On 11/29/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
What I would like to know (and I'm not going to bother digging through hundreds of emails on this topic to see if it's already been asked) is which arbitrators are members of that private/secret mailing list, and if some arbitrators are members of that list or, further, participated in discussions, then which of those arbitrators have recused themselves from this case.
If I am correct (somebody speak up if I'm not) I believe both Flonight and Morven are confirmed to have participated in both secret lists (cyberstalking and investigations). They therefore would have received Durova's evidence posted to cyberstalking, but merely receiving the email is not proof of having read it. Morven has said he did not participate in any discussions of it.
Despite participating in the lists and receiving the "evidence" email, no arbiter has agreed yet agreed to recuse themselves. Flonight and Morven are currently the deciding votes in a split-decision at the Arbcom case proposing to ban Giano for 90 days for revealing the evidence that exonerated !!.
Alec
On 30/11/2007, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Flonight and Morven are currently the deciding votes in a split-decision at the Arbcom case proposing to ban Giano for 90 days for revealing the evidence that exonerated !!.
No, FloNight has now switched votes to support Morven in a 90-day ban of Giano.
*shrugs*
~Mark Ryan
On 30/11/2007, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/11/2007, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Flonight and Morven are currently the deciding votes in a split-decision at the Arbcom case proposing to ban Giano for 90 days for revealing the evidence that exonerated !!.
No, FloNight has now switched votes to support Morven in a 90-day ban of Giano.
Oh dear.
May I refer the list back to my first (as best as I can tell from the archives) contribution to this discussion, which got little or no attention at the time: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/085985.html
Being on a list does not make an arbiter so involved as to need to recuse themselves. If we used that level arbiters would need to recuse themselves so frequently we'd rarely have a quorum.
Being on a list does not make an arbiter so involved as to need to recuse themselves. If we used that level arbiters would need to recuse themselves so frequently we'd rarely have a quorum.
I was on that list at first, but left due to the insanely high volume and attacks against myself (Supposedly I was not tough enough). I would not condemn folks who have tried to stick with it. The concerns, harassment of our users, are real enough, but are sometimes expressed in overbearing ways.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
I was on that list at first, but left due to the insanely high volume and attacks against myself (Supposedly I was not tough enough). I would not condemn folks who have tried to stick with it. The concerns, harassment of our users, are real enough, but are sometimes expressed in overbearing ways.
It's to your advantage to duck when the bullets are about to fly. The overbearing do as much damage to their own cause as to that of their opponents.
Ec
On 11/29/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Being on a list does not make an arbiter so involved as to need to recuse themselves. If we used that level arbiters would need to recuse themselves so frequently we'd rarely have a quorum.
Well, the cyberstalking list seems to have had a rather widespread membership, albeit perhaps a biased sampling.
The double-secrect "investigations" list seems more ambiguous. http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpinvestigations-l
Nobody would reveal its name forever. It's description, "A private mailing list related to reviewing disruption on Wikipedia." strongly suggests that its goal was to coordinate responses to 'disruption' on Wikipedia. Supposedly a mere 11 people involved-- Flonight & Morven are two of them, Durova was a third.
If it turns out that there's a decision to ban Giano for revealing secret mailing list posts by Durova, and the two deciding votes are just happen to come from people who are on a secret mailing list with Durvoa-- Wikipedia might well be headed for a civil war. I know it would radically change how I interact with the project, and I'm sure I won't be alone.
(Granted, many people probably would see that as one more good reason to ban Giano--- hehee).
Alec
On Nov 29, 2007 7:42 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
[...] If it turns out that there's a decision to ban Giano for revealing secret mailing list posts by Durova, and the two deciding votes are just happen to come from people who are on a secret mailing list with Durvoa-- Wikipedia might well be headed for a civil war. I know it would radically change how I interact with the project, and I'm sure I won't be alone.
Please come down off the hyperbola and get realistic.
We have longstanding policy that private emails aren't to be republished on WP without permission. In the case where someone feels that such is evidence for something, one can submit it to Arbcom directly without making it public, or in the case of something not under arbitration send it to any administrator investigating the case (or theoretically OTRS, I guess, if it's serious).
Giano knows this policy. He's known it for a long time.
We can't not enforce the policy if arbcom members are some of the people who saw the private email in the first place. What if the email wasn't a mailing list, but had gone directly to an arbcom member on the To: or Cc: list?
What if the email was sent to or cc'ed to Arbcom-L?
There seems to be some sort of attempt to categorize these emails as contagion of some sort, contaminating the independence and judgement of anyone who's seen them. That's nonsense. Nobody has even tried to establish a reason why that would be true, you're just acting like it's obvious. If you intend to operate based on that assumption, you need to justify why anyone should be treated any differently for having seen the emails.
Given that the underlying case was brought *against* Durova for their actions....
On 11/29/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We can't not enforce the policy if arbcom members are some of the people who saw the private email in the first place.
It's not about preventing enforcement-- it's about the appearance of impropriety.
Well, here's the situation. There's some debate within the community about whether an email like Durova's was even proper to send in the first place. But many people feel posting "secret evidence" to a "secret list" might, in itself, being involved in the policy. If so, Giano would be doing a GOOD thing by revealing the "evidence"-- bringing to light a problem in the community.
Now at least two arbiters decided, long before this case started, that not only was a "secret investigations" list appropriate,but they actively participated in it. Any ruling against addressing whether "secret investigations lists" are appropriate is commenting just as much on Flonight and Morven as it is on Durova.
How can an arbiter-- ANY arbiter, be expecte to impartialy rule on their own behavior?
How, if it was clear-cut that Giano should be banned-- if it was right down the line with all the arbiters saying "nope-- Giano crossed the line" then okay, maybe it was no big deal. Instead, what we're seeing, instead, is that the members of the mailing list are all lining up FOR banning, while people who were excluded from the mailing list are lining up against Giano's ban.
Members of hte Secret Investigations List shoudl have been recused from the get go. They shouldn't have been even participating, they should have been parties.
For them to wide up being the tie-breaking votes--- that pretty much shatters any appearance of impropriety-- and if Giano is banned because of the votes of arbs who are under a bit of a clound, the long term consequences for the project will be very very bad.
Alec
On Nov 29, 2007 8:33 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/29/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We can't not enforce the policy if arbcom members are some of the people
who
saw the private email in the first place.
It's not about preventing enforcement-- it's about the appearance of impropriety.
Fine.
Well, here's the situation. There's some debate within the community about whether an email like Durova's was even proper to send in the first place.
There is neither policy nor precedent that sending investigations emails to private groups of Wikipedians is bad for the project or prohibited.
But many people feel posting "secret evidence" to a "secret list" might, in itself, being involved in the policy.
This does not parse...
If so, Giano would be doing a GOOD thing by revealing the "evidence"-- bringing to light a problem in the community.
Obviously Giano did it because he thought people needed to know. Obviously, also, whoever on the recipients list leaked to WR or wherever it's posted now thought so as well.
Let's separate the "Pentagon Papers" aspect of whether the leak itself was good or bad from whether Giano violated WP policy and precedent in posting it repeatedly on-Wiki.
Regardless of the former, the latter is clearly true. None of our policies have an "...Except when it's a whistleblower and it's real important..." escape clause.
Giano didn't have to do that; he could have referred to the leaked copy. He knows the policy and knew it before this happened (I assume, based on his extensive background). He chose to post in a manner which was violating policy, and has to take his lumps for doing that.
