From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:38:04 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
<changing topic>
Paul August wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Dmcdevit wrote:
>
>
>> Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>>
>>> The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at
>>> this point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
>>>
>>> Kirill
>>>
>> I think I would be willing to do this, if I knew that it was going
>> to be
>> accepted. A rejected case sitting around will just be more drama
>> though.
>> Shall I?
>>
>> Dominic
>>
>
> I am very concerned about the investigations and blocks carried out
> by Jehochman and Durova (for Durova please see the "Durova's methods"
> thread). What would the scope of the case you are considering
> presenting be?
>
I suppose I should lay out the recent occurrences, note that there are
more reports and evidence of Durova's and Jehochman's methods that
ArbCom and I know of privately, and, given all of the problems we've
been discussing and the community's lack of useful signal-to-noise ratio
for sensational cases like this, ask that ArbCom resolve it. Sound good?
Dominic
-----------
From dmcdevit at cox.net Fri Nov 23 08:08:49 2007
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:08:49 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
In-Reply-To: <4746835C.7010901@cox.net>
References: <473C3328.3070904@jehochman.com> <47453702.20409@cox.net> <42f90dc00711220118i371f28cen1c5ee2619e9755a1@mail.gmail.com> <474554C5.1030601@cox.net> <3f797b9a0711220904l763cebc6kd0ab817cb279ba04@mail.gmail.com> <3f797b9a0711221007g43589464pd6885b01c48da5d7@mail.gmail.com> <fbad4e140711221013k592b7f03o353ceff5d9b40c06@mail.gmail.com> <3f797b9a0711221017m74f09da4jbf15dc6a053a9d6f@mail.gmail.com> <4745E9AD.1000003@cox.net> <B601A437-4805-4F7F-BC28-C153F1A0A250@gmail.com>
<4746835C.7010901@cox.net>
Message-ID: <47468A91.1060601@cox.net>
Also, as an addendum, I wasn't sure whether to include Jehochman or not
but had that concern resolved as I was writing the previous email.
Jehocham messaged me on IRC to ask about a checkuser for a troll. Seemed
fine enough, happens to me a lot, and the account was indeed suspicious.
(User:CygnetSaIad, involved in the Durova RFC and other drama
immediately after creation, but I couldn't immediately figure out the
culprit.) It wasn't obvious from the checkuser, so I asked if he had a
suspect; if it was a known Australian, that would be a very good lead,
and anyone else... it would be much easier to check against a suspect
than searching entire ISPs for old banned users.
His suspect was, amazingly, Giano. Say what you will about Giano or El
C, but neither of them have any reason to be primary suspects in these
troll investigations. It's insane.
<Jehochman> The account that started the Durova RFC is an
admitted sock:
<Jehochman>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76947478 <Dmcsleep> Hm. Do you have any suspects?
<Jehochman> Giano II is one suspect.
<Dmcsleep> what?
<Jehochman> I don't want to go on a fishing expedition.
<Jehochman> What do I need to provide to do this properly. Please
bear with me I am inexperienced.
* Dmcsleep sighs.
<Jehochman> Giano II posted material today that had to be
oversighted. After that happened, he disappeared, and this sock started
the RFC on Durova.
<Dmcsleep> Do you seriously suspect one of the most experienced
and productive writers on Wikipedia of creating a disruptive sockpuppet?
On what grounds? It's a serious accusation, even if you are making it
casually, which is a bit disheartening.
<Jehochman> The sock shows tremendous familiarity and experience
with Wikipedia. It's a senior editor. The sock started 21 September
2006. It's been around.
<Jehochman> I am fitting the profile, and the motive with the
available suspects.
<Jehochman> This is not an easy investigation. I wish I had
another suspect, but I don't.
After this I basically tried to give him a reality check and told him to
try to stick to articles for a bit. We'll see.
Dominic
------------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:11:33 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
On 23/11/2007, Dmcdevit wrote:
> <Jehochman> Giano II posted material today that had to be
> oversighted. After that happened, he disappeared, and this sock started
> the RFC on Durova.
> <Dmcsleep> Do you seriously suspect one of the most experienced
> and productive writers on Wikipedia of creating a disruptive sockpuppet?
