**************************************************
*In which Malice laughs so long and hard over Jimbo's various*
*hysterics that he can't come up with a pithy thread summary*
**************************************************
From: (Wizardman)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:07:21 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
To comment on NYB's motion (not touching everything else) I'm tepid on the
matter, but could probably support. While bishonen's done many things as
rlevse has said, did this particular instance warrant a block? Maybe not,
but my question is does this solve the larger issue, and I am not positive
one way or the other yet. I'll mull i tover.
~W
----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:08:00 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
Feel free to forward to her. It's a matter of fundamental principles
here: Admins cursing at users is not something that I will ever
countenance as valid. I will change policy by fiat if necessary, to
make this clearer than it already is. (But it is already 100% clear
that this was a valid block.)
----------
From: (Wizardman)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:15:26 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
I'm considered a hardass on civility, but if we're going to start blocking
users for three hours, when it's been six hours after calling people "little
shits" or whatever, that sounds like a step towards blocks being primarily
punitive. There's drama written all over that.
~W
-----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:19:31 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] General policy discussion on admin behavior
To sort this out from the details of the Bishonen case, perhaps it will
be better to have a thread about admin behavior. This is too important
to get bogged down in technicalities because there is a case at hand.
We need to make a very strong and very firm statement that it is NEVER
ok for admins to behave the way that Bishonen has behaved over a very
long period of time, culminating in a blatant direct personal attack on
someone she was in conflict with: cursing at a user.
Policy is already very clear on this. Let me quote from policy:
1. "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with
respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally
ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable
opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking."
Bishonen is very well aware of policy, as an active admin who has been
reprimanded and reminded many times over the years. (Diffs available
upon request.)
2. "Egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." This was a direct
insult of an ordinary user by an administrator during the course of a
conflict. There seems to be no debate at all - not even from Bishonen -
that the attack was egregious.
3. Questions have arised as to whether the block was preventative or
punitive. It was 100% preventative, and in particular, I invite the
committee to review:
"Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot
continue and will not be tolerated."
I did this, and quite effectively. All admins are now on notice (and
many have thanked me for it) that insulting users is not acceptable
behavior, that this behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated.
But more importantly *Bishonen* is on notice that her past behavior is
no longer acceptable.
----
For the general consideration of the committee - do you really want to
formally enshrine as precedent that admins can behave in this way,
despite clear policy the contrary, so long as they are noisy and
politically well-connected? I can't conceive of the loss of face that
will happen as a result.
Users depend on you to defend our policies of kindness and respect, and
to be kind and firm about them. It is not ok for admins to abuse
others, ever.
----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:20:25 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
Wizardman wrote:
> I'm considered a hardass on civility, but if we're going to start
> blocking users for three hours, when it's been six hours after calling
> people "little shits" or whatever, that sounds like a step towards
> blocks being primarily punitive. There's drama written all over that.
It matters significantly who is doing it. You might want to consider
affirming the block and additionally desysopping Bishonen.
----------
From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:20:48 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Wizardman<wizardmanwiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm considered a hardass on civility, but if we're going to start blocking
> users for three hours, when it's been six hours after calling people "little
> shits" or whatever, that sounds like a step towards blocks being primarily
> punitive. There's drama written all over that.
I agree. The content of Jimmy's comments here are pushing me towards
accepting this case, and the inappropriateness of commenting here, and
threatening to change policy by fiat, doesnt help.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:23:04 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Wizardman wrote:
>> I'm considered a hardass on civility, but if we're going to start blocking
>> users for three hours, when it's been six hours after calling people "little
>> shits" or whatever, that sounds like a step towards blocks being primarily
>> punitive. There's drama written all over that.
>
> I agree. The content of Jimmy's comments here are pushing me towards
> accepting this case, and the inappropriateness of commenting here, and
> threatening to change policy by fiat, doesnt help.
I would prefer that the ArbCom make a motion to instruct Bishonen to
accept my incredibly generous offers.
If we go to a case, it's going to be very ugly indeed. (Not a threat,
just a fact.)
If you want to change policy to make it ok for admins to curse at users,
then please discuss that amongst yourself, take a vote on it, and let me
know. I would respect that.