Now at least two arbiters decided, long before this case started, that not only was a "secret investigations" list appropriate,but they actively participated in it. Any ruling against addressing whether "secret investigations lists" are appropriate is commenting just as much on Flonight and Morven as it is on Durova.
Whether such lists are appropriate isn't an issue here.
Nobody has made a proposed finding of any sort that such lists be discouraged or prohibited in the Arbcom case. The only proposed decision elements were that they're outside the Committee's jurisdiction.
There's nothing standing at the moment for which a conflict of interest that you describe applies.
How can an arbiter-- ANY arbiter, be expecte to impartialy rule on their own behavior?
They can't. But none of their behavior has been put up for arbitration as misbehavior.
How, if it was clear-cut that Giano should be banned-- if it was right down the line with all the arbiters saying "nope-- Giano crossed the line" then okay, maybe it was no big deal. Instead, what we're seeing, instead, is that the members of the mailing list are all lining up FOR banning, while people who were excluded from the mailing list are lining up against Giano's ban.
You don't know that for a fact. The full membership of each list is not in evidence.
Members of hte Secret Investigations List shoudl have been recused from the get go. They shouldn't have been even participating, they should have been parties.
Again - the list is not at issue here.
For them to wide up being the tie-breaking votes--- that pretty much shatters any appearance of impropriety-- and if Giano is banned because of the votes of arbs who are under a bit of a clound, the long term consequences for the project will be very very bad.
Alec
If Giano is NOT sanctioned for repeatedly and knowingly publishing private correspondence then we're also in a situation where the long term consequences are very very bad. That's been a large part of our civility and decorum policies forever.
One of the reasons my participation in the cyberstalking list was somewhat skeptical, while I was there, was a fear of discussions like this eventually happening.
I was expecting to have the list itself become a focal point of controversy eventually.
I was hoping rather optimistically that everything within touching distance of the list would not be tarred and feathered in the process. However, that's what's happening.
Yes, I know why a lot of people got very antsy when the list was disclosed.
No, that does not justify jumping immedately to labeling everything associated with it sinister, conflicts of interest, etc.
No, that does not mean that it becomes a conflict of interest in unrelated questions before Arbcom.
If you want to try and make the cases that these things are sinister or conflicts of interest, you need to start at square one and logically build a case out from the actual facts in evidence. The reason that this discussion is failing rather badly is that cyberstalking-l opponents are by and large intermixing actual fact with speculation with opinion freely, basing conclusions on opinion and speculation as if they were actual fact.
You can't do that.
Well, you can; people do it from time to time, and demagoguery plays well in the "press" as it were. But it's not good policy discussion or abuse incident response.
If someone wants to build up actual serious charges of conflict of interest, based on the actual facts, please feel free to do so. I don't see it, but I am biased and involved, so I could be wrong.
If someone feels there was actual abusive behavior by "the inner circle", based on the actual facts, please make a case based on those facts. Again, I don't see it, but I could be wrong.
On Nov 30, 2007 3:33 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Any ruling against addressing whether "secret investigations lists" are appropriate is commenting just as much on Flonight and Morven as it is on Durova.
How can an arbiter-- ANY arbiter, be expecte to impartialy rule on their own behavior?
The case isn't dealing with that at all. Nothin' fer it, nothin' again' it.
On Nov 29, 2007 8:33 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
How can an arbiter-- ANY arbiter, be expecte to impartialy rule on their own behavior?
I cannot. However, this case is not about it, so the point is moot.
How, if it was clear-cut that Giano should be banned-- if it was right down the line with all the arbiters saying "nope-- Giano crossed the line" then okay, maybe it was no big deal. Instead, what we're seeing, instead, is that the members of the mailing list are all lining up FOR banning, while people who were excluded from the mailing list are lining up against Giano's ban.
If Giano had never behaved questionably before, I would not be voting for banning him.
Members of hte Secret Investigations List shoudl have been recused from the get go. They shouldn't have been even participating, they should have been parties.
Why? Durova's block of !! (what this case is actually about) *was never even discussed on that list*. I wish it would have been; it would have given me a chance to look at the evidence and try and convince her otherwise.
-Matt
On Nov 29, 2007 11:04 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There seems to be some sort of attempt to categorize these emails as contagion of some sort, contaminating the independence and judgement of anyone who's seen them. That's nonsense.
Actually, that seems to be true to an extent, but members of the actual cyberstalking list were apparently immune to that particular effect. It's certainly had that effect on a number of people posting to *this* thread.
On Nov 29, 2007 10:42 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/29/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Being on a list does not make an arbiter so involved as to need to recuse themselves. If we used that level arbiters would need to recuse themselves so frequently we'd rarely have a quorum.
The double-secrect "investigations" list seems more ambiguous. http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpinvestigations-l
Alec, do you think this deliberately provocative language is helpful? Moderators, perhaps you could step in.
I know it would radically change how I interact with the project
I see that as a positive thing.
On 30/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Alec, do you think this deliberately provocative language is helpful? Moderators, perhaps you could step in.
The moderators are not anyone's mother (any more than the AC is). Whoever stops feeding the other first, wins.
- d.
On Nov 30, 2007 10:06 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Alec, do you think this deliberately provocative language is helpful? Moderators, perhaps you could step in.
The moderators are not anyone's mother (any more than the AC is). Whoever stops feeding the other first, wins.
Well, I know WilyD has been very concerned with decorum on the list, I was just trying to help him out. ;-)
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Being on a list does not make an arbiter so involved as to need to recuse themselves. If we used that level arbiters would need to recuse themselves so frequently we'd rarely have a quorum.
Judges need to live an ordinary life as well. The wise arbiter has the wisdom to foresee and avoid compromising situations.
Ec
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:27 +0900, Mark Ryan wrote:
On 30/11/2007, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Flonight and Morven are currently the deciding votes in a split-decision at the Arbcom case proposing to ban Giano for 90 days for revealing the evidence that exonerated !!.
No, FloNight has now switched votes to support Morven in a 90-day ban of Giano.
*shrugs*
Credit (to FloNight) where credit is due.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitr...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration...
KTC
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:17:14 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Despite participating in the lists and receiving the "evidence" email, no arbiter has agreed yet agreed to recuse themselves. Flonight and Morven are currently the deciding votes in a split-decision at the Arbcom case proposing to ban Giano for 90 days for revealing the evidence that exonerated !!.
The arbitrators *already had* that evidence, there was no need for Giano to post anything.
Guy (JzG)
On 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:17:14 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Despite participating in the lists and receiving the "evidence" email, no arbiter has agreed yet agreed to recuse themselves. Flonight and Morven are currently the deciding votes in a split-decision at the Arbcom case proposing to ban Giano for 90 days for revealing the evidence that exonerated !!.
The arbitrators *already had* that evidence, there was no need for Giano to post anything.
Indeed. Giano appears to have primarily been going for making a big splash, i.e. drama-queening.
- d.
On 11/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:17:14 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Despite participating in the lists and receiving the "evidence" email, no arbiter has agreed yet agreed to recuse themselves. Flonight and Morven are currently the deciding votes in a split-decision at the Arbcom case proposing to ban Giano for 90 days for revealing the evidence that exonerated !!.
The arbitrators *already had* that evidence, there was no need for Giano to post anything.
Indeed. Giano appears to have primarily been going for making a big splash, i.e. drama-queening.
- d.
