the
person you blocked, and spending days putting words in her mouth. If you
were any other admin, you'd be admonished at minimum. So....consider
yourself admonished by me, at least.

The net result is that you've acted as an enabler to a wannabe admin who
takes great pleasure in taking pointy actions against editors who are
already encountering difficulties - which is also a serious violation of the
civility policy. He's most likely to ride this "Jimbo support" to an RFA,
and then continue his own problematic behaviour as an admin. Meanwhile,
your selective enforcement of civility in this situation has perpetuated the
perception of selective enforcement, and your continued "discussion" with
Bishonen, where you fail to respond to her points and use logical fallacies
in response has only served to reinforce the perception that you are a
capricious and biased leader. Your actions over the last week or so have
been very concerning. This has to stop, as it is starting to affect the
stability of the community. I can foresee the nex block you make being
overturned by some admin you've never heard of...and chances are people will
think it was the right move. That will erode any ability you have to help to
move the community in positive directions.
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:40:23 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Oh for crying out loud

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Risker wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=300128974

<snip>

No comment (yet) on the rest of the e-mail, but the link was a bit
funny (it sent me somewhere else). Requoting here, so maybe it will
work.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:37:15 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Oh for crying out loud

On geez.

So there I was killing time while "on hold" by cleaning out my draft folder
- you know, the one where you stick those emails you'll probably delete when
you've gotten over whatever insanity you're suffering at the moment - and
somebody in the next office plugged in a fan. Which threw the circuit
breaker for our entire hallway. If you want to know what incivility really
is, you should cause a power failure that affects a dozen administrators,
all working on multiple electronic documents at the same time.

I'm working through all the damage that power outage has cost (three
spreadsheets were corrupted and an access database with hundreds of entries
might have to be rebuilt), but the one that hurts most is that Gmail decided
I wanted to send this instead of discard it.

I apologize to everyone on this list, but most especially to Jimmy, for this
outburst, which I never intended to make public.

Risker
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 12:41:30 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Oh for crying out loud

I'd like to say up front that I don't get the Giano-Bishonen crew. I don't
get those who write hagiography about them; at the minimum they can be
obnoxiously counter-productive. At the same time, I really don't get those
who treat them as a public menace; both sides seem committed to a pointless
feud.

At any rate, ArbCom could have established a precedent for admin civility in
the Cla68 omnibus case, but it did not. I would rather establish precedent
before laying down the law against this admin; there are plenty who use
their incivility in more malicious ways (often to drive off ideologically
opposed editors). Singling out this user is the wrong approach.

Frank
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 18:55:46 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Oh for crying out loud

I think it all comes down (again) to differences of opinion about
incivility. I hate to say this, but Geogre (in particular), the others
less so, are rather good at arguing the hind leg off a donkey and
actually making quite a bit of sense along the way.

When that devolves into rhetoric and "looking clever" and using
literary and classical allusions (some of the allusions are horribly
obscure), that can come across as incivil. But sometimes I think it is
people who resent losing an argument, or absolutely hate that kind of
debating style, who turn round and declare people like that to be
incivil (rather than just being honest and saying "stop showing off
and talk in plain English instead").

Not that there isn't sometimes genuine incivility mixed up with it.
But I think some of the dislike is just that - dislike due to not
liking someone's style, rather than due to any incivility. I can't
prove that though.

I personally prefer that style to those who talk straight and cuss,
but that's just me.

Was that hagiographic, Frank? :-)

And you are right. I fear it *is* a long-running feud. Personally, I'd
force people to change their names or accounts. It's the only way you
will start to get past the history. But forcing someone to change
their name or account is rather like forcing them to change clothes.
Or something.
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:05:51 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Oh for crying out loud

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Carcharoth wrote:

<snip>

> When that devolves into rhetoric and "looking clever" and using
> literary and classical allusions (some of the allusions are horribly
> obscure), that can come across as incivil. But sometimes I think it is
> people who resent losing an argument, or absolutely hate that kind of
> debating style, who turn round and declare people like that to be
> incivil (rather than just being honest and saying "stop showing off
> and talk in plain English instead").

What's the word I'm looking for? When someone uses big words and shows
off their superior vocabulary? Pretentious. That's it.

"Micturate on them! Congress the entire sanginous lot!"

I think that translates as:

"Shit on them! Sod the whole bloody lot!"

Though I may have got the "congress" bit wrong.

And I hate it when I have to look up words like "misprision".

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misprision

But I don't stay annoyed for long. I enjoy linguistic stuff too much.