--Jimbo
Malice's note:Bonus points if you counted how many times ye olde Jimbo has referred to himself as incredibly generous.-----------
From: (Risker)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:26:30 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
Please note that I am speaking as a list moderator here. Jimmy, you are out
of line. You have been repeatedly asked to stop posting in this thread.
Please stop now. I have had no hesitation in sending arbitrators to their
rooms without dinner for misbehaving on this list, and you're not going to
be an exception to that.
Risker
-----------
From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:30:09 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> I would prefer that the ArbCom make a motion to instruct Bishonen to
> accept my incredibly generous offers.
>
> If we go to a case, it's going to be very ugly indeed. (Not a threat,
> just a fact.)
>
> If you want to change policy to make it ok for admins to curse at users,
> then please discuss that amongst yourself, take a vote on it, and let me
> know. I would respect that.
>
Jimmy, for crying out loud. Be reasonable for a minute. Nobody here is
claiming that.
Many of us, however, believe that _you_ having done the block _in those
circumstances_ was a mistake. Punitive blocks are iffy to begin with,
even with the reasonable "dissuasive" argument; that you would do one is
delicate. That you did one /at that time/ and in this manner was an error.
You may be right on the principles, but I think you goofed in the
implementation. There are a number of things you can do to help with
the toxic elements, but getting down into the trenches to duke it out
with the tools is no longer a tenable position. Any value a block you
did might have had is de facto drowned by the fact that you are you.
Try to understand that we're trying to act in a way that says "Bish was
wrong. Civility is more important for admins. Jimbo shouldn't have
done _that_ block. Play nice."
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From: (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:33:53 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
I was about to ask a list mod to remove him.
R
---- Risker wrote:
> Please note that I am speaking as a list moderator here. Jimmy, you are out
----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:11:06 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
Risker wrote:
> Please note that I am speaking as a list moderator here. Jimmy, you are
> out of line. You have been repeatedly asked to stop posting in this
> thread. Please stop now. I have had no hesitation in sending arbitrators
> to their rooms without dinner for misbehaving on this list, and you're
> not going to be an exception to that.
In a subsequent message, Coren makes a request of me - may I respond to
that?
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:14:25 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool
Jimmy:
Seeing as you're around and commenting, may I ask you to respond to this
please?
Roger
Roger Davies wrote:
>
> Jimmy:
>
> This is a very constructive proposal but I'd like to suggest that it goes a little further.
----------
From: (Risker)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:17:05 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
2009/7/30 Jimmy Wales
> Risker wrote:
> > Please note that I am speaking as a list moderator here. Jimmy, you are
> > out of line. You have been repeatedly asked to stop posting in this
> > thread. Please stop now. I have had no hesitation in sending arbitrators
> > to their rooms without dinner for misbehaving on this list, and you're
> > not going to be an exception to that.
>
> In a subsequent message, Coren makes a request of me - may I respond to
> that?
>
I can live with that; Coren was probably writing his message while I posted
and did not see my message until afterward, and I expect he would like a
response.
Risker
-----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:20:24 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool
Roger Davies wrote:
> Jimmy:
>
> Seeing as you're around and commenting, may I ask you to respond to this
> please?
Yes, and I'm sorry that I hadn't seen it before. Not sure how that
happened.
>> I recommend that you give up your administrative bits (sysop, CU and
>> OS) and retain only the founder bit to concentrate entirely on
>> developing a purely constitutional role. I do not know precisely what
>> the founder bit involves, but I would not expect you to ever use any
>> residual powers (de-sysop, block etc) that have been rolled up into it.
>>
>> This would be in addition to the reform suggestions recently made to
>> the ArbCom elections (I'll draft something shortly on that).
>>
>> If this is acceptable to you, it would be better to announce this as a
>> package indepedent of the arbitration case. Voluntary relinquishment
>> of these powers will render much of the arbitration case moot,
>> enabling us to deal with it in much more general terms.
I am happy to give up those powers, but I don't think this arbcom case
has anything to do with any of that at all. If there is a movement here
to dethrone me, then please let's just talk about that separately and
not do it under the guise of an ArbCom case.
