Jayjg is actively engaged in our conversations.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Steven Walling [mailto:steven.walling@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 12:08 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is AWOL
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.
Thank you, Fred. That was really all that anyone needs to know - that Jayjg is informed of the situation and is working with Arbcom to address matters. I am sure many editors were concerned at Jayjg's on-wiki absence, if for no other reason than that a long serving editor who holds amongst the highest level of rights should be informed of the issues before the Arbcom that directly relate to him. At the same time, many of us have not established a "personal" relationship with Jayjg and thus would be hesitant to involve ourselves in what would clearly be an unpleasant situation.
Risker
On 8/27/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Jayjg is actively engaged in our conversations.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Steven Walling [mailto:steven.walling@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 12:08 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is AWOL
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.
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, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, Fred. That was really all that anyone needs to know - that Jayjg is informed of the situation and is working with Arbcom to address matters. I am sure many editors were concerned at Jayjg's on-wiki absence, if for no other reason than that a long serving editor who holds amongst the highest level of rights should be informed of the issues before the Arbcom that directly relate to him. At the same time, many of us have not established a "personal" relationship with Jayjg and thus would be hesitant to involve ourselves in what would clearly be an unpleasant situation.
I agree entirely.
However, there is one thing that needs to be said: describing as "a lie" the comment that Jayjg is absent (which he is, as far as we ordinary plebs can see) is unhelpful - unless there's proof that Frank was aware that Jayjg was not absent before his email of 1752UTC today.
On 27/08/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/08/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, Fred. That was really all that anyone needs to know - that Jayjg is informed of the situation and is working with Arbcom to address matters. I am sure many editors were concerned at Jayjg's on-wiki absence, if for no other reason than that a long serving editor who holds amongst the highest level of rights should be informed of the issues before the Arbcom that directly relate to him. At the same time, many of us have not established a "personal" relationship with Jayjg and thus would be hesitant to involve ourselves in what would clearly be an unpleasant situation.
I agree entirely.
However, there is one thing that needs to be said: describing as "a lie" the comment that Jayjg is absent (which he is, as far as we ordinary plebs can see) is unhelpful - unless there's proof that Frank was aware that Jayjg was not absent before his email of 1752UTC today.
True... a lie is not anything one disagrees with, but rather intentional and vocal deception.
James Farrar wrote:
However, there is one thing that needs to be said: describing as "a lie" the comment that Jayjg is absent (which he is, as far as we ordinary plebs can see) is unhelpful - unless there's proof that Frank was aware that Jayjg was not absent before his email of 1752UTC today.
Look at all his emails after I told him. I think my charge of trolling sticks easily. This was not a good faith inquiry, this is an ongoing attempt to politicize an issue internally by misleading people.
If Frank wants to apologize for behaving badly, I will forgive him.
--Jimbo
On 27/08/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
However, there is one thing that needs to be said: describing as "a lie" the comment that Jayjg is absent (which he is, as far as we ordinary plebs can see) is unhelpful - unless there's proof that Frank was aware that Jayjg was not absent before his email of 1752UTC today.
Look at all his emails after I told him. I think my charge of trolling sticks easily. This was not a good faith inquiry, this is an ongoing attempt to politicize an issue internally by misleading people.
As may be. Was it actually a lie, though?
Calling someone a liar is generally a good way to inflame a situation.
On 27/08/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/08/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
However, there is one thing that needs to be said: describing as "a lie" the comment that Jayjg is absent (which he is, as far as we ordinary plebs can see) is unhelpful - unless there's proof that Frank was aware that Jayjg was not absent before his email of 1752UTC today.
Look at all his emails after I told him. I think my charge of trolling sticks easily. This was not a good faith inquiry, this is an ongoing attempt to politicize an issue internally by misleading people.
As may be. Was it actually a lie, though?
Calling someone a liar is generally a good way to inflame a situation.
To be specific, it's a good way to ensure the person keeps arguing the point, rather than agreeing to disagree, since you escalate the importance of the veracity of the statement to his or her reputation of honesty.
Armed Blowfish wrote:
To be specific, it's a good way to ensure the person keeps arguing the point, rather than agreeing to disagree, since you escalate the importance of the veracity of the statement to his or her reputation of honesty.
In this particular case, it seems clear to me who "Frank" is, and if I am right, then he is actually in fact lying, since he knows more than he is letting on. But since I don't know for sure, I retract the statement and simply say: Frank's complaints are entirely without merit, as Jay is not AWOL at all.
Keep in mind that there really are trolls, and I mean that term in the technical sense of people who post things strictly to stir up trouble. I consider trolling behavior to be almost always dishonest and rooted in dishonesty.
