FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com> Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbcom-l <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: elonka@gmail.com
Sent to me for forwarding from Elonka, who was the target of one of Giano's attacks. As an aside, she's the third user to complain to me about Giano specifically talking to female editors in a problematic way.
FT2
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Elonka Dunin <elonka@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Subject: Schoolyard bullying
To: ft2.wiki@gmail.com
I am extremely unhappy about the current Giano thread at WP:AE, because of Fred Bauder's decision to repeat all the attacks publicly. This means that these attacks are being repeated and publicized in a high profile public forum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...#Edits_at_issue
It was one thing for Giano to snipe with gender-based insults from a sock account on an article talkpage, but for Fred Bauder to now repeat this information at WP:AE, so that everyone can dissect whether it is or isn't offensive?
Let me be clear: It *is* offensive. It's a personal attack, and it's a comment about gender. It's inappropriate on multiple levels. And to those who say "Well, it's funny," I reply, "No, it isn't." I'm not laughing.
Please remove these personal attacks from AE, from the article talkpage where they occurred, and from the usertalk page where Giano also issued a BLP attack, accusing "Ms. Dunin" of attempting to murder someone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...articular_me.29
I'm sorry if you may feel that this shows me as a person without a sense of humor. But to me, the comments were offensive. The comments would probably be perceived as offensive to many other women as well. Or look at it this way: What if he had made jokes about my race, or my religion? Those kinds of comments are simply unacceptable, regardless of whether or not they are presented as humorous.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Elonka
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net> Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Reply-To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net, Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: elonka@gmail.com
This is the edit which a few people considered only humor. If it is, it
is certainly rough humor.
Fred
> _______________________________________________
> Arbcom-l mailing list
> Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
>
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com> Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:50 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: elonka@gmail.com
Giano has spent a year or more demonstrating his mastery of the stiletto -- the ability to make keenly felt insults and get away with it, letting others hold their hands up in innocence or because its seen as "funny" to them. Humor or not, the intention here was more likely to belittle or hurt. Crossreference multiple other comments to belittle and hurt female editors. As said, this is not the first female user who's complained about him that way.
I think you may need to uprate your view on that one, and make clear that this was grossly offensive - and placing the words in a joke tone or via a joke account isn't an excuse.
FT2
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Matthew Brown <morven@gmail.com> Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:59 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:50 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you may need to uprate your view on that one, and make clear that
> this was grossly offensive - and placing the words in a joke tone or via a
> joke account isn't an excuse.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I suspect that part of the reason for this "joke account" is entirely
to get away with things he can no longer get away with as Giano.
-Matt
Elonka@aol.com <elonka@aol.com> Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hiya, just letting you know that I'm thinking of instituting a block on
User:Giano II. I haven't dealt with him much in the past, but it's
apparent that this is a pretty highly charged political situation, so I
wanted to doublecheck with the Committee. The reason I'm asking, is
because I heard somewhere about how only certain admins were allowed to
deal with him. However, since I wasn't following the situation very
closely, I'm not sure if this was ever formalized, or was just something
that was being informally discussed.
To give more detail about my own thoughts: I don't think I've ever used
tools in regards to Giano, and to the best of my knowledge, I'm part of
neither his circle of "friends" nor circle of "enemies". And I
definitely wasn't in-crowd enough to know about the "Catherine de Burgh"
account. I knew it was an obvious sock when I saw it, but I didn't know
who the sockmaster was. In fact, my first guess was Bishonen, not
Giano. So I'm pretty comfortable that I'm "uninvolved" as regarding
him. And since the recent Checkuser situation, I've been getting
increasingly uncomfortable with some of the incivility that I'm seeing
from Giano. For example, calling admin Will Beback a troll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253089445
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=253089445>]
Looking through Giano's contribs, it is also apparent that though he is
spending a lot of time on Wikipedia, he's not actually working on
articles. I had to look back quite a few days before I could find a
single article edit, even though he's posting dozens and dozens of
messages on various talkpages.