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen (on the Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not* receive a copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first saw Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
It is difficult for people on all sides of this issue to recognize that what Arbcom members do as individual editors does not equate to what the committee does as a separate entity. It was probably not appropriate for an individual Arbcom member to *ask* for a copy of the post when in all likelihood the matter was going to be brought to the committee's attention. Many admins asked for and received copies of the post but did not forward it to the Arbcom mailing list as "confidential evidence" in order for Arbcom to open a case. Durova, despite the fact she was referring questions to Arbcom, did not send them a copy of the post. Everyone could have done better on this one.
There is now a motion to close the case. Let's all try to learn some lessons from this and put them into action rather than spending the next month pointing fingers at all and sundry.
Risker
_______________________________________________
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 Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:21:13 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen (on the Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not* receive a copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first saw Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
My mistake: *some* arbitrators had it, and the rest could have had it for the asking.
Oh, and Giano could have mailed it not posted it publicly.
Plus that wasn't the crucial piece of information that exonerated !! (that was never published).
But I guess the words "Giano" and "email" were accurate :-)
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 30, 2007 10:29 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:21:13 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen (on the Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not* receive a copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first saw Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
My mistake: *some* arbitrators had it, and the rest could have had it for the asking.
No, you were correct in the first place, it was on the Arbitration Committee mailing list well before it appeared on AN/I.
Plus that wasn't the crucial piece of information that exonerated !! (that was never published).
Yes, as I said in an earlier e-mail.
On 11/30/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:21:13 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen (on
the
Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not* receive a copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first saw Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
My mistake: *some* arbitrators had it, and the rest could have had it for the asking.
Oh, and Giano could have mailed it not posted it publicly.
Plus that wasn't the crucial piece of information that exonerated !! (that was never published).
But I guess the words "Giano" and "email" were accurate :-)
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Guy, it was clear that you had it too, from your posts. It seems absurd that you would hold Giano to a higher standard than you would hold yourself. I repeat - NOBODY on any side of this debate emailed that post to the Arbcom mailing list. Not one. In fact, if I understand Mackensen correctly, even to this day nobody has forwarded it to them through proper channels. Arbcom should not be going out looking for information on cases they are likely to hear; it is unfair to all potential parties. And in the same vein, individual arbitrators should not be seeking information on cases in which they are likely to be required to render a decision. Arbcom took the biggest hit in this case, aside from the accused editor.
Risker
_______________________________________________
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 Nov 30, 2007 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:21:13 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen (on
the
Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not* receive a copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first saw Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
My mistake: *some* arbitrators had it, and the rest could have had it for the asking.
Oh, and Giano could have mailed it not posted it publicly.
Plus that wasn't the crucial piece of information that exonerated !! (that was never published).
But I guess the words "Giano" and "email" were accurate :-)
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Guy, it was clear that you had it too, from your posts. It seems absurd that you would hold Giano to a higher standard than you would hold yourself. I repeat - NOBODY on any side of this debate emailed that post to the Arbcom mailing list. Not one.
Why do you keep repeating this claim when it's simply not true?
On Nov 30, 2007 10:41 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:21:13 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen
(on
the
Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not*
receive a
copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first
saw
Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
My mistake: *some* arbitrators had it, and the rest could have had it for the asking.
Oh, and Giano could have mailed it not posted it publicly.
Plus that wasn't the crucial piece of information that exonerated !! (that was never published).
But I guess the words "Giano" and "email" were accurate :-)
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Guy, it was clear that you had it too, from your posts. It seems absurd that you would hold Giano to a higher standard than you would hold yourself. I repeat - NOBODY on any side of this debate emailed that
post to
the Arbcom mailing list. Not one.
Why do you keep repeating this claim when it's simply not true?
It's perfectly true. The individual who forwarded us the post was not a party to the debate.
Kirill
On Nov 30, 2007 10:47 AM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 10:41 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:21:13 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen
(on
the
Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not*
receive a
copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first
saw
Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
My mistake: *some* arbitrators had it, and the rest could have had it for the asking.
Oh, and Giano could have mailed it not posted it publicly.
Plus that wasn't the crucial piece of information that exonerated !! (that was never published).
But I guess the words "Giano" and "email" were accurate :-)
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Guy, it was clear that you had it too, from your posts. It seems absurd that you would hold Giano to a higher standard than you would hold yourself. I repeat - NOBODY on any side of this debate emailed that
post to
the Arbcom mailing list. Not one.
Why do you keep repeating this claim when it's simply not true?
It's perfectly true. The individual who forwarded us the post was not a party to the debate.
I see you've focussed on the "any side of the debate" part of the sentence, rather than the "NOBODY... emailed that post to the Arbcom mailing list" part. Based on Risker's earlier statements, it was clear he did not think the post was e-mailed to the ArbCom list at all. There's a difference between "any side" and "a party to". The ArbCom is also a side in this debate; it's the side that is currently officially rendering judgement on the affair.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:37:58 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Guy, it was clear that you had it too, from your posts. It seems absurd that you would hold Giano to a higher standard than you would hold yourself.
That is absurd - I did not publish it on an open Wiki.
I repeat - NOBODY on any side of this debate emailed that post to the Arbcom mailing list. Not one.
Before the block? No. Why should they have? There was no indication Durova was thinking of blocking.
In fact, if I understand Mackensen correctly, even to this day nobody has forwarded it to them through proper channels.
I think that you do not understand Mackensen correctly.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 30, 2007 10:21 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:17:14 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Despite participating in the lists and receiving the "evidence" email, no arbiter has agreed yet agreed to recuse themselves. Flonight and Morven are currently the deciding votes in a split-decision at the Arbcom case proposing to ban Giano for 90 days for revealing the evidence that exonerated !!.
The arbitrators *already had* that evidence, there was no need for Giano to post anything.
Indeed. Giano appears to have primarily been going for making a big splash, i.e. drama-queening.
- d.
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen (on the Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not* receive a copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first saw Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
The Arbitration Committee list was forwarded a copy of the list post with the express permission of Durova *well before* Giano posted it to AN/I.
On Nov 30, 2007 10:32 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 10:21 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com > wrote:
On 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:17:14 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Despite participating in the lists and receiving the "evidence"
email,
no arbiter has agreed yet agreed to recuse themselves. Flonight
and
Morven are currently the deciding votes in a split-decision at the Arbcom case proposing to ban Giano for 90 days for revealing the evidence that exonerated !!.
The arbitrators *already had* that evidence, there was no need for Giano to post anything.
Indeed. Giano appears to have primarily been going for making a big splash, i.e. drama-queening.
- d.
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen (on
the
Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not* receive
a
copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first saw Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
The Arbitration Committee list was forwarded a copy of the list post with the express permission of Durova *well before* Giano posted it to AN/I.
The post was forwarded *four days* after the original block -- only *hours* before Giano posted it on AN/I.
Kirill
On Nov 30, 2007 10:41 AM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 10:32 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 10:21 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com > wrote:
On 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:17:14 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Despite participating in the lists and receiving the "evidence"
email,
no arbiter has agreed yet agreed to recuse themselves. Flonight
and
Morven are currently the deciding votes in a split-decision at the Arbcom case proposing to ban Giano for 90 days for revealing the evidence that exonerated !!.
The arbitrators *already had* that evidence, there was no need for Giano to post anything.
Indeed. Giano appears to have primarily been going for making a big splash, i.e. drama-queening.
- d.