To speak of traditionally "law" here, ArbCom is a delegation of my
personal powers within the community since day one. I am free to
dismiss ArbCom at will. I have no intention of doing that, mind you.
But there is no need to "overthrow" the constitutional order, if reform
is sought.My block of Bishonen was a good block, and I haven't seen any serious
arguments to the contrary. She was very far outside of policy, and has
been a problem for a long time.
If you want to talk about me giving up de-sysop, rollback, etc., then
that's a separate matter, and one that I'm willing to discuss.
--Jimbo
----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:24:04 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
I responded to him privately.
I apologize to everyone for the intensity of my remarks tonight, but I
feel incredibly strongly about this situation.
I made a block 100% within policy. Nonetheless, I offered, by way of
appeasement to a very problematic admin who has abused a lot of poeple,
a number of different measures. I have offered to everyone that I will
do whatever I need to do in order to avoid an ArbCom case.
I think that this whole situation could turn very political - and I see
no reason for that to happen.
If you, ArbCom, want me to put a note in the block log, then I will do
so. I think the way this is being framed, as some kind of "conflict"
between Bishonen and me, requiring some kind of order - as if it is
against my agreement - is unnecessarily divisive.
----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:28:51 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unilateral offer, nothing asked in return
If you would like, I will put this note into Bishonen's block log:
"the block of Bishonen on May 22, 2009 should be disregarded"
I am doing absolutely everything I can do make sure that everyone is as
completely happy about all this as possible, short of a ruling by ArbCom
which will lead to the result that admins may no longer be blocked for
violation of civility policy. (Which is what this is fundamentally
going to do, if we are not careful.)
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:06:22 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Giving up the use of the "block" tool
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Roger Davies wrote:
>> Jimmy:
>>
>> Seeing as you're around and commenting, may I ask you to respond to
>> this please?
>
> Yes, and I'm sorry that I hadn't seen it before. Not sure how that
> happened.
>
>>> I recommend that you give up your administrative bits (sysop, CU and
>>> OS) and retain only the founder bit to concentrate entirely on
>>> developing a purely constitutional role. I do not know precisely
>>> what the founder bit involves, but I would not expect you to ever
>>> use any residual powers (de-sysop, block etc) that have been rolled
>>> up into it.
>>>
>>> This would be in addition to the reform suggestions recently made to
>>> the ArbCom elections (I'll draft something shortly on that).
>>>
>>> If this is acceptable to you, it would be better to announce this as
>>> a package indepedent of the arbitration case. Voluntary
>>> relinquishment of these powers will render much of the arbitration
>>> case moot, enabling us to deal with it in much more general terms.
>
> I am happy to give up those powers, but I don't think this arbcom case
> has anything to do with any of that at all. If there is a movement
> here to dethrone me, then please let's just talk about that separately
> and not do it under the guise of an ArbCom case.
>
> To speak of traditionally "law" here, ArbCom is a delegation of my
> personal powers within the community since day one. I am free to
> dismiss ArbCom at will. I have no intention of doing that, mind you.
> But there is no need to "overthrow" the constitutional order, if
> reform is sought.
>
> My block of Bishonen was a good block, and I haven't seen any serious
> arguments to the contrary. She was very far outside of policy, and
> has been a problem for a long time.
>
> If you want to talk about me giving up de-sysop, rollback, etc., then
> that's a separate matter, and one that I'm willing to discuss.
>
> --Jimbo
There is no movement here to "dethrone" you and I don't understand why
you believe that. There is wide support for a separation of powers. A
parallel would be the Queen of England does not issue parking tickets
(or anything else that jeopardises her constitutional independence).
The separation I've suggested would enthrone you formally in a
constitutional role, which would have the side effect of removing your
critics' most powerful argument.
It would be better if this separation took place prior to the ArbCom
elections and, if it were done much more expeditiously, it would have
the happy advantage of enabling me, at least, to suggest the Bishonen
case is moot.
Incidentally, I do not regard my authority as an arbitrator as an
extension of your personal powers. That may be how ArbCom started, but
its authority has long since been subsumed by community consensus, which
has created ArbCom's own legitimacy. By way of constitutional parallel,
the relationship is identical to the historically shifting one between
the English monarch and the English judiciary (or the English parliament).
