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_... 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...
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.
On 8/27/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@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 8/27/07, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@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
And when can we expect some sort of update on the situation or details about what is going on?
Frank
On 27/08/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@gmail.com wrote:
And when can we expect some sort of update on the situation or details about what is going on?
Probably never by being a cock about it, as here.
- d.
On Aug 27, 2007, at 2:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 27/08/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@gmail.com wrote:
And when can we expect some sort of update on the situation or details about what is going on?
Probably never by being a cock about it, as here.
I believe what David meant to say was "We sincerely hope that you will refrain from being a penis."
-Phil
Where is your mind?
I thought he was referring to a rooster?!
Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Phil Sandifer Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:23 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is AWOL
On Aug 27, 2007, at 2:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 27/08/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@gmail.com wrote:
And when can we expect some sort of update on the situation or details about what is going on?
Probably never by being a cock about it, as here.
I believe what David meant to say was "We sincerely hope that you will refrain from being a penis."
-Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh come off it already with the conspiracy mongering. As you can plainly read, he's been in email contact with the ArbCom and others. That wouldn't be an out of the ordinary or banning offense at all. People do have a right to privacy when it comes to matters such as these.
On 8/27/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/07, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@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
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Navou is correct that a simple absence doesn't entail desyssoping. But failing to respond to repeated attempts to engage for the purpose of an ArbCom hearing most definitely has resulted in indef blocks, if not desyssoping.
On 8/27/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steven Walling wrote:
Navou is correct that a simple absence doesn't entail desyssoping. But failing to respond to repeated attempts to engage for the purpose of an ArbCom hearing most definitely has resulted in indef blocks, if not desyssoping.
Well in the event anything resembling that happens, let me know.
--Jimbo
Um, his contrib historhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%253AContributions&contribs=user&target=Jayjg&namespace=&year=&month=-1y 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 jwales@wikia.com wrote:
NavouWiki wrote:
He does not have to explain his absence.
The claimed "absence" is a lie.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/27/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Jay has been communicative in email with Jimbo and members of the arbcom.
-Matt
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 27/08/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@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?
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
- d.
On 27/08/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@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?
on 8/27/07 2:27 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
That's certainly a well thought-out, articulate, example-setting statement. So much for intelligent conversation. :-(
Marc Riddell
Frank Bellowes wrote:
On 8/27/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Jay has been communicative in email with Jimbo and members of the arbcom.
-Matt
Don't members of the project deserve some sort of explanation, particularly when he is under scrutiny in one ArbComm case and on ANI?
When there is something to explain, we will explain it. Jeez.
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.
Stop trolling. Good grief. We are having a private discussion.
--Jimbo
Thanks for taking time out of the conversation with Jay to answer us. If y'all say you're talking with him, that's perfectly acceptable to me. There's certainly a precedence for keeping sensitive personal stuff from a user conduct hearing private.
On 8/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Frank Bellowes wrote:
On 8/27/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Jay has been communicative in email with Jimbo and members of the
arbcom.
-Matt
Don't members of the project deserve some sort of explanation, particularly when he is under scrutiny in one ArbComm case and on ANI?
When there is something to explain, we will explain it. Jeez.
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.
Stop trolling. Good grief. We are having a private discussion.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 27/08/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Jay has been communicative in email with Jimbo and members of the arbcom.
-Matt
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.
Deserve some sort of explanation? Just like they 'deserved' an explanation about my history of getting abused, even after they banned me and I left? Why do you use Tor, Armed Blowfish? Why why why? You are showing bad judgement by using Tor. Your reasons need to be out in the open for the community to deliberate on. (And, of course, when I did share... what? More attacks.) Hey, not my bloody fault I got abused.
Really, did it occur to you that Jayjg's reasons might be personal? If he's willing to talk to ArbCom about it, good for him, that's more than I was (initially) willing to do.
ArbCom has access to information you don't and shouldn't have access to. Let them deal with it.
Matthew Brown wrote:
Jay has been communicative in email with Jimbo and members of the arbcom.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't know that that justifies characterizing it as a "lie", when up until that email was sent no one knew that. I don't agree that his absence, even were it true, should be held against him, after all none of us get paid to do this, but that being said, calling someone a liar for stating something which appears true based on the information available to them is not the finest example of civility I've ever seen.
Steven Walling wrote:
Um, his contrib historhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%253AContributions&contribs=user&target=Jayjg&namespace=&year=&month=-1y doesn't show anything since the 4th. That doesn't look to be a lie to me. Please elaborate.