I *can* understand it when this condescending use of vocabulary rubs
others up the wrong way.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 18:17:37 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Oh for crying out loud

I can even link this to the last jump of Jimmy asking us to take a firm
stance on Geogre socking. I just haven't seen Jimmy's view as independent at
all since I know enough about the Geogre/Giano/Bishonen alliance and the
negative interactions between that block of users and Jimmy to understand
where he is coming from. I agree with Jimmy but I must really disagree with
his approach; please leave it to others as acting on it yourself would get
you much headache as you are getting yourself involved day after day.

But, what prompts you Risker to bring this issue in now? 5 days have gone
since the last comments by Jimmy and Bishonen were made. Am I missing
somthing here?

Fayssal F.
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:19:43 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Oh for crying out loud

Risker sent it by mistake, Fayssal. An old draft she presumably wrote back then.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:22:46 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Oh for crying out loud

See my post above in the thread, Fayssal. Power failure while about to
delete this "I know better than to send this when I'm mad" draft resulted in
it being sent instead, and I apologize to everyone, especially Jimmy, for
this screwup.

Risker
----------

From: rlevse(Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 16:33:11 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Oh for crying out loud

I agree with Frank here.

There are three problems with incivility:

a) diff ideas on what is and isn't incivil
b) being incivil only makes a situation worse, there is ALWAYS a
better way to handle
c) those who feel it's okay to be incivil to use it as a release valve
for wiki stress (these people usually support special treatment for
established editors)

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Oh for crying out loud

The post had some validity. I was also thinking of posting something along the same lines about dropping it and moving on.

Jimmy, I can sense by your posts you are feeling some anger and frustration at Bishonen and Giano, but neither of you will convince the other of the correctness of your views, and more importantly, pursuing the issue as it stands will just create or inflame more acrimony among a larger group of editors.


The civility poll is showing plenty of more unambiguous ways to improve civility anyway, such as with new editors.
Cas
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:13:04 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Geogre

My impression on the Bishonen matter is that she remains very upset about
the Jimbo block and would like it withdrawn or apologized for so that she
can feel free to resume contributing. She is looking for guidance on what
to do next, although she does not consider "let it drop and just start in
again" as an option. I've been trying to figure out what I can suggest that
would be helpful and have come up empty so far.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:19:07 -0700
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bishonen

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> My impression on the Bishonen matter is that she remains very upset
> about the Jimbo block and would like it withdrawn or apologized for so
> that she can feel free to resume contributing. She is looking for
> guidance on what to do next, although she does not consider "let it drop
> and just start in again" as an option. I've been trying to figure out
> what I can suggest that would be helpful and have come up empty so far.

I would be happy to try to help, but short of agreeing with her that
blocking an admin for cursing at a user is not a blockable offense, and
should not be, I don't think she's going to be happy. And if I did
reverse myself on that, I don't see that she'd take it gracefully but
would rather gloat about it.

I found the whole experience quite frustrating.
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:08:22 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Geogre, time to act

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Randy Everette wrote:
> Can you guys do something here?

At the moment, Bishonen can make the valid point that she is asking us
to do something about her and Jimbo, but we are instead "opening a
case against Geogre". We need to do things by the book here, or it
will get very messy. Bishonen needs to open a case if she wants one.
Those wanting a case about Geogre need to open one, but if any member
or ex-member of this committee opens a case against Geogre, they will
be breaking ranks and increasing the division already seen among this
committee.

What we have at the moment is a majority of the committee agreeing to
an internal resolution that posting a preamble and motions on-wiki, to
see if a full case is needed, is one way to do this. That will likely
lead to something being done, so any member or former member of this
committee taking unilateral action will likely cause a complete and
utter mess. Please give it time for someone to get the material
together for something to post on-wiki.

Personally, I'd favour a combined post saying that two issues are
currently festering: the Bishonen-Jimbo matter (festering in public)
and the Geogre matter (mostly festering in private), and we would like
uninvolved members of the community to decide whether any requests for
cases are needed.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:20:00 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Geogre, time to act

Sounds like a good approach, but it needs to happen real fast (my idea of
fast is one to two days), otherwise I fear it will only get worse.

The talk on this is just going in circles; time to act.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:31:07 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Geogre, time to act

What you see as circles, others may see as slow forward progress. We
have a motion on the arbwiki that has passed concerning how to start
to deal with this. That *is* clear progress in my eyes.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:26:22 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Geogre, time to act

If so, slow is the key word, way too slow. This is a prime example as to why
the community sees arbcom as doing nothing all too often.

And yes, it is circles. And if the motion has passed why has it not been
enacted yet?

