User:Andplus posted an excellent analysis of the disproportionate level of proposed remedies in this whole affair on [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision]] which I shall quote for ya all to consider.
"The attack on !! in the email was a pretty through job, and one that would seem to breach many of the policies and guidelines that Giano is accused of breaching. In my opinion, it is worse than anything Giano did, as while I can see many of his comments resulting from a rush to comment before the discussion was sidelined, the mail was obviously complied at leisure (and distributed to a wider audience with at least two weeks to be considered and revised before it was made public). Unfortunately the character assassination of !! occurred off-site, so the Committee has no authority to issue sanctions against its author. Giano's offence was to post his comments on-site. Had he gone to another site, he could have viciously attacked all and sundry, and the community could have shaken its collective head in disgust and gone back to editing, safe in the knowledge that such horrible behaviour was outside the Committee's jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, the case came to Arbitration in this unequal state: Giano's actions could be dealt with because he kept his argument "in-house", Durova's could not because she took advantage of off-site communication.
As a result Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions. The argument from her supporters seems to be that she was punished in having to resign her admin bit and being made to look foolish. An admin bit is not some shield that can be used to deflect a blow, something we can drop in lieu of a sanction. Should we issue Giano with an admin bit so he can be forced to give it up as punishment? As for being made to look foolish, I dare say that has happened to all of us at some point, but it is of our own making. That somebody points out how foolish we have been is perhaps unkind, but had we not been foolish they would not have had the opportunity. Aside from that, I would hope that the Committee is in the business of remedies rather than punishments.
For Giano, on the other hand, the Committee has almost unlimited scope to apply remedies. He has no admin bit to strip, he has no "off-site" justification for his actions, his actions clearly fall under the remit of the Committee. He can be banned, blocked, restricted and probably more. This does not mean it is right to apply such sanctions in the face of such an obvious deficiency the Committee's authority. Balance is important here, as is the message sent to the community by the decision (see my questions to Mackensen for the message I perceive as being sent from the proposed decision). I do not wish Durova punished: a remedy should not be a punishment. Instead, I would urge the Arbitrators to vote against any remedy for Giano that applies a more rigorous sanction to him than those applied to Durova, and I applaud those who have already done so.
As a side note, I found this while looking at Wikipedia:Former administrators, which seems to point to action being possible even when posting takes place off-site [18]. On the Former administrators page it says the action was carried out per an ArbCom decision. Perhaps one of the Arbitrators could clarify their jurisdiction. Andplus (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)"
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:30:56 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
As a result Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions.
What, apart from losing all her credibility, her sysop bit and her shot at ArbCom you mean?
I'm sorry, we don't do tar and feathers here.
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:45 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:30:56 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
As a result Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions.
What, apart from losing all her credibility,
Then trash Giano's credibility all you like.
her sysop bit and her shot at ArbCom you mean?
And I quote the original passage: "An admin bit is not some shield that can be used to deflect a blow, something we can drop in lieu of a sanction. Should we issue Giano with an admin bit so he can be forced to give it up as punishment?"
She won't now have a shot at ArbCom. Big wow. Now compare to the various proposed remedies of banning for 90 days, restricted editing in Wikipedia namespace etc. *point to the subject line of "balance of sanction*.
KTC
On Nov 30, 2007 11:51 AM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:45 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:30:56 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
As a result Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions.
What, apart from losing all her credibility,
Then trash Giano's credibility all you like.
her sysop bit and her shot at ArbCom you mean?
And I quote the original passage: "An admin bit is not some shield that can be used to deflect a blow, something we can drop in lieu of a sanction. Should we issue Giano with an admin bit so he can be forced to give it up as punishment?"
She won't now have a shot at ArbCom. Big wow. Now compare to the various proposed remedies of banning for 90 days, restricted editing in Wikipedia namespace etc. *point to the subject line of "balance of sanction*.
KTC
What additional sanctions do you think would be appropriate for an erroneous block that was undone in 72 minutes?
On Nov 30, 2007 12:32 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What additional sanctions do you think would be appropriate for an erroneous block that was undone in 72 minutes?
Wasn't it 72 hours?
On Nov 30, 2007 12:42 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 12:32 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
What additional sanctions do you think would be appropriate for an erroneous block that was undone in 72 minutes?
Wasn't it 72 hours?
Ah, here it is, 75 minutes.
# 18:00, 18 November 2007 Durova (Talk | contribs) unblocked !! (Talk | contribs) (false positive) # 16:45, 18 November 2007 Durova (Talk | contribs) blocked "!! (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing sock puppet accounts: See note on talk.)
# 21:56, 21 December 2006 Misza13 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:!!" (Temporary wikipedian userpage) # 04:08, 14 September 2006 Pathoschild (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:!!" (Userpage for an indefinitely blocked bad-faith user)
"Your username has been blocked indefinitely because it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, uses non-Latin characters, or is otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information)." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:%21%21&oldid=95783799
Was this a usurpation of a previously banned user, or something?
On 30/11/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
# 21:56, 21 December 2006 Misza13 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:!!" (Temporary wikipedian userpage) # 04:08, 14 September 2006 Pathoschild (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:!!" (Userpage for an indefinitely blocked bad-faith user)
"Your username has been blocked indefinitely because it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, uses non-Latin characters, or is otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information)." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:%21%21&oldid=95783799
Was this a usurpation of a previously banned user, or something?
