The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Jimbo vs Bishzilla Part 2, Mortals is tasty
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 15th July 2011, 2:20pm
Post #1


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



**************
*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

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 15th July 2011, 2:47pm
Post #2


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



*************************************
*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. 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 15th July 2011, 2:49pm
Post #3


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Here we learn that Risker Anne:
  • Works on Wikipedia tasks while at work.
  • Secretly despises Jimbo Wales.
  • Takes extensive time to write out detailed e-mail that she has no intention of sending.
  • Works in the risk management function at a facility that is electrically incapacitated by plugging in a small fan.

This might be one of the Top 4 or 5 leaks.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 15th July 2011, 3:26pm
Post #4


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:50:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

I did mean to. Please forward it. Using my phone in between practice MBE halves.

On 7/22/09, Risker wrote:
> Cool Hand Luke, do you mean to copy Bishonen on this too,
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:52:53 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

Resending on behalf of Cool Hand Luke, who unintentionally omitted Bishonen
from this email.

Risker

2009/7/22 Cool Hand Luke

> I probably won't have time to take part in this case if accepted, but
-----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:26:38 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

CHL, please focus on the test. The wiki will still be here a week from
now. I promise.

Newyorkbrad
-----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:19:38 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

bishzilla wrote:
> I'd like to say that I don't appreciate the threatening tone, Jimbo.

I am very very sorry you took it that way; this was not my intention at
all. What I am expressing to you is not a threat of any kind, it is
merely my assessment of the situation. I will be much more accomodating
in a mediation situation and pledge to work as hard as I can reach some
kind of mutually satisfactory compromise.

If this goes to an ArbCom case, I don't think you'll achieve anything
that you value. That is my estimation. Your conduct was egregious and
the ArbCom is very likely - in my personal opinion - to criticize some
aspects of the block.

I am willing, I believe, to go much further than they will in trying to
set things right for you.

> "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

No, I actually meant it exactly as I wrote it. I do believe that. I
think that people are embarrassed and offended by your conduct both
before and after the block, and that the ArbCom result confirming that
your conduct was unbecoming an admin is likely to result in (a) the
block being confirmed and (b) you being desysopped. Indeed, if we go to
a case, I am going to push for that, because I think you've gotten off
very lightly so far, and your conduct since the block is very far out of
line from what our community standards for admins are.

Whereas if you enter mediation and work with me, I think you'll end up
looking quite good. I am not a man of pride - I am willing to look bad
if that will help Wikipedia in some way. Just come and work with me and
with someone we both trust, and let's at least try.

> 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.

Ok, is there someone you trust whom you'd like for me to work with on
that wording?
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:14:28 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Ok, is there someone you trust whom you'd like for me to work with on
> that wording?

I note that Ryan Postlethwaite has offered to mediate, and in light of
Bishonen's offer that somebody (hopefully she will find Ryan acceptable)
work out the wording and present it to her as a package deal (so that
she doesn't have to talk to me directly about it, something she finds
unpleasant), I hope that ArbCom will agree that progress is being made
such that a case is premature.

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

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:54:56 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool

I am hereby permanently giving up the use of the 'block' tool. I will
remain an administrator so that I can do some other admin things from
time to time (most importantly, viewing deleting revisions), so there is
no need to do anything technical. I just won't block anyone ever again.

I am doing this voluntarily of my own free will after consideration of
the meaning of the block and my overall role in the project. In the
past, it was very useful to block people in order to sometimes set an
example. I believe that the recent block of Bishonen is a perfect
illustration of this, because it demonstrated - and many people have
expressed gratitude for it - that admins are to be held to a high
standard of conduct.

Nonetheless, it is not emotionally or otherwise important to me to
continue with it. I have rarely used it, and it isn't that important to me.

My primary purpose here is to completely and totally undermine and
eliminate what I consider to be a silly distraction and misdirection
away from real issues.

There will be those who misinterpret this. You, ArbCom, will be falsely
accused of threatening me with it. There will be false rumors of a
palace coup. I hope that you will help me to squash those rumors as
they arise.

----

Is there anything else that anyone would like, in order to change your
vote from "accept" to "reject" on the Bishonen arbitration?

I believe that we are in process in terms of finding a "note in the
block log" that will satisfy Bishonen's concerns. Another concern of
hers was my use of the block too generally. That's off the table now.

What else?
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:27:33 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool

n Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Jimmy Wales<jwales at wikia-inc.com> wrote:
> I am hereby permanently giving up the use of the 'block' tool. ?I will
> remain an administrator so that I can do some other admin things from
> time to time (most importantly, viewing deleting revisions), so there is
> no need to do anything technical. ?I just won't block anyone ever again.

I'm speaking generally, and not in relation to the specifics of this
(potential) case so I'm not ccing Bishonen.

In the email that I wrote to you mid June, I asked you to consider
depreciating the use of all your tools because I think that you will
be better able to speak to the larger issues without having to address
the minute details in each instance.

Would it be possible to desysop yourself voluntarily. How often do you
need to read deleted material?

I truly do think that it will be better for you and the Community if
you voluntarily give up use of all special access tools permanently.
No CU or OS access either. When these situations come up then it
becomes a distraction for no other reason that you were the person
doing it.

And I think that the software has the potential to let people have
read only access for deleted edits. Could be possible to get that for
you from a developer now? Or get it turned on for Wikipedia English on
a specific date?

I think that it is worth the trouble to do this because I think that
it will take the heat off of you in ways that will make you more
effective in the role that you are best at performing.

Sydney
-----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:38:10 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool

FloNight wrote:
> Would it be possible to desysop yourself voluntarily. How often do you
> need to read deleted material?

I do it almost every day. I think a lot of people aren't aware of how
involved I am in a lot of behind the scenes BLP stuff, etc. I think
that most of you don't realize how closely I follow various ArbCom
cases, even ones that I don't comment on (because I prefer not to have
too much influence).

It is my belief, by the way, and I'm not sure about this, that the
Founder flag is essentially "root" access, and I can therefore
physically do anything anyway. I have a lot of reasons for not wanting
to give up that flag, reasons having nothing at all to do with English
Wikipedia.

(Note that most people on English Wikipedia are also completely unaware
of the role I play in working with people in other langauges.)

I don't see any reason to do anything technically, but I appreciate your
points.

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

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:43:59 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool

FloNight wrote:
> I think that it is worth the trouble to do this because I think that
> it will take the heat off of you in ways that will make you more
> effective in the role that you are best at performing.

Also, I don't think there is any actual "heat" on me that would push me
to technically give up user rights that I'm not using.
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:47:34 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] JW/Bishonen case parties

I hate to suggest broadening this request, but given that at least one
arbitrator who has voted to accept has commented that "the behavior of
Daedalus969, Jimbo, and Bishonen should be looked at," I think we need to
give notice of the case to Daedalus969.

Newyorkbrad
-----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:48:11 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> FloNight wrote:
>>
>> I think that it is worth the trouble to do this because I think that
>> it will take the heat off of you in ways that will make you more
>> effective in the role that you are best at performing.
>
> Also, I don't think there is any actual "heat" on me that would push me to
> technically give up user rights that I'm not using.
>

It would be symbolic. But if not possible then we need to think of
something else.

As I said, you can speak to broader issues better if you don't need to
answer to the details of particular situations where you are involved.

Sydney
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:06:33 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

It's not the 3-hour block, it the issues of civility, how to handle it,
Jimbo's role, that have been festering and this is the best case we'll get
to address those issues.

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

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:07:39 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] FW: regarding the possibility of mediation

Forgot to add Bish, she should see this one too.

r/
Randy Everette

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Everette
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:07 PM
To: 'Arbitration Committee mailing list'
Cc: 'Jimmy Wales'
Subject: RE: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

It's not the 3-hour block, it the issues of civility, how to handle it,
Jimbo's role, that have been festering and this is the best case we'll get
to address those issues.

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

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:09:39 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool

Jimmy:

Do you want to post this on wiki? In the RFAR in your section would be good.

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

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:59:22 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I am hereby permanently giving up the use of the 'block' tool. ?I will
> remain an administrator so that I can do some other admin things from
> time to time (most importantly, viewing deleting revisions), so there is
> no need to do anything technical. ?I just won't block anyone ever again.

While giving up the block tool may address the immediate situation, it
leaves unresolved whether you will use the desysop capability next
time. (e.g. the Zscout370 desysop)

As this committee has established level II procedures for a desysop,
any committee member can initiate a quick desysop if there is no
internal opposition in the committee.

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

I think it would also be helpful if you pledged to not use desysop.

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

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:01:29 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> FloNight wrote:
>> Would it be possible to desysop yourself voluntarily. How often do you
>> need to read deleted material?
>
> I do it almost every day. ?I think a lot of people aren't aware of how
> involved I am in a lot of behind the scenes BLP stuff, etc. ?I think
> that most of you don't realize how closely I follow various ArbCom
> cases, even ones that I don't comment on (because I prefer not to have
> too much influence).
>
> It is my belief, by the way, and I'm not sure about this, that the
> Founder flag is essentially "root" access, and I can therefore
> physically do anything anyway. ?I have a lot of reasons for not wanting
> to give up that flag, reasons having nothing at all to do with English
> Wikipedia.
>
> (Note that most people on English Wikipedia are also completely unaware
> of the role I play in working with people in other langauges.)
>
> I don't see any reason to do anything technically, but I appreciate your
> points.

If you are desysoped, you could ask the devs to grant you the
'browsearchive' permission, which would let you see deleted pages.
There are a number of other permissions that you could have that allow
you to continue to function normally after a desysop.

The founder role is a recent thing, and I strongly doubt that it is
equivalent to "root". The "founder" role is given all permissions,
however the concept of "root" is someone who can alter the underlying
database by going outside the system constraints, and I doubt that the
developers have given you that capability.

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

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:58:11 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Definition of case scope for the Jimbo-Bishonen case

Due to the high chance that this case will go off the rails and drag
in everything, and the request is currently ready to be accepted, I am
wondering whether we should collaborate either privately or publicly
on a "scope" statement (not on arbcom-l, obviously) either before or
after the case is accepted, but before the case is opened.

If we do it now, it could be in a new subsection within the
"Arbitrators' opinion.." section where we outline the case that we are
accepting.
If we do it after, we could collaborate on this on the main case page,
and open the case after we have agreed on the scope.

A long list of aspects we may want to include within the scope of this case are:

Daedalus969's provocation
Bishonen's ownership of Giano's user page
Bishonen's civility
Bishonen's civility on her own talk page
Bishonen's civility in this incident
Bishonen's administration activities
Jimbo's block
Jimbo's block and prior blocks
Jimbo's block and prior administration activities
[[WP:OWN]]
[[WP:USERTALK]] (and the civility poll discussion about civility on
ones own user talk)
[[WP:NPA]]
[[WP:JIMBO]]
[[WP:POINT]]
[[WP:BLOCK]]
[[WP:COOLDOWN]]

If we can tie some of these (or others) into a paragraph, we might be
able close this a lot quicker (if it is accepted).

This thread is only for discussion of the concept of defining a scope
before a case is opened.

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

From: (Risker)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:11:53 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Definition of case scope for the Jimbo-Bishonen case

John, without commenting on any of the below, Jimmy is getting this email;
would you consider sending this to Bishonen as well? Alternately, I think
we are going to have to revert to the "each username" option. Thanks.

Risker

2009/7/23 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>

> Due to the high chance that this case will go off the rails and drag
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:14:36 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool

Jimmy:

This is a very constructive proposal but I'd like to suggest that it
goes a little further.

I recommend that you give up your administrative bits (sysop, CU and OS)
and retain only the founder bit to concentrate entirely on developing a
purely constitutional role. I do not know precisely what the founder bit
involves, but I would not expect you to ever use any residual powers
(de-sysop, block etc) that have been rolled up into it.

This would be in addition to the reform suggestions recently made to the
ArbCom elections (I'll draft something shortly on that).

If this is acceptable to you, it would be better to announce this as a
package indepedent of the arbitration case. Voluntary relinquishment of
these powers will render much of the arbitration case moot, enabling us
to deal with it in much more general terms.

Roger
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:30:44 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Definition of case scope for the Jimbo-Bishonen case

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Risker wrote:
> John, without commenting on any of the below, Jimmy is getting this email;
> would you consider sending this to Bishonen as well?? Alternately, I think
> we are going to have to revert to the "each username" option.? Thanks.

Did you see the bottom of my email:

"This thread is only for discussion of the concept of defining a scope
before a case is opened."

I dont mind if Bishonen sees my email, however it is a meta issue, and
intended to quickly see whether the idea has any value.

Jimmy does not benefit from reading this as it happens. The scope
elements I outlined merely help to illustrate the potential scopes,
and there is no surprises there. I don't want to discuss the actual
scope privately - I would prefer a public collaboration to define the
scope.