In short, if this were any other editor, I would probably be considering
administrative action at this point, especially as he is already under a
civility restriction via the IRC case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...arbitration/IRC
I've posted a note to Giano's talkpage with my concerns, though I have
not received a reply yet.
If he calms down, great. If he doesn't though, and continues with
disruptive activities, is it alright with ArbCom if I institute a block?
Thanks,
Elonka
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com> Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:06 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Elonka Dunin <elonka@gmail.com>, Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On 11/21/08, Elonka@aol.com <elonka@aol.com> wrote:
Hiya, just letting you know that I'm thinking of instituting a block on
User:Giano II.
I advise against it. Giano is skilled at making remarks which are right on the borderline of incivility where admins legitimately take differing views. Giano has also got to the stage when blocks do not deter him because they just cause more drama and draw attention to his grievances.
He has just nominated Winter Palace for Featured Article this morning. It may be better to keep him busy on article work as a way of diverting him from wikidrama.
--
Sam Blacketer
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:44 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
2008/11/21 Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com>:
> He has just nominated Winter Palace for Featured Article this morning. It
> may be better to keep him busy on article work as a way of diverting him
> from wikidrama.
Indeed. His article work remains fantastic as ever.
- d.
Sam Korn <smoddy@gmail.com> Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:06 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Sam Blacketer
<sam.blacketer@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/21/08, Elonka@aol.com <elonka@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hiya, just letting you know that I'm thinking of instituting a block on
>> User:Giano II.
>
> I advise against it. Giano is skilled at making remarks which are right on
> the borderline of incivility where admins legitimately take differing views.
> Giano has also got to the stage when blocks do not deter him because they
> just cause more drama and draw attention to his grievances.
Furthermore, I don't think Elonka (whom Giano, Bishonen et al. already
have issues with) should be making the block. Anyone blocking Giano
must be someone who likes him and whom he likes. Otherwise the debate
becomes about the motives of the blocker, rather than about the
justification for the block. This is, of course, grossly unfair to
administrators acting in good faith, but that is, unfortunately, how
the whole situation around Giano has become.
Perhaps someone could suggest to Elonka that it would be prudent not
to take administrative actions against Giano? I can't work out how to
word it.
--
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key
David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:08 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
2008/11/21 Sam Korn <smoddy@gmail.com>:
> Furthermore, I don't think Elonka (whom Giano, Bishonen et al. already
> have issues with) should be making the block. Anyone blocking Giano
> must be someone who likes him and whom he likes. Otherwise the debate
> becomes about the motives of the blocker, rather than about the
> justification for the block. This is, of course, grossly unfair to
> administrators acting in good faith, but that is, unfortunately, how
> the whole situation around Giano has become.
Or an arbitrator could do it.
"Blocks and unblocks of Giano may only be actioned by a sitting arbitrator."
- d.
Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net> Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:12 AM
Reply-To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net, Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> 2008/11/21 Sam Korn <smoddy@gmail.com>:
>
>> Furthermore, I don't think Elonka (whom Giano, Bishonen et al. already
>> have issues with) should be making the block. Anyone blocking Giano
>> must be someone who likes him and whom he likes. Otherwise the debate
>> becomes about the motives of the blocker, rather than about the
>> justification for the block. This is, of course, grossly unfair to
>> administrators acting in good faith, but that is, unfortunately, how
>> the whole situation around Giano has become.
>
>
> Or an arbitrator could do it.
>
> "Blocks and unblocks of Giano may only be actioned by a sitting
> arbitrator."
>
>
> - d.
But you seem to have decided he's free to play bull in the china closet
for as long as he pleases.
Fred
Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net> Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:15 AM
Reply-To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net, Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Sam Blacketer
> <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/21/08, Elonka@aol.com <elonka@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hiya, just letting you know that I'm thinking of instituting a block
>>> on
>>> User:Giano II.
>>
>> I advise against it. Giano is skilled at making remarks which are right
>> on
>> the borderline of incivility where admins legitimately take differing
>> views.