I will not take what you have said about dismissing ArbCom as a veiled
threat but - to clarify this issue once and for all - I invite you to
dismiss me now at will if you believe my authority as an arbitrator
derives purely from your personal gift rather than from the community.
Roger
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:24:23 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
I'd prefer to see a motion along these lines:
a) Bishonen's conduct was not within the spectrum of behaviour expected
of an administrator as "administrators are expected to lead by example
and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with
others". The committee notes the other examples of incivility by this
adminstrator adduced in evidence.
b) Jimmy Wales' block of Bishonen was within blocking policy as blocks
are sometimes "used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led
to the block and encourage a productive editing environment".
c) Bishonen's request for relief in the form of an annotation in the
block log is denied and Bishonen is admonished for incivility.
Roger
----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:35:36 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
If anything like this is put up for voting, I think it is important to
note that an alternative was initially proposed by Brad on the mailing
list, and that your proposal below only came within a long thread
where Jimmy had earlier inappropriately intervened to make his case in
private before us (making several posts where he suggested alternative
motions and results), and that Bishonen and the community were not
privy to this.
In other words, anything suggested in this thread is now hopelessly
influenced by what Jimmy said. This so severely disrupts the process
that I can't, in all conscience, support any motion that even hints as
if it might have been influenced by what Jimmy wrote here. He may have
said similar things on-wiki, but I can't disassociate in my mind the
comments made on- and off-wiki.
I also don't think we can sit on this. If there are *any* leaks about
this, now or in the future, this would be absolute dynamite. Clear and
damning evidence that Jimmy made his case here on this list in
discussions to resolve a case involving him, despite being repeatedly
told not to. I was prepared to accept the earlier mis-step, but not
this. At a minimum, Bishonen needs to be sent a copy of all the
e-mails in this thread, and possibly the community need to know what
has happened here as well.
If a block carried out by an arbitrator had been the subject of this
request, and that arbitrator had been commenting in this thread like
Jimmy has, I'd be just as incensed and saying the same things.
Jimmy, you have put us in a very difficult position here. What are we
supposed to say if anyone asks us about this in future, or produces
evidence of this and asks us why we didn't do anything?
Carcharoth
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> I'd prefer to see a motion along these lines:
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:13:24 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
Well, no. The draft I floated is not a response to this thread. I
drafted the heads it a few days ago but as Brad had promised to produce
something himself, I held fire on posting it.
That said, Jimmy has compromised us hideously in this thread.
Roger
Carcharoth wrote:
> If anything like this is put up for voting, I think it is important to
-----------
From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
I have been trying to keep up. I am in the middle of some IRL stuff which pays the bills (i.e. work). Can someone set up an off-wiki list with the non-recused arbs and we continue to discuss this and absolutely stop talking about the Jimmy/Bish case on the arb list from now? I'd do it myself but have to?go for a while and do other stuff for several hours.
We can start again with Brad's original thread and go from there. I have stuff to add.
Cas
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:53:12 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Rough draft Bishonen/Jimbo motion for discussion
I have just unsubscribed Jimmy's accounts from en-ac-private
<http://groups.google.com/group/en-ac-private?hl=en> (along with Kirill
and Sam Blackater's)
I suggest we adjourn all discussion there of the Wakles-Bishonen case,
with immediate effect.
Roger
-----------
From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:07:11 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unilateral offer, nothing asked in return
I would say not make any entry at this point.
r/
Randy Everette
-----Original Message-----
From: arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:29 PM
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unilateral offer, nothing asked in return
If you would like, I will put this note into Bishonen's block log:
"the block of Bishonen on May 22, 2009 should be disregarded"
-----------
From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:12:34 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unilateral offer, nothing asked in return
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Randy Everette wrote:
> I would say not make any entry at this point.
I agree.
If you "amend" her log without it being a wording that she approves
of, it would be another nail in the coffin.