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen (on
the
Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not* receive
a
copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first saw Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
The Arbitration Committee list was forwarded a copy of the list post with the express permission of Durova *well before* Giano posted it to AN/I.
The post was forwarded *four days* after the original block -- only *hours* before Giano posted it on AN/I.
Sorry, you're right, it was only hours before Giano's posting. I mistook PM for AM. In any event, the ArbCom list did get Durova's posting, with her permission, so the claim that Giano needed to post it is not accurate.
So is Giano getting potentially banned by the ArbCom for wilfully posting a copyright violation? Or defying a Foundation employee? Or not following the correct processes of ArbCom?
One thing that confuses me is the alleged serving of a DMCA Notice by Durova on the Foundation, to force a take-down (read: oversight by Cary) of the email posted by Giano. Don't we block/ban for legal threats, or does a DMCA Notice not count as one of those? Some clarification on this point would be helpful.
~Mark Ryan
On 30/11/2007, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
So is Giano getting potentially banned by the ArbCom for wilfully posting a copyright violation? Or defying a Foundation employee? Or not following the correct processes of ArbCom?
Per the documentation currently on the proposed decision page, it appears to be the last straw in over a year of being a fractious, abusive pain in the arse. He was directly warned last time around as well.
- d.
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:58:55 +0900, "Mark Ryan" ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
So is Giano getting potentially banned by the ArbCom for wilfully posting a copyright violation? Or defying a Foundation employee? Or not following the correct processes of ArbCom?
For posting a private email in a public forum.
Other options were available, and Giano repeatedly did this even after being asked not to.
Guy (JzG)
Guy, it was clear that you had it too, from your posts. It seems absurd that you would hold Giano to a higher standard than you would hold yourself.
That is absurd - I did not publish it on an open Wiki.
So is Giano getting potentially banned by the ArbCom for wilfully posting a copyright violation? Or defying a Foundation employee? Or not following the correct processes of ArbCom?
For posting a private email in a public forum.
So it's not okay to post the email in a public forum, which is so private that you (or jayjg, I've lost track) continuing asserting that anyone who asked would have been forwarded a copy. And in the spirit of it being wrong, how is that any different to you sharing emails from PM that PM *specifically and explicitly* told you to keep to yourself and not to pass on?
KTC
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:17:40 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
So it's not okay to post the email in a public forum, which is so private that you (or jayjg, I've lost track) continuing asserting that anyone who asked would have been forwarded a copy. And in the spirit of it being wrong, how is that any different to you sharing emails from PM that PM *specifically and explicitly* told you to keep to yourself and not to pass on?
<sigh>
Giano was not a party to the email, did not have the consent of the sender of the email to publish it, and did not respect the privacy of the sender.
The idea that we don't publish emails is scarcely new.
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:31 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
<sigh>
Giano was not a party to the email, did not have the consent of the sender of the email to publish it, and did not respect the privacy of the sender.
Repeating my question which you did not actually answer. How is that any different in your case excluding first point about being party to the email? As far as I'm informed, you didn't have the consent of the sender of the email to publish it, and did not respect the privacy of the sender either.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:39:57 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
Giano was not a party to the email, did not have the consent of the sender of the email to publish it, and did not respect the privacy of the sender.
Repeating my question which you did not actually answer. How is that any different in your case excluding first point about being party to the email? As far as I'm informed, you didn't have the consent of the sender of the email to publish it, and did not respect the privacy of the sender either.
If you are not able to see the essential difference between publishing an email on Wikipedia and quietly asking a few trusted friends for advice in confidence then I'm afraid I can't help you.
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:47 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
If you are not able to see the essential difference between publishing an email on Wikipedia and quietly asking a few trusted friends for advice in confidence then I'm afraid I can't help you.
If you are not able to see that violating someone privacy is violating someone privacy no matter the method you choose to do it then I'm afraid I can't help you.
KTC
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:54:51 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
If you are not able to see the essential difference between publishing an email on Wikipedia and quietly asking a few trusted friends for advice in confidence then I'm afraid I can't help you.
If you are not able to see that violating someone privacy is violating someone privacy no matter the method you choose to do it then I'm afraid I can't help you.
I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia. One of the things admins do is try to prevent disruption. Sometimes that means blocking an account. In this case I asked a small group of people I trust (and who the community trusts probably far more than it trusts me) to confirm my judgment. Had they said back off, I would have done. They did not, but the block was still mine and mine alone.
I did this by email because to user IRC or the admin noticeboard, as I usually would, would have been a serious violation of privacy. Bishonen, Geogre, and Paul August already knew anyway, because PM told them (and told me he'd told them), but I certainly did not want to spread this information far and wide.
There is a very big difference between sharing information with a small trusted group in order to sanity-check a conclusions, and posting the contents of an email on one of the ten most viewed websites in the world.
The arbitrators know what I did because I emailed Arbcom-L about it. They have chosen not to include any comment on it in the arbitration case on Privatemusings. I believe that probably tells you everything you need to know about how that strictly limited sharing is viewed.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:39:57 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
Repeating my question which you did not actually answer. How is that any
different in your case excluding first point about being party to the email? As far as I'm informed, you didn't have the consent of the sender of the email to publish it, and did not respect the privacy of the sender either.
If you are not able to see the essential difference between publishing an email on Wikipedia and quietly asking a few trusted friends for advice in confidence then I'm afraid I can't help you.
A breach of confidence does not depend on whether the information was shared to a broad public or to a limited circle of friends. The latter is perhaps more insidious, because the person whose confidence is breached is unable to respond to the breach.
Ec
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:57:36 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If you are not able to see the essential difference between publishing an email on Wikipedia and quietly asking a few trusted friends for advice in confidence then I'm afraid I can't help you.
A breach of confidence does not depend on whether the information was shared to a broad public or to a limited circle of friends. The latter is perhaps more insidious, because the person whose confidence is breached is unable to respond to the breach.
You are welcome to this opinion. In truth I could have got all the accounts from a CheckUser anyway.
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 21:06 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:57:36 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If you are not able to see the essential difference between publishing an email on Wikipedia and quietly asking a few trusted friends for advice in confidence then I'm afraid I can't help you.
A breach of confidence does not depend on whether the information was shared to a broad public or to a limited circle of friends. The latter is perhaps more insidious, because the person whose confidence is breached is unable to respond to the breach.
You are welcome to this opinion. In truth I could have got all the accounts from a CheckUser anyway.
No one in this thread have suggested the actual block is incorrect. I for example do not know enough (anything) to say. What I'm and Ec is saying is that in our opinion, violating ones confidence is violating ones confidence no matter the method you choose to employ it.
Now think about all this talking about how Giano could have done things a different way, in summary, by using the established and normal channel. The same can then be said if your suggestion is right (which I'm assuming to be the case) that CU would have come to the same conclusion. In that case, why didn't you get those CU and then block based on its result. That would be using the established and normal process.
KTC
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 05:06:34 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
You are welcome to this opinion. In truth I could have got all the accounts from a CheckUser anyway.
No one in this thread have suggested the actual block is incorrect. I for example do not know enough (anything) to say. What I'm and Ec is saying is that in our opinion, violating ones confidence is violating ones confidence no matter the method you choose to employ it.
And what I'm saying is that I'd have blocked him anyway, but I felt it was wise to ask a few trusted friends first. I did so in a way that kept to an absolute minimum the number of individuals who saw the name of the original account (the sole piece of private information not achievable from checkuser). And I did this *despite* the fact that I could not actually find the RWI from the account name.
