On 8/27/07, Frank Bellowes <fbellowes(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip various comments about oversight, etc.] Well, as we said on AN/I when this first came up, "the Arbitration Committee is discussing the issues involved". Kirill

On 27/08/07, Frank Bellowes <fbellowes(a)gmail.com> wrote: Probably never by being a cock about it, as here.

On 8/27/07, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote: And when can we expect some sort of update on the situation or details about what is going on? Frank _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

He does not have to explain his absence. Regarding adminship, the current practice is not to remove the bit for periods of in activity. Meta already addresses periods of inactivity http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Checkuser#Removal_of_access here. Please keep in mind, this is a volunteer project. Regarding the other issues; Anyone is of course welcome to request arbitration on wiki. I don't think there is much we can do on this list. Regards, Navou -----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Frank Bellowes Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 12:53 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is AWOL User:Jayjg has apparently been missing from Wikipedia since August 4th http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jayjg, shortly before an ArbComm in which he is named as a party formally opened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Allegations_ of_apartheid Perhaps also not coincidentally, one of the other editors named in the case, User:Urthogie, has also disappeared without a trace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Urthogie Unlike Urthogie, Jayjg is a trusted user and admin who has access to tools such as Oversight and Checkuser and is also on the ArbComm mailing list as a former member of that body. He's well aware of the custom of announcing when you are on "Wikibreak" or "Wikiholiday" but has not posted any such announcement. Further, he is also now at the center of a very serious allegation that he misused his Oversight tools in order to coverup an old incident of abusive sockpuppetry by one of his friends http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden tArchive290#SlimVirgin.27s_sockpuppet.28s.29 The Sockpuppet case is old and evidently occurred when SV was still a new editor though, given that she used an "alternate account" to support her main account on various pages including "double voting" in the instance of a Featured Article nomination, it would have been nice had she simply publicly admitted her mistake and apologized. Instead, she has sent out private emails explaining away the "alternate account" by saying wikipedia was different then, she was new and her double voting was simply a "mistake". I think we can excuse an old mistake but a bit of contrition would have been nice. In any case, the real problem is not SV's sockpuppetry but Jayjg's agreement, in the past year, to coverup any evidence of this by oversighting various edits. Several respected editors have expressed concern about Jay's behavior in the ANI discussion: Gmaxwell: "Except it's already been before Arbcom and it appears that they failed us. When oversight was first introduced the logs were public. I noticed Jayjg's mass over-sighting of seemingly harmless edits like spelling corrections with an summary of "pi". I brought the issue up with Brion, who thought it looked odd so he temporally removed oversight from Jayjg. [23]. Arbcom looked at the issue, and apparently decided that it was all okay. Jay's access was restored, the revisions stayed oversighted, and he continued mass over-sighting old edits like these. I trusted then. Having seen the evidence I think it would be unwise to extend the same trust again. --Gmaxwell 03:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)" "Although Sarah's actions are old enough to be uninteresting, as Dan pointed out above, the possible appearance of coverup is very interesting and important and should be fully resolved." (Gmaxwell) Thatcher131: "Overly aggressive use of oversight by Jayjg was brought up privately as an issue when oversight was first instituted, but the concerns were apparently dismissed. This should be looked into again." Jayjg really needs to explain himself but he has evidently decided to abandon wikipedia, at least for the period of the ArbCom case against him. Apart from an initial post opposing the ArbComm taking on the case he has made no contribution to the ArbComm case, not to the Workshop or Evidence page. In the past admins who have failed to participate in an ArbComm case involving them have been desysopped. Given Jayjg's unexplained absence, his failure to respond to one ArbCom case against him, the serious questions that exist considering his use of Oversight in another matter and the possibility that an account that has quite a number of tools attached has been abandoned and may be usurped by a hacker I'm wondering whether anything will be done? Will Jayjg be desysopped and have his tools removed (and be unsubscribed from ArbComm-L) at least as a precaution until he returns and explains himself? Will he be deemed to have abdicated his responsibilities by refusing to respond to an ArbComm case against him and refusing to explain the Oversight situation? At the very least Jimbo should direct the ArbComm to examine Jay's possible abuse of his Oversight tools and investigate other possible abuses. The dereliction of duty by a senior admin is a serious problem which should not be swept under the carpet or overlooked. Doing so only further damages Wikipedia's credibility in a year in which we have taken a number of serious blows. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

He does not have to explain his absence.

Don't members of the project deserve some sort of explanation, particularly when he is under scrutiny in one ArbComm case and on ANI?

On 8/27/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: Don't members of the project deserve some sort of explanation, particularly when he is under scrutiny in one ArbComm case and on ANI?

If there is no transparency then there is no ability for other admins or users to respond (and possibly refute) whatever private explanations Jayjg may have proffered for his actions. This is not how an accountable, transparent project works.