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:37:36 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Geogre, time to act

Because someone needs to write something!

Randy, if you want to see movement on this issue, then go here:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...i/Wpuser:Geogre

Scroll past the unorganised jumble of diffs to the unwritten sections
at the bottom, starting "Preamble".

Write something *reasonable* (that gives the background and the
strongest evidence of misuse of the Utgard Loki account, and then
proposes an admonishment). Do *NOT* propose a desysop - that will only
happen if a full case is needed.

Check here first. Wait for comments. WAIT for comments. Do not rush
this step. If what you have written seems reasonable, and doesn't come
across as a show trial, or as an arbitrator initiating a case, then
post and notify Geogre.

Then wait for community and arbitrator comments. If there is outrage,
either on the part of people like Durova (very likely) or Geogre or
Bishonen (again, very likely), or indeed on the part of others, then
decide whether just an admonishment is enough, or move for a full
case.

Remember that your fellow arbs may not agree with you.

But before you do ANY of the above, before you get all upset about
things moving too slowly, you have to decide whether you are going to
be an arbitrator or not. Coren has moved himself back from being a
"former arbitrator" to being an arbitrator. Kirill has made clear what
his decision has been. You need to decide, or stop posting to this
list and acting like an arbitrator when the public view is that you
have resigned.

The list of current arbitrators is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...Current_members

If you can't decide now, and want to wait, fine. But don't take us to
task for moving too slowly, based on your access to a list that only
sitting arbitrators should be subscribed to.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:50:42 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Geogre, time to act

I'll do whatever I want.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Geogre, time to act

I have to add ot this Randy - I am having a pretty crappy time this week, patient suicide, tax (still) and spending lenghty period in the early hours with a baby miserable with a cold/flue, which has mutilated badly time available for wiki.

I would really like you back on board, but if you are absolutely sure you are not coming back, you can't stay on the list.

Finally, in terms of smooth running of the wiki, the Geogre case is only important to a few people and there are more important things realy. /However/? having said that, I was driving to work today pondering how a moption may be writtnen. I /still/ havent' caught up with last night's 95 messages and there are still loads of things I have to do.
Cas
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:17:40 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Geogre, time to act

I'm really sorry about your week Cas, truly.

But

I see Durova posting more than many arbs have and I think the reasons are
twofold: a) an inflated opinion of herself/she seems to think she has
special access to arbcom and b) arbs that indulge her

I really think the Geogre thing is way overdue. Many cases, like ARBMAC2,
are way more complicated and moved faster than this has. It's just not that
complicated a case. It's eating too much time, so either dump it or take
whatever motion on it is passing, which I believe is the one on filing an
RFAR motion. But I have to ask, if it's so unimportant, why has it had more
emails than most arb cases? I'd wager it's even had more emails than
ARBMAC2.

Plus, there are seeds of us hiding/stalling this case out there in the
community and it could blow up in arbcom's face if it stalls much longer.
Delays are a bane of arbcom and this case is a prime example of why,
remember the Omnibus Admin Abuse Case of 2008? If Brad hadn't come back that
case probably still wouldn't be decided.

I call this the Montgomery/Patton syndrome, where Montgomery liked to talk a
lot, drawing things out, and Patton was a man of action who liked to get
things done. I obviously fall into the Patton camp.

I'll give you guys a final answer on what I'm gonna do by Sunday night my
time, which is 0001 Monday 20 Jul UTC.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:54:46 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Geogre, time to act

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Randy Everette wrote:
> I'm really sorry about your week Cas, truly.

Me too. Hope things get better, Cas.

<snip>

> I'll give you guys a final answer on what I'm gonna do by Sunday night my
> time, which is 0001 Monday 20 Jul UTC.

Thanks, Randy. Sorry to have snapped at you earlier.

Carcharoth

[MaliceAforethought]

*************************************
*A wild case request appears *
*Jimbo thinks he should get special treatment*
*************************************

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:26:37 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] New request: Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen

Bishonen has filed a request:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ock_of_Bishonen

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:27:57 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] New request: Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> Bishonen has filed a request:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ock_of_Bishonen

Point of order:

One of the named parties has access to this mailing list.

Can we sort that out before we go any further?

Carcharoth
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:48:34 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] New request: Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
>> Bishonen has filed a request:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ock_of_Bishonen
>
> Point of order:
>
> One of the named parties has access to this mailing list.
>
> Can we sort that out before we go any further?
>
> Carcharoth

I started an email thread with the sitting arbs, Jimmy, and Bishonen
included to discuss the topic. Jimmy and Bishonen can be removed from
the cc list or included depending on the discussion. Remember to trim
the previous email posts carefully if the material is something that
is not best scene by the involved parties.