>> Giano has also got to the stage when blocks do not deter him because
>> they
>> just cause more drama and draw attention to his grievances.
>
> Furthermore, I don't think Elonka (whom Giano, Bishonen et al. already
> have issues with) should be making the block. Anyone blocking Giano
> must be someone who likes him and whom he likes. Otherwise the debate
> becomes about the motives of the blocker, rather than about the
> justification for the block. This is, of course, grossly unfair to
> administrators acting in good faith, but that is, unfortunately, how
> the whole situation around Giano has become.
>
> Perhaps someone could suggest to Elonka that it would be prudent not
> to take administrative actions against Giano? I can't work out how to
> word it.
>
> --
> Sam
I would be happy to tell her that she doesn't have your support. Your job
though. He's your pet.
Fred
FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com> Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
If Elonka feelsit appropriate, so be it. The issue is that because of how things have been in the past, anyone who feels Giano should be blocked, needs to have a cast iron reason. Which is more onerous than most blocks, but given history, that's how it is. Much of the drama then comes from users who don't realize this unspoken fact.
Elonka has been working in areas where flaming of admins is the norm, and has indicated she's surviving it. She is unlikely (brutally) to have a future wiki-career as a checkuser, steward, arbcom member etc to be wrecked by pile-on opposes, andthe RFC on her adminship was engineered mainly for political purposes, as stated by the user who admitted engineering it.
I don't think we want an unspoken norm that "only arbitrators may deal with user X". There will always be pile-on opposes, but genuinely well founded blocks do none the less stand. Most are not sufficiently well founded however. I'd rather respond that usual norms apply, but due to history, in this case great thought is needed whether the proposed block is 100% backed by "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence.
Paul.
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I suspect that the situation will quiet down soon unless inflamed by another action like the proposed new block
B.
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Elonka@aol.com <elonka@aol.com> Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com>, arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Yes, I'm pleased to see that he's resuming article work as well. I have reviewed his contribs today, and have not seen anything grossly uncivil, though he is continuing to state that he will continue this pattern of disruption "until Gerard is fired".
As a note to all arbitrators:
I think that the situation would de-escalate, if the ArbCom case would get formally rejected. It seems that the consensus of arbs is to close it, but the only reason that it's staying open is because Newyorkbrad is waiting for a response from David Gerard. However, Gerard has not been on-wiki for a couple days, and is not responding to off-wiki communications either (at least, not to me). So it might be best to release the RfAr case, let it get removed from the page, and followup with Gerard separately. However, that is of course not my call, it's just a suggestion.
Also, at the risk of speaking "truth to power", I have to say that I was not impressed by some of the comments made by arbitrators on the case. Some of the language was (in my humble opinion) uncivil, or even rising to the level of personal attacks. I have to admit that I was genuinely surprised to see arbitrators using such language on that very public forum.
Though I can sympathize with the sentiments, it does make it more difficult to enforce a civility restriction on Giano, when the members of the Arbitration Committee who placed the restriction, are themselves uncivil. So it might be worth reviewing the language there and refactoring comments? Remember, as arbitrators, you are all important rolemodels to the community, and also present part of the "public face" of Wikipedia to the world.
Just my $0.02,
Elonka
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Charles Fulton <mackensen@gmail.com> Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I think we owe the new intake the kindness of not landing them in a
Giano dispute during/right after the election.
Charles
FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com> Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Charles Fulton <mackensen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we owe the new intake the kindness of not landing them in a
> Giano dispute during/right after the election.
>
> Charles
I agree.
Sydney
FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com> Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Although they will likely have one whether or not we do anything... based on history.
Either way, agree with the sentiment, but note that this would not be an acceptable motive for a case decision - we don't decide RFAR cases based round "whats helpful to new arbitrators".
Paul.
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Charles Fulton <mackensen@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we owe the new intake the kindness of not landing them in a
Giano dispute during/right after the election.
What, and break with our long-running tradition of opening the year with a Giano case? ;-)
Kirill
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com> Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
"Arbcom-l is a source of perennial scandal and controversy and should be deprecated"....