> On what grounds? It's a serious accusation, even if you are making it
> casually, which is a bit disheartening.
Uh, last time there was ArbCom drama involving Giano II, I looked and
found a couple of alternate accounts that he was playing silly buggers
on talk pages with. So, not so far fetched.
- d.
-----------
From: (Matthew Brown)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:30:27 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
On Nov 23, 2007 12:11 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Uh, last time there was ArbCom drama involving Giano II, I looked and
> found a couple of alternate accounts that he was playing silly buggers
> on talk pages with. So, not so far fetched.
I wouldn't be surprised either. However, one should really have
ironclad evidence before saying anything.
-Matt
------------
From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:12:21 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
On a tangent - but I have been very concerned about mission creep at WP:COI, where the same pair are apparently arguing rather instrumentally about the "conflict of interest" guideline.
Charles
------------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:54:06 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
If it isn't within Oversight policy as currently stated, it should be.
--Jimbo
-----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:44:36 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On 22/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
> I'm not sure of all the places she sent her evidence, but one of them
> was the Cyberstalking list
Sorry, forgive me... did I miss some announcement? This is the first
I've heard of a list devoted to cyber-stalking (presumably from
context as part of the Wikimedia community, but not an open list).
What is it's membership? I'd imagine that I'd be quite interested in
participating.
Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
------------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:47:17 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
Cla68 is an unusual case; a good article writer who is also a complete
and utter troll. He regularly proxies for Bagley and WR, but his other
contributions are impossible to ignore. It's hard to know what to do
with him, but giving into his demands to know who oversighted what
surely isn't one of them. The oversight logs were made private for a
good reason, and that hasn't changed.
On Nov 22, 2007 11:00 PM, Matthew Brown wrote:
> It does sound as if these oversights were outside of policy. OTOH,
> I'm not sure handing a head on a platter to Giano and Cla68 does
> anyone any good.
>
> -Matt
-----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:51:39 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On Nov 23, 2007 9:44 AM, James Forrester wrote:
> On 22/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
> > I'm not sure of all the places she sent her evidence, but one of them
> > was the Cyberstalking list
>
> Sorry, forgive me... did I miss some announcement? This is the first
> I've heard of a list devoted to cyber-stalking (presumably from
> context as part of the Wikimedia community, but not an open list).
> What is it's membership? I'd imagine that I'd be quite interested in
> participating.
>
> Yrs,
> --
> James D. Forrester
> jdforrester at wikimedia.org | jdforrester at gmail.com
> [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
I don't know the full membership. SlimVirgin is the moderator, you
could write her.
------------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:07:28 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On 23/11/2007, James Forrester wrote:
> Sorry, forgive me... did I miss some announcement? This is the first
> I've heard of a list devoted to cyber-stalking (presumably from
> context as part of the Wikimedia community, but not an open list).
> What is it's membership? I'd imagine that I'd be quite interested in
> participating.
Remember that big cc list a couple of months ago about cyberstalking,
that arbcom-l was added to? It was made into a proper list and the
arbcom were invited if they wished.
- d.
-----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:44:05 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On 23/11/2007, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23/11/2007, James Forrester wrote:
>
> > Sorry, forgive me... did I miss some announcement? This is the first
> > I've heard of a list devoted to cyber-stalking (presumably from
> > context as part of the Wikimedia community, but not an open list).
> > What is it's membership? I'd imagine that I'd be quite interested in
> > participating.
>
> Remember that big cc list a couple of months ago about cyberstalking,
> that arbcom-l was added to? It was made into a proper list and the
> arbcom were invited if they wished.
Oh. Well, I wasn't invited (or CC'ed in on the long sequence of
e-mails, for that matter). Perhaps it was an oversight. Will contact
Sarah.
Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
-----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:05:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
The oversighter in question owned up to it on wiki so it ends up being a
dead letter anyway.
jayjg wrote:
> Cla68 is an unusual case; a good article writer who is also a complete
> and utter troll. He regularly proxies for Bagley and WR, but his other
> contributions are impossible to ignore. It's hard to know what to do
> with him, but giving into his demands to know who oversighted what
> surely isn't one of them. The oversight logs were made private for a
> good reason, and that hasn't changed.
