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]

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

[nableezy]

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.

[MaliceAforethought]

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" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/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