(Sorry, had to!)
Paul.
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Deskana <djgwiki@googlemail.com> Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I didn't reply because I didn't feel I had anything to add, but I just wanted to say I also think blocking Giano will only cause more trouble at this stage. Giano, of course, continues to rage, but more and more people are saying that they're not paying attention to it.
Dan
2008/11/21 FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com> Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com>
Elonka@aol.com wrote:
> Also, at the risk of speaking "truth to power", I have to say that I was
> not impressed by some of the comments made by arbitrators on the case.
> Some of the language was (in my humble opinion) uncivil, or even rising
> to the level of personal attacks. I have to admit that I was genuinely
> surprised to see arbitrators using such language on that very public
> forum.
>
> Though I can sympathize with the sentiments, it does make it more
> difficult to enforce a civility restriction on Giano, when the members
> of the Arbitration Committee who placed the restriction, are themselves
> uncivil. So it might be worth reviewing the language there and
> refactoring comments? Remember, as arbitrators, you are all important
> rolemodels to the community, and also present part of the "public face"
> of Wikipedia to the world.
I have often disagreed with Elonka about things, and I have not looked
at the comments she is talking about. But I think her advice her is
wonderful and something that we should all take into account quite
eagerly, not just with respect to Giano but with respect to everyone.
I think civility is a critically important value for Wikipedia, and
while all of us is bound to fail at it in some cases, it is something we
should really try hard to be role models for.
Rebecca <misfitgirl@gmail.com> Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:37 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
For the record, I'm happy to dish out blocks to Giano if it becomes necessary, and I suspect its unlikely they've got an existing problem with me.
Rebecca
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Deskana <djgwiki@googlemail.com> Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Ah yes, but you're a member of the Ombudsman Commission, no? He's now started ranting about David Gerard abusing oversight, and a block from someone on the Ombusdman Commission would likely inflame the situation even more.
Ridiculous, isn't it.
Dan
2008/11/27 Rebecca <misfitgirl@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:53 AM
Reply-To: charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com, Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I think civility is a critically important value for Wikipedia, and
> while all of us is bound to fail at it in some cases, it is something we
> should really try hard to be role models for.
>
History shows that some people find it hard to distinguish between
frankness and incvility. though. In fact there are big cultural factors
involved, as I know from (for example) my Russian and Japanese friends.
Simply put, if some people find frank remarks rude, we may have to live
with this, or degenerate into a mealy-mouthed public language. (That is
not what we need: frankness is to our discourse what acidity is to fat
in cooking - a way of cutting through what could cloy.)
Charles
Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com> Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 8:05 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com, Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Charles Matthews wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> I think civility is a critically important value for Wikipedia, and
>> while all of us is bound to fail at it in some cases, it is something we
>> should really try hard to be role models for.
>>
> History shows that some people find it hard to distinguish between
> frankness and incvility. though. In fact there are big cultural factors
> involved, as I know from (for example) my Russian and Japanese friends.
> Simply put, if some people find frank remarks rude, we may have to live
> with this, or degenerate into a mealy-mouthed public language. (That is
> not what we need: frankness is to our discourse what acidity is to fat
> in cooking - a way of cutting through what could cloy.)
Agreed that it can be a difficult matter, without question, to be both
frank and civil, but in my experience, we are among the best at it, and
should always remind ourselves to try as hard as we can.
Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net> Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Reply-To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net, Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> For the record, I'm happy to dish out blocks to Giano if it becomes
> necessary, and I suspect its unlikely they've got an existing problem
> with
> me.
>
> Rebecca
I'm not sure the Arbitration Committee would support any block of Giano
II, how about some feedback? I will, of course not impose the well
deserved one month block, but expect a good faith effort to deal with
Giano's destructive behavior. When does it end, or is it to work its way
through the warp and weave of the entire project? Abandonment of the
civility requirement is a a major change of policy. Your committee is not
authorized to change policy.