Sydney
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:31:54 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] New request: Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:48 PM, FloNight wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
>>> Bishonen has filed a request:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ock_of_Bishonen
>>
>> Point of order:
>>
>> One of the named parties has access to this mailing list.
>>
>> Can we sort that out before we go any further?
>>
>> Carcharoth
>
> I started an email thread with the sitting arbs, Jimmy, and Bishonen
> included to discuss the topic. Jimmy and Bishonen can be removed from
> the cc list or included depending on the discussion. Remember to trim
> the previous email posts carefully if the material is something that
> is not best scene by the involved parties.

You may be using the wrong e-mail address for me FloNight. Could you
use the one in this e-mail, please? And re-send anything already said?

Carcharoth
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:32:48 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] New request: Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen


On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
>> Bishonen has filed a request:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ock_of_Bishonen
>
> Point of order:
>
> One of the named parties has access to this mailing list.
>
> Can we sort that out before we go any further?

I agree that it needs to be sorted out, and I would like to ensure
that discussions dont end up being all private. They need to be
archived properly, especially if the case is actually accepted.

We already have a proposed motion about a similar situation, which I
have now adapted to address the possibility of excluding Jimbo.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...g_an_arbitrator

Also if Jimbo is not going to be the person who is a spectator, I
think we need an ex-arbitrator to do this.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...osal:_admonitor

I'm thinking out loud here.... trying to think of ways to handle this
unusual situation.

Also we should look back at discussions about previous Jimbo RFAR. We
had one earlier this year that fizzled quickly. I think there was one
last year.

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:26:18 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] New request: Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
>> Bishonen has filed a request:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ock_of_Bishonen
>
> Point of order:
>
> One of the named parties has access to this mailing list.
>
> Can we sort that out before we go any further?

Email threads like the one that FloNight initiated, where both
Bishonen and Jimbo are included, can also be archived onto arbcom-l.
meta issues about how we should handle a request/case of this kind
should be kept on arbcom-l, and we can either cc: Bishonen, or keep
her abreast of it. Jimmy does not gain any significant advantage from
knowing how we are *thinking* of procedurally handling the request,
and as soon as we have a clear picture of any procedural aspect, we
can inform both parties.

We only need to keep discussion off this list when the discussion is
about Jimmy or Bishonen.

To avoid problems with unintended redistribution I recommend we have
distinct threads with subjects:

1. Jimbo block discussion between arbitrators
2. Jimbo block discussion with Jimmy
3. Jimbo block discussion with Bishonen
4. Jimbo block discussion with Jimmy and Bishonen

We also need to inform the community that all private submissions need
to go to an individual arbitrator (Roger?) instead of arbcom-l, with a
warning that anything sent to arbcom-l will be sent to Bishonen.

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (FT2)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:19:43 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bishonen/Jimbo: my statement

*This is what I have drafted for RFAR. If required to I'll post it there. I
shall try to ignore or set aside any past issue. To avoid giving oxygen to
drama and because RFAR looks relatively calm right now, I'm submitting my
statement by email even though they are not privacy related.)*


On the whole, there is quite a bit of material to consider in Bishonen's
request. I'm not sure that RFAR is the right context to consider the request
but Bishonen probably doesn't have a better venue to approach other than
Arbcom (who can review Jimbo's role and act as an advisory body to him at
times) or the Mediation Committee.
In brief and as neutrally as I can write it:*
*

*Bishonen*

Has over a number of years wilfully engaged at times in drama escalation and
raising, bad and at times grossly hostile conduct to other users (self
included), and given the impression to me that at times she acts out of past
grudges. I haven't had any recent interaction so I cannot say if this has
changed, but it's been so repeatedly in the past and Jimbo would have
probably also seen some past matters in that way.

These have included repeated breaches of the policy on *no personal attacks*,
repeated breach of the community's policy on *civility*, demanding
re-opening of dispute/s after the other party had repeatedly apologized
(resulting in a fresh major dispute, disruption, wheel war, and ultimate
Arbcom case with no project benefit, back on-wiki) and used her position as
an established editor to build fences round her friends.