If you genuinely think this was wrong, then you will have to take it to the arbitrators, I'm afraid. I made the most limited use I could of the private information and took great care to ensure that it did not result in embarrassment for the individual concerned.
Had I blocked without asking first, I would have been subject to multiple requests for the information. Actually, I was - and I emailed it to arbcom-l.
In my view, PM is getting some credit for being honest, as he was, and for avoiding the temptation to attack people. He is likely to be subject to an editing restriction and a short ban; other users of multiple sockpuppets have been simply shown the door. We will wait and see what happens when PM returns.
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Giano was not a party to the email, did not have the consent of the sender of the email to publish it, and did not respect the privacy of the sender.
He sent the email to expose misconduct on the part of the sender. That makes those points moot, as well as obviously being the reason arbcom is coming down on him so hard for posting it. Nobody *likes* having their or their friends' misconduct exposed.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:27:03 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Giano was not a party to the email, did not have the consent of the sender of the email to publish it, and did not respect the privacy of the sender.
He sent the email to expose misconduct on the part of the sender. That makes those points moot, as well as obviously being the reason arbcom is coming down on him so hard for posting it. Nobody *likes* having their or their friends' misconduct exposed.
The word "expose" is telling here. Had he wished to provide evidence or assist the investigation, then this could have been done without publication. Giano gave every impression of wanting to cause maximum damage. Giano has, since then, done nothing to correct that impression.
We are not supposed to reach for the tar and feathers here.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 30, 2007 2:27 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Giano was not a party to the email, did not have the consent of the sender of the email to publish it, and did not respect the privacy of the sender.
He sent the email to expose misconduct on the part of the sender. That makes those points moot, as well as obviously being the reason arbcom is coming down on him so hard for posting it. Nobody *likes* having their or their friends' misconduct exposed.
Would it be possible for you to assume more bad faith? I doubt it. Durova is not a "friend" of the arbcom, and the arbcom has made it quite clear their issue with Giano has nothing to do with "exposing their friends misconduct".
On 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:58:55 +0900, "Mark Ryan" ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
So is Giano getting potentially banned by the ArbCom for wilfully posting a copyright violation? Or defying a Foundation employee? Or not following the correct processes of ArbCom?
For posting a private email in a public forum. Other options were available, and Giano repeatedly did this even after being asked not to.
Moreover, for reposting it *after* warnings from the Foundation to damn well not do that. See [[User talk:Bastique]]. That's a level of wilful obnoxiousness it's hard to ignore.
- d.
On 11/30/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:58:55 +0900, "Mark Ryan" ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
So is Giano getting potentially banned by the ArbCom for wilfully posting a copyright violation? Or defying a Foundation employee? Or not following the correct processes of ArbCom?
For posting a private email in a public forum.
Other options were available, and Giano repeatedly did this even after being asked not to.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Guy, with due respect, the very first information the community got about this block directly implied that Arbcom was complicit in the decision to block. That turned out not to be the case, but the community only found that out very shortly before an Arbcom posted on ANI that Arbcom hadn't even received the blocking post. In the meantime, copies of this post were flying around to "trusted" users all over the place, and half were saying it was a terrible block and the other half were saying it made sense except for the absence of one crucial piece of information. In the meantime, many people were saying that arbitrators and foundation representatives and checkusers had all been provided with the information/involved in the discussion/whatever. The community's faith in the propriety of its institutions was being shaken. Everybody could have done things differently. Perhaps Arbcom could have had a spokesmember post to the ANI thread that the committee had not been involved in the discussion and had not been forwarded any information in advance of the block. I don't know if that would have made a difference, or if that thought crossed anyone's mind; it would certainly have been a very unusual situation. As I say, the community was clearly unaware of the position in which Arbcom found itself, and there was no information contradicting the belief that Arbcom had indeed been at least informed in advance of this block.
Risker
_______________________________________________
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 Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:32:17 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Guy, with due respect, the very first information the community got about this block directly implied that Arbcom was complicit in the decision to block.
Which is... irrelevant.
If you have private data that ArbCom needs you email it to ArbCom. If you post it on the wiki and the Foundation office asks you not to, you don't reinsert it, you send email. Giano continued to post private data after being explicitly asked not to by the Foundation office.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/30/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
If you have private data that ArbCom needs you email it to ArbCom.
If you have private data that the community needs to know about, that will reveal severe admin misuse of tools, that will simultaneously exonerate an honest man-- you let the community have it.
The community IS the arbcom, except in the rare cases when the community can't make up its mind. As we saw in this case, once the community had the "evidence", there was substantial consensus about it. The whole arbcom case actually turned out not be needed.
Arbcom does not run this place-- the community runs this place, with HELP when needed from arbcom. Alot of people have that upside down, with the view that "the community shouldn't worry its pretty little head over these things-- let the grownups at arbcom talk about it.
Alec
On Nov 30, 2007 2:17 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
If you have private data that ArbCom needs you email it to ArbCom.
If you have private data that the community needs to know about,
You keep confusing curiosity with necessity.
that will reveal severe admin misuse of tools,
Can we please dispense with the hyperbole? It was a 75 minute block which she undid and apologized for.
that will simultaneously exonerate an honest man-- you let the community have it.
He was exonerated 75 minutes after he was blocked.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:54:31 -0500, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
He was exonerated 75 minutes after he was blocked.
And not by that email, either.
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:17:28 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
If you have private data that ArbCom needs you email it to ArbCom.
If you have private data that the community needs to know about, that will reveal severe admin misuse of tools, that will simultaneously exonerate an honest man-- you let the community have it.
The community had no need to see the contents of the mail, !! was already exonerated by other evidence anyway, and the arbitrators were already considering the case, so had accepted that there was a likely misuse of admin tools.
The only thing that was missing was ritual humiliation. Giano thoughtfully provided this.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 30, 2007 11:17 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
If you have private data that ArbCom needs you email it to ArbCom.
If you have private data that the community needs to know about, that will reveal severe admin misuse of tools, that will simultaneously exonerate an honest man-- you let the community have it.
The community IS the arbcom, except in the rare cases when the community can't make up its mind. As we saw in this case, once the community had the "evidence", there was substantial consensus about it. The whole arbcom case actually turned out not be needed.
Arbcom does not run this place-- the community runs this place, with HELP when needed from arbcom. Alot of people have that upside down, with the view that "the community shouldn't worry its pretty little head over these things-- let the grownups at arbcom talk about it.
If that email had been the only way to exonerate !! and !! had still been blocked at the time, and there hadn't already been an arbitration case about the incident started, then there'd be some credibility to that viewpoint.
As is, !! had been unblocked already and exonerated, and the Arbcom case was already going and at least some of the Arbitrators were aware of the email.
I think we do need to have and protect people willing to whistleblow on actual malfeasance should it happen. But that's not even remotely what happened here. The only goal served by Giano's actions was drama and disruption.
A lot of people got upset by discovering things via this case, and got indignant about it. Indignation is fine. But it's not an excuse to break the rules. When you confuse indignation and whistleblowing you cross the line from grey into dark grey.
I can and do AGF about Giano's motives, but his actions were still abusive.
On 11/30/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If that email had been the only way to exonerate !! and !! had still been blocked at the time, and there hadn't already been an arbitration case about the incident started, then there'd be some credibility to that viewpoint.