--Jimbo
This seems to be an issue you're taking rather seriously Jimbo, and I've noticed in your replies here. I mean this in the sense you just seem a little short while dealing with it, probably because of the time its taking up for you, both in the situation at hand, here, explaining it, and the case itself. I appreciate your willingness to keep private information private, and I commend your willingness to take a step back and breath. Detente is good for all. Frank may wish to apologize as well, because intentionally or not, his comments were trolling. Let's defuse this now before it gets more heated.
On 8/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
As may be. Was it actually a lie, though?
Calling someone a liar is generally a good way to inflame a situation.
You are right, and I should not have done that. I am sorry.
--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
Jimmy Wales wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
As may be. Was it actually a lie, though?
Calling someone a liar is generally a good way to inflame a situation.
You are right, and I should not have done that. I am sorry.
--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
And my turn to apologize, I sent my own comment on that without seeing that this had already been addressed.
On 27/08/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
However, there is one thing that needs to be said: describing as "a lie" the comment that Jayjg is absent (which he is, as far as we ordinary plebs can see) is unhelpful - unless there's proof that Frank was aware that Jayjg was not absent before his email of 1752UTC today.
Look at all his emails after I told him. I think my charge of trolling sticks easily. This was not a good faith inquiry, this is an ongoing attempt to politicize an issue internally by misleading people.
If Frank wants to apologize for behaving badly, I will forgive him.
--Jimbo
Disagreement is not the same as lying. Apparently his definition of absence looks only at the contributions history.
Hey, I disagree with him too.
There is a delicate balance of interests in a debate like this.
First, some topics will /only/ be fully explored in private with trusted individuals, rather than the entire open community -- especially if there are seriously personal or admin/project reasons to consider. Office, OTRS, arb-email, checkuser, oversight... Wikipedia is far from completely transparent and this /already/ has a high degree of communal assent.
Second, not everyone wants their debate to become troll-fodder -- and by this I don't mean people in this discussion, I mean people out to stir trouble or with an axe to grind or grudge, or warriors or fantasists who would pick up any quotes from the mailing list and wiki, and run off half-assed theories and speculations about it, likely destroying Jayjg's reputation before a fair neutral discussion can be obtained. This matter does cover sensitive stuff after all.
So there are serious and good reasons to expect some matters /will/ contain a private aspect.
The flip side is, this works if one trusts the process and individuals concerned, and the result will eventually be made as transparent as possible and fair, and if one believes a fair conclusion will be reached. Adminship is first and foremost a statement of strong confidence by the community, and oversight more so. If that confidence is (right or wrongly) threatened it's usually a serious impediment and concern. Also, anxiety in the face of reduced information on a serious matter is natural for many people. It doesn't need to merit harsh words. Ultimately, if the community eventually feels it knows enough, will have reasonable answers, and feels reassured in the end, that'll be what counts. A bit like oversight, it's more important to feel it is well judged and have some sense why it's gone that way, and what it meant.
When I first heard "AWOL" I feared for Jayjg, and hoped he was okay. My first reaction was not to jump on the drama of his wiki editing, but to consider him as a human being as well as respect the concerns noted in the email. I'm reassured that he is well, glad he is in contact, and glad to hear it's being carefully discussed. If the final resolution reassures and validates community confidence, I would say that is all the rest that's needed.
As for Jayjg himself, I hope he has acted properly in all this, since he has given greatly of his time and effort to the community and project, and I'm fairly sure nobody is letting the discussion being held in private, gather dust.
FT2.
On 8/27/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There is a delicate balance of interests in a debate like this.
First, some topics will /only/ be fully explored in private with trusted individuals, rather than the entire open community -- especially if there are seriously personal or admin/project reasons to consider. Office, OTRS, arb-email, checkuser, oversight... Wikipedia is far from completely transparent and this /already/ has a high degree of communal assent.
The problem is that in this case we are in effect asking the inner community to judge one of their own. So far their record in this area isn't great.
There are ways around this such as asking fr.arbcom to reivew the issues but that would tend to create language problems.
If you did want to bring in an "uninvolved" body trusted to deal with sensitive information, as means of some independent overviewers of the proceedings or as a body charged with dealing with the charges, there are OTRS volunteers who should be as equally trusted as checkuser/oversight people, there's checkusers/oversight people from Commons who seem very trustworthy, and I believe the English language Wikinews has an arbitration committee, though I don't know who's on their committee, so I can't say much there.
On 27/08/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There is a delicate balance of interests in a debate like this.
First, some topics will /only/ be fully explored in private with trusted individuals, rather than the entire open community -- especially if
there
are seriously personal or admin/project reasons to consider. Office,
OTRS,
arb-email, checkuser, oversight... Wikipedia is far from completely transparent and this /already/ has a high degree of communal assent.
The problem is that in this case we are in effect asking the inner community to judge one of their own. So far their record in this area isn't great.
There are ways around this such as asking fr.arbcom to reivew the issues but that would tend to create language problems.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l