I see big problems with "the block of Bishonen on May 22, 2009 should
be disregarded", principally that it does not make an affirmative
statement. It does not say why. It says I am who I am, and as a
result, "x" should be done. Given that this has taken a month to
arrange, a note like that would be a slap in the face to someone who
has a reasonable grasp of the English language.
[[WP:MEDCOM]] has already been rejected, so unless you can find
another medium to negotiate a block entry revision her, I think it had
better be an arbcom revision which doesnt require that both parties
are happy with the outcome.
c.f. what Roger has said recently.
Of course you are free to do as you please, but anything short of "the
block of Bishonen on May 22, 2009 was wrong/inappropriate/whatever"
will likely only complicate the committees task, as it will reset our
discussions, and result in a more aggrieved party for us to work with
while we play catchup.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:01:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unilateral offer, nothing asked in return
I was about to make a lame joke about consideration and promissory estoppel,
but I realized that it isn't even lamely funny. In fact, it only occurs to
me because I'm staring into space at Logan Airport, wondering why I didn't
realize that "gratuitous promise" is a term of art. D'oh.
I'm exhausted, and I see that Newyorkbrad was entirely correct. Wikipedia
is still here. AND we're still on the edge of accepting this case for some
reason.
Does a solid majority agree with the Bish-by-motion approach, where we
resolve this small dispute via motion (while hopefully still pressing on
Jimbo to clarify his role on the project)? I would like to step away from
the ledge of this ugly case.
Frank
----------
From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unilateral offer, nothing asked in return
I think that is definitely doable (and I think that is where we're heading)
Cas
________________________________
From: Cool Hand Luke
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:01:59 AM
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Unilateral offer, nothing asked in return
I was about to make a lame joke about consideration and
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:25:55 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] What to do about Jimmy?
[Re-sent to right list]
There has been dismay, as Carcharoth has just noted, among us about his
recent intervention on the list and also consensus among us appears to
be that he should be encouraged to relinquish all tools, retaining only
the founder bit.
I agree that he should be privately but formally admonished over his
intervention.
I would support a public motion asking him to relinquish the tools but
others may think this should be done privately first.
I would further support his removal from any executive role in the
upcoming ArbCom elections, with his role limited to announcing the
winners for the number of seats announced prior to the election commencing.
Effectively, I would like to Jimmy withdraw from any executive/political
role and act purely as a constitutional head.
Roger
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:29:13 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] What to do about Jimmy?
Roger Davies wrote:
> [Re-sent to right list]
>
> There has been dismay, as Carcharoth has just noted, among us about
> his recent intervention on the list and also consensus among us
> appears to be that he should be encouraged to relinquish all tools,
> retaining only the founder bit.
>
> I agree that he should be privately but formally admonished over his
> intervention.
>
> I would support a public motion asking him to relinquish the tools but
> others may think this should be done privately first.
>
> I would further support his removal from any executive role in the
> upcoming ArbCom elections, with his role limited to announcing the
> winners for the number of seats announced prior to the election
> commencing.
>
> Effectively, I would like to Jimmy withdraw from any
> executive/political role and act purely as a constitutional head.
>
> Roger
I am not proposing that we intervene but if we are directly asked about
any intervention in the Wales-Bishonen case it could become very nasty
indeed. The best way forward, in my view, is to anticipate that and
encourage rapid movement towards remedying a longstanding problem. Jimmy
has said that he'd welcome discussion and making our feelings clearer,
if there is consensus, would be a great help. I know that Jimmy has
acted correctly in following the vote pattern in previous elections but
it remains a cause of great drama. I believe it would be make life
easier for everyone, especially Jimmy, if his roles were separated.
Roger
-----------
From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:17:53 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [arbcom-en-b] What to do about Jimmy?
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Roger
Davies<roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> With you, of course (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
I think there is some confusion here.
arbcom-en-b is not to have Jimmy on it. As a list admin, I have
removed him from the list.
He is a party. This list was for situations where a party is being
discussed, and that is how other people have been treating that list.
The initial emails that Roger sent to arbcom-en-b in error, as they
were actually intended for arbcom-l; that has been corrected because
he has moved the discussion over to arbcom-l.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:50:47 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] [arbcom-en-b] Fwd: What to do about Jimmy?
