Jimbo vs Bishzilla Part 2, Mortals is tasty Options

[MaliceAforethought]

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

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

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

And have you stopped beating your wife yet?

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

Carcharoth
----------

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

On geez.

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

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

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

Risker
----------

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

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

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

Frank
----------

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

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

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

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

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

Was that hagiographic, Frank? :-)

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

I think that translates as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carcharoth
----------

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carcharoth
----------

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

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

Risker
----------

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

I agree with Frank here.

There are three problems with incivility:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Newyorkbrad
----------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carcharoth
----------

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carcharoth
----------

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

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

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

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

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

Because someone needs to write something!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember that your fellow arbs may not agree with you.

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

The list of current arbitrators is here:

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

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

Carcharoth
----------

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

I'll do whatever I want.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me too. Hope things get better, Cas.

<snip>

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

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

Carcharoth

[MaliceAforethought]

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.

[nableezy]

(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.