>
> On Nov 22, 2007 11:00 PM, Matthew Brown <morven> wrote:
>> It does sound as if these oversights were outside of policy. OTOH,
>> I'm not sure handing a head on a platter to Giano and Cla68 does
>> anyone any good.
>>
>> -Matt
-----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:36:00 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
Regarding the oversighting, yes, regarding Cla68, no. He's back to his
usual self, making gratuitous snotty comments about the Sweet Blue
Water incident:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172036189trying to make as much drama as possible about the 75 minute Durova
blocking of !!, with 25 separate posts to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ablished_editorThreatening admins with de-sysopping and making spurious COI claims over it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173136733Pushing for a Signpost article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik...munity_reaction-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:45:14 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
On 23/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
> Regarding the oversighting, yes, regarding Cla68, no. He's back to his
> usual self, making gratuitous snotty comments about the Sweet Blue
Material for an arbitration case? Suggested penalty: no edits to
Wikipedia: page space for a year.
- d.
-----------
From: (Cary Bass)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:45:58 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
I will be blocking Giano II if he continues to replace Durova's letter
on his user page. He's way over the line with civility, and he's
trolling. I'm doing my best to try to cool down a very bad and
polarizing situation; and he's making the situation indefinitely worse.
--
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
-----------
From: (Matthew Brown)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:56:05 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
Giano really, really wants to be a martyr all over again.
-Matt
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:57:31 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
On 23/11/2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
> Giano really, really wants to be a martyr all over again.
This is definitely in the class of deliberate drama that's harmful to
the community.
- d.
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:59:09 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
On 23/11/2007, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23/11/2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
> > Giano really, really wants to be a martyr all over again.
> This is definitely in the class of deliberate drama that's harmful to
> the community.
Aaand there he goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173316398A Foundation block, no less.
- d.
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:05:10 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
On Nov 23, 2007 12:59 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23/11/2007, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 23/11/2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
>
> > > Giano really, really wants to be a martyr all over again.
>
> > This is definitely in the class of deliberate drama that's harmful to
> > the community.
>
>
> Aaand there he goes:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173316398>
> A Foundation block, no less.
>
>
>
> - d.
It's a terrible shame, he's a very good article writer. He reminds me
in some ways of Cla68, to be honest, except that Cla68 is malicious,
whereas Giano is hot-heated and stubborn.
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:08:52 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
On Nov 23, 2007 12:59 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23/11/2007, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 23/11/2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
>
> > > Giano really, really wants to be a martyr all over again.
>
> > This is definitely in the class of deliberate drama that's harmful to
> > the community.
>
>
> Aaand there he goes:
>
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173316398>
> A Foundation block, no less.
Not to put to fine a point on it: since when is "incivility" and "trolling"
a matter which provokes the Foundation into involving itself directly? This
block was a horrible idea; not only because it makes Giano much more of a
martyr-figure than he already was -- although that's bad enough -- but also
because turning this into a Foundation-level issue will *increase* the
drama, not decrease it.
Kirill
----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:11:40 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
yeah, but we get to wash our hands of it now. Over our heads.
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:15:06 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
On Nov 23, 2007 1:11 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:
> yeah, but we get to wash our hands of it now. Over our heads.
I doubt it'll work out quite that well, actually. Cary may be able to crack
down brutally enough to keep a lid on things, but the WMF office isn't
really set up well to manage a community issue like this over the long term.
(Not to mention that, frankly, the idea of arbitrary WMF crackdowns becoming
a first line of defense is not one I'm particularly comfortable with.)
Kirill
----------
From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:30:04 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
"Kirill Lokshin" wrote
> On Nov 23, 2007 1:11 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:
>
> > yeah, but we get to wash our hands of it now. Over our heads.
>
>
> I doubt it'll work out quite that well, actually. Cary may be able to crack
> down brutally enough to keep a lid on things, but the WMF office isn't
> really set up well to manage a community issue like this over the long term.
>
>
> (Not to mention that, frankly, the idea of arbitrary WMF crackdowns becoming
> a first line of defense is not one I'm particularly comfortable with.)