Risker wrote:
> In an odd sort of way, I think I understand Jimmy's attitudes
> and attempts at control - because it isn't all that far off from
> my RL efforts to keep a teenage son on the right path.
As a parent, I don't find the analogy compelling. I do not think of
Wikipedia, nor the community, as a baby nor as a teenager. We are a
group, largely consisting of thoughtful, kind, and reasonable adults,
who are working together on something really important - important to us
and important to the world.
Institutional design is not a matter of parenting, nor should it be a
matter of power struggle and control. I do not view it as such, and
encourage others not to view it as such either.
In terms of the Bishonen block, it was a block done 100% within policy.
Several have suggested that it may have been politically unwise - as
one person put it to me, "correct in principle, but not in implementation".
But what is being overlooked is that there is no general outcry about it
and a great deal of general support for it. Yes, Bishonen is infinitely
displeased - she broke a cardinal policy, after a longstanding pattern
of misbehavior. And she works with other problematic editors who have
long engaged in activism. But it was a solid block that many of their
victims have been supportive of - both publicly and privately. If
anything, the block has been politically a wash - but with the side
benefit, if the ArbCom will back it up - of demonstrating a firmness
about civility that has been absent for too long.
> particularly when done by a largely absentee "parent".
I'm afraid I must very strongly object to this characterization of me as
"absentee" in any sense of the word. I'm as engaged in Wikipedia as
anyone, and certainly as engaged as I have ever been. I keep up with
dozens of different matters, work in policy guidance, dispute
resolution, etc. This is my fulltime work, and I daresay that I spend
more time with it than at least some ArbCom members.
If it seems that I am quite hands off - that's true. I am hands off in
a principled and deliberate fashion - which runs counter to the view you
have expressed that I am still trying too much to be in control. Do you
see what I mean? Is this persuasive to you?
I ask because if there are problems, I think it is important to get
right just where the problems are.
> I do think he has a strong emotional attachment to Wikipedia,
> and it makes it that much harder to accept that the
> encyclopedia/community no longer sees him as its core moral
> compass.
I neither accept nor reject that particular claim, as I consider it to
be mostly irrelevant to institutional design.
But the recent complete failure of the attempt to remove me or change my
constitional position, the general expressions of dismay at my giving in
to Bishonen's irrational demands, and the many supportive comments of me
in many places, suggest to me that the community is very happy in
general with the institutional arrangements that we have had to date,
and pleased with the general direction towards *cautiously*
institutionalizing process. Indeed, I think I am far ahead of most of
the community and most of ArbCom in terms of wanting to move that onward.
> And like any parent, he has blind spots and possibly a
> few favourites too. I would like to see him formally stepping
> away from any actions that could be considered "routine", and to
> better understand the role of "constitutional monarch", which I
> don't think he really gets.
Other than blocking, what would that be? Desysopping?
--Jimbo
-----------
From: (Risker)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:34:25 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] [arbcom-en-b] Fwd: What to do about Jimmy?
> Risker wrote:
>
>> In an odd sort of way, I think I understand Jimmy's attitudes
>> and attempts at control - because it isn't all that far off from
>> my RL efforts to keep a teenage son on the right path.
>>
>
> As a parent, I don't find the analogy compelling. I do not think of
> Wikipedia, nor the community, as a baby nor as a teenager. We are a group,
> largely consisting of thoughtful, kind, and reasonable adults, who are
> working together on something really important - important to us and
> important to the world.
>
> Institutional design is not a matter of parenting, nor should it be a
> matter of power struggle and control. I do not view it as such, and
> encourage others not to view it as such either.
>
> As institutional design, Wikipedia is an outlier. Its design is more "no
design" than any form of structured or intended design, and its original
premise was to feed information into another platform, which it quickly
overtook.
>
>
> > particularly when done by a largely absentee "parent".
>
> I'm afraid I must very strongly object to this characterization of me as
> "absentee" in any sense of the word. I'm as engaged in Wikipedia as anyone,
> and certainly as engaged as I have ever been. I keep up with dozens of
> different matters, work in policy guidance, dispute resolution, etc. This
> is my fulltime work, and I daresay that I spend more time with it than at
> least some ArbCom members.