Bishonen's stance of "look at my block log" doesn't hold water; the
behaviors are visible to a level that most users would have been sanctioned
at some point. Along with a number of other users Bishonen's conduct has
been in a category of "users who can probably count on an unblock if they
behave that way, where others would not be unblocked". *Cites for each of
these are available if needed. End of negative stuff.*

*Jimbo*

Blocked for 3 hours. This was probably a poor choice of block. It's too
short to mean anything, it doesn't deter in this case or protect; it's hard
to see what the logic of it was by any communal standard. Bishonen is
correct that Jimbo blocks may have unusual standing and are not accorded the
same view as "any other admin". Perhaps the purpose of the block was to make
her aware that as project leader he was starting to feel it was time for a
warning and some "cold water", or that she needed to think and change her
ways (a valid reason), and that other users' actions would lack that effect.


Either way Jimbo has the right to block (of course) but his blocks more than
those of most admins and arbs, need careful reflection. In this case a
formal warning noting the problem conduct, the applicable policies, and
stating what would happen if it repeated, might have been better. Likewise
on the "toxic personality" post, such a label can be quite a lot more
negative when the project leader uses them and may be perceived as applied
to her. It's better to describe behaviors and their impact rather than label
people. *WP:NPOV* makes the same point in the context of article writing.

What's missing for me is a summary of what exactly Bishonen wants from
this. Removal of admin tools? Their more selective use? A formal statement
on Jimbo's comments or his need to think more when acting due to being a
"founder". An apology? Cases go both ways and consider the actions of both
parties, not necessarily just the one side requested.
Would Bishonen herself comply with requests or directions to change her
fundamental approach and be more of an example of better standards? To
follow norms where admins are expected to not flame, not attack, not
escalate disputes, act as peacemaker and advocate of dispute resolution and
not fuel-provider? Even when her own wiki-friends are involved? With
Bishonen herself applying insults, labels, and poorly founded or untruthful
negative "smears" to people and groups fairly freely over time, *will she
accept that this is wrong always including when she does it too, not just
when she happens to not like it**?*
It would be appropriate to hear formally from Bishonen that she would
honestly respect and aim to comply with both word and spirit of any
personally-related remedies, before seeking to avail herself of
Arbitration's benefits in a one-sided manner. (Jimbo surely will based on
track record.) I'd be concerned that there may be a private thought of this
case as a "one way street" wherein Bishonen seeks a formal statement of
other's fault and its remedies, but other significant aspects are able to be
minimized, dismissed or ignored as in the past. Processes aimed at resolving
disputes must be taken as 2 way streets. To consider the last issue, while
mediation cannot review Jimbo's actions, it can help the two of them to
reach a better understanding of what's better, so I don't feel that we're
yet ready for this. I read into Bishonen's dismissal of this a somewhat
questionable motive - she declines because she wants to get a "strike"
against Jimbo, either to make it hard to address her in future (neutering a
possible opponent) or retaliation/status/points. I am not confident that
declining mediation is completely in good faith. Rather, it may be that
mediation would not bring her the confrontational win or skirmish she seeks.
I will add cites to any negative-sounding statement, including
suppositions and hypotheticals, to show past behavior of these kinds, if
Bishonen herself asks it, and let the Committee judge if my statement is
then a reasoned one. FT2, July 21 2009.
-----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:53:19 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

For the record, I very strongly urge again that the ArbCom decline the
case at the present time and push for a proper mediation process.

To be clear on my position: I am prepared *in mediation* to try my very
best to give Bishonen what she wants. I am happy to put a statement
into the block log, and while the exact wording of it might be a
difficult issue, I am confident that if Bishonen is willing to work with
me, we can find a settlement that will please everyone.

Bishonen, I believe the outcome of this case will be very bad for you,
much worse than anything that has happened so far from your own
perspective, and so I urge you to seek an alternative route for a more
peaceful and less contentious resolution than an ArbCom case.
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:52:58 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bishonen/Jimbo: my statement

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:19 AM, FT2 wrote:
> This is what I have drafted for RFAR. If required to I'll post it there. I
> shall try to ignore or set aside any past issue. To avoid giving oxygen to
> drama and because RFAR looks relatively calm right now, I'm submitting my
> statement by email even though they are not privacy related.)

As Jimmy is on this list, you should post it publicly or permit us to
send it to Bishonen.

As your statement is too long to be publicly posted, my suggestion is
that we forward your emailed statement to Bishonen, and you trim it
down and post it publicly when you feel it is necessary.