I was thinking of answering Jimbo's thought piece on the age limit for thoughts of my own, on the constitutional position of the AC wrt the WMF. We may be about to find out more on this than we want.
So, if Giano wants to appeal this block: can he do it direct to us? Direct to Jimbo who can ask us to take the case? Or should we suggest to Cary that we would take the case under an injunction to stop him doing the exact thing he has been?
That is assuming we don't entirely want to duck this.
Charles
----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:35:13 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
Cary already unblocked after Giano promised not to re-post it.
Sydney
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:54:02 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
I think the fundamental problem is that our usual lethargy has progressed to
the point that the WMF office is now moving more effectively to curb
community unrest than we are. In the long term, actions like this will give
the impression that the Committee is impotent and unable to maintain order
within the community. I think an outcome of that sort should be avoided, as
it will significantly undermine any authority we claim to hold.
As a practical matter, I think we need to develop a doctrine by which we
will take up matters unilaterally, without waiting for someone to appeal.
We have already done this, albeit in a haphazard fashion, with some issues (
e.g. pedophile advocacy); I think we now need to generalize it.
An initial idea: allow any Arbitrator to open a "request for comments"
(under the purview of the Committee) on some issue. (The terminology could
be different to avoid confusion with RFCs, I suppose.) The stated purpose
of this would be to help the Committee determine whether a full proceeding
was needed to resolve some issue. On a practical level, it would allow
discussion to centralize in a place where it could be easily contained, as
well as furthering the impression of the Committee being responsive to
community issues.
Kirill
----------
From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:06:48 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
"Kirill Lokshin" wrote
> I think the fundamental problem is that our usual lethargy has progressed to
> the point that the WMF office is now moving more effectively to curb
> community unrest than we are.
But that's wrong. We are metaphorical magistrates, not policemen.
>In the long term, actions like this will give
> the impression that the Committee is impotent and unable to maintain order
> within the community. I think an outcome of that sort should be avoided, as
> it will significantly undermine any authority we claim to hold.
Order is maintained by admins. With 100 admins to an Arbitrator, what else?
> As a practical matter, I think we need to develop a doctrine by which we
> will take up matters unilaterally, without waiting for someone to appeal.
> We have already done this, albeit in a haphazard fashion, with some issues (
> e.g. pedophile advocacy); I think we now need to generalize it.
Trouble ahead. We should not in any case be drama-driven. That's too reactive. The pedophile thing is manageable now because it's a running cull and deliberately a bit scary for the POV pushers.
Charles
Malice's note: Ah Charles, it was a nice try mate. Too bad it didn't pan out.----------
From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:12:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
Giano's behavior is a long standing problem. Sustained successful trolling
with support. Supposedly, his contributions excuse it.
Fred
----------
From:(Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:15:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
> On Nov 23, 2007 1:11 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:
>
>> yeah, but we get to wash our hands of it now. Over our heads.
>
>
> I doubt it'll work out quite that well, actually. Cary may be able to
> crack down brutally enough to keep a lid on things, but the WMF office
> isn't really set up well to manage a community issue like this over the
> long term.
>
>
> (Not to mention that, frankly, the idea of arbitrary WMF crackdowns
> becoming a first line of defense is not one I'm particularly comfortable
> with.)
>
> Kirill
You are correct. Dealing with Giano is our job. Really, your job, I would
have banned him months ago.
Fred
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:16:31 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
On Nov 23, 2007 2:06 PM, <charles.r.matthews> wrote:
> "Kirill Lokshin" wrote
>
> > I think the fundamental problem is that our usual lethargy has
> progressed to
> > the point that the WMF office is now moving more effectively to curb
> > community unrest than we are.
>
> But that's wrong. We are metaphorical magistrates, not policemen.
>
It's probably not very useful to try and find an exact parallel for us at
this point. We are a dispute resolution body, yes; but, in practice, we're
also a privilege-oversight body, a take-care-of-sensitive-issues body, a
deal-with-misbehaving-admins body, and other things. I think the
expectation among the community, at least, is that our mission covers
"keeping order" in a general sense, and that we should be stepping in to
deal with major explosions of drama.