He's been fully and completely responsive and participating in the email discussion.
Why is he not on-wiki? Beats me, but so what?
It's pure trolling.
--Jimbo
On 8/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
NavouWiki wrote:
He does not have to explain his absence.
The claimed "absence" is a lie.
--Jimbo
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.
Frank
On 8/28/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
NavouWiki wrote:
He does not have to explain his absence.
The claimed "absence" is a lie.
--Jimbo
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'm not fond of opaqueness, but how is this different from standard operating procedure? I haven't been an active clerk in ages, but I have never heard of a change to the policy that hearings and discussions between parties and arbitrators can be conducted in private, via email. Recall that even evidence can be submitted by email.
Johnleemk
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.
On 27/08/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
NavouWiki wrote:
He does not have to explain his absence.
The claimed "absence" is a lie.
--Jimbo
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.
Frank
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nick wrote:
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.
I am sure it will be widely discussed. I am going to refrain from discussing my own views of it right now because I am still deliberating.
But I am willing to say that some people who have been trolling about this case should be ashamed of themselves. Deeply ashamed.
--Jimbo
Frank Bellowes:Is it save to assume that you don't edit Wikipedia? Or that you aren't going to tell us your username?
--John Reaves --User:John Reaves
Let me nip this in the bud.
Frank Bellowes wrote:
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.
This entire email was ludicrous, frankly.
Jayjg (and SlimVirgin) have both been responsive and participating in the discussion about this.
If people wonder why we do some discussions like this privately, Frank's email is a good example of why... trolling.
--Jimbo
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 jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Let me nip this in the bud.
Frank Bellowes wrote:
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.
This entire email was ludicrous, frankly.
Jayjg (and SlimVirgin) have both been responsive and participating in the discussion about this.
If people wonder why we do some discussions like this privately, Frank's email is a good example of why... trolling.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Trolling is trying to stir shit up, accusing the ArbCom and Jimbo with not dealing with the issue...and then, when they say they are dealing with it, still grinding your axe. Just have some patience and wait. It's vastly premature to be crying "cover up" and "cabal" when the hearing isn't even closed yet.
On 8/27/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@gmail.com wrote:
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 jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Let me nip this in the bud.
Frank Bellowes wrote:
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.
This entire email was ludicrous, frankly.
Jayjg (and SlimVirgin) have both been responsive and participating in the discussion about this.
If people wonder why we do some discussions like this privately, Frank's email is a good example of why... trolling.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Frank Bellowes wrote:
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.
Asking for accountability is fine. You know that I strongly support transparency and accountability. You are attempting, without much success, to put a spin on this that no makes no sense at all.
We are having a private discussion by email. This is normal, we do it all the time. Anything that happens about this will be made clear and public and transparent.
--Jimbo
On 8/27/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@gmail.com wrote:
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.
The Wikipedia structure is not set up with total transparency. We have always had a structure that understood that some issues require private review, due to sensitivity or personal information. Any organization in the real world has such issues and avenues for private review.
It's not trolling to ask "are you looking at this?" or state "I'm very concerned about this".
It is trolling, when told "we're looking at this" and "we're concerned, too", to reply "BUT YOU NEED TO DO IT IN PUBLIC!!!".
We don't need to do it in public.
We shouldn't want to do it in public. I don't want to be part of an organization which refuses to conduct legitimately sensitive business in private.
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".
on 8/27/07 2:40 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's not trolling to ask "are you looking at this?" or state "I'm very concerned about this".
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) :-).
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 8/27/07 2:40 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's not trolling to ask "are you looking at this?" or state "I'm very concerned about this".
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) :-).
For me there is also a distinction between the verb and the noun. The verb has to do with putting out a baited line behind a boat to induce the fish to byte. The noun is the ugly thing that sits under Norwegian bridges waiting to catch unwary children.
The practice described by the verb has its place, and is a perfectly honourable technique for getting people to pay attention to a topic. Getting caught is a part of the game, and should not result in the offended denials that we so often see. It's so much nicer to admit trying to stir things up a little, and moving on.
Ec
On 28/08/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The practice described by the verb has its place, and is a perfectly honourable technique for getting people to pay attention to a topic. Getting caught is a part of the game, and should not result in the offended denials that we so often see. It's so much nicer to admit trying to stir things up a little, and moving on.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it?
I occasionally play devil's advocate You are a troll He has been placed on moderation
:-)
Yep!
:)
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Farrar Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:01 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is not AWOL
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it?