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

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Definition of case scope for the Jimbo-Bishonen case

don't forget definition of involved smile.gif
Cas
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:53:15 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Definition of case scope for the Jimbo-Bishonen case

1) WP:CIVIL what is/isn't incivil and how should incivility be handled,
2) what is Jimbo's role in Wikipedia and what authority should he have,
3) what state is the community atmosphere and how does it affect user/admin
conduct,
4) what is the standard for user and admin conduct?
5) How to apply admin actions by different admins more consistently.

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

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:00:13 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Definition of case scope for the Jimbo-Bishonen case

This is why we don't define scope, because we can never agree on what
it should be...

Carcharoth
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:01:33 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Definition of case scope for the Jimbo-Bishonen case

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Carcharoth<carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> This is why we don't define scope, because we can never agree on what
> it should be...

Is it worth us trying to set broad boundaries on it?

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

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:03:55 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Definition of case scope for the Jimbo-Bishonen case

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:01 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
>> This is why we don't define scope, because we can never agree on what
>> it should be...
>
> Is it worth us trying to set broad boundaries on it?

Probably best discussed on-wiki.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (bishzilla)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:18:42 +0200
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

> I am very very sorry you took it that way; this was not my intention at all.
> What I am expressing to you is not a threat of any kind, it is merely my
> assessment of the situation. I will be much more accomodating in a
> mediation situation and pledge to work as hard as I can reach some kind of
> mutually satisfactory compromise.

However--you assess the situation by flourishing carrots and sticks at
me. That's hardly proper. Thus:

*Stick*:
> Your conduct was egregious and the
> ArbCom is very likely - in my personal opinion - to criticize some aspects
> of the block.
[aspects of my conduct, I think you mean, right?]

*Carrot*:
> I am willing, I believe, to go much further than they will in trying to set
> things right for you.

*BIG STICK*:
> I think
> that people are embarrassed and offended by your conduct both before and
> after the block, and that the ArbCom result confirming that your conduct was
> unbecoming an admin is likely to result in (a) the block being confirmed and
> (b) you being desysopped. Indeed, if we go to a case, I am going to push
> for that, because I think you've gotten off very lightly so far, and your
> conduct since the block is very far out of line from what our community
> standards for admins are.

*Carrot*:
> Whereas if you enter mediation and work with me, I think you'll end up
> looking quite good.

*Siren song*:
> I am willing to look bad if
> that will help Wikipedia in some way. Just come and work with me and with
> someone we both trust, and let's at least try.

Been there: we *have* tried. I'm still frazzled from it.

>> Ok, is there someone you trust whom you'd like for me to work with on that
>> wording?
>
> I note that Ryan Postlethwaite has offered to mediate, and in light of
> Bishonen's offer that somebody (hopefully she will find Ryan acceptable)
> work out the wording and present it to her as a package deal (so that she
> doesn't have to talk to me directly about it, something she finds
> unpleasant), I hope that ArbCom will agree that progress is being made such
> that a case is premature.

No. I think I must have been unclear: I'm not suggesting anything
about the wording, especially I'm not suggesting, and have not
suggested, that you and I work together on any wording. (See my
talkpage.) At the same time, you really shouldn't say, or even think,
that I find it *unpleasant* to *talk* with you--as if you were
untouchable or something! Please don't take that to be my attitude. I
was merely trying to say I find it horribly stressful to try to
*argue* with you, and to fend off these misunderstandings. Note, for
instance, that I have already said some things which you have
ignored--skated right across them, in fact. Namely:

1) That I would value a blocknote signed by the committe *more highly*
than one signed by you.
2) That the issue of the committee admonishing you is much more
important than the blocknote thing.

You tell me the ArbCom is likely to criticize some aspects of my
conduct. Well, I agree that they are, and, you know, I'm all right
with that. Some criticism seems reasonable. It also seems reasonable,
to my mind, that you be arbitrated. Anyway, if you're not a man of
pride, you can surely avoid arbitration. Like this: give up your sysop
tools (for good, not for those ever-mooted six months) and invite an
admonishment from the committee: you need one, and they need to issue
one. In my estimation, that is. Then there would be nothing left to
arbitrate, and I don't see that there would be much interest left for
the media, either.

Just like at the end of Bishonen/block, I'm now simply trying to stop
talking, and would rather not be pushed into going on. I ask everybody
on the committee to *not assume that silence gives consent*, in case
there are further misunderstandings. Just read what I actually write,
please, on this list and on the RFAR page. I really do find the
pressure to keep contradicting/explaining intolerable. Jimbo, please
read carefully. Please.

But this stressed-out feeling of mine is hardly evidence that progress
is being made... ! That's utterly bassackward. Nor does it show an
RFAR case is premature; more like post-mature. As somebody said, the
arbcom is where the buck stops.

Bishonen (has stopped talking)
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:40:34 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

Actually, I'm all carrots and no sticks. :-)

bishzilla wrote:
> *Stick*:
>> Your conduct was egregious and the
>> ArbCom is very likely - in my personal opinion - to criticize some aspects
>> of the block.
> [aspects of my conduct, I think you mean, right?]

No, I meant some aspects of the block. I didn't warn you in advance,
and I could have. I didn't follow the proper procedure of notification,
although that's pretty minor, it might still be noteworthy.

And that's not a stick, it is an opinion. I don't have a stick to wield
here.

> *Carrot*:
>> I am willing, I believe, to go much further than they will in trying to set
>> things right for you.

Yes, that is a carrot.

> *BIG STICK*:
>> I think
>> that people are embarrassed and offended by your conduct both before and
>> after the block, and that the ArbCom result confirming that your conduct was
>> unbecoming an admin is likely to result in (a) the block being confirmed and
>> (b) you being desysopped. Indeed, if we go to a case, I am going to push
>> for that, because I think you've gotten off very lightly so far, and your
>> conduct since the block is very far out of line from what our community
>> standards for admins are.

Again, that's not a stick. It's an explanation of what is likely to happen.

> *Carrot*:
>> Whereas if you enter mediation and work with me, I think you'll end up
>> looking quite good.

Yes, again, a carrot. I am trying very hard to bend over backwards here
to make you happy, as I believe that's what is required of us all in a
situation like this. How can I help?

You seem concerned, first and foremost, with your reputation. Ok, let's
work to improve that.

> *Siren song*:
>> I am willing to look bad if
>> that will help Wikipedia in some way. Just come and work with me and with
>> someone we both trust, and let's at least try.
>
> Been there: we *have* tried. I'm still frazzled from it.

We haven't tried to work with a mediator.

>>> Ok, is there someone you trust whom you'd like for me to work with on that
>>> wording?
>> I note that Ryan Postlethwaite has offered to mediate, and in light of
>> Bishonen's offer that somebody (hopefully she will find Ryan acceptable)
>> work out the wording and present it to her as a package deal (so that she
>> doesn't have to talk to me directly about it, something she finds
>> unpleasant), I hope that ArbCom will agree that progress is being made such
>> that a case is premature.
>
> No. I think I must have been unclear: I'm not suggesting anything
> about the wording, especially I'm not suggesting, and have not
> suggested, that you and I work together on any wording. (See my
> talkpage.) At the same time, you really shouldn't say, or even think,
> that I find it *unpleasant* to *talk* with you--as if you were
> untouchable or something! Please don't take that to be my attitude. I
> was merely trying to say I find it horribly stressful to try to
> *argue* with you, and to fend off these misunderstandings.

Then let's not argue. Let's work with a mediator who can act as a
helpful go-between to make sure it stays productive.

>Note, for
> instance, that I have already said some things which you have
> ignored--skated right across them, in fact. Namely:
>
> 1) That I would value a blocknote signed by the committe *more highly*
> than one signed by you.

I understand that. I just think it is extremely unlikely that you would
get any sort of block note at all from ArbCom. The block was
well-within policy, you violated a core policy, committed a blockable
offense, and got blocked for it.

> 2) That the issue of the committee admonishing you is much more
> important than the blocknote thing.

I understand that you wish to punish me. I am sorry that you feel that
way, but I am also doing everything I can to resolve the situation with
you directly.

> Like this: give up your sysop
> tools (for good, not for those ever-mooted six months)

Done.

> and invite an
> admonishment from the committee: you need one, and they need to issue
> one.

How would you suggest that be worded? I am likely to agree, and I am
willing to hear your proposal.

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

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:11:56 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> bishzilla wrote:

<snip>

>> and invite an
>> admonishment from the committee: you need one, and they need to issue
>> one.
>
> How would you suggest that be worded? ?I am likely to agree, and I am
> willing to hear your proposal.

With respect to both of you, while the wording of a block log note
(presumably to be placed by another administrator now) can be sorted
out by you two and others, and you can both work on some joint public
statement if you wish (and I sincerely hope you manage to work
something out), the wording of any admonishments (or other sanctions)
issued on either side by the arbitration committee will be decided by
us, not by you two.

The case request can't hang in limbo for ever, so please either ask
for it to be suspended if you think you can sort something out, or
find a mediator who can listen in to talks between the two of you and
keep order if things get out of control, and help guide things to a
conclusion (having 14 people listening in on this conversation isn't
really going to help - you need proper mediation). The public
discussion clearly didn't help, and the case would be more of the
same, only worse.

But if you can't sort out a joint statement, or find that elusive
mediator you can both accept, then a case will be needed. Judging from
what I've seen so far, I think mediation will help, but as I said,
only if you can agree on someone to do that mediation. I am going to
suspend my acceptance of the request for 24 hours (or longer if either
party asks for an extension), but if no further movement or progress
is made, then I'll switch back to accepting the request.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (bishzilla)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:34:10 +0200
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

Carcharoth, I've tried to make it as clear as I possibly can that I
will not attempt further mediation with Jimbo. My attempts--both our
attempts, no doubt--on the Bishonen/block page to find common ground
only achieved stress and greater distance. This time round, I
practically begged Jimbo to stop. Again to no avail. The amount of
misunderstanding between us is completely disheartening, and is
wearing out the good faith with which I started. All I wish is that
the people on the fence at the RFAR page should realize it's no go,
and jump off. Please don't you start at me too; I've had just about
enough of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from Jimbo. Please read my latest e-mail
and then his; surely to goodness the combination tells you what I'm
saying? If not, here it comes: *No mediation because it doesn't work
and there is no connection, no common ground, and no mutual
comprehension.*

Bishonen
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:44:28 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

Bishonen, my point here was the difference between public mediation
and private mediation. In private, you could both say things that you
might not want to say in public. I followed some of the public
discussion that you and Jimbo had, and I agree, it was not productive.
But I do still think that private mediation with someone you can both
accept, might work (I saw signs that the private discussion here by
e-mail was slowly getting somewhere). That is why I suspended my
acceptance for 24 hours. Please take that time to sleep on it and
consider it. If at the end of that period, you still feel the same
way, that is fine. I just wanted you two to have that final option
before a case opens (though that still depends on whether and how the
undecided arbs change their minds).

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:58:50 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

Carcharoth wrote:
> With respect to both of you, while the wording of a block log note
> (presumably to be placed by another administrator now) can be sorted
> out by you two and others, and you can both work on some joint public
> statement if you wish (and I sincerely hope you manage to work
> something out), the wording of any admonishments (or other sanctions)
> issued on either side by the arbitration committee will be decided by
> us, not by you two.

Yes, of course. She said that she'd be willing to drop if it I would
ask for an admonishment. None of us can guarantee that the committee
would agree to do that at all.

> The case request can't hang in limbo for ever, so please either ask
> for it to be suspended if you think you can sort something out, or
> find a mediator who can listen in to talks between the two of you and
> keep order if things get out of control, and help guide things to a
> conclusion (having 14 people listening in on this conversation isn't
> really going to help - you need proper mediation). The public
> discussion clearly didn't help, and the case would be more of the
> same, only worse.

I agree. I believe Ryan Postlethwaite is standing by to help, and I'm
happy to consider other reasonable candidates as well.

> But if you can't sort out a joint statement, or find that elusive
> mediator you can both accept, then a case will be needed. Judging from
> what I've seen so far, I think mediation will help, but as I said,
> only if you can agree on someone to do that mediation. I am going to
> suspend my acceptance of the request for 24 hours (or longer if either
> party asks for an extension), but if no further movement or progress
> is made, then I'll switch back to accepting the request.

Thank you.
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:59:40 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

<incl bish and jimbo>

If one or both of you is unwilling to accept mediation of any kind, then I'm
fairly certain a full arb case will be the result.

r/
Randy Everette
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nableezy
post Fri 15th July 2011, 3:42pm
Post #5


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed 27th May 2009, 2:03am
From: Somewhere west of Lake Chicago
Member No.: 11,908

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 15th July 2011, 9:49am) *

Here we learn that Risker Anne:
  • Works on Wikipedia tasks while at work.
  • Secretly despises Jimbo Wales.
  • Takes extensive time to write out detailed e-mail that she has no intention of sending.
  • Works in the risk management function at a facility that is electrically incapacitated by plugging in a small fan.
This might be one of the Top 4 or 5 leaks.


For about 10 seconds I really liked Risker. Then I read her next e-mail. Speaking truth to power is only a virtue if you actually do it, not just imagine yourself doing it (and perhaps mistakenly doing so).