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:00:49 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

<incl Jimmy and Bishonen>

"The Mediation Committee, which provide formal Mediation for advanced
content disputes." This is not a content dispute. Whether or not MED Cabal
would accept it anyway, I am not so sure.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:20:43 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

I am quite certain that we could find someone trusted in the community
and trusted by both of us to work with us to find a better solution than
an ArbCom case. It strikes me as highly unlikely that there is any
obstacle in terms of finding someone to assist us with a positive email
dialog.
----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:48:52 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I am quite certain that we could find someone trusted in the community
> and trusted by both of us to work with us to find a better solution than
> an ArbCom case. It strikes me as highly unlikely that there is any
> obstacle in terms of finding someone to assist us with a positive email
> dialog.
>

Perhaps. At this point, Jimmy, Bishonen has a grievance that /does/
need to be addressed in some way. MedCom deals in contents only, though
they may suggest an informal mediator if Bishonen agrees to it.

My acceptance is, essentially, provisional. In other words, I believe
that we need to handle the matter if no other method is found shortly --
if only (as I've stated in my acceptance statement). The community
looks to us to fix things like this and, while your position is
exceptional, it's a case that would have been likely accepted if it had
festered so long without a resolution.

-- Coren
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:37:46 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Perhaps. At this point, Jimmy, Bishonen has a grievance that /does/
> need to be addressed in some way. MedCom deals in contents only, though
> they may suggest an informal mediator if Bishonen agrees to it.

Mediation is a valid way forward because I have expressed a willingness
to do everything that I can to address Bishonen's concerns. It is
always a mistake, in my view, to move to a full ArbCom case when there
are other ways forward.

I would appreciate it if you would continue to make clear the
conditional nature of your acceptance, and in fact to encourage Bishonen
to do the right thing here: engage in mediation.

--Jimbo
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:39:21 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

Also,
<redacted> - this is my personal cellphone number. I encourage
Bishonen to call me anytime. Bishonen, will you? If it is helpful, I am
also willing to schedule a particular time for a call.

There is simply no rational reason for this to be an ArbCom case at all,
and there are a number of very good reasons why it shouldn't be.

--Jimbo
-----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:47:37 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>> Perhaps. ?At this point, Jimmy, Bishonen has a grievance that /does/
>> need to be addressed in some way. ?MedCom deals in contents only, though
>> they may suggest an informal mediator if Bishonen agrees to it.
>
> Mediation is a valid way forward because I have expressed a willingness
> to do everything that I can to address Bishonen's concerns. ?It is
> always a mistake, in my view, to move to a full ArbCom case when there
> are other ways forward.
>
> I would appreciate it if you would continue to make clear the
> conditional nature of your acceptance, and in fact to encourage Bishonen
> to do the right thing here: engage in mediation.

Hold up; before saying that mediation is the "right thing" to do, we
would need to find a suitable forum and a mediator who is able and
willing to do it. Also this goes beyond mediation between two people,
as the community has a stake in it due to Jimbo writing policy without
community consensus backing you, which means that they need to be
happy with the outcome as well.

I am quickly looking through the MedCom request archives and talk
pages, but it looks like they dont often take cases like this. Could
we officially ask them for an opinion on this?

Besides MedCom, we have RFC, which are supposed to remedial. We have
already had a community RFC about Jimbo blocks; I am not keen on
having another one. And then we have RFAR.

There is also a disparity between you, "Jimbo", and Bishonen - this
will make it more difficult to find a mediator who can be impartial
enough that both parties agree to the mediation. Do you have any
suggestions?

I've not looked at this request closely yet so some form of mediation
is an option, but it isnt the "right thing" until a equitable
mediation framework has been put on the table.

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:59:01 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:47 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:

<snip>

> Besides MedCom, we have RFC, which are supposed to remedial. ?We have
> already had a community RFC about Jimbo blocks; I am not keen on
> having another one.

Have we? Where?

I'm about to post on-wiki to the request pointing out the RFC option.
I will point out the possibility of an RFC on Jimbo's actions and
conduct and an RFC on Bishonen's actions and conduct. Separate RFCs,
rather than together as an arbitration case would end up being. Also,
as John says, if an equitable mediation framework is possible to set
up, that would be good (better in my view).

But this part of the discussion should be on-wiki, since the community
have a stake here as well. Have one more post to make on another page,
and then I will get to posting at the request.

Carcharoth
-----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:21:48 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> There is simply no rational reason for this to be an ArbCom case at all,
> and there are a number of very good reasons why it shouldn't be.
>

With all due respect, Jimmy, I think you're wrong there. A case is most
certainly not the /optimal/ solution, and probably a mildly undesirable
one, but having this dispute bubbling in the background is worst of all.

-- Coren
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:08:19 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> There is simply no rational reason for this to be an ArbCom case at all,
>> and there are a number of very good reasons why it shouldn't be.
>>
>
> With all due respect, Jimmy, I think you're wrong there. A case is most
> certainly not the /optimal/ solution, and probably a mildly undesirable
> one, but having this dispute bubbling in the background is worst of all.