On 8/27/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: Don't members of the project deserve some sort of explanation, particularly when he is under scrutiny in one ArbComm case and on ANI? If there is no transparency then there is no ability for other admins or users to respond (and possibly refute) whatever private explanations Jayjg may have proffered for his actions. This is not how an accountable, transparent project works.

Um, his contrib histor<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%253AContributio… doesn't show anything since the 4th. That doesn't look to be a lie to me. Please elaborate.

On 8/27/07, Jimmy Wales &lt;jwales(a)wikia.com&gt; wrote: The claimed "absence" is a fact. He hasn't made any edits since August 4th and has made no statement explaining his absence. He disappeared in conjunction with an RFA case in which he's named as a party. This behaviour is very irresponsible for a "trusted admin" let alone one with various entitlements on the project. It is reasonable to expect a modicum of accountability and transparency. That the ArbComm is discussing this behind closed doors, without any sort of mechanism for feedback by users or any sort of transparency does not enhance the credibility of the project, particularly at a time when it has come under severe criticism that has eroded our standing.

I'll likely be dismissed as being naive, but if the the discussion concerns the material which has been oversighted, rightfully or not, then there's not a great deal that can be discussed in public until those with access to the logs and material can make a decision as to whether or not the oversight tool has been abused, and if so, what impact that's had on anything. If there is material that was abusively oversighted and it can be presented in public, then I'm sure we'll see it, along with any other relevant information.

Jimbo, the day that demands for accountability become "trolling" is the day Wikipedia ceases to be a project with some sort of social good in mind and becomes a private club. I don't think that's what most Wikipedians signed on to. Please do not label legitimate questions "trolling" just because you seem to prefer private accommodation to public responsibility. On 8/27/07, Jimmy Wales &lt;jwales(a)wikia.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Jimbo, the day that demands for accountability become "trolling" is the day Wikipedia ceases to be a project with some sort of social good in mind and becomes a private club. I don't think that's what most Wikipedians signed on to. Please do not label legitimate questions "trolling" just because you seem to prefer private accommodation to public responsibility.

on 8/27/07 2:40 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert(a)gmail.com wrote: George, Thanks for this. The word "trolling", the phrase "to troll", and what defines "a troll" all seem to have different meanings to different people in the Community. One person, writing in this thread, defined it as "stirring shit up". If trying to call attention to issues you feel are important to the health of the Community - but you believe are being ignored - is "trolling" - then I qualify. In fact, using my definition - my university offered a Ph.D. program in Trolling (subtitled: stirring shit up) :-).

George Herbert schrieb: I don't think so. Public's trust rests upon authorities being openly accountable. If any authority refuses to disclose information to the public, they are stripping the public of its ability to hold them accountable, which will as likely as not result in a loss of public trust. However, it is the authorities that first display a lack of trust in the public. br -- Raphael

Utter nonsense. For example, the president and the entire secret service as well as judges and the police are all public servants, paid from the publics pocketbook. And they all have confidential and secret information, and taxpayers demanding they "tell all" or risk public censure is beyond naive, its destructive, self and otherwise.

Utter nonsense. For example, the president and the entire secret service as well as judges and the police are all public servants, paid from the publics pocketbook. And they all have confidential and secret information, and taxpayers demanding they "tell all" or risk public censure is beyond naive, its destructive, self and otherwise. ArbCom and most of the entire Wikimedia family of projects are not even paid, giving us even less "rights" over them than we as taxpayers have over our public servants. (I speak as an American, please excuse the US-centric verbiage) Raphael Wegmann wrote: > George Herbert schrieb: > >> Accountability in some situations is "we trust Arbcom and Jimbo, who >> we find to be honorable trustworthy people and who we expect to do the >> right thing for Wikipedia, and explain to the degree possible >> afterwards". >> >> > I don't think so. > > Public's trust rests upon authorities being openly accountable. > If any authority refuses to disclose information to the public, > they are stripping the public of its ability to hold them accountable, > which will as likely as not result in a loss of public trust. > However, it is the authorities that first display a lack of trust > in the public. >

(Jayjg, if you are reading this, you have my support on the matter, whatever the issue is.)

No. There are plenty of matters on which I disagree with Jayjg. But I do believe he means well, and oversight is basically a Good Thing (TM), quite usefull for protecting privacy. Letting me know exactly what sort of information is being protected would defeat the point of protecting it.

Armed Blowfish wrote: Knowing what _sort_ of information is being oversighted is a far cry from knowing the information itself, I don't see how it defeats the point. If I were to ask why something was oversighted there's a big difference between getting the answer "because it contained personal identifying material" and "it contained the home address of User:Encyclofreak, who lives at 121 Big Tree Road in Seattle, NV".