Rlevse's Cartman moment is what, to me, makes this one of the top leaks. But Im probably a bit less mature than the rest of yall.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisoff
post Fri 15th July 2011, 3:59pm
Post #6


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu 18th Feb 2010, 11:20pm
Member No.: 17,248



I like the part about Jimbo giving Bishonen his cellphone number and pleading with her to call. Even scheduling a time. Love gone wrong?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 15th July 2011, 4:15pm
Post #7


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:00:49 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

bishzilla wrote:
> If not, here it comes: *No mediation because it doesn't work
> and there is no connection, no common ground, and no mutual
> comprehension.*

You made two requests of me in order to drop the ArbCom case - I agreed
with one of them unconditionally and asked you to clarify the other but
indicated a willingness to go along with that one as well.

I don't think it is correct to say that there is no connection, no
common ground, and no mutual comprehension.

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

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:09:39 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Definition of case scope for the Jimbo-Bishonen case

I am unaware of any wide-ranging dispute that requires or makes it
useful for ArbCom to open a wide-ranging case. What we have here is a
single admin who blatantly and egregiously violated policy, got a 3 hour
block for it, and is endlessly creating drama about it.

I recommend that if a case is accepted - and I still argue that it
should not, as it is still quite premature to do so - it should be very
narrowly construed.



Randy Everette wrote:
> 1) WP:CIVIL what is/isn't incivil and how should incivility be handled,
> 2) what is Jimbo's role in Wikipedia and what authority should he have,
> 3) what state is the community atmosphere and how does it affect user/admin
> conduct,
> 4) what is the standard for user and admin conduct?
> 5) How to apply admin actions by different admins more consistently.
>
> r/
> Randy Everette
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:10:59 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >
> ?> Like this: give up your sysop
>> tools (for good, not for those ever-mooted six months)
>
> Done.

Is this
* "that is an acceptable outcome of mediation", or
* "yes, I will desysop.", or
* "I have desysoped"
?

(I'm still catching up, and wondering what is being promised;
apologies if it has been clarified in another thread)

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

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:13:47 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Definition of case scope for the Jimbo-Bishonen case

Jimmy, please keep out of this thread, or post your thoughts on-wiki.
It is highly inappropriate of you to attempt to influence the scope of
the case through the use of this mailing list. You and Bishonen, as
potential parties, should only opine on case scope through on-wiki
comments.

Carcharoth

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I am unaware of any wide-ranging dispute that requires or makes it
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:23:28 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:10 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> >
>> ?> Like this: give up your sysop
>>> tools (for good, not for those ever-mooted six months)
>>
>> Done.
>
> Is this
> * "that is an acceptable outcome of mediation", or
> * "yes, I will desysop.", or
> * "I have desysoped"
> ?
>
> (I'm still catching up, and wondering what is being promised;
> apologies if it has been clarified in another thread)

It's on-wiki, actually.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:40:21 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Definition of case scope for the Jimbo-Bishonen case

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> Jimmy, please keep out of this thread, or post your thoughts on-wiki.
> It is highly inappropriate of you to attempt to influence the scope of
> the case through the use of this mailing list. You and Bishonen, as
> potential parties, should only opine on case scope through on-wiki
> comments.

I agree, especially as it was made quite clear that this thread was
for the concept, rather than the discussion of the scope.

Two solutions for this:
1. Jimmy sends his comment to Bishonen as well
2. We invite Bishonen to make a private statement on her preferred
scope as well, sent to the arbitrators individually so Jimmy is not
copied in.

Thoughts? Other options?

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

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:46:01 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Definition of case scope for the Jimbo-Bishonen case

Sounds fair to me. Either option ok.

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

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:50:00 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] regarding the possibility of mediation

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:10 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>> >
>>> ?> Like this: give up your sysop
>>>> tools (for good, not for those ever-mooted six months)
>>>
>>> Done.
>>
>> Is this
>> * "that is an acceptable outcome of mediation", or
>> * "yes, I will desysop.", or
>> * "I have desysoped"
>> ?
>>
>> (I'm still catching up, and wondering what is being promised;
>> apologies if it has been clarified in another thread)
>
> It's on-wiki, actually.

I see "I have decided to simply give up the use of the block tool permanently."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...he_use_of_block

That isnt a desysop, but it does prevent this situation happening again.

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

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:11:33 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bishonen/Jimbo case motion

Just as a heads up, I'm probably going to propose some sort of motion on the
Bishonen/Jimbo case, in an effort to resolve this in the shorter rather than
longer term. I'm still drafting the motion in my head, but if I formulate
something I'm satisfied with I will try to post it today, because I'll have
very limited availability over the weekend because of the conference here.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:33:48 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bishonen/Jimbo case motion

Did you see where Bishonen is leaving town starting on July 25 and
will not have good internet access while away? So, unless we add it
and pass it today, she will not see it.

Sydney
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:49:25 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bishonen/Jimbo case motion

I saw that after I sent my e-mail. Do we know how long she's away for?

B.
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:09:22 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bishonen/Jimbo case motion

Evidently a week.

Sydney
---------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:40:00 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bishonen/Jimbo case motion

It probably makes sense for us to table on-wiki discussion until she's back
... what does anyone think?

I'm still hoping that with the crystallization of positions that's occurred,
I can come up with a mutually acceptable wording now.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (Stephen Bain)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:52:56 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bishonen/Jimbo case motion

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Newyorkbrad
(Wikipedia) wrote:
> Just as a heads up, I'm probably going to propose some sort of motion on the
> Bishonen/Jimbo case, in an effort to resolve this in the shorter rather than
> longer term.? I'm still drafting the motion in my head, but if I formulate
> something I'm satisfied with I will try to post it today, because I'll have
> very limited availability over the weekend because of the conference here.

I had been thinking of this too. A final decision arriving in two
months time after our brains are melted from the drama is unlikely to
look substantially different from anything we can put up now by way of
motion, and we have all the facts at our disposal, so let's save
everyone the bother.

Areas to cover:
* the inappropriateness of Bishonen's comment, with recognition that
she has agreed it was not appropriate
* the inappropriateness of Jimbo's "toxic personalities" remark, even
if intended to mean "toxic behaviours" it was careless
* the nature of the block as being wholly within the discretion of any
administrator to place, save for the failure to notify Bishonen of it

And possibly also, the folly of Daedalus' placing the tag on the pages
in the first place, although he has acknowledged this.

That should cover it. Is there anything more that would be essential
ground to cover? I'm not talking about the bloated scope that some
seem to have in mind, just the necessities.

--
Stephen Bain
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bishonen/Jimbo case motion

Looks okay - I was thinking of another finding about involved admin use of tools, and a Reminder that using tools in a Borderline violation on a person who /could/ be construed as involved is best avoided - hence a remedy of a Reminder not to do this in the future.
Cas
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:50:26 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool

Jimmy: may I have your reaction to this please?
Roger

Roger Davies wrote:
>
> Jimmy:
>
> This is a very constructive proposal but I'd like to suggest that it
> goes a little further.
>
> I recommend that you give up your administrative bits (sysop, CU and
> OS) and retain only the founder bit to concentrate entirely on
> developing a purely constitutional role. I do not know
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:36:26 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool

Jimmy:

Interesting thoughts. My atititude is always that it is better to
relinquish things graciously and gracefully when there is little heat
than to do so with one's tail between one's legs when the heat is on.

It would resolve many underlying issues if you gave up all permissions
except "Founder" now. If I understand what you are saying correctly, the
Founder bit gives you all the stuff that you can do with the other
permissions anyway so you can still read deleted messages and so forth.

Otherwise, there is a permanent tension between Founder and the other
permissions you hold and a promise not to block isn't going to resolve that.


Roger

(Just catching up on the back story here.)

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> FloNight wrote:
>
>> I think that it is worth the trouble to do this because I think that
>> it will take the heat off of you in ways that will make you more
>> effective in the role that you are best at performing.
>>
>
> Also, I don't think there is any actual "heat" on me that would push me
> to technically give up user rights that I'm not using.
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:14:23 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Pulling together

I don't know whether the ACDP case has knocked the confidence out of us
but it must look to an impartial observer as if we're weak and
indecisive, wringing our hands and splitting hairs over the simplest
things.

Rather than operating as ruggedly independent individuals, can I suggest
we do our utmost to find maximum consensus for a while? We're coming
under flak for Geogre, we're undecided about Jimmy Wales/Bishonen, we
have cases involving two arbitrators and so forth. It doesn't look good
and unless we're careful this will define us as a committee and be the
2009 committee's legacy.

Roger
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:27:37 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Pulling together

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> I don't know whether the ACDP case has knocked the confidence out of us
> but it must look to an impartial observer as if we're weak and
> indecisive, wringing our hands and splitting hairs over the simplest
> things.

It does look like that, doesn't it?

> Rather than operating as ruggedly independent individuals, can I suggest
> we do our utmost to find maximum consensus for a while? We're coming
> under flak for Geogre, we're undecided about Jimmy Wales/Bishonen, we
> have cases involving two arbitrators and so forth. It doesn't look good
> and unless we're careful this will define us as a committee and be the
> 2009 committee's legacy.

I'm going to accept Bishonen's request and (maybe) will vote to
desysop Geogre pending a case. I will accept a full case if he appeals
the desysop. I've also reworded your motion, Roger, to make it
clearer. I may also propose a motion saying that Utgard Loki was
intended to be an alternate account, and pointing out the dates
involved - or ask if I can add dates to the two sets of evidence
presented so far (bainer's and Nathan's).

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:43:01 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Pulling together

Like I always say, we quick to make quick, decisive actions in matters. The
arb hating dramatists have been quite active and we need to stop it. We
talked way too long about Geogre and now it's gotten us this mess. Gerard
got archived but he'll cause more trouble and we'll have to deal with his BS
until we decide to act on him. Lately there have been more
amends/clarification requests at RFAR than I can ever remember. It used to
be a lot if there were 6 total, now 12 are routine. We're stagnating and
dragging our feet on the simplest stuff.

Durova thinks that the one post Risker made where she calls Loki as Geogre
and then responded to YM that it was a mistake was a coverup. If we handle
Geogre via motion, I don't see the need for a case on Geogre.

The APCD/Kirill debacle definitely sent us for a spin but I feel we are now
recovering.

The Jimmy/Bish case needs to be resolved, undecideds/non voters need to go
vote. Bainer RFAR was archived.

All that being said, I do feel we're starting to recover from the tailspin
APCD and its fallout sent us into.

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

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:56:32 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cases involving arbitrators

Carcharoth wrote:
> Bishonen: accept the case she has filed against Jimbo. I don't
> actually think she is taking us on, but she is taking Jimbo on. The
> case could turn out well or badly for either of them, as I've been
> trying to tell them.
>
Best declined or dealt with by motion. This is a non-case that is being
milked for all its worth for disruptive/political reasons. It is
currently a drama-fest and will only get more complicated and more
polarised if it turns into a full case.


Roger
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:00:07 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cases involving arbitrators

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
>> Bishonen: accept the case she has filed against Jimbo. I don't
>> actually think she is taking us on, but she is taking Jimbo on. The
>> case could turn out well or badly for either of them, as I've been
>> trying to tell them.
>>
> Best declined or dealt with by motion. This is a non-case that is being
> milked for all its worth for disruptive/political reasons. It is
> currently a drama-fest and will only get more complicated and more
> polarised if it turns into a full case.

Dealt with by motion, yes, and Brad has offered to do that. The
problem with that, in my mind, is that Bishonen was admonished before
by motion (for blocking FT2), and bitterly objected to not having a
full case. She will likely do the same this time round if the request
is dealt with by motion, even if the motions are favorable to her.

And really, Roger, that request is not a drama-fest. There have been
far worse dramas than that, even this year.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:25:30 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] RFAR status

Geogre: The motions all pass. I've now commented, and I don't think my
comments will change anyone's mind, although they probably should be given
an hour or two to try. The case is being declined, but we should let those
who have not voted at all, or who have commented but not voted, now do so in
light of the outcome of the motions, plus Risker's new statement.

Bishonen/Jimbo: I'm still thinking through the best wording for a motion
and hope to post something in the next day or so, unless anyone has a better
idea.

Date delinking amendments: I've supported the John motion that Randy
posted, and am thinking about further motions. Anything I'm going to do,
I'll do by tomorrow night.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:58:08 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] RFAR status

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Newyorkbrad
(Wikipedia) wrote:

<snip>

> Bishonen/Jimbo:? I'm still thinking through the best wording for a motion
> and hope to post something in the next day or so, unless anyone has a better
> idea.

Note that at the mediation page that Ryan stated, Jimbo said he would
accept mediation and Bishonen has said she won't, and has said that
she thinks motions by Brad would work here (or something to that
effect). This is good because it renders moot my concern that Bishonen
would object to dealing with this by motion.

[Jimbo: please don't say anything here - we can see what you've said
on-wiki and that is enough. If you feel you *have* to say something,
then please copy Bishonen in on what you say]

> Date delinking amendments:? I've supported the John motion that Randy
> posted, and am thinking about further motions.? Anything I'm going to do,
> I'll do by tomorrow night.