Fred
FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I can'tspeak for others, but as someone who recentlyissued a block to Giano, my understanding is this changes little. A user who wishes to block Giano would post at AE, and requestArbcom approval that it's reasonable. My sole concern here is that waiting 12 - 24 hrs for 5-8 arbs would defeat the purpose (which is that a block isnt dealt for "stale" matters). May I therefore propose the following as a practical way to carry out that decision:
1) A user wishing to block Giano should post on AE or to Arbcom. In both cases their evidence or basis should be required.
2) Endorsement by [2 net? 3 total?] arbitrators will be taken to meet the requirement that the committee agrees.
I'm figuring that that's going to be quick enkough to figure out even on a slow day, and will be seen as fairly fair.
Paul.
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Reply-To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net, Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I disagree. I don't think blocks for Giano need to be quick or intimately
related to particular edits; we're not training a dog.
I think blocks should be lengthy, a month or more, and be imposed to
protect Wikipedia from his pattern of editing, not from particular
indiscretions.
Fred
FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Part agree, part not.
Given history, the best we can do -- for giano and the whole project -- is simply to show, usualnorms apply. That is, not under-react nor over-react. I blocked him for 31. then 55 (subject to "breach of AE" unblock which is an issue) and both those were held by the community as reasonable lengths, and significantly, the second had far less dissent than the first.
If he behaves, that's what we want. We have allowed him to run wild a time,and I'm not inclined to make up for our mistake, by dunking him in huge blocks that will be seen as retributive and inciting to "what else could Giano do" when with a little more tact and patience,it can be handled in a way that isnt remarkable, and most see as unremarkable. By far more desirable. Patience is very wise here,the drama mill is runing down, you don't have to kick it at this point.
Paul.
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sorry, typo -
"(subject to "breach of AE" unblock which is a separate, and now addressed, issue)"
Paul.
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I just note that I think there's a big "moral hazard" (term from game
theory / insurance) when being a drama-monger for a long enough period
of time means that you get a free pass on being blocked by anyone other
than an ArbCom member, and even then...
--Jimbo
FT2 wrote:
> I can'tspeak for others, but as someone who recentlyissued a block to
> Giano, my understanding is this changes little. A user who wishes to
> block Giano would post at AE, and requestArbcom approval that it's
> reasonable. My sole concern here is that waiting 12 - 24 hrs for 5-8
> arbs would defeat the purpose (which is that a block isnt dealt for
> "stale" matters). May I therefore propose the following as a practical
> way to carry out that decision:
> 1) A user wishing to block Giano should post on AE or to Arbcom. In both
> cases their evidence or basis should be required.
> 2) Endorsement by [2 net? 3 total?] arbitrators will be taken to meet
> the requirement that the committee agrees.
> I'm figuring that that's going to be quick enkough to figure out even on
> a slow day, and will be seen as fairly fair.
> Paul.
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net
> <mailto:fredbaud@fairpoint.net>> wrote:
>
> > For the record, I'm happy to dish out blocks to Giano if it becomes
> > necessary, and I suspect its unlikely they've got an existing problem
> > with
> > me.
> >
> > Rebecca
>
> I'm not sure the Arbitration Committee would support any block of Giano
> II, how about some feedback? I will, of course not impose the well
> deserved one month block, but expect a good faith effort to deal with
> Giano's destructive behavior. When does it end, or is it to work its way
> through the warp and weave of the entire project? Abandonment of the
> civility requirement is a a major change of policy. Your committee
> is not
> authorized to change policy.
>
> Fred
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Arbcom-l mailing list
> Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net, Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> For the record, I'm happy to dish out blocks to Giano if it becomes
> necessary, and I suspect its unlikely they've got an existing problem
> with
> me.
>
> Rebecca
I'm not sure the Arbitration Committee would support any block of Giano
II, how about some feedback? I will, of course not impose the well
deserved one month block, but expect a good faith effort to deal with
Giano's destructive behavior. When does it end, or is it to work its way
through the warp and weave of the entire project? Abandonment of the
civility requirement is a a major change of policy. Your committee is not
authorized to change policy.