Well, I see no reason for it to bubble in the background, either. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I'm here and willing to talk, and looking to find a solution that
doesn't involve ArbCom. I'm sure Bishonen isn't going to ArbCom just to
be POINT-y, and would also prefer to find some other resolution.

If that process fails to generate satisfactory results, then the time
might be ripe for an ArbCom case.
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:03:49 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Randy Everette wrote:
> <incl Jimmy and Bishonen>
>
> "The Mediation Committee, which provide formal Mediation for advanced
> content disputes." This is not a content dispute. Whether or not MED Cabal
> would accept it anyway, I am not so sure.

My apologies if others have already noticed this, but MEDCOM
explicitly list this type of situation as a common reason for
rejection:

"Only disagreements over the content of an article?and any peripheral
/ solely "content" issues?will be Mediated by this Committee.
Complaints over an editor's conduct or behaviour are the remit of the
Arbitration Committee and not of the MedCom."

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Common_reasons_for_rejection#Issues_not_appropriate_for_mediation

I cant find any recent MEDCAB cases specifically about users, let
alone two admins, and lack any faith in that approach working.

I dont like the idea of mediation occurring here on arbcom-l, as
failure will mean we will need to proceed with a case and we shouldnt
be pre-judging it based on the antics during mediation.

One approach would be to have an arbitrator become a mediator, who
would recuse if the case proceeded due to failed mediation. One way
to have the arbitrator selected would be to have both parties submit a
list of mediators acceptable to them, ranked, and the person who ranks
highest on both lists becomes the mediator.

Unless Jimmy or Bishonen start proposing suitable mediation *methods*
and an mediator, or resolve their differences without the assistance
of this committee, I think the buck stops with us. This has been
brewing for months now and it isnt healthy.

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:54:05 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Civility and Bishonen

Forwarding the email that I sent to Jimmy in mid June. I'm sending it
to ArbCom-l since Jimmy is the recipient I don't see an issue with him
reading it again. I informed Bishonen by email that I sent this email
to Jimmy, she does not know the specific content.

In the email, I raise the issue of her specific block which is
Bishonen's main concern.

Additionally, I raised the issue of Jimmy depreciating the use of his
admin tools as I see it interfering with his ability to speak to
broader issues as the Community adviser in his role as Founder.

Sydney


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FloNight
Date: Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Subject: Civility and Bishonen
To: Jimmy Wales , "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)", Cas Liber


Hi Jimmy,

Recently Bishonen pinged me on gmail chat to talk about the civility
block that you made on her at the end of May.

I'm including Ira (Newyorkbrad) because I'm certain that she pinged
him to talk about the topic, too. I'm including Cas because of the
feedback that he gave you shortly after the block.

I pretty sure that this past week, Bishonen began signing in to chat
more frequently than she did since the block. And she has been talking
to a number of Wikipedia user about the block.

Evidently, she has completely stopped editing from her main account
since the block except for the post to her talk page on June 7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bishonen

The main issues that she raised with me is that she feels that you
were equally uncivil towards her in your comments as you were
administering the block.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=291531110

Another issue that she raises is that you did not talk to her first
and give her a chance to explain why she was so worked up.

Additionally, cooldown blocks are not very effective since they either
make the user more angry, or often they are done too long after the
fact to be effective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLO...ool-down_blocks

I think everyone will agree that Bishonen's comment was not
appropriate. The issue is that her comment was indicative of a complex
problem. The problem can not be fixed by over reacting to the symptom
instead of the underlying issue.

There are a large number of users that are disillusioned about the
working environment. Often they do not see how they are adding to the
problem, but instead feel the problem when it happens to them and
their wikifriends.

Evidently, after your block, she was subject to some unkind comments
in IRC that she saw before that she could sign out of it. She says
that she was shocked by the comments. I have not seen them so I don't
know if they were as horrible as she remembers or it was her state of
mind at the time.

Additionally, it worries me that we lost a female content contributor.

One of her recent FA, Harrie Bosse, shows the quality of the work he
is capable of doing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Bosse

I would like to get her back and working on articles more and staying
out of administrating because of her burn out.

My concern is that unless the issue is talked through with her, she
will come back even more disillusioned than before and situation will
be worse not better.

One idea that I had was for you to contact her on her talk page with a
comment that takes note of the high quality of her article work and
encourage her to return. In the comment, you could express your
overall concern that people use the highest standards, and express
some regret that you did not take a more measured approach and choice
your words more carefully.