Please remember that the other users in the date delinking case are
not all in the same situation as User:John. I won't say more than
that, other than to say that John Vandenberg did a lot of good work on
this case, and I'd be wary of retreating too far here, as it could
have a domino effect with a lot of other people from that case
appealing.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:55:11 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

(I am not sure where to find the "Alternate Mailing List", and I'm not going
to take the time to address this individually to 14 people, so Jimbo and
anyone else who's recused is on your honor to stop reading now.)

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Below please find a rough cut at a motion to cut through the logjam in the
Bishonen / Jimbo Wales case. I'm still not sure whether we should accept or
decline this, but if the idea of a motion has any traction, the below is as
good as any.

Comments of every nature are welcome, on each individual paragraph. I don't
know which topics we want to cover, if any.

No pride of authorship whatsoever is involved here; I'm looking for a way to
resolve this.

Thanks,
Newyorkbrad

----------------------

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the statements of
Bishonen and Jimbo Wales and all the other views submitted in this matter,
and determines as follows:

(A) The Arbitration Committee strongly reaffirms its support for the precept
that all editors should treat each other with [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] and must
[[WP:NPA|avoid personal attacks]]. It is particularly important that
[[WP:ADMIN|administrators]] set a good example for other editors in this
regard.

(B) Editors making egregious or repeated personal attacks on others are
subject to sanctions, including[[WP:BLOCK|blocking]]. However, blocking is
usually unwarranted for isolated remarks, even where they would have been
better left unsaid, and especially where the uncivil comment was made hours
before the block and has not been repeated.

© Because of his special historical importance and governance role within
the English Wikipedia, actions taken and comments made by {{Admin:Jimbo
Wales}} typically receive a high degree of attention and deference, and may
be perceived as exercises of Jimbo Wales' special status as founder/project
leader, even when not intended as such.

(D) The Arbitration Committee takes note of Jimbo Wales' recent voluntary
statement [[link|on his talkpage]] that he will no longer exercise his
ability as an administrator to block users.

(E) An arbitrator will make an appropriate entry in [[User:Bishonen]]'s
block log that the block of Bishonen on May 22, 2009 should be disregarded.
----------

From: (rlevse)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:02:30 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

Can't support.. We need to address the issues, but this just keeps the status quo in place:

1) how to handle civility
2) Bish's "shit' comment was not an isolated case, she has a long history
3) there's a great underswell of what Jimmy's role inthe community should be and it needs airing.
...just for starters

We need a full case.

R
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:37:07 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

I can live with what NYB has written. I don't think the community, or the
committee, is anywhere near ready to tackle the civility issue, and we
already had one civility case this year where we never got around to
desysopping the admin (at least that's how I interpret it, YMMV). And I
don't think the arbitration pages are the place to "air" the Jimmy question,
at least not when we aren't sure where we want that to go.

Further, there's no way a full case can be concluded before Wikimania, if we
try to tackle those two issues. That case would make Date Delinking look
like a walk in the park, and we will have a hard time closing it before
candidates are posting their nomination statements for next year's
committee.

Risker/Anne
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:44:17 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Newyorkbrad
(Wikipedia)wrote:
>
> Comments of every nature are welcome, on each individual paragraph.? I don't
> know which topics we want to cover, if any.
>
> No pride of authorship whatsoever is involved here; I'm looking for a way to
> resolve this.
>
> Thanks,
> Newyorkbrad

Thanks Brad. As written it is good, and will help.

> ----------------------
>
> The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered?the?statements of
> Bishonen and Jimbo Wales and?all the other?views submitted?in this matter,
> and?determines as follows:
>
> (A)?The Arbitration Committee?strongly reaffirms its support for the precept
> that all editors should?treat each other with?[[WP:CIVIL|civility]] and must
> [[WP:NPA|avoid personal attacks]].? It is particularly important that
> [[WP:ADMIN|administrators]] set a good example for other editors in this
> regard.
>
> (B)?Editors making egregious or repeated personal attacks on others are
> subject to sanctions, including[[WP:BLOCK|blocking]].? However, blocking?is
> usually?unwarranted for isolated remarks, even where they would have been
> better left unsaid, and especially where the uncivil comment was made hours
> before the block and has not been repeated.
>
> ©?Because of his?special historical importance and governance role within
> the English Wikipedia,?actions taken and comments made?by {{Admin:Jimbo
> Wales}}?typically receive a high degree of attention and deference, and may
> be perceived as exercises of Jimbo Wales' special status as founder/project
> leader, even when not intended as such.

I'm not so keen on this as written; it is suggesting that he did not
do the block in his capacity of project leader. That would only be a
valid assumption if his block was routine, following best practise,
and he didnt have a history of taking action only in extraordinary
situations.

> (D) The Arbitration Committee takes note of Jimbo Wales' recent voluntary
> statement [[link|on his talkpage]] that he will no longer?exercise his
> ability as an administrator to block users.

For clarify, it would be nice to indicate that this statement can as a
consequence of this block.

> (E)?An arbitrator will make an appropriate entry in [[User:Bishonen]]'s
> block log that the block of Bishonen on May 22, 2009 should be disregarded.

... if we archive this request onto a separate motions page (like the
SlimVirgin one)
the log should link to that page.

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

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:47:43 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Risker wrote:
> I can live with what NYB has written. I don't think the community, or the
> committee, is anywhere near ready to tackle the civility issue, and we
> already had one civility case this year where we never got around to
> desysopping the admin (at least that's how I interpret it, YMMV). And I
> don't think the arbitration pages are the place to "air" the Jimmy question,
> at least not when we aren't sure where we want that to go.

Actually ... this is a good point that we might want to include in the
introductory notes to the motions.

We can be quite clear that the community is working through some of
these issues in a productive manner, and we don't usurp those by
dragging the community into arbitration to conclude these discussions
by a vote of arbitrators.

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

From: (rlevse)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:49:06 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

The potential delays do not concern me. I am not afraid to tackle what could be the most important case in wiki history. Not taking the case will only delay the inevitable.

R
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:49:24 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

Could someone provide some links to ongoing productive discussions? Maybe
including them in the motion, could help point some people in that general
direction.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:51:12 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

Not taking a side for the moment, but thinking out loud.

What possible outcomes for the case are there, that would be sufficiently
beneficial to warrant going through the process in this instance?

I'm not asking that anyone prejudge the case by saying what outcome they
WOULD favor if a full case were opened. I'm asking what outcomes even
theoretically might reasonably be possible, whose merit would be pursued in
the case.

Newyorkbrad

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:

> The potential delays do not concern me. I am not afraid to tackle what
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:51:12 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

I protest very strongly. The block is valid and should NOT be disregarded.

Malice's Note: So much for Jimbo's honor.
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:52:37 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

I give up. This problem is not solvable.

It may be moot anyway. I suspect we may have seen the last of Bishonen,
after today.

Newyorkbrad

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> I protest very strongly. The block is valid and should NOT be disregarded.
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:53:07 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I protest very strongly. ?The block is valid and should NOT be disregarded.

Jimmy ... NYB included this thread on this list with a comment
directed at you to not even read this thread.

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

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:53:55 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

I apologize - I didn't see Brad's note suggest that I not read this.

I encourage anyone to include Bishonen in this discussion if that's
needed for fairness.

But come on now, this is absurd. The block was 100% valid and she was
egregiously violating policy. If there's going to be a motion to the
contrary, I hope that I will at least be asked for a defense of it.

I can quote policy chapter and verse: policy is quite clear on this point.

Reprimanding me for a valid block is... simply unthinkable.
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:54:11 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

Meh, my fault, I should have realized my disclaimer at the top of the first
message, wouldn't carry through to subsequent ones.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (rlevse)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:55:03 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

Jimmy you REALLY need to stay out of threads related to this case.

On another note, Bish has a history of these comments and the block prob was valid.

R
-----------

From: (rlevse)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:55:31 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

What happened today?

R

---- "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" wrote:
> I give up. This problem is not solvable.
>
> It may be moot anyway. I suspect we may have seen the last of Bishonen,
> after today.
----------

From: (rlevse)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:57:20 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

I mean happened TO HER?

I know she's a Geogre buddy, but eh.

R

---- rlevse wrote:
> What happened today?
>
> R
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:58:02 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

The Geogre stuff. They are good wiki-friends and have collaborated
extensively.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:58:17 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Newyorkbrad
(Wikipedia) wrote:
> Could someone provide some links to ongoing productive discussions?? Maybe
> including them in the motion, could help point some people in that general
> direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Areas_for_Reform

- civility / incivility / poorly written policies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Development_committee

- a ACPD-like group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Governance_review

- Jimbo, etc.

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

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:01:26 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

The problem is easily solvable, actually.

(A) The Arbitration Committee strongly reaffirms its support for the
precept that all editors should treat each other with
[[WP:CIVIL|civility]] and must [[WP:NPA|avoid personal attacks]]. It is
particularly important that [[WP:ADMIN|administrators]] set a good
example for other editors in this regards

(B) Editors making egregious or repeated personal attacks on
others are subject to sanctions, including[[WP:BLOCK|blocking]].
Blocking is usually unwarranted for isolated remarks, and so it is valid
in many cases to take into account an editor's overall pattern of
behavior over a long period of time.

© Bishonen has a long history of problematic behavior at odds with
civility policy.

(D) Because of his special historical importance and governance role
within the English Wikipedia, actions taken and comments made by
{{Admin:Jimbo Wales}} typically receive a high degree of attention and
deference, and may be perceived as exercises of Jimbo Wales' special
status as founder/project leader, even when not intended as such.

In this case, the block was intended as such, and as an expression of
policy on admin behavior.

(E) This block is therefore fully affirmed by the Arbitration Committee
as an expression of policy. Administrators may not curse at users under
any circumstances, and quality contributions do not excuse them from
civility policy.

(F) The Arbitration Committee takes note of Jimbo Wales' recent
voluntary statement [[link|on his talkpage]] that he will no longer
exercise his ability as an administrator to block users.

(G) Bishonen is instructed to accept Jimbo's generous offer to note her
block log with a mutually agreeable statement about the incident.
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:01:59 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I apologize - I didn't see Brad's note suggest that I not read this.

And the subject of this thread was not sufficient for you to think
very carefully about whether it would be appropriate for you to read
.... ??

And then comment to comment on this thread ... ??

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

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:02:46 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Jimmy Wales<jwales at wikia-inc.com> wrote:
>> I protest very strongly. The block is valid and should NOT be disregarded.
>
> Jimmy ... NYB included this thread on this list with a comment
> directed at you to not even read this thread.

Yes, I am sorry I overlooked that. But still, I strongly object.

This block was 100% within policy. You are about to unleash the most
major change to policy ever in the history of Wikipedia, despite my
incredibly generous offers to Bishonen. This is just not a good idea.
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:03:32 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> The problem is easily solvable, actually.
<snip>

You apologise, and then keep commenting on this thread after having
been informed.

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

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:04:41 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

rlevse wrote:
> Jimmy you REALLY need to stay out of threads related to this case.
>
> On another note, Bish has a history of these comments and the block prob was valid.

Well, I obviously agree. If ArbCom issues a ruling that *even Jimbo*
can't validly block an admin for egregious personal attacks, then I hate
to think of the aftermath.

What needs to be done here is a full acknowledgement that throughout
this entire process, Bishonen has been wrong. I have bent over
backwards to try to calm and appease her, perhaps unwisely, but
absolutely with kindness and forgiveness in my heart.

If ArbCom rules that this block is invalid, I just have no idea what
we're doing here.
-----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:05:11 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>> I protest very strongly. ?The block is valid and should NOT be disregarded.
>>
>> Jimmy ... NYB included this thread on this list with a comment
>> directed at you to not even read this thread.
>
> Yes, I am sorry I overlooked that. ?But still, I strongly object.
>
> This block was 100% within policy. ?You are about to unleash the most
> major change to policy ever in the history of Wikipedia, despite my
> incredibly generous offers to Bishonen. ?This is just not a good idea.

you may have overlooked it, but even in this email, you are still
using your access to influence the discussions here.

you mentioned that maybe Bishonen should be included in this
discussion for fairness, but do not CC her in your later messages.

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

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:06:49 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

John Vandenberg wrote:
> You apologise, and then keep commenting on this thread after having
> been informed.