As far as I'm concerned, I'll happily support blocks once the election ends. My chief concern in drafting the motion -- and this was particularly a concern with Fred's solution, which made an explicit link between election performance and being blocked -- was to prevent a pro-Giano protest vote from forcing us into testing Jimmy's veto powers unnecessarily. Certainly, I have little interest in protecting Giano from the consequences of his own actions.
Kirill
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Note Deskana has just blocked Giano II for 55 hours for yet another violation of his civility patrol. Giano had already posted an ambiguous comment "Gone!" which might imply that he is leaving, although may not.
--
Sam Blacketer
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Deskana <djgwiki@googlemail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
He posted that before I posted my block message, but after I clicked "new section", so I didn't see it. I was going to apologise to him for leaving the message to try to not get bad blood between us but then I realised that there will be bad blood between us no matter what I do, and that there's room for a massive misinterpretation of my apology.
I blocked him for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255293797 which in my mind was totally unacceptable. Insulting editors is bad enough, but insulting the founder of Wikipedia? Yes, technically they're the same, but practically? Big difference.
Dan
2008/12/1 Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com>
Note Deskana has just blocked Giano II for 55 hours for yet another violation of his civility patrol. Giano had already posted an ambiguous comment "Gone!" which might imply that he is leaving, although may not.
--
Sam Blacketer
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com> wrote:
Note Deskana has just blocked Giano II for 55 hours for yet another violation of his civility patrol. Giano had already posted an ambiguous comment "Gone!" which might imply that he is leaving, although may not.
Further to this, Elonka reminds me of the terms of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...er_enforcement:
"Until further notice, no enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole shall be taken without the explicit written agreement of the Committee."
I'm happy to retrospectively agree if this causes problems.
--
Sam Blacketer
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I'm confused, I thought we voted that no blocks would be done to
enforce the civility sanction without agreement from ArbCom?
You were not acting as ArbCom but on your own, right?
Sydney
Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:00 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm confused, I thought we voted that no blocks would be done to
enforce the civility sanction without agreement from ArbCom?
You were not acting as ArbCom but on your own, right?
Elonka has suggested that she post the following:
"After having reviewed Giano's statement, I agree that this was egregious incivility that warranted an immediate civility block. My assumption is that Deskana, an arbitrator, is now consulting with the other members of the Arbitration Committee about the block. --~~~~"
--
Sam Blacketer
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Sam Blacketer
A block done by Deskana, someone that told Giano to get stuffed?
Bad idea, really.
Sydney
Deskana <djgwiki@googlemail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I admit I should have thought more before I acted, but I stand by the action itself. I'm not quite sure what I "acted as" when blocking him. I looked at the diff, and I thought it blindingly obvious that I'd get backup from everyone. Was I wrong? This is an honest question, not rhetorical.
Both me and Giano apologised about that incident between us. So because he pissed me off once I'm not allowed to block him for blatantly violating a civility parole? This is really getting a bit too ridiculous for me.
2008/12/1 FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Of course that is not what actually happened.
Sydney
Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:08 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com> wrote:
A block done by Deskana, someone that told Giano to get stuffed?
Bad idea, really.
Maybe but in my view overturning it would be immeasurably worse.
--
Sam Blacketer
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Sam Blacketer
<sam.blacketer@googlemail.com> wrote:
If we don't follow our own rulings then how can we expect other users
to follow them
FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Des...I_know.2C_but...
David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
2008/12/1 FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com>:
> If we don't follow our own rulings then how can we expect other users
> to follow them
Perhaps you could actually enforce them, not treat Giano as exempt
from the civility rules despite your sanction.
Taking the block off would say "actually, this doesn't apply."
- d.
Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:28 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/12/1 FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com>:
> If we don't follow our own rulings then how can we expect other users
> to follow them
Perhaps you could actually enforce them, not treat Giano as exempt
from the civility rules despite your sanction.