Unblocked is not exonerated. Showing that the whole process was a farce is exonerated. If nobody leaked the "secret evidence", everyone would assume that there was probably SOMETHING to the evidence, just not enough evidence to convict, as it were.
I think we do need to have and protect people willing to whistleblow on actual malfeasance should it happen. But that's not even remotely what happened here. The only goal served by Giano's actions was drama and disruption.
Well, the whole project now knows about the mailing lists. We know that the next time to apparently unrelated admins show up with the same opinion, you have to think for a second before automatically assuming they are acting independently.
I can and do AGF about Giano's motives, but his actions were still abusive.
The only thinkg I can find wrong with Giano's behavior is: 1. He should have posted the evidence off-site to 100% avoid even the appearance of a copyright claim. 2. He should not have readded text that was deleted.
But publishing the actual "evidence"-- that was a moral imperative.
Alec
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:52:18 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Unblocked is not exonerated. Showing that the whole process was a farce is exonerated. If nobody leaked the "secret evidence", everyone would assume that there was probably SOMETHING to the evidence, just not enough evidence to convict, as it were.
Minor point: Giano explicitly said that he was no longer able to post it "for your entertainment". I think that was a Freudian slip. Giano clearly has contempt for Durova and wishes to cause maximum embarrassment. I have some sympathy with the former (this was, after all, bad judgment handled badly), but not the latter.
Well, the whole project now knows about the mailing lists. We know that the next time to apparently unrelated admins show up with the same opinion, you have to think for a second before automatically assuming they are acting independently.
As opposed to the situation before, where it was assumed to be the IRC cabal.
publishing the actual "evidence"-- that was a moral imperative.
No it wasn't. sending it to ArbCom might have been, but publishing it was, as Giano freely admitted later, for prurient interest only.
Guy (JzG)
On 01/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
publishing the actual "evidence"-- that was a moral imperative.
No it wasn't. sending it to ArbCom might have been, but publishing it was, as Giano freely admitted later, for prurient interest only.
That really isn't going to fly. In between the "all information should be free mob" and those who have played Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri a bit too much
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Alpha_Centauri#Peacekeeping_Force...
unnecessary secrecy isn't going to be popular. Openness is important.
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:48:03 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
unnecessary secrecy isn't going to be popular. Openness is important.
This wasn't openness, it was publishing a private email.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 1, 2007 10:04 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:48:03 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
unnecessary secrecy isn't going to be popular. Openness is important.
This wasn't openness, it was publishing a private email.
If you want to keep your emails private, don't libel people in them. Seems pretty simple, really.
Anthony wrote:
On Dec 1, 2007 10:04 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:48:03 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
unnecessary secrecy isn't going to be popular. Openness is important.
This wasn't openness, it was publishing a private email.
If you want to keep your emails private, don't libel people in them. Seems pretty simple, really.
And you, of course, will need to review all messages to determine whether or not they don't contain what your whim feels is libel.
If you have nothing to hide, why would you object to a strip search?
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:12:26 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
If you want to keep your emails private, don't libel people in them. Seems pretty simple, really.
You can't libel a pseudonymous individual untraceable to real-world identity, as far as I am aware.
You might consider suing Durova in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey to establish precedent, though.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 1, 2007 10:35 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:12:26 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
If you want to keep your emails private, don't libel people in them. Seems pretty simple, really.
You can't libel a pseudonymous individual untraceable to real-world identity, as far as I am aware.
If you want to keep your emails private, don't include false statements which damage the reputation of a pseudonymous individual untraceable to real-world identity, as far as Guy Chapman is aware, either.
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:40:10 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
You can't libel a pseudonymous individual untraceable to real-world identity, as far as I am aware.
If you want to keep your emails private, don't include false statements which damage the reputation of a pseudonymous individual untraceable to real-world identity, as far as Guy Chapman is aware, either.
With you as the final arbiter, of course.
How about this as an alternative, taken from some past arbitration cases: do not publish private emails on Wikipedia.
Guy (JzG)
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
How about this as an alternative, taken from some past arbitration cases: do not publish private emails on Wikipedia.
I doubt that in such Arbcom cases, they even considered the possibility that the private correspondence was being posted because it attacks a third party.
Arbcom doesn't make policy, and their rulings are highly dependent on the facts of the specific case even if they're not phrased that way, and this is a prime example of it. They wouldn't have thought of this situation, and their rulings shouldn't be used as if they did.
On Dec 1, 2007 10:35 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:12:26 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
If you want to keep your emails private, don't libel people in them. Seems pretty simple, really.
You can't libel a pseudonymous individual untraceable to real-world identity, as far as I am aware.
You might consider suing Durova in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey to establish precedent, though.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Wait a minute...wasn't that what BADSITES was all about?
(Sorry Guy - but you gotta stick with your program here, or people are going to call you on it.)
Risker
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 Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:26:16 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
You can't libel a pseudonymous individual untraceable to real-world identity, as far as I am aware.
Wait a minute...wasn't that what BADSITES was all about?
(Sorry Guy - but you gotta stick with your program here, or people are going to call you on it.)
No.
That was easy :-)
Harassment <> libel.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 1, 2007 12:27 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:26:16 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
You can't libel a pseudonymous individual untraceable to real-world identity, as far as I am aware.
Wait a minute...wasn't that what BADSITES was all about?
(Sorry Guy - but you gotta stick with your program here, or people are
going
to call you on it.)
No.
That was easy :-)
Harassment <> libel.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Interesting you should say that, Guy. I quite agree that there is a difference, and that it is very bad to confuse the two. But BADSITES most certainly involved libel, although you may not have been aware of it, as you were not actively participating in the discussion at the time. Perhaps knowing this will give you some context as to why many of us are extremely wary of the entire concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAttack_sites&diff=...
For the record, I do not support harassment of anyone, whether Wikipedia editor or subject, admin or IP address, or anyone else. But I am afraid we write a lot of garbage into our policies that make no sense and are completely unenforceable. In another forum, Guy, you've suggested that perhaps there should be some type of 'stable version' of policies, where they are essentially locked and not edited without strong community oversight. I think that is a brilliant idea, and I would be very pleased, in the interests of collaborative editing, to work with you on that concept.
Risker
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 Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:05:04 -0500, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting you should say that, Guy. I quite agree that there is a difference, and that it is very bad to confuse the two. But BADSITES most certainly involved libel, although you may not have been aware of it, as you were not actively participating in the discussion at the time. Perhaps knowing this will give you some context as to why many of us are extremely wary of the entire concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAttack_sites&diff=...
It's not clear to me why one would support linking to defamation any more than we would support linking to libel, copyright violation or any other kind of content that violates the law.
BADSITES was absolutely not "all about" libel. Not at all.
Guy (JzG)
On 01/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:48:03 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
unnecessary secrecy isn't going to be popular. Openness is important.
This wasn't openness, it was publishing a private email.
Openness will from time to time require semi private communications become public.
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:25:00 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Openness will from time to time require semi private communications become public.
In this case, it was necessary to publish the email only in order to ensure that Durova was adequately humiliated. You'll excuse me, I hope, for finding that just ever so slightly distasteful.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 1, 2007 10:52 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:25:00 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Openness will from time to time require semi private communications become public.
In this case, it was necessary to publish the email only in order to ensure that Durova was adequately humiliated. You'll excuse me, I hope, for finding that just ever so slightly distasteful.