I am offering my opinions - I think Bishonen should be informed and free
to comment as well. I seek no special position here, because I think
that I am absolutely right and within firm grounds.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Fri 15th July 2011, 4:20pm
Post #8


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 15th July 2011, 9:49am) *

Here we learn that Risker Anne:
  • Works on Wikipedia tasks while at work.
  • Secretly despises Jimbo Wales.
  • Takes extensive time to write out detailed e-mail that she has no intention of sending.
  • Works in the risk management function at a facility that is electrically incapacitated by plugging in a small fan.
This might be one of the Top 4 or 5 leaks.
You forgot "makes up flatly incredible stories to avoid culpability for sending an email she had second thoughts about". I have never heard of a power failure causing gmail to send a draft email, nor am I aware of any mechanism by which such a thing could happen. She is clearly talking out of both sides of her ass when she spews that nonsense. The fact that Risker, one of the top Arbitrators, lies, and lies so transparently, to Jimbo and the rest of the Arbs, is startling indeed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nableezy
post Fri 15th July 2011, 4:29pm
Post #9


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed 27th May 2009, 2:03am
From: Somewhere west of Lake Chicago
Member No.: 11,908

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jimbo @ 29 Jul 2009 21:01:26) *

(E) This block is therefore fully affirmed by the Arbitration Committee
as an expression of policy. Administrators may not curse at users under
any circumstances, and quality contributions do not excuse them from
civility policy.
...
(G) Bishonen is instructed to accept Jimbo's generous offer to note her
block log with a mutually agreeable statement about the incident.


That was hilarious. Thanks for that.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisoff
post Fri 15th July 2011, 4:37pm
Post #10


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu 18th Feb 2010, 11:20pm
Member No.: 17,248



Always though Risker was incompetent. Now i know she's flaky and corrupt.

Reading all this, no wonder arbs can't agree on anything and never get anything done. too much time spent on emailing and emailing and emailing and cross-emailing

How come so many of these email leaks involve Risker?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 15th July 2011, 4:41pm
Post #11


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



**************************************************
*In which Malice laughs so long and hard over Jimbo's various*
*hysterics that he can't come up with a pithy thread summary*
**************************************************

From: (Wizardman)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:07:21 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

To comment on NYB's motion (not touching everything else) I'm tepid on the
matter, but could probably support. While bishonen's done many things as
rlevse has said, did this particular instance warrant a block? Maybe not,
but my question is does this solve the larger issue, and I am not positive
one way or the other yet. I'll mull i tover.
~W
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:08:00 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

Feel free to forward to her. It's a matter of fundamental principles
here: Admins cursing at users is not something that I will ever
countenance as valid. I will change policy by fiat if necessary, to
make this clearer than it already is. (But it is already 100% clear
that this was a valid block.)
----------

From: (Wizardman)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:15:26 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

I'm considered a hardass on civility, but if we're going to start blocking
users for three hours, when it's been six hours after calling people "little
shits" or whatever, that sounds like a step towards blocks being primarily
punitive. There's drama written all over that.
~W
-----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:19:31 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] General policy discussion on admin behavior

To sort this out from the details of the Bishonen case, perhaps it will
be better to have a thread about admin behavior. This is too important
to get bogged down in technicalities because there is a case at hand.

We need to make a very strong and very firm statement that it is NEVER
ok for admins to behave the way that Bishonen has behaved over a very
long period of time, culminating in a blatant direct personal attack on
someone she was in conflict with: cursing at a user.

Policy is already very clear on this. Let me quote from policy:

1. "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with
respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally
ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable
opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking."

Bishonen is very well aware of policy, as an active admin who has been
reprimanded and reminded many times over the years. (Diffs available
upon request.)

2. "Egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." This was a direct
insult of an ordinary user by an administrator during the course of a
conflict. There seems to be no debate at all - not even from Bishonen -
that the attack was egregious.

3. Questions have arised as to whether the block was preventative or
punitive. It was 100% preventative, and in particular, I invite the
committee to review:
"Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot
continue and will not be tolerated."

I did this, and quite effectively. All admins are now on notice (and
many have thanked me for it) that insulting users is not acceptable
behavior, that this behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated.
But more importantly *Bishonen* is on notice that her past behavior is
no longer acceptable.

----

For the general consideration of the committee - do you really want to
formally enshrine as precedent that admins can behave in this way,
despite clear policy the contrary, so long as they are noisy and
politically well-connected? I can't conceive of the loss of face that
will happen as a result.

Users depend on you to defend our policies of kindness and respect, and
to be kind and firm about them. It is not ok for admins to abuse
others, ever.
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:20:25 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

Wizardman wrote:
> I'm considered a hardass on civility, but if we're going to start
> blocking users for three hours, when it's been six hours after calling
> people "little shits" or whatever, that sounds like a step towards
> blocks being primarily punitive. There's drama written all over that.

It matters significantly who is doing it. You might want to consider
affirming the block and additionally desysopping Bishonen.
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:20:48 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Wizardman<wizardmanwiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm considered a hardass on civility, but if we're going to start blocking
> users for three hours, when it's been six hours after calling people "little
> shits" or whatever, that sounds like a step towards blocks being primarily
> punitive. There's drama written all over that.

I agree. The content of Jimmy's comments here are pushing me towards
accepting this case, and the inappropriateness of commenting here, and
threatening to change policy by fiat, doesnt help.

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

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:23:04 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Wizardman wrote:
>> I'm considered a hardass on civility, but if we're going to start blocking
>> users for three hours, when it's been six hours after calling people "little
>> shits" or whatever, that sounds like a step towards blocks being primarily
>> punitive. There's drama written all over that.
>
> I agree. The content of Jimmy's comments here are pushing me towards
> accepting this case, and the inappropriateness of commenting here, and
> threatening to change policy by fiat, doesnt help.

I would prefer that the ArbCom make a motion to instruct Bishonen to
accept my incredibly generous offers.

If we go to a case, it's going to be very ugly indeed. (Not a threat,
just a fact.)

If you want to change policy to make it ok for admins to curse at users,
then please discuss that amongst yourself, take a vote on it, and let me
know. I would respect that.

--Jimbo

Malice's note:Bonus points if you counted how many times ye olde Jimbo has referred to himself as incredibly generous.
-----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:26:30 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

Please note that I am speaking as a list moderator here. Jimmy, you are out
of line. You have been repeatedly asked to stop posting in this thread.
Please stop now. I have had no hesitation in sending arbitrators to their
rooms without dinner for misbehaving on this list, and you're not going to
be an exception to that.

Risker
-----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:30:09 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> I would prefer that the ArbCom make a motion to instruct Bishonen to
> accept my incredibly generous offers.
>
> If we go to a case, it's going to be very ugly indeed. (Not a threat,
> just a fact.)
>
> If you want to change policy to make it ok for admins to curse at users,
> then please discuss that amongst yourself, take a vote on it, and let me
> know. I would respect that.
>

Jimmy, for crying out loud. Be reasonable for a minute. Nobody here is
claiming that.

Many of us, however, believe that _you_ having done the block _in those
circumstances_ was a mistake. Punitive blocks are iffy to begin with,
even with the reasonable "dissuasive" argument; that you would do one is
delicate. That you did one /at that time/ and in this manner was an error.

You may be right on the principles, but I think you goofed in the
implementation. There are a number of things you can do to help with
the toxic elements, but getting down into the trenches to duke it out
with the tools is no longer a tenable position. Any value a block you
did might have had is de facto drowned by the fact that you are you.

Try to understand that we're trying to act in a way that says "Bish was
wrong. Civility is more important for admins. Jimbo shouldn't have
done _that_ block. Play nice."

-- Coren / Marc
----------

From: (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:33:53 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

I was about to ask a list mod to remove him.

R

---- Risker wrote:
> Please note that I am speaking as a list moderator here. Jimmy, you are out
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:11:06 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

Risker wrote:
> Please note that I am speaking as a list moderator here. Jimmy, you are
> out of line. You have been repeatedly asked to stop posting in this
> thread. Please stop now. I have had no hesitation in sending arbitrators
> to their rooms without dinner for misbehaving on this list, and you're
> not going to be an exception to that.

In a subsequent message, Coren makes a request of me - may I respond to
that?
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:14:25 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool

Jimmy:

Seeing as you're around and commenting, may I ask you to respond to this
please?

Roger

Roger Davies wrote:
>
> Jimmy:
>
> This is a very constructive proposal but I'd like to suggest that it goes a little further.
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:17:05 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

2009/7/30 Jimmy Wales

> Risker wrote:
> > Please note that I am speaking as a list moderator here. Jimmy, you are
> > out of line. You have been repeatedly asked to stop posting in this
> > thread. Please stop now. I have had no hesitation in sending arbitrators
> > to their rooms without dinner for misbehaving on this list, and you're
> > not going to be an exception to that.
>
> In a subsequent message, Coren makes a request of me - may I respond to
> that?
>

I can live with that; Coren was probably writing his message while I posted
and did not see my message until afterward, and I expect he would like a
response.

Risker
-----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:20:24 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool

Roger Davies wrote:
> Jimmy:
>
> Seeing as you're around and commenting, may I ask you to respond to this
> please?

Yes, and I'm sorry that I hadn't seen it before. Not sure how that
happened.

>> I recommend that you give up your administrative bits (sysop, CU and
>> OS) and retain only the founder bit to concentrate entirely on
>> developing a purely constitutional role. I do not know precisely what
>> the founder bit involves, but I would not expect you to ever use any
>> residual powers (de-sysop, block etc) that have been rolled up into it.
>>
>> This would be in addition to the reform suggestions recently made to
>> the ArbCom elections (I'll draft something shortly on that).
>>
>> If this is acceptable to you, it would be better to announce this as a
>> package indepedent of the arbitration case. Voluntary relinquishment
>> of these powers will render much of the arbitration case moot,
>> enabling us to deal with it in much more general terms.

I am happy to give up those powers, but I don't think this arbcom case
has anything to do with any of that at all. If there is a movement here
to dethrone me, then please let's just talk about that separately and
not do it under the guise of an ArbCom case.

To speak of traditionally "law" here, ArbCom is a delegation of my
personal powers within the community since day one. I am free to
dismiss ArbCom at will. I have no intention of doing that, mind you.
But there is no need to "overthrow" the constitutional order, if reform
is sought.


My block of Bishonen was a good block, and I haven't seen any serious
arguments to the contrary. She was very far outside of policy, and has
been a problem for a long time.

If you want to talk about me giving up de-sysop, rollback, etc., then
that's a separate matter, and one that I'm willing to discuss.

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

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:24:04 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

I responded to him privately.

I apologize to everyone for the intensity of my remarks tonight, but I
feel incredibly strongly about this situation.

I made a block 100% within policy. Nonetheless, I offered, by way of
appeasement to a very problematic admin who has abused a lot of poeple,
a number of different measures. I have offered to everyone that I will
do whatever I need to do in order to avoid an ArbCom case.

I think that this whole situation could turn very political - and I see
no reason for that to happen.

If you, ArbCom, want me to put a note in the block log, then I will do
so. I think the way this is being framed, as some kind of "conflict"
between Bishonen and me, requiring some kind of order - as if it is
against my agreement - is unnecessarily divisive.
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:28:51 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unilateral offer, nothing asked in return

If you would like, I will put this note into Bishonen's block log:

"the block of Bishonen on May 22, 2009 should be disregarded"

I am doing absolutely everything I can do make sure that everyone is as
completely happy about all this as possible, short of a ruling by ArbCom
which will lead to the result that admins may no longer be blocked for
violation of civility policy. (Which is what this is fundamentally
going to do, if we are not careful.)
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:06:22 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Roger Davies wrote:
>> Jimmy:
>>
>> Seeing as you're around and commenting, may I ask you to respond to
>> this please?
>
> Yes, and I'm sorry that I hadn't seen it before. Not sure how that
> happened.
>
>>> I recommend that you give up your administrative bits (sysop, CU and
>>> OS) and retain only the founder bit to concentrate entirely on
>>> developing a purely constitutional role. I do not know precisely
>>> what the founder bit involves, but I would not expect you to ever
>>> use any residual powers (de-sysop, block etc) that have been rolled
>>> up into it.
>>>
>>> This would be in addition to the reform suggestions recently made to
>>> the ArbCom elections (I'll draft something shortly on that).
>>>
>>> If this is acceptable to you, it would be better to announce this as
>>> a package indepedent of the arbitration case. Voluntary
>>> relinquishment of these powers will render much of the arbitration
>>> case moot, enabling us to deal with it in much more general terms.
>
> I am happy to give up those powers, but I don't think this arbcom case
> has anything to do with any of that at all. If there is a movement
> here to dethrone me, then please let's just talk about that separately
> and not do it under the guise of an ArbCom case.
>
> To speak of traditionally "law" here, ArbCom is a delegation of my
> personal powers within the community since day one. I am free to
> dismiss ArbCom at will. I have no intention of doing that, mind you.
> But there is no need to "overthrow" the constitutional order, if
> reform is sought.
>
> My block of Bishonen was a good block, and I haven't seen any serious
> arguments to the contrary. She was very far outside of policy, and
> has been a problem for a long time.
>
> If you want to talk about me giving up de-sysop, rollback, etc., then
> that's a separate matter, and one that I'm willing to discuss.
>
> --Jimbo

There is no movement here to "dethrone" you and I don't understand why
you believe that. There is wide support for a separation of powers. A
parallel would be the Queen of England does not issue parking tickets
(or anything else that jeopardises her constitutional independence).

The separation I've suggested would enthrone you formally in a
constitutional role, which would have the side effect of removing your
critics' most powerful argument.

It would be better if this separation took place prior to the ArbCom
elections and, if it were done much more expeditiously, it would have
the happy advantage of enabling me, at least, to suggest the Bishonen
case is moot.

