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

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

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

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

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

Risker

2009/7/22 Cool Hand Luke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> "I believe the outcome of this case will be very bad for you, much
> worse than anything that has happened so far from your own
> perspective"--I assume you didn't mean that quite the way it came out.
> I do believe you mean well about the note in my block log, but the

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

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

> Sorry if that sounds ungracious, but if I'm to have a
> settlement about a log note (which is indeed something I want),
> somebody will have to work out the wording and just present it to me
> as a package deal.

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

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

Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> Sorry if that sounds ungracious, but if I'm to have a
>> settlement about a log note (which is indeed something I want),
>> somebody will have to work out the wording and just present it to me
>> as a package deal.
>
> Ok, is there someone you trust whom you'd like for me to work with on
> that wording?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sydney
----------

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

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

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

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

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

r/
Randy Everette

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

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

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

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

Jimmy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risker

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

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

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

Jimmy:

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

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

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

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

Roger
----------

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

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

Did you see the bottom of my email:

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

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

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

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

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

don't forget definition of involved (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Cas
----------

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

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

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

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

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

Carcharoth
----------

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probably best discussed on-wiki.

Carcharoth
----------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, that is a carrot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We haven't tried to work with a mediator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done.

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

Carcharoth
----------

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

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

Bishonen
----------

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

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

Carcharoth
----------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<incl bish and jimbo>

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

r/
Randy Everette