If that was the only reason it was done I'd find it distasteful too. Justified, but distasteful. In this case the publication of the email served at least one other purpose, though. It served to bring to public light the existence of two secret mailing lists and gave us all at least a hint at the improper things which are occurring on those mailing lists. And, frankly, it's for that reason that some arb com members want to punish Giano. Humiliating people who have made a mistake isn't the problem. That's what the arb com does every day.
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:07:46 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
In this case, it was necessary to publish the email only in order to ensure that Durova was adequately humiliated. You'll excuse me, I hope, for finding that just ever so slightly distasteful.
If that was the only reason it was done I'd find it distasteful too. Justified, but distasteful.
See, I'd not find it justified either.
In this case the publication of the email served at least one other purpose, though. It served to bring to public light the existence of two secret mailing lists and gave us all at least a hint at the improper things which are occurring on those mailing lists.
Well, kind of - the mailing lists had nothing like the purpose represented, so actually what it did was to provide MOAR DRAMA without shedding any actual light on anything whatsoever.
And it could have been done without publishing the actual contents of the email; a proposal on evidence that "per email sent" a private mailing list existed, would have served that purpose.
The continued misrepresentation of private as being synonymous with secret is also a side effect of what Giano did.
And, frankly, it's for that reason that some arb com members want to punish Giano. Humiliating people who have made a mistake isn't the problem. That's what the arb com does every day.
No, they want to punish Giano for rampant incivility continuing for years at a stretch.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 1, 2007 12:27 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:07:46 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
In this case the publication of the email served at least one other purpose, though. It served to bring to public light the existence of two secret mailing lists and gave us all at least a hint at the improper things which are occurring on those mailing lists.
Well, kind of - the mailing lists had nothing like the purpose represented, so actually what it did was to provide MOAR DRAMA without shedding any actual light on anything whatsoever.
And it could have been done without publishing the actual contents of the email; a proposal on evidence that "per email sent" a private mailing list existed, would have served that purpose.
The continued misrepresentation of private as being synonymous with secret is also a side effect of what Giano did.
I don't think private has to be synonymous with secret to call these lists secret. In fact, I've said myself that I think there is a difference between a private list and a secret list, and that I feel these lists were both. The email itself says things like "The one thing I have to ask is that you all be very tight lipped about this." and "Foremost, please keep mum!" And what is probably the smoking gun, which has nothing directly to do with her libel of !!, is the comment that "They [Wikipedia Review] don't know this list exists." with a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
What's at that diff? It's an edit by "PrivateMusings" saying "Sorry to perhaps be a little cynical, but could anyone above confirm if this is being discussed elsewhere, perhaps IRC? The block notice, followed by several 'supports' seemed to arrive somewhat quicker than the concerned responses below. No biggie if this isn't the case, but if it were, it would be healthy to disclose." That sure strongly implies to me that "this list", the cyberstalking list, was in fact used to coordinate Jimbo's block of "Miltopia" and the subsequent canvassing of the ANI. "Durova" goes on in her email to say "So by the time Jimbo does something controversial, most Wikipedians don't get more than a sense of vague unease about this account's behavior. The sock is fully ripened, the account well established, and the troll has teammates to create or obstruct consensus if anyone intervenes."
Now, look, you can deny and say oh you have to assume good faith and assume that every other email sent to the cyberstalking list was completely different from this one and was talking about helping victims of cyberstalking cope with their feelings or whatever, but you can't use such handwaving on the actual email which was made public, and you can't do so precisely because the entire email was made public.
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:04:43 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I don't think private has to be synonymous with secret to call these lists secret. In fact, I've said myself that I think there is a difference between a private list and a secret list, and that I feel these lists were both. The email itself says things like "The one thing I have to ask is that you all be very tight lipped about this." and "Foremost, please keep mum!" And what is probably the smoking gun, which has nothing directly to do with her libel of !!, is the comment that "They [Wikipedia Review] don't know this list exists."
Durova is not in any way representative of the members of that list.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 1, 2007 11:07 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 1, 2007 10:52 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:25:00 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Openness will from time to time require semi private communications become public.
In this case, it was necessary to publish the email only in order to ensure that Durova was adequately humiliated. You'll excuse me, I hope, for finding that just ever so slightly distasteful.
If that was the only reason it was done I'd find it distasteful too. Justified, but distasteful. In this case the publication of the email served at least one other purpose, though. It served to bring to public light the existence of two secret mailing lists and gave us all at least a hint at the improper things which are occurring on those mailing lists.
Actually, it didn't do either, since neither list was "secret", and there is no indication that "improper things" are occurring on those mailing lists.
And, frankly, it's for that reason that some arb com members want to punish Giano.
That's not being "frank", that's just being assuming bad faith *and* being completely incorrect. Please don't mistake the former for the latter.
Humiliating people who have made a mistake isn't the problem.
Err, yes it is. And you persist.
On 01/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:25:00 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Openness will from time to time require semi private communications become public.
In this case, it was necessary to publish the email only in order to ensure that Durova was adequately humiliated. You'll excuse me, I hope, for finding that just ever so slightly distasteful.
Nah arbcom have seen to the humiliation bit quite nicely. It more a case of the community being able to see what on earth has been going on. Semi private emails don't have much of a place in an open project in any case.
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 17:01:08 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Nah arbcom have seen to the humiliation bit quite nicely. It more a case of the community being able to see what on earth has been going on. Semi private emails don't have much of a place in an open project in any case.
You're going to propose winding up the ArbCom and OTRS lists, are you? And I guess the admin IRC channel? And disabling the email user function?
Guy (JzG)
On 01/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
You're going to propose winding up the ArbCom
A case can be made that in it's present form that might not be a bad idea. Certianly the removal of former arbcom members would reduce the risk of the list straying from it's intended purpose.
and OTRS lists, are you?
OTRS is not comparable. No much used for communication between project members about matters that do not directly concern OTRS.
And I guess the admin IRC channel?
Tempting but the group who can view that tend to be less self selecting. Historically wikipedia-en-admins has proven to be rather leaky.
And disabling the email user function?
In most cases that is used for reasons of convince rather than anything else.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/little http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/none
On 01/12/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
You're going to propose winding up the ArbCom
A case can be made that in it's present form that might not be a bad idea. Certianly the removal of former arbcom members would reduce the risk of the list straying from it's intended purpose.
And them deadminning you for wheel-warring has nothing to do with your opinion, of course.
- d.
On 01/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/12/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
You're going to propose winding up the ArbCom
A case can be made that in it's present form that might not be a bad idea. Certianly the removal of former arbcom members would reduce the risk of the list straying from it's intended purpose.
And them deadminning you for wheel-warring has nothing to do with your opinion, of course.
I have no reason to think that had anything to do with non current members of arbcom so no (in any case in their position I would probably have done the same thing).
On Nov 30, 2007 5:52 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If that email had been the only way to exonerate !! and !! had still been blocked at the time, and there hadn't already been an arbitration case about the incident started, then there'd be some credibility to that viewpoint.
Unblocked is not exonerated. Showing that the whole process was a farce is exonerated. If nobody leaked the "secret evidence", everyone would assume that there was probably SOMETHING to the evidence, just not enough evidence to convict, as it were.
Which, of course, there was. !! was indeed a returning, experienced editor using a new account.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, George Herbert wrote:
I think we do need to have and protect people willing to whistleblow on actual malfeasance should it happen. But that's not even remotely what happened here. The only goal served by Giano's actions was drama and disruption.