> >In the long term, actions like this will give
> > the impression that the Committee is impotent and unable to maintain
> order
> > within the community. I think an outcome of that sort should be
> avoided, as
> > it will significantly undermine any authority we claim to hold.
>
> Order is maintained by admins. With 100 admins to an Arbitrator, what
> else?
>
Admins are the first line, yes. But there's fifteen Arbitrators, and only
one Cary; by that principle, we should certainly come earlier in the chain
than the WMF.
(In all honesty, I think that any situation that forces the WMF to step into
the community-management role will be seen as a failure to maintain order on
our part, regardless of the constitutional semantics of it. And building a
reputation for such failures will severely impede our ability to operate, I
think.)
> > As a practical matter, I think we need to develop a doctrine by which we
> > will take up matters unilaterally, without waiting for someone to
> appeal.
> > We have already done this, albeit in a haphazard fashion, with some
> issues (
> > e.g. pedophile advocacy); I think we now need to generalize it.
>
> Trouble ahead. We should not in any case be drama-driven. That's too
> reactive. The pedophile thing is manageable now because it's a running cull
> and deliberately a bit scary for the POV pushers.
I think that we need to try and minimize drama, overall. Letting the
fighting go on because there's nobody to play adult on the playground
doesn't seem particularly useful, even if the alternative would be reactive.
Kirill
----------
From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:18:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
>> > > Giano really, really wants to be a martyr all over again.
>>
>> > This is definitely in the class of deliberate drama that's harmful
>> to the community.
>>
>>
>> Aaand there he goes:
>>
>>
>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173316398>>
>> A Foundation block, no less.
>
>
> Not to put to fine a point on it: since when is "incivility" and
> "trolling" a matter which provokes the Foundation into involving itself
> directly? This block was a horrible idea; not only because it makes
> Giano much more of a martyr-figure than he already was -- although
> that's bad enough -- but also because turning this into a
> Foundation-level issue will *increase* the drama, not decrease it.
>
> Kirill
The reason the Deus ex machina is in operation is because we did not deal
with him adequately. By we, I mean the entire administrative community.
He's been running wild for months.
Fred
----------
From: (Cary Bass)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:17:53 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
As a follow up (in case you were not already aware), Giano had promised
not to repost the letter, etc. etc. and I unblocked him and unprotected
his talk page.
Cary Bass wrote:
> I will be blocking Giano II if he continues to replace Durova's letter
> on his user page. He's way over the line with civility, and he's
> trolling. I'm doing my best to try to cool down a very bad and
> polarizing situation; and he's making the situation indefinitely worse.
--
Cary Bass
---------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:29:23 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
On Nov 22, 2007, at 11:00 PM, Matthew Brown wrote:
> It does sound as if these oversights were outside of policy.
I agree.
Paul August
----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:36:32 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
Although Blnguyen use of oversight was outside policy, and as a
practical matter added to the drama level, his admission and
explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Administrators% 27_noticeboard/Incidents/
Indefinite_block_of_an_established_editor&diff=173242552&oldid=173233348
showed courage and was the honorable thing to do. It has helped the
situation greatly. I think he deserves a lot of credit for this
action, and our thanks.
Paul August
----------
From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:45:11 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
"Kirill Lokshin" wrote
> I think that we need to try and minimize drama, overall. Letting the
> fighting go on because there's nobody to play adult on the playground
> doesn't seem particularly useful, even if the alternative would be reactive.
Well, we could be pro-active. Probably the most pro-active thing we could do would be to announce that we are lowering the bar for acceptance of cases, take just about anything for a couple of months, and chop off a whole lot of heads.
I will say, re Giano, that (way back when) I voted for a sanction for Giano, alongside Fred; no one else did. I got the usual Bishonen/Geogre pile-up on my Talk page, of course. And lived to tell the tale. I didn't then realise some of the background (I had only part of the Kelly+IRC picture, which was aggravating things). In order to clamp down on the "drama" that is really sporadic faction-fighting, I think we'd need a very clear of the factions we are talking about, and the objectives of a crack-down. Just being up to the hip in bans isn't a criterion of success.