>
> If it seems that I am quite hands off - that's true. I am hands off in a
> principled and deliberate fashion - which runs counter to the view you have
> expressed that I am still trying too much to be in control. Do you see what
> I mean? Is this persuasive to you?
>
> I ask because if there are problems, I think it is important to get right
> just where the problems are.
>
I hope you can see the contradiction here; as a "constitutional monarch",
the role is to show the flag occasionally, voice support of positive
developments, warn against negative developments, and stay out of the
day-to-day muck.
>
>
> I do think he has a strong emotional attachment to Wikipedia,
>> and it makes it that much harder to accept that the
>> encyclopedia/community no longer sees him as its core moral
>> compass.
>>
>
> I neither accept nor reject that particular claim, as I consider it to be
> mostly irrelevant to institutional design.
>
> I've snipped out the bits about Bishonen entirely here, because I wasn't
> talking about that situation at all. We've asked you to please not keep
> doing this, Jimmy. Your persistence in doing so is making everyone's job
> much more difficult. Please stop.
>
> And like any parent, he has blind spots and possibly a
>> few favourites too. I would like to see him formally stepping
>> away from any actions that could be considered "routine", and to
>> better understand the role of "constitutional monarch", which I
>> don't think he really gets.
>>
>
> Other than blocking, what would that be? Desysopping?
>
To be honest, I see your role as being more akin to a Governor General than
a constitutional monarch, because the higher role is hypothetically that of
the WMF Board of Directors as a group.
Governors General make themselves available for comment on various issues,
usually of broad import. They also represent the country at its highest rank
to internal and external organizations, other countries, etc., on formal or
"state" visits. They do not speak on individual situations or act on
specific cases. While in theory they have significant power, the exercise of
that power is exceedingly rare, and only undertaken after extensive
consultation, and only to address major issues. Stepping beyond those bounds
tends to create something of a constitutional crisis (q.v. John Kerr of
Australia, who made use of the reserve powers, and set off massive public
demonstrations that echoed for years to come).
See also my comments above; your being involved in what I'd call the "day to
day muck" creates confusion and disproportionate responses.
Risker
----------
From: (Wizardman)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:38:01 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] [arbcom-en-b] Fwd: What to do about Jimmy?
This stopped being about the block a while ago, so no more discussion of
that aspect by anyone, please.
And now to catch up on reading this thread (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)
~W
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:34:31 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [arbcom-en-b] What to do about Jimmy?
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Randy Everette wrote:
> > He jumps the processes when people do directly to him. This option needs
> > to be removed. Requests should only come from us.
>
> When have I jumped any processes?
>
>
>
February 6. David Gerard sends a message to functionaries highlighting a
foundation thread on civility. He then starts demanding that we block Giano
and do so permanently, insisting that we're dropping the ball, sending a bad
signal, ect. We are disinclined to act.
Coincidentally, hours later, you blocked Giano yourself, supposedly for
civility (although the better rationale would have been BLP). You sent a
message to ArbCom saying asking us to review the block, and some of us
blocked other parties who were uncivil to Giano. Meanwhile, you removed the
Giano block without notice to us, leaving other parties to feel they'd been
mistreated. There was another instance where you've intervened when ArbCom
was handling precisely the same case (was it Peter Damian? I don't recall,
but I remember that an arbitrator severely chastised you about it).
Your intervention is usually disruptive, and leads commentators to believe
that some users have an ear with you and are able to get things done through
you.
Actually, let me drop the weasel words: *I believe* that some users
(including Gerard) have special access to you. And if I get that
impression, I'm sure that those without access to the shadowy arbcom-l list
believe it too. It's not helpful to the project, even though your heart is
in the right place.
All that said, I think that the Bishonen block was right as a matter of
policy. I don't think there's a need for Jimbo to lose his bits, but he
should stop performing controversial or demonstrative admin acts--especially
against people he has a history with. If he cannot tell whether acts will
be controversial, he should not perform them at all.
Frank
Jimbo vs Bishzilla Part 2, Mortals is tasty
MaliceAforethought Jimbo vs Bishzilla Part 2 