Giano posting the message served the goal of exposing a systematic problem.
Certainly exposing problems that people would rather not have exposed can cause drama and disruption, but as I've pointed out, that's the fault of the person whose bad behavior is being exposed, not the fault of the person doing the exposing.
On Nov 30, 2007 6:32 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, George Herbert wrote:
I think we do need to have and protect people willing to whistleblow on actual malfeasance should it happen. But that's not even remotely what happened here. The only goal served by Giano's actions was drama and disruption.
Giano posting the message served the goal of exposing a systematic problem.
Certainly exposing problems that people would rather not have exposed can cause drama and disruption, but as I've pointed out, that's the fault of the person whose bad behavior is being exposed, not the fault of the person doing the exposing.
A. The systematic problem in question is, as far as I can tell, hypothetical.
I can posit that Giano wouldn't have known that at the time, but we know better now.
The information available at the time was arguably ambiguous, but did not factually clearly point to malfeasance.
Whistleblowing when you factually know enough to conclude with certainty that there is malfeasance is one thing. Whistleblowing when you have a bit of information and a supposition is quite another. Giano might have thought there was clearly something wrong; he was incorrect in doing so if that's what he thought. He should not have concluded with enough certainty to justify "blowing it wide open" by posting it on WP.
If you make a false conclusion based on partial information, and act incorrectly based on that false conclusion, you are responsible for your misdeeds.
B. If one breaks the law or local rules in whistleblowing, few jurisdictions include a "get out of jail free" card along with it. Even if I hypothetically were to agree that this was legitimate whistleblowing and not excess drama, Giano still repeatedly did something against Wikipedia rules, after being told by office people not to.
I think Giano was trying to do what he thought was the right thing. But his zeal and outrage outpaced the actual facts, and led him to commit unjustified excesses.
Blowing off repeated office warnings has to have consequences.
I am sympathetic to those who want to shine the light of day around a bit and make sure there aren't any skeletons hidden in the formerly private closets. That doesn't excuse abuses of WP policy in the process of taking the look around.
I hope and expect that a polite, good-faith assuming inquiry that didn't push buttons or violate policies would have gotten as open and honest a disclosure from participants about what happened here. That's not what happened. I don't want to hold Giano responsible for the dramatic but not glaringly policy-breaking excesses of others, but I do think he has to take his lumps for what he himself did.
I hope he comes back afterwards. He is, though trying at times, a good participant in the project. But good people goof. And some good people don't always play well with others.
On 01/12/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, George Herbert wrote:
If one breaks the law or local rules in whistleblowing, few jurisdictions include a "get out of jail free" card along with it.
Wikipedia does, however. It's called IAR.
I think that's more of a "temporary stay."
- d.
Mark Ryan wrote:
So is Giano getting potentially banned by the ArbCom for wilfully posting a copyright violation? Or defying a Foundation employee? Or not following the correct processes of ArbCom?
One thing that confuses me is the alleged serving of a DMCA Notice by Durova on the Foundation, to force a take-down (read: oversight by Cary) of the email posted by Giano. Don't we block/ban for legal threats, or does a DMCA Notice not count as one of those? Some clarification on this point would be helpful.
Framing this as a copyvio issue only muddies the waters. It's as though to say that if the information had been worded differently there would be no problem. I find that hard to believe.
Ec
Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen (on
the
Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not* receive
a
copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first saw Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
The Arbitration Committee list was forwarded a copy of the list post with the express permission of Durova *well before* Giano posted it to AN/I.
The post was forwarded *four days* after the original block -- only *hours* before Giano posted it on AN/I.
Sorry, you're right, it was only hours before Giano's posting. I mistook PM for AM. In any event, the ArbCom list did get Durova's posting, with her permission, so the claim that Giano needed to post it is not accurate.
While it would clearly have been better for Giano to forward the email to the ArbCom rather than post, such a short distance between when the ArbCom got the email and when Giano posted it does appear to be a relevant mitigating factor.
On Nov 30, 2007 11:09 AM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and Mackensen (on
the
Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did *not* receive
a
copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom first saw Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
The Arbitration Committee list was forwarded a copy of the list post with the express permission of Durova *well before* Giano posted it to AN/I.
The post was forwarded *four days* after the original block -- only *hours* before Giano posted it on AN/I.
Sorry, you're right, it was only hours before Giano's posting. I mistook PM for AM. In any event, the ArbCom list did get Durova's posting, with her permission, so the claim that Giano needed to post it is not accurate.
While it would clearly have been better for Giano to forward the email to the ArbCom rather than post, such a short distance between when the ArbCom got the email and when Giano posted it does appear to be a relevant mitigating factor.
A "relevant mitigating factor" for what, and in what sense?
Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
On Nov 30, 2007 11:09 AM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
David and Guy, both Paul August (in the ANI subpage) and
Mackensen (on
the
Proposed Decisions talk page) have stated that Arbcom did
*not* receive
a
copy of the list post; it appears that many members of Arbcom
first saw
Durova's post when Giano published it on ANI.
The Arbitration Committee list was forwarded a copy of the list post with the express permission of Durova *well before* Giano posted it to AN/I.
The post was forwarded *four days* after the original block --
only *hours*
before Giano posted it on AN/I.
Sorry, you're right, it was only hours before Giano's posting. I mistook PM for AM. In any event, the ArbCom list did get Durova's posting, with her permission, so the claim that Giano needed to post it is not accurate.
While it would clearly have been better for Giano to forward the email to the ArbCom rather than post, such a short distance between when the ArbCom got the email and when Giano posted it does appear to be a relevant mitigating factor.
A "relevant mitigating factor" for what, and in what sense?
A relevant mitigating factor for how egregious his behavior was.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:14:58 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
A relevant mitigating factor for how egregious his behavior was.
Post once, maybe forgivable. Continuing to post after being asked not to, and invited to send it by email? Not so forgivable.
Guy (JzG)
Quoting Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:14:58 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
A relevant mitigating factor for how egregious his behavior was.
Post once, maybe forgivable. Continuing to post after being asked not to, and invited to send it by email? Not so forgivable.
That I can't argue with. Nor for that matter has Giano even attempted as far as I can see to give an explanation for why he did this rather than just emailing.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:41:35 -0500, "Kirill Lokshin" kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
The post was forwarded *four days* after the original block -- only *hours* before Giano posted it on AN/I.
Relevance? Had you asked I am sure Durova would have sent it by email, and of course Giano could have sent it by email as well.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 29, 2007 9:17 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/29/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
What I would like to know (and I'm not going to bother digging through hundreds of emails on this topic to see if it's already been asked) is which arbitrators are members of that private/secret mailing list, and if some arbitrators are members of that list or, further, participated in discussions, then which of those arbitrators have recused themselves from this case.
If I am correct (somebody speak up if I'm not) I believe both Flonight and Morven are confirmed to have participated in both secret lists
There are no secret lists, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Despite participating in the lists and receiving the "evidence" email, no arbiter has agreed yet agreed to recuse themselves. Flonight and Morven are currently the deciding votes in a split-decision at the Arbcom case proposing to ban Giano for 90 days for revealing the evidence that exonerated !!.
The proposal is not to ban Giano for "revealing the evidence that exonerated !!"; indeed, that evidence has never been presented publicly. The ArbCom has stated its issues with Giano quite clearly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_J... and it has nothing to do with what you have said.
I wonder if your mis-representation of ArbCom statements is deliberate or not?