Taking the block off would say "actually, this doesn't apply."
Agree. The constant overturning of Giano's blocks on procedural grounds is teaching him and everyone else that he is exempt. Whatever we do this block must run its course.
I still say the simplest thing is to retrospectively authorise it with a majority of active arbitrators. I am in favour, and with Deskana that makes two. Anyone else?
--
Sam Blacketer
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Deskana <djgwiki@googlemail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I've really made a mess of things, now.
WJBscribe made a good point to me that I'm coming across as reckless and unpredicable, given that I was fiddling with the flags on my account before (harmlessly, yes, but it got some people worried).
I don't know what to do, now. Acting rashly was what got me into this position in the first place. I don't want to act rashly again and make an even bigger mess.
2008/12/1 Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com>
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
And what is more important, a short block of Giano that will do
nothing in long run to stop his incivility?
Or us sending a message to the Community that we have no idea what we
are doing? And possible looking like we are making an exception for a
fellow arb.
Sydney
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Sam Blacketer
<sam.blacketer@googlemail.com> wrote:
Deskana <djgwiki@googlemail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Like I say, I acted before I thought. I was certain at the time that I was doing the right thing. There was no doubt in my mind. As soon as I clicked block, I started to think.
I think we need to figure out the best and quickest way to get out of the mess I have created, and then deal with me.
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Matthew Brown <morven@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I remain of the opinion that Giano is significantly overdue for a
block of lengthy duration administered by the AC.
I support Deskana's block but would prefer to see a longer one.
-Matt
Deskana <djgwiki@googlemail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Also, not to be picky, but we never did state that the written permission had to be onwiki, or even that it had to be *before* the block. Of course, only a fool would block without the permission, but we've already estabalished that much.
2008/12/1 Matthew Brown <morven@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Deskana <djgwiki@googlemail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
WJBscribe undid the block.
Frankly, I'm inclined to support his action. I acted too quickly, too rashly, and didn't think about what I did.
I throw myselves at the mercy of the committee. Frankly, given what we did to SlimVirgin for acting rashly and not consulting others, I think the same is appropriate for me.
2008/12/1 Deskana <djgwiki@googlemail.com>
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I'd let things sit for a bit with no further action by anyone.
Newyorkbrad
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Except that I do feel compelled to point out that I've never Giano involved in any outing activity on WR either. Have I missed something?
Newyorkbrad
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Matthew Brown <morven@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Deskana <djgwiki@googlemail.com> wrote:
> WJBscribe undid the block.
>
> Frankly, I'm inclined to support his action. I acted too quickly, too
> rashly, and didn't think about what I did.
>
> I throw myselves at the mercy of the committee. Frankly, given what we did
> to SlimVirgin for acting rashly and not consulting others, I think the same
> is appropriate for me.
I don't think so. Don't beat yourself up about it.
Giano's actions are calculated to push people into anger, and frankly
should have long ago caused the temporary or permanent ending of his
Wikipedia career.
-Matthew
Bao-Loc Nguyen <blnguyen2230@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Agree. Nothing is going to be gained.
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Does anyone have an answer for this? I really do feel like I must be missing something.
B.
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Bao-Loc Nguyen <blnguyen2230@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I'm not aware of him doing anything of the sort
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Deskana <djgwiki@googlemail.com> Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I don't think he has.
That's not how I read Jimbo's post, incidentally. I read Jimmy's post as accusing him of helping to perpetuate the problem by insisting that there was inappropriate use of oversight over and over, which is entirely truthful. I'm sure this was the way that Jimmy intended it too, but it seems to have been quite commonly misread and misinterpreted, and not only by Giano.
As such I saw Giano's response as totally out of proportion, and acted before I thought. I did not pretend to act with prior approval, as I wasn't thinking about it. I admitted publically that there was no such approval, and WJBscribe unblocked knowing that.
Frankly, I'm impressed with how the situation has been handled. People have assumed good faith, not been senselessly calling for my head, and been calmly listening to the situation.
2008/12/2 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