If Bishonen returns and continues to have these type of outbursts, I
recommend that someone approach her quietly and ask her to take a
break. If that is not effective than using ordinarly methods to give
feedback such as RFC would be most appropriate. To my knowledge, she
has started RFArb, but never been a sanctioned party.

Addressing a more general point:

Jimmy, in general I think that using your admin tools is problematic
for you and the user, and that you should depreciate using them. Your
founder status makes your use of the tool take on extra meaning and
places the the individual in a some what peculiar category, giving
them a unusual status and loads of extra attention.

And when you want to discuss broader policy issues such as civility or
paid editing, I think that these individual actions get in the way
because the broader issues can be twisted up with the details of the
use of the tools.

Of course, you may have something else in mind to follow up with
Bishonen. If so, that now might be a good time since she is coming
around again.

This comes at a time when Giano is being voted on to be a member of a
ArbCom suggested Advisory Board. (I'm still considering it, and
haven't supported him). ?So, in the end it will a true shame if she is
left feeling horribly hurt while everyone else moves on.

All the best, in figuring this out. :-)

Sydney
----------

From: (bishzilla)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:03:01 +0200
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

I'd like to say that I don't appreciate the threatening tone, Jimbo.
"I believe the outcome of this case will be very bad for you, much
worse than anything that has happened so far from your own
perspective"--I assume you didn't mean that quite the way it came out.
I do believe you mean well about the note in my block log, but the
fact is I find it very difficult to work with you--to discuss and
argue with you. I felt very browbeaten when we tried. So, no, I'm not
willing. Sorry if that sounds ungracious, but if I'm to have a
settlement about a log note (which is indeed something I want),
somebody will have to work out the wording and just present it to me
as a package deal.

There is also the question of *admonishment*, which is IMO far more
important to the community than my (rather small) matter of a note.

I do realize the outcome of an arbitration case may be "very bad" for
myself; some of the vicious comments by users about me personally on
Jimbo's talkpage have certainly suggested my wikilife is changing, not
for the better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...for_admin_abuse

But I believe arbitration would be good for the project. See the
comments of Coren and others on the RFAR page, and--very striking in
my view--the statement of LessHeard vanU (where I believe he is
referring to Jimbo's de-sysopping of Z-scout), and is *recommending
arbitration*: "If not now, here, then when, where, and by whom can it
ever be done?"

Bishonen

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> For the record, I very strongly urge again that the ArbCom decline the case
> at the present time and push for a proper mediation process.
>
> To be clear on my position: I am prepared *in mediation* to try my very best
> to give Bishonen what she wants. ?I am happy to put a statement into the
> block log, and while the exact wording of it might be a difficult issue, I
> am confident that if Bishonen is willing to work with me, we can find a
> settlement that will please everyone.
>
> Bishonen, I believe the outcome of this case will be very bad for you, much
> worse than anything that has happened so far from your own perspective, and
> so I urge you to seek an alternative route for a more peaceful and less
> contentious resolution than an ArbCom case.
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:28:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

I probably won't have time to take part in this case if accepted, but
I'm puzzled it's being so readily taken.

Take a thought experiment and ask what would happen if a non-admin had
been blocked for three hours for the "little shit" remark. Say that
this user complained about it for months afterwards. Would we say that
it had been "brewing" and needed "closure" by taking the case over the
objections of the blocking admin? I don't think so. By accepting this
case, we seem to be acknowledging that "vested contributors" is the
law of the land, and that Bish deserves a hearing we don't accord
non-admins. We seem to be saying that an admin must prepare for
arbitration if they ever block another admin. In this way, admin
conduct is effectively evaluated by a more lax standard than non-admin
conduct due to the difficulty in sanctioning them. I tend to think
this is a bad thing.

Don't get me wrong; it's not that I'm unwilling to examine Jimbo's
conduct. I would have accepted the Z-scout case in a heartbeat. But
this is not that case; it's the normal sort of stuff that happens
whenever a non-admin is blocked for civility, but I'm open to contrary
arguments.

Good luck to everyone if this does get arbitrated. I doubt it's worth
the cost of admission, but I happy to be proved wrong.

Frank (Cool Hand Luke)
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:32:01 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

Cool Hand Luke, do you mean to copy Bishonen on this too, since everything
else in this thread is copied to her? If not, why copy Jimmy?

Risker

2009/7/22 Cool Hand Luke

> I probably won't have time to take part in this case if accepted, but
> I'm puzzled it's being so readily taken.