Incidentally, I do not regard my authority as an arbitrator as an
extension of your personal powers. That may be how ArbCom started, but
its authority has long since been subsumed by community consensus, which
has created ArbCom's own legitimacy. By way of constitutional parallel,
the relationship is identical to the historically shifting one between
the English monarch and the English judiciary (or the English parliament).

I will not take what you have said about dismissing ArbCom as a veiled
threat but - to clarify this issue once and for all - I invite you to
dismiss me now at will if you believe my authority as an arbitrator
derives purely from your personal gift rather than from the community.


Roger
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:24:23 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

I'd prefer to see a motion along these lines:

a) Bishonen's conduct was not within the spectrum of behaviour expected
of an administrator as "administrators are expected to lead by example
and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with
others". The committee notes the other examples of incivility by this
adminstrator adduced in evidence.

b) Jimmy Wales' block of Bishonen was within blocking policy as blocks
are sometimes "used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led
to the block and encourage a productive editing environment".

c) Bishonen's request for relief in the form of an annotation in the
block log is denied and Bishonen is admonished for incivility.


Roger
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:35:36 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

If anything like this is put up for voting, I think it is important to
note that an alternative was initially proposed by Brad on the mailing
list, and that your proposal below only came within a long thread
where Jimmy had earlier inappropriately intervened to make his case in
private before us (making several posts where he suggested alternative
motions and results), and that Bishonen and the community were not
privy to this.

In other words, anything suggested in this thread is now hopelessly
influenced by what Jimmy said. This so severely disrupts the process
that I can't, in all conscience, support any motion that even hints as
if it might have been influenced by what Jimmy wrote here. He may have
said similar things on-wiki, but I can't disassociate in my mind the
comments made on- and off-wiki.

I also don't think we can sit on this. If there are *any* leaks about
this, now or in the future, this would be absolute dynamite. Clear and
damning evidence that Jimmy made his case here on this list in
discussions to resolve a case involving him, despite being repeatedly
told not to. I was prepared to accept the earlier mis-step, but not
this. At a minimum, Bishonen needs to be sent a copy of all the
e-mails in this thread, and possibly the community need to know what
has happened here as well.

If a block carried out by an arbitrator had been the subject of this
request, and that arbitrator had been commenting in this thread like
Jimmy has, I'd be just as incensed and saying the same things.

Jimmy, you have put us in a very difficult position here. What are we
supposed to say if anyone asks us about this in future, or produces
evidence of this and asks us why we didn't do anything?

Carcharoth

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> I'd prefer to see a motion along these lines:
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:13:24 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

Well, no. The draft I floated is not a response to this thread. I
drafted the heads it a few days ago but as Brad had promised to produce
something himself, I held fire on posting it.

That said, Jimmy has compromised us hideously in this thread.

Roger

Carcharoth wrote:
> If anything like this is put up for voting, I think it is important to
-----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

I have been trying to keep up. I am in the middle of some IRL stuff which pays the bills (i.e. work). Can someone set up an off-wiki list with the non-recused arbs and we continue to discuss this and absolutely stop talking about the Jimmy/Bish case on the arb list from now? I'd do it myself but have to?go for a while and do other stuff for several hours.

We can start again with Brad's original thread and go from there. I have stuff to add.
Cas
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:53:12 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion

I have just unsubscribed Jimmy's accounts from en-ac-private
<http://groups.google.com/group/en-ac-private?hl=en> (along with Kirill
and Sam Blackater's)

I suggest we adjourn all discussion there of the Wakles-Bishonen case,
with immediate effect.


Roger
-----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:07:11 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unilateral offer, nothing asked in return

I would say not make any entry at this point.

r/
Randy Everette

-----Original Message-----
From: arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:29 PM
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unilateral offer, nothing asked in return


If you would like, I will put this note into Bishonen's block log:

"the block of Bishonen on May 22, 2009 should be disregarded"
-----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:12:34 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unilateral offer, nothing asked in return

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Randy Everette wrote:
> I would say not make any entry at this point.

I agree.

If you "amend" her log without it being a wording that she approves
of, it would be another nail in the coffin.

I see big problems with "the block of Bishonen on May 22, 2009 should
be disregarded", principally that it does not make an affirmative
statement. It does not say why. It says I am who I am, and as a
result, "x" should be done. Given that this has taken a month to
arrange, a note like that would be a slap in the face to someone who
has a reasonable grasp of the English language.

[[WP:MEDCOM]] has already been rejected, so unless you can find
another medium to negotiate a block entry revision her, I think it had
better be an arbcom revision which doesnt require that both parties
are happy with the outcome.

c.f. what Roger has said recently.

Of course you are free to do as you please, but anything short of "the
block of Bishonen on May 22, 2009 was wrong/inappropriate/whatever"
will likely only complicate the committees task, as it will reset our
discussions, and result in a more aggrieved party for us to work with
while we play catchup.

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

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:01:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unilateral offer, nothing asked in return

I was about to make a lame joke about consideration and promissory estoppel,
but I realized that it isn't even lamely funny. In fact, it only occurs to
me because I'm staring into space at Logan Airport, wondering why I didn't
realize that "gratuitous promise" is a term of art. D'oh.

I'm exhausted, and I see that Newyorkbrad was entirely correct. Wikipedia
is still here. AND we're still on the edge of accepting this case for some
reason.

Does a solid majority agree with the Bish-by-motion approach, where we
resolve this small dispute via motion (while hopefully still pressing on
Jimbo to clarify his role on the project)? I would like to step away from
the ledge of this ugly case.

Frank
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unilateral offer, nothing asked in return

I think that is definitely doable (and I think that is where we're heading)
Cas

________________________________
From: Cool Hand Luke
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:01:59 AM
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Unilateral offer, nothing asked in return

I was about to make a lame joke about consideration and
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:25:55 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] What to do about Jimmy?

[Re-sent to right list]

There has been dismay, as Carcharoth has just noted, among us about his
recent intervention on the list and also consensus among us appears to
be that he should be encouraged to relinquish all tools, retaining only
the founder bit.

I agree that he should be privately but formally admonished over his
intervention.

I would support a public motion asking him to relinquish the tools but
others may think this should be done privately first.

I would further support his removal from any executive role in the
upcoming ArbCom elections, with his role limited to announcing the
winners for the number of seats announced prior to the election commencing.

Effectively, I would like to Jimmy withdraw from any executive/political
role and act purely as a constitutional head.

Roger
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:29:13 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] What to do about Jimmy?

Roger Davies wrote:
> [Re-sent to right list]
>
> There has been dismay, as Carcharoth has just noted, among us about
> his recent intervention on the list and also consensus among us
> appears to be that he should be encouraged to relinquish all tools,
> retaining only the founder bit.
>
> I agree that he should be privately but formally admonished over his
> intervention.
>
> I would support a public motion asking him to relinquish the tools but
> others may think this should be done privately first.
>
> I would further support his removal from any executive role in the
> upcoming ArbCom elections, with his role limited to announcing the
> winners for the number of seats announced prior to the election
> commencing.
>
> Effectively, I would like to Jimmy withdraw from any
> executive/political role and act purely as a constitutional head.
>
> Roger

I am not proposing that we intervene but if we are directly asked about
any intervention in the Wales-Bishonen case it could become very nasty
indeed. The best way forward, in my view, is to anticipate that and
encourage rapid movement towards remedying a longstanding problem. Jimmy
has said that he'd welcome discussion and making our feelings clearer,
if there is consensus, would be a great help. I know that Jimmy has
acted correctly in following the vote pattern in previous elections but
it remains a cause of great drama. I believe it would be make life
easier for everyone, especially Jimmy, if his roles were separated.


Roger
-----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:17:53 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [arbcom-en-b] What to do about Jimmy?

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Roger
Davies<roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> With you, of course smile.gif

I think there is some confusion here.

arbcom-en-b is not to have Jimmy on it. As a list admin, I have
removed him from the list.

He is a party. This list was for situations where a party is being
discussed, and that is how other people have been treating that list.

The initial emails that Roger sent to arbcom-en-b in error, as they
were actually intended for arbcom-l; that has been corrected because
he has moved the discussion over to arbcom-l.

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

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:50:47 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] [arbcom-en-b] Fwd: What to do about Jimmy?

Risker wrote:
> In an odd sort of way, I think I understand Jimmy's attitudes
> and attempts at control - because it isn't all that far off from
> my RL efforts to keep a teenage son on the right path.

As a parent, I don't find the analogy compelling. I do not think of
Wikipedia, nor the community, as a baby nor as a teenager. We are a
group, largely consisting of thoughtful, kind, and reasonable adults,
who are working together on something really important - important to us
and important to the world.

Institutional design is not a matter of parenting, nor should it be a
matter of power struggle and control. I do not view it as such, and
encourage others not to view it as such either.

In terms of the Bishonen block, it was a block done 100% within policy.
Several have suggested that it may have been politically unwise - as
one person put it to me, "correct in principle, but not in implementation".

But what is being overlooked is that there is no general outcry about it
and a great deal of general support for it. Yes, Bishonen is infinitely
displeased - she broke a cardinal policy, after a longstanding pattern
of misbehavior. And she works with other problematic editors who have
long engaged in activism. But it was a solid block that many of their
victims have been supportive of - both publicly and privately. If
anything, the block has been politically a wash - but with the side
benefit, if the ArbCom will back it up - of demonstrating a firmness
about civility that has been absent for too long.

> particularly when done by a largely absentee "parent".

I'm afraid I must very strongly object to this characterization of me as
"absentee" in any sense of the word. I'm as engaged in Wikipedia as
anyone, and certainly as engaged as I have ever been. I keep up with
dozens of different matters, work in policy guidance, dispute
resolution, etc. This is my fulltime work, and I daresay that I spend
more time with it than at least some ArbCom members.

If it seems that I am quite hands off - that's true. I am hands off in
a principled and deliberate fashion - which runs counter to the view you
have expressed that I am still trying too much to be in control. Do you
see what I mean? Is this persuasive to you?

I ask because if there are problems, I think it is important to get
right just where the problems are.

> I do think he has a strong emotional attachment to Wikipedia,
> and it makes it that much harder to accept that the
> encyclopedia/community no longer sees him as its core moral
> compass.

I neither accept nor reject that particular claim, as I consider it to
be mostly irrelevant to institutional design.

But the recent complete failure of the attempt to remove me or change my
constitional position, the general expressions of dismay at my giving in
to Bishonen's irrational demands, and the many supportive comments of me
in many places, suggest to me that the community is very happy in
general with the institutional arrangements that we have had to date,
and pleased with the general direction towards *cautiously*
institutionalizing process. Indeed, I think I am far ahead of most of
the community and most of ArbCom in terms of wanting to move that onward.

> And like any parent, he has blind spots and possibly a
> few favourites too. I would like to see him formally stepping
> away from any actions that could be considered "routine", and to
> better understand the role of "constitutional monarch", which I
> don't think he really gets.

Other than blocking, what would that be? Desysopping?

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

From: (Risker)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:34:25 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] [arbcom-en-b] Fwd: What to do about Jimmy?

> Risker wrote:
>
>> In an odd sort of way, I think I understand Jimmy's attitudes
>> and attempts at control - because it isn't all that far off from
>> my RL efforts to keep a teenage son on the right path.
>>
>
> As a parent, I don't find the analogy compelling. I do not think of
> Wikipedia, nor the community, as a baby nor as a teenager. We are a group,
> largely consisting of thoughtful, kind, and reasonable adults, who are
> working together on something really important - important to us and
> important to the world.
>
> Institutional design is not a matter of parenting, nor should it be a
> matter of power struggle and control. I do not view it as such, and
> encourage others not to view it as such either.
>
> As institutional design, Wikipedia is an outlier. Its design is more "no
design" than any form of structured or intended design, and its original
premise was to feed information into another platform, which it quickly
overtook.

>
>
> > particularly when done by a largely absentee "parent".
>
> I'm afraid I must very strongly object to this characterization of me as
> "absentee" in any sense of the word. I'm as engaged in Wikipedia as anyone,
> and certainly as engaged as I have ever been. I keep up with dozens of
> different matters, work in policy guidance, dispute resolution, etc. This
> is my fulltime work, and I daresay that I spend more time with it than at
> least some ArbCom members.
>
> If it seems that I am quite hands off - that's true. I am hands off in a
> principled and deliberate fashion - which runs counter to the view you have
> expressed that I am still trying too much to be in control. Do you see what
> I mean? Is this persuasive to you?
>
> I ask because if there are problems, I think it is important to get right
> just where the problems are.
>
I hope you can see the contradiction here; as a "constitutional monarch",
the role is to show the flag occasionally, voice support of positive
developments, warn against negative developments, and stay out of the
day-to-day muck.