I occasionally play devil's advocate You are a troll He has been placed on moderation
:-)
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.
br
On 28/08/07, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at 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.
br
Raphael
They also have access to personal information which is not theirs to reveal.
Besides, there is more than one type of accountability.
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.
br
On 8/28/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
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.
However there are mechanisms in place for independent oversight.
On 8/28/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/28/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
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.
However there are mechanisms in place for independent oversight.
There are multiple mechanisms in Wikipedia's structure for independent oversight: the Foundation's Board, Jimmy, Arbcom, the Checkuser community, Mike Godwin, the (er, whoever the board put in place to review CU / privacy issues, the ombudsperson? My apologies, I only had two hours of sleep and forget the title), and to the degree it's public a thousand-odd admins and all the normal editors.
Not all of them can simultaneously come into play at every level of sensitive case, by nature. But they're there.
Either the system works... we are mostly honorable people, and have enough honest and principled people that if something seriously sinister started someone would stand up and publically announce it and call for it to end.
Or it does not work, in which case we're waiting for someone malign enough to exploit the system and turn Wikipedia into a nasty private playground for an in crowd.
I chose to believe that the system works. I see no reason to believe that there's anyone who is actively involved who is seriously *un*trustworthy; I think that I've seen varying levels of mistakes from many people, and have made my fair share. But I believe in the integrity of the people and the fundamental processes. The idea that we could find a group of evil-minded cabalists capable enough to fake it in public and then do dirty deeds in private sufficiently large and talented to "run" wikipedia behind the scenes seems beyond farfetched into paranoia.
I agree, that the Bush administration pushed back the idea of an open government and started to act in secret way too often in the name of "national security". But I do not agree to that development.
Demanding public scrutiny is neither naive nor desctructive. It's an essential part of what the president is claiming to export: Democracy
Puppy schrieb:
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.
Accountable in what way? Available for public flogging? He already is, and that's not merely 'accountable', that's Draconian.
(Jayjg, if you are reading this, you have my support on the matter, whatever the issue is.)
On 27/08/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@gmail.com wrote:
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 jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Let me nip this in the bud.
Frank Bellowes wrote:
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.
This entire email was ludicrous, frankly.
Jayjg (and SlimVirgin) have both been responsive and participating in the discussion about this.
If people wonder why we do some discussions like this privately, Frank's email is a good example of why... trolling.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 28/08/07, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Armed Blowfish schrieb:
<snip/> > > (Jayjg, if you are reading this, you have my support on the matter, > whatever the issue is.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's interesting. Unquestioned belief in the group's morality?
-- Raphael
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. Besides, it's not like oversighted edits are purged with the shred command, overwritten with zeros and never available for reconsideration.
Armed Blowfish wrote:
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.
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".
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
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.
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".
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That was brought up on-wiki as well, and I would tend to agree. Just like a deleted attack article just contains a deletion summary, something to the effect of "G10: Attack page", but not the offending text itself. There's a big difference between "Oversighter removed 2 revisions: Contained personal information" and "Someuser's phone number is 123-456-7890! Call him and tell him he sucks!"
On 8/30/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
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.
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".
To know what _sort_ of gems have been oversighted is, in effect, to know whether one might, for personal amusement (or gain!), be bothered to poke around for them in the previous database dump.
—C.W.
Has it entered your mind at all that Jimbo /is/ behaving responsibly? Note that satisfying /your/ curiosity is not synonymous with responsibly.
Frank Bellowes wrote:
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 jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Let me nip this in the bud.
Frank Bellowes wrote:
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.
This entire email was ludicrous, frankly.
Jayjg (and SlimVirgin) have both been responsive and participating in the discussion about this.
If people wonder why we do some discussions like this privately, Frank's email is a good example of why... trolling.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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.
That's a cause for some concern, not annoyance, but genuine concern. Can anybody confirm everything is OK with Jayjg, is he busy, unable to access the internet or is he genuinely trying to avoid questions of the use of the tools he has been given access too. Until we have some more of an idea as to why Jayjg is not editing, we really should put this case on 'ice' - not brushing it under the carpet, but waiting until one party is available to defend themselves.
Frank Bellowes wrote:
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.
Expecting contrition so long after the fact seems over the top. At this late stage there is no way that apologies should be required. In the real world there are statutes of limitations to prevent accusers from leaning too far backwards when they try to put their heads up their asses. Recent behaviour is far more significant than ancient history. I would prefer looking at that recent activity as more indicative of future trends and look forward with a positive attitude.
Ec