Charles
----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:59:59 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
This happened before I knew about it, so it really is an "office" action.
The block was righteous, I wish that I had been the one to do it
instead, though.
----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:19:54 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> It's probably not very useful to try and find an exact parallel for us
> at this point. We are a dispute resolution body, yes; but, in practice,
> we're also a privilege-oversight body, a take-care-of-sensitive-issues
> body, a deal-with-misbehaving-admins body, and other things. I think
> the expectation among the community, at least, is that our mission
> covers "keeping order" in a general sense, and that we should be
> stepping in to deal with major explosions of drama.
I am just brainstorming here because I agree with both of you.
We should be above drama, a more reflective and thoughtful body guiding
longterm policy. And we do have the generally unquestioned authority to
hand out punishments that stick, punishments that matter to people: bans
and de-adminnings.
But there is a problem with drama mongers, and it seems to me to be
getting worse rather than better, even though I am not as dire as some
people are about it. (The world of wikipedia has always been going
straight to hell in a handbasket but never quite seems to get there.)
And the admins themselves, being equal to each other by definition, are
having a hard time dealing with it. This is particular true when other
admins are involved, but it is even true when the user in question
(Giano in this instance, Dan T. is another one) is not an admin but
still a user of sufficient longstanding that an actual block is a
political act of sorts.
> (In all honesty, I think that any situation that forces the WMF to step
> into the community-management role will be seen as a failure to maintain
> order on our part, regardless of the constitutional semantics of it.
> And building a reputation for such failures will severely impede our
> ability to operate, I think.)
I agree with this completely.
> I think that we need to try and minimize drama, overall. Letting the
> fighting go on because there's nobody to play adult on the playground
> doesn't seem particularly useful, even if the alternative would be
> reactive.
Sometimes I have been accused of generating drama by stepping in firmly
to tell people to relax, including blocks and desysopping if necessary,
but I think (though I am open to other views) that on average my actions
have tended to have a calming effect, if by nothing other than shock and
awe in the worst cases. (Remember the big night of the pedophile
userbox war... at least we stopped the drama around that issue.)
Sometimes a wrong ruling is better than no ruling at all, particularly
when it is made clear that anything which is done can be undone upon
further reflection.
--Jimbo
----------
From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:25:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
> "Kirill Lokshin" wrote
>
>> I think that we need to try and minimize drama, overall. Letting the
>> fighting go on because there's nobody to play adult on the playground
>> doesn't seem particularly useful, even if the alternative would be
>> reactive.
>
> Well, we could be pro-active. Probably the most pro-active thing we
> could do would be to announce that we are lowering the bar for
> acceptance of cases, take just about anything for a couple of months,
> and chop off a whole lot of heads.
>
> I will say, re Giano, that (way back when) I voted for a sanction for
> Giano, alongside Fred; no one else did. I got the usual Bishonen/Geogre
> pile-up on my Talk page, of course. And lived to tell the tale. I didn't
> then realise some of the background (I had only part of the Kelly+IRC
> picture, which was aggravating things). In order to clamp down on the
> "drama" that is really sporadic faction-fighting, I think we'd need a
> very clear of the factions we are talking about, and the objectives of a
> crack-down. Just being up to the hip in bans isn't a criterion of
> success.
>
> Charles
Success would be a change in behavior. Meat to hungry lions doesn't work
though.
Fred
----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:25:12 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II
I think there is drama on all sides of several factional wars, and I
have not seen any of these factional wars where I think either side has
anything other than personal blahblahblah he said she said blahblahblah
to back themselves up.
We would want to be careful not to accidentally "take sides".
I have been wanting to issue a general announcement of a crackdown on
civility, taking out several obvious difficult users at once as a form
of "green light" for others to do the same, but have also been persuaded
that me doing it might send the opposite signal: that such actions
require an extraordinary intervention.
Giano would have been a nice test case, had it been done by an ordinary
admin, rather than Cary using his office account.
--Jimbo
Durova block of !! (Nov/Dec 2007) Including backstory on the hidden list, and AC acting on those "investigations"
MaliceAforethought Durova block of !! (Nov/Dec 2007) Including backstory on the hidden list 