>
>
> I do think he has a strong emotional attachment to Wikipedia,
>> and it makes it that much harder to accept that the
>> encyclopedia/community no longer sees him as its core moral
>> compass.
>>
>
> I neither accept nor reject that particular claim, as I consider it to be
> mostly irrelevant to institutional design.
>
> I've snipped out the bits about Bishonen entirely here, because I wasn't
> talking about that situation at all. We've asked you to please not keep
> doing this, Jimmy. Your persistence in doing so is making everyone's job
> much more difficult. Please stop.
>
> And like any parent, he has blind spots and possibly a
>> few favourites too. I would like to see him formally stepping
>> away from any actions that could be considered "routine", and to
>> better understand the role of "constitutional monarch", which I
>> don't think he really gets.
>>
>
> Other than blocking, what would that be? Desysopping?
>

To be honest, I see your role as being more akin to a Governor General than
a constitutional monarch, because the higher role is hypothetically that of
the WMF Board of Directors as a group.

Governors General make themselves available for comment on various issues,
usually of broad import. They also represent the country at its highest rank
to internal and external organizations, other countries, etc., on formal or
"state" visits. They do not speak on individual situations or act on
specific cases. While in theory they have significant power, the exercise of
that power is exceedingly rare, and only undertaken after extensive
consultation, and only to address major issues. Stepping beyond those bounds
tends to create something of a constitutional crisis (q.v. John Kerr of
Australia, who made use of the reserve powers, and set off massive public
demonstrations that echoed for years to come).


See also my comments above; your being involved in what I'd call the "day to
day muck" creates confusion and disproportionate responses.

Risker
----------

From: (Wizardman)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:38:01 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] [arbcom-en-b] Fwd: What to do about Jimmy?

This stopped being about the block a while ago, so no more discussion of
that aspect by anyone, please.
And now to catch up on reading this thread hrmph.gif
~W
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:34:31 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [arbcom-en-b] What to do about Jimmy?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Randy Everette wrote:
> > He jumps the processes when people do directly to him. This option needs
> > to be removed. Requests should only come from us.
>
> When have I jumped any processes?
>
>
>

February 6. David Gerard sends a message to functionaries highlighting a
foundation thread on civility. He then starts demanding that we block Giano
and do so permanently, insisting that we're dropping the ball, sending a bad
signal, ect. We are disinclined to act.

Coincidentally, hours later, you blocked Giano yourself, supposedly for
civility (although the better rationale would have been BLP). You sent a
message to ArbCom saying asking us to review the block, and some of us
blocked other parties who were uncivil to Giano. Meanwhile, you removed the
Giano block without notice to us, leaving other parties to feel they'd been
mistreated. There was another instance where you've intervened when ArbCom
was handling precisely the same case (was it Peter Damian? I don't recall,
but I remember that an arbitrator severely chastised you about it).

Your intervention is usually disruptive, and leads commentators to believe
that some users have an ear with you and are able to get things done through
you.

Actually, let me drop the weasel words: *I believe* that some users
(including Gerard) have special access to you. And if I get that
impression, I'm sure that those without access to the shadowy arbcom-l list
believe it too. It's not helpful to the project, even though your heart is
in the right place.

All that said, I think that the Bishonen block was right as a matter of
policy. I don't think there's a need for Jimbo to lose his bits, but he
should stop performing controversial or demonstrative admin acts--especially
against people he has a history with. If he cannot tell whether acts will
be controversial, he should not perform them at all.

Frank
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Fri 15th July 2011, 4:59pm
Post #12


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



Wow, the depths of Jimbo's personal delusions exposed here are staggering. I knew he was nuts, but this is remarkable.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisoff
post Fri 15th July 2011, 5:19pm
Post #13


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu 18th Feb 2010, 11:20pm
Member No.: 17,248



QUOTE
To speak of traditionally "law" here, ArbCom is a delegation of my
personal powers within the community since day one. I am free to
dismiss ArbCom at will. I have no intention of doing that, mind you.
But there is no need to "overthrow" the constitutional order, if reform
is sought. -Jimmy Wales


I wish he would dismiss the whole damn mess.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
InkBlot
post Fri 15th July 2011, 5:22pm
Post #14


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri 18th Aug 2006, 1:35pm
Member No.: 343

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 15th July 2011, 11:59am) *

Wow, the depths of Jimbo's personal delusions exposed here are staggering. I knew he was nuts, but this is remarkable.


It's a bit like watching Jack Nicholson on the stand in A Few Good Men, only worse.

BTW, for any curious out there here's the thread on wiki just before being cleared off after the motion 'passed'.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 15th July 2011, 5:31pm
Post #15


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



******************
*And a month later...*
******************

From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 20:27:42 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bish and the mail list
Message-ID: <20090801202742.QE6KK.15792.imail@eastrmwml39>

Bish said in IRC she has not recieved any arb mail since Jul 24. Apparently no one sent her the thread Jimbo was in a few days ago and we told him to cc her. I will take care of that if I can get into the archives, it often doesn't work for me.


Randy
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 00:30:28 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bish and the mail list

Actually, I have the thread intact in my system and can forward it all one
by one to her as soon as I finish dinner.

Any objections? Speak now or forever hold your peace...


Risker

2009/8/2 <rlevse>

> Bish said in IRC she has not recieved any arb mail since Jul 24. Apparently
-----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 01:05:37 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Arbcom email thread being forwarded to Bishonen

Hi Bishonen -

It looks like there is an email thread you did not receive; I am going to
forward it to you email by email, and it will take a few minutes because it
is a rather long thread. It has now been abandoned, so I would ask that when
you reply you do so in either a completely new thread, or by hitting "reply
all" in this thread. It will take you a while to read the whole thing, and
I encourage you to read it all the way through before responding.

Best,

Risker
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 01:22:09 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Arbcom email thread being forwarded to Bishonen

Okay, the entire thread has now been forwarded to you, Bishonen.

2009/8/2 Risker

> Hi Bishonen -
----------

From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 07:07:17 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Jimbo Bish RFAR

<cc'ing bishonen>

See comments by Jack and Heim on this case at RFAR.

I have to agree very strongly, we should accept this case and deal with the
issues, not put it off to another day. This is the perfect case to deal with
issues that have been boiling within the community for a long time. Passing
a motion that summarizes what happened accomplishes nothing substantial.

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

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:40:50 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Jimbo on vacation

I'm leaving tomorrow morning for a camping trip with my daughter. We're
backpacking on Isle Royale, and I'll be essentially without Internet of
any kind (not even cellphone service!) for about 6-7 days.
----------

From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 08:43:18 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Another wrench

Re: Jimbo Bish case

First Bish is gone for a week, now Jimbo. Sigh.

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

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 06:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Jimbo Bish RFAR

Right now, I am sorta feeling once bitten twice shy WRT dispute resolution/conduct review committee vs. de facto governance committee really. The /only/ reason I /initially/ considered taking this case was a for a review of admin tools WRT possible involved status.

Actually...let's not discuss this on this mailing list.
Cas
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:20:58 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bishonen RFC created by FT2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ishonen_%282%29

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

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:59:35 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bishonen RFC created by FT2

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:20 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ishonen_%282%29

Someone might want to point out that he started the page at 06:30, 3
August 2009, with the edit summary "Posted - may yet need minor
copyediting", followed by " tweak (going to be a lot of those)" and
has since made 57 edits up to now (10:37, 3 August 2009), some 4 hours
later.

I made this point to William Allen Simpson (WAS), namely that he (WAS)
had left a half-drafted RFARB on the requests page. I quoted from the
stuff at the top saying people should draft requests in their
userspace, and WAS withdrew his requests (though he will undoubtedly
be back).

I know we can't say the same about RFCs, but notifying Bishonen at
06:39, 3 August 2009 and then constantly tweaking the RfC for the next
four hours is, well, not ideal in my book (to be frank, it is rude).
Someone should really point that out to him, but I'm not his favorite
person, so I'll pass.

At least it is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct,
and he notified Bishonen and Xavexgoem (who then endorsed it). Wonder
if he will notify anyone else?

Sorry to be so cynical here. I know I suggested an RFC on Bishonen
(when the Bishonen-Jimbo request was filed), but I didn't think FT2
would be the one to start it. I also suggested an RFC be started on
Jimbo, so I may point that out at Bishonen's RFC at some point, well,
if it gets a second endorsement, that is.

I still think the major flaw of RFCs is that they are biased towards
the initial statements and views. People rarely get down to the
counterpoint views later, and (unless the RfC is completely off beam),
the initial views get more views and hence more !votes and comments
(i..e more support) merely by virtues of being the first views posted.
Even if the (later) opposing views are valid, the response to them is
often prejudiced by having read the initial view first.

Actually, I doubt many people will bother reading all of that RFC. It
is rather long. I need to go and finish reading it to see what points
are being made there.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:01:56 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Arbcom issues

2009/8/3 Carcharoth

> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> > Carcharoth wrote:
> >>
> >> One thing you did snip, Coren, is my comments on FT2's conduct since
> >> this went public. Do you have any opinion on that?
> >
> > I'd rather not go into too much comment depth on that given that I have
> > fairly cordial relations with him and that may not make me entirely
> > objective. I did suggest to him out of band that he's laying it on too
> > thick and might want to get off the spotlight for a while. Apparently,
> > to little effect (that, or he was aiming for a higher profile than this,
> > which is worrying).
> >
> > His heart is in the right place, though. What I can tell you is that he
> > is not doing this out of a desire to troll or create drama, but out of a
> > genuine desire to do the "right thing".
>
> Thanks. I do think it is helpful to get these sort of views from those
> closer to someone, with cordial relations as you put it (which is a
> good way to put that sort of thing). That's what I've tried to do with
> Durova, for example, but it can be difficult to try and get across
> someone's good points. And for what it is worth, I agree that he has
> good points, but it is easy to forget that when you see another side
> of someone. But I guess that is the case for all of us to a certain
> extent, especially in these sort of pressure-cooker situations.
>
> Heart in the right place or not (and actually, I think Coren is correct,
that FT2 believes he is doing the right thing), this RFC against
Bishonen<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bishonen_%282%29>does
not come across that way. The past history between the two of them is
such that this creates the impression that sour grapes are involved.

Risker
----------

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:25:18 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Arbcom issues

I still believe that FT2 acted impulsively yesterday but I sincerely believe
such a RfC is needed. I've just read all of it now and have seen tons of
problematic stuff. She turned the world upside down because of Jimmy's block
and asked for a review of his founder status but she forgot about her own
problems.

I've just started to notice people using the word "wiki-friend" so often
lately. It is not a taboo anymore. I say this because the term is synonymous
of cabals and tag teams. Although the term sounds lovely (some may link it
to wiki-love), it is still harmful to the encyclopedia. Wiki-friends gather
together to defend and attack other teams of Wiki-friends.

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

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:32:15 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Arbcom issues

The funny thing is, I went and read FT2's RFC (the one SlimVirgin
filed against him) and the same sort of things can be said. FT2 is
just as evasive or aggressive on some issues as Bishonen is, if not
more so. And FT2 has made six further edits to the RfC since he
endorsed it. Not substantive changes, but still compulsive tweaking.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:34:56 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Arbcom issues

2009/8/3 Fayssal F.

<snip>

>
>
> I've just started to notice people using the word "wiki-friend" so often
> lately. It is not a taboo anymore. I say this because the term is synonymous
> of cabals and tag teams. Although the term sounds lovely (some may link it
> to wiki-love), it is still harmful to the encyclopedia. Wiki-friends gather
> together to defend and attack other teams of Wiki-friends.
>

Oh geez, I never knew that "wiki-friends" was taboo. I thought that people
who got along on Wikipedia and perhaps shared a few jokes were
"wiki-friends". I thought of several members of this committee as
wiki-friends before they became colleagues. I remember Phaedrial once being
described as "everyone's wiki-friend", and it was meant as a compliment.

Making such a useful phrase taboo is awfully Orwellian.

Risker
-----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 06:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Arbcom issues

One side uses wiki-friends, but those who are convinced of their own moral rectitude do not stoop to such terms, they're just right, and all those who share their views are right as well. what a wonderful world.
Cas
----------

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:23:14 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Arbcom issues

I believe you missed my point, Risker. Probably I should say:

* "Wiki-friend" may refer to:

a) Editors entertaining good and friendly relationship in order to promote
peace and love within the encyclopedia (see Wiki-love). These people can be
found busy in article space. Example: Phaedrial and a few others! This term
is being replaced by the second meaning (see b)

b) Brothers in arms fighting for a cause in the non-ending wiki-wars and
wiki-politics. Ready to shoot at short range! These people can be found busy
pointing their guns, shouting, yelling in arbcom pages and RfCs. Example:
Many (please refer to the growing list)

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

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:33:15 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Arbcom issues

One part of FT2's time is spent in looking for solutions. The rest is spent
in being part of the problem.

Fayssal F.


> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:32:15 +0100
> From: Carcharoth
> Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Arbcom issues
> To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list
>
> The funny thing is, I went and read FT2's RFC (the one SlimVirgin
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:58:45 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Arbcom issues

2009/8/3 Fayssal F.

> I believe you missed my point, Risker. Probably I should say:
>
> * "Wiki-friend" may refer to:
>
> a) Editors entertaining good and friendly relationship in order to promote
> peace and love within the encyclopedia (see Wiki-love). These people can be
> found busy in article space. Example: Phaedrial and a few others! This term
> is being replaced by the second meaning (see b)
>
> b) Brothers in arms fighting for a cause in the non-ending wiki-wars and
> wiki-politics. Ready to shoot at short range! These people can be found busy
> pointing their guns, shouting, yelling in arbcom pages and RfCs. Example:
> Many (please refer to the growing list)
>
> Fayssal F.
>
> Thanks, Fayssal! You're right, of course. When it is used to describe an
editor one gets along with and those who agree with him/her, it is
Definition A. When used to describe an editor one is in dispute with, that
editor and those agreeing with him/her would fit Definition B.

Wikipedia is notorious for taking English words and creating almost perverse
definitions for them.

Risker
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giano Redux

In our purview? Sort of - we're? a dispute resolution board and have been chided publically for assuming a greater role quite recently. I am not keen on initiating cases.

Funnily enough, the instigator of OM is FT2, who is now going after Bish. It suddenly occurred to me - I forgot about Bish's block of FT2.
Cas
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 00:15:39 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ping for Roger - Bishonen motion objection

Roger, do you have time to look at this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=304830484

"Section 1.4 of the motion says "Although the use of this latter
phrase was later clarified as intending to refer to incivility in
general, the phrasing was careless and has been interpreted,
reasonably, by some editors as referring to Bishonen" citing
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=291624318
this diff] as the clarification. The diff doesn't say anything about
incivility. It refers to toxic behavior in a more general way. Toxic
behavior of all kinds pervades Wikipedia, and only a little bit of it
has anything to do with incivility. I personally prefer to interpret
the diff as referring to a wider range of toxicity that Wikipedia
admins should stop tolerating. Occasional inappropriate cussing
between editors can be annoying, but it is pretty far down the list of
things I'd want more people blocked for if it were up to me. In any
case, I request the arb motion to be fixed to reflect what the diff
actually says, not what someone seems to have projected onto it.
[[Special:Contributions/67.117.147.249|67.117.147.249]] ([[User
talk:67.117.147.249|talk]]) 00:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)"

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 04:47:18 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Closing of the Jimbo-Bishonen request

Just to let everyone know - as over 48 hours has passed since the motion was
at majority, I have encouraged MBisanz to close it per his note and the
request onwiki.

I know that folks have been rearranging their votes there and on the case
request vote as well, but the motion is still passing after 48 hours, and
the vote to open a case is still NOT passing. This closure is overdue.

This is exactly the kind of thing that drives the clerks mad; they're almost
afraid to touch these kinds of cases. So - if anyone (like Bishonen
perhaps?) gives MBisanz a hard time for closing this, I hope that he will
receive the support he should have.

Just something to watch out for in the next 24-48 hours.

Risker
----------

From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 06:04:31 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Closing of the Jimbo-Bishonen request

The motion barely passed at 6-3-2 (by one vote due to two abstains)

The case was 6-4-0 (one more accept and it'd have passed by the simple
majority rule)

All this fanfare on this case and all we did was restate the facts. Not to
rub salt into any wounds but I honestly feel we accomplished nothing of
significance here and the issues will return one day.

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

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:14:29 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Closing of the Jimbo-Bishonen request

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Randy Everette<rlevse> wrote:

<snip>

> All this fanfare on this case and all we did was restate the facts. Not to
> rub salt into any wounds but I honestly feel we accomplished nothing of
> significance here and the issues will return one day.

Some progress has been made.

If the issues return, we can point to this, and be quicker to accept.

Actually, this is not finished yet. See the comment I made to Bishonen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=305640932

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:13:07 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ping for Roger - Bishonen motion objection

I've now looked. This isn't a quibble about a typo but a
semantic/philosphical objection to the way the paragraph is drafted.
Even if we all agreed, it's not worth the trouble of fixing.

Roger

Carcharoth wrote:
> Roger, do you have time to look at this?
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:20:15 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ping for Roger - Bishonen motion objection

And it's been archived anyway.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> I've now looked. This isn't a quibble about a typo but a
------------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 14:10:16 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Finishing up things before Wikimania

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Roger
Davieswrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:

<snip>

>> 3) A statement following up the Bishonen motion to deal with the Jimmy
>> aspects of all that, which were not all adequately covered there, but
>> which do need resolving, and making clear what *we* can do about some
>> aspects of it, and what should be left to the *community* to cover.
>> Our part of that is, as far as I can see, to state that we will, if
>> needed, enforce Jimmy's abdication of the blocking tool. Plus a
>> statement to cover behaviour on the mailing list during that request
>> and the motions, and setting out standards for parties to a case to
>> follow if they are members of the mailing list, and acknowledging that
>> these standards were (unfortunately) not followed in this case, but
>> that subsequent discussion centred on a draft that was composed before
>> Jimmy entered that thread, and we also switched to a mailing list
>> without either of the parties on it.
>>
>
> Broadly disagree. This is gold-plating something and like to provoke
> more questions than it answers.
>
> There is merit in working out the mailing list recusal issues but that's
> kind of resolved by the ?"b"-list.

Well, I am compelled to at least propose something for voting.

See what I said here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=305640932

I essentially asked Bishonen to back down on her implicit threat of
exposing Jimmy's behaviour in that mailing list thread to all and
sundry (I'm not sure she would actually do that, but as long as the
risk is there that it could be leaked, I think we need to get a
statement out in public about this). But in return I promised her that
we would sort out the issues that arose with Jimmy.

Bishonen: "Your statement that "what happens as regards his wider role
is between him and the community" is problematic, obviously, in that
only the committe (and me) has the information that the community
would need to address the problem. The message to Jimbo that I can
read between your lines needs to be clarified and shared with the
community, and the sooner the committee does it the better."

Me: "I agree that the community need to know what happened in that
mailing list thread" [...] "Trust us to sort out what needs doing
vis-a-vis Jimbo (it may take a while, but we have the resolve to see
it through and get a fair solution sorted out), and trust us to then
communicate that to the community, so they (and Jimbo) can sort out
the role Jimbo has within the community." [...] "So please, accept the
motion put forward here, put aside your case, and let us (ArbCom)
concentrate on sorting out things with Jimbo when he is available
again."

We cannot have this hanging over our heads. If someone says "did Jimmy
influence what happened with that motion", we need to be honest about
what happened there. In other words, get our side of things out there
first, and make clear that there *was* inappropriate behaviour, and
that no, it did not affect the final motion.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:15:25 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Finishing up things before Wikimania

Carcharoth wrote:
> We cannot have this hanging over our heads. If someone says "did Jimmy
> influence what happened with that motion", we need to be honest about
> what happened there. In other words, get our side of things out there
> first, and make clear that there *was* inappropriate behaviour, and
> that no, it did not affect the final motion.
>
Sure, but there anything actually hanging over our heads? I mean that's
causing actual community concern? We can't tie up every loose end and,
even if we did, half would believe and the other half disbelieve us. I
really don't see the need for preemptve statements. the least said, the
soonest over I guess.

Another small but important point is that this committee is split over
what to do; so trying to reach consensus on a far-reaching statement
will probably be a complete waste of time.

Roger
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 14:57:06 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Finishing up things before Wikimania

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
<snip>
> The committee is broadly agreed that Something Needs To Be Done.

I'm talking about the issues between Jimbo and ArbCom, not between
Jimbo and Bishonen. The issues with Bishonen got settled with the
motions. What we have now is the issue of what to do about the mailing
list thread behaviour.

> Where the committee is split is over what needs to be done. That is the
> message that has come over loud and clear in the swinging votes; the
> borderline case decline; the borderline motion pass. Whatever we say
> about what the community might want to do

This is not about what the community want to do. They are free to do
what they want with respect to Jimbo's role in the community. That is
nothing to do with ArbCom.

> will be taken as a
> mandate/invitation to do it, per [[WP:BEANS]] and will generate an
> unbelievably huge drama-fest. All in all, I think this is a recipe for
> disaster and I'd be interested in hearing what impells you to move on this.

I've explained that already. Disquiet that this will inevitably leak.
Worry that we will be perceived as having covered this up. And a
personal opinion that the community need to know what happened here.
If nothing *is* done about this, then despite my desire to deal with
Bishonen's conduct and Jimbo's conduct separately, the only
alternative is to open a case about it all (even though we've just
rejected one).

But look, we obviously don't agree. Just see what I propose, and you
can support or oppose it as needed. It will be a statement drafted on
the arbwiki at some point this week. I can't leave it any longer than
that. At the least I can then say I tried, if this does all blow up
again later.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 07:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Closing of the Jimbo-Bishonen request

No we didn't /just/ restate facts Randy - have a look at what has happened.
Cas
----------

From: rlevse (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:00:51 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Closing of the Jimbo-Bishonen request

Progress? Where? Besides Jimmy giving up the block button. That's hardly
worth mentioning. The underlying issues weren't even scratched.

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

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:45:47 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bishonen motion

I'm happy with it, and intend to avoid Bishonen completely as much as
possible.
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:22:55 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unresolved issues

I did say a few days ago that there was some unresolved issues from
the Jimmy-Bishonen request and motion. Part of that is that I was
prompted by Bishonen to more fully activate my "pledge" page in my
user space (adding among other things a place for questions), and
Bishonen has posted the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carcharo...edges#Questions

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=309029272

I still stand by what I said there, but it is difficult to know what I
can say publicly, other than that the timescales are very different.
Bishonen wants things to happen immediately and for there to be
visible progress. Others seem to be happier with a timescale of
months, leading up to the ArbCom elections.

This is just a head's up so you are all aware of this.

I intend to reply saying that I have not forgotten what I said at the
request, and that I will raise this issue more fully when everyone is
back from Wikimania. Unless anyone has anything time-sensitive to add,
discussion of this is probably best left until then as well.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:46:45 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unresolved issues

My reply is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=310694454

I did make that longer than I intended, but I also made clear that now
is a poor time to raise things because many arbs and Jimmy are away at
Wikimania, or otherwise inactive.

I do think this (a discussion about the ArbCom elections) should be on
the public agenda.

Carcharoth
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nableezy
post Fri 15th July 2011, 8:11pm
Post #16


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed 27th May 2009, 2:03am
From: Somewhere west of Lake Chicago
Member No.: 11,908

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(rlevse @ 1 Aug 2009 20:27:42) *

Bish said in IRC she has not recieved any arb mail since Jul 24. Apparently no one sent her the thread Jimbo was in a few days ago and we told him to cc her. I will take care of that if I can get into the archives, it often doesn't work for me.


Randy

Malice, perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten Rlevse on the proper way to get into the archives. I am sure he would appreciate it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RMHED
post Fri 15th July 2011, 8:56pm
Post #17


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined: Fri 8th May 2009, 8:48pm
Member No.: 11,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 15th July 2011, 5:59pm) *

Wow, the depths of Jimbo's personal delusions exposed here are staggering. I knew he was nuts, but this is remarkable.

Jimmy ain't nuts he's just intent on being so loving and forgiving and generous that no room is left in his brain for rational thought.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 15th July 2011, 8:59pm
Post #18


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



QUOTE(nableezy @ Fri 15th July 2011, 8:11pm) *

QUOTE(rlevse @ 1 Aug 2009 20:27:42) *

Bish said in IRC she has not recieved any arb mail since Jul 24. Apparently no one sent her the thread Jimbo was in a few days ago and we told him to cc her. I will take care of that if I can get into the archives, it often doesn't work for me.


Randy

Malice, perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten Rlevse on the proper way to get into the archives. I am sure he would appreciate it.


Define "proper" happy.gif

And just because it struck me funny bone:


From: (Sam Blacketer)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:05:52 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Bishonen problem

When I was checking on WP:RFAr I noticed that an image of Bishzilla appeared
on the top left, just behind the Wikipedia logo. Following the trail I found
that it had been added by Arctic Balloon, and was on the Recently closed
template:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=267681845

The contributions of Arctic Balloon seemed very odd so I asked for a
checkuser - which discovered that Arctic Balloon was a sock of Bishonen. Now
this has to be handled sensitively but I think Bishonen should be told that
we are aware of what happened and don't expect to see it again.

--
Sam Blacketer
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trenton
post Fri 15th July 2011, 10:09pm
Post #19


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri 12th Sep 2008, 10:21pm
Member No.: 8,237



Not only did the Jimbeau read email that he wasn't supposed to- that is unsurprising given his (low) moral character, but he appeared to give no second thought to replying to it. It's as if he lives in his own world where people worship him no matter what.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Fri 15th July 2011, 10:19pm
Post #20


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(trenton @ Fri 15th July 2011, 5:09pm) *
Not only did the Jimbeau read email that he wasn't supposed to- that is unsurprising given his (low) moral character, but he appeared to give no second thought to replying to it. It's as if he lives in his own world where people worship him no matter what.
Fairly typical Randroid behavior: rules apply to other people, not to them. Jimbo has routinely acted as if the rules simply don't exist for him, and therefore anything he does is, by definition, both permissible and appropriate.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 11 17, 2:28am