I did wonder about that - the whole string of weird alphanumeric usernames created to play merry hell with special:listusers Back In The Day...
On 11/30/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/11/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
# 21:56, 21 December 2006 Misza13 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:!!" (Temporary wikipedian userpage) # 04:08, 14 September 2006 Pathoschild (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:!!" (Userpage for an indefinitely blocked bad-faith user)
"Your username has been blocked indefinitely because it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, uses non-Latin characters, or is otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information)." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:%21%21&oldid=95783799
Was this a usurpation of a previously banned user, or something?
I did wonder about that - the whole string of weird alphanumeric usernames created to play merry hell with special:listusers Back In The Day...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
As I recall from the rather cloaked information on ANI, the username was usurped by an editor in good standing whose previous username may have had connections to his IRL identity. Some of those usurpations are done very quietly particularly if there are any concerns with respect to privacy.
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, 2007-11-30 at 12:32 -0500, jayjg wrote:
What additional sanctions do you think would be appropriate for an erroneous block that was undone in 72 minutes?
I'll carry on in the same vain I've started this thread, by quoting the words of User:Andplus.
"I'm not asking for Durova to punished, I'm asking for ... a decision that doesn't encourage off-site attacks and plots".
KTC
On Nov 30, 2007 12:49 PM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 12:32 -0500, jayjg wrote:
What additional sanctions do you think would be appropriate for an erroneous block that was undone in 72 minutes?
I'll carry on in the same vain I've started this thread, by quoting the words of User:Andplus.
"I'm not asking for Durova to punished, I'm asking for ... a decision that doesn't encourage off-site attacks and plots".
Well, there's little the ArbCom can do about "off-site attacks", and it's pretty clear now that this case didn't involve any "plots", so of what relevance is Andplus's statement, or your repetition of the same?
On 11/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 11:51 AM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:45 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:30:56 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
As a result Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions.
What, apart from losing all her credibility,
Then trash Giano's credibility all you like.
her sysop bit and her shot at ArbCom you mean?
And I quote the original passage: "An admin bit is not some shield that can be used to deflect a blow, something we can drop in lieu of a sanction. Should we issue Giano with an admin bit so he can be forced to give it up as punishment?"
She won't now have a shot at ArbCom. Big wow. Now compare to the various proposed remedies of banning for 90 days, restricted editing in Wikipedia namespace etc. *point to the subject line of "balance of sanction*.
KTC
What additional sanctions do you think would be appropriate for an erroneous block that was undone in 72 minutes?
There were additional errors in judgment, not just an erroneous block. First off is the quality of evidence used to make the block. Then Durova referred questions to Arbcom, but failed to send them the information on which her decision was based. She suggested that the evidence was private and revealed secret techniques for sockpuppet identification, neither of which were correct. And she implied that foundation representatives, arbcom members, and checkusers were all well aware of the situation, which was only partially true; some may have been aware and some not, but only in their capacity as established editors who were on a mailing list, rather than in their official capacities. This was a serious error in judgment on Durova's part, and it seems to me she has recognized this herself.
It's very unclear to me why you, as Durova's friend, keep insisting on having her entire litany of errors repeated. Don't you think it's a bit cruel to her to keep insisting on hearing it over and over again? For heaven's sake, she has recognized her errors and done the right thing for the community. Please leave her with a bit of dignity.
_______________________________________________
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 12:49 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 11:51 AM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:45 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:30:56 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
As a result Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions.
What, apart from losing all her credibility,
Then trash Giano's credibility all you like.
her sysop bit and her shot at ArbCom you mean?
And I quote the original passage: "An admin bit is not some shield that can be used to deflect a blow, something we can drop in lieu of a sanction. Should we issue Giano with an admin bit so he can be forced to give it up as punishment?"
She won't now have a shot at ArbCom. Big wow. Now compare to the various proposed remedies of banning for 90 days, restricted editing in Wikipedia namespace etc. *point to the subject line of "balance of sanction*.
KTC
What additional sanctions do you think would be appropriate for an erroneous block that was undone in 72 minutes?
There were additional errors in judgment, not just an erroneous block. First off is the quality of evidence used to make the block. Then Durova referred questions to Arbcom, but failed to send them the information on which her decision was based. She suggested that the evidence was private and revealed secret techniques for sockpuppet identification, neither of which were correct. And she implied that foundation representatives, arbcom members, and checkusers were all well aware of the situation, which was only partially true; some may have been aware and some not, but only in their capacity as established editors who were on a mailing list, rather than in their official capacities. This was a serious error in judgment on Durova's part, and it seems to me she has recognized this herself.
But what additional sanctions do you believe were appropriate? That was my question.
It's very unclear to me why you, as Durova's friend, keep insisting on having her entire litany of errors repeated.
I didn't, of course. I asked a different question; one which, of course, you failed to answer, preferring instead to rake Durova over the coals one more time.
Don't you think it's a bit cruel to her to keep insisting on hearing it over and over again? For heaven's sake, she has recognized her errors and done the right thing for the community. Please leave her with a bit of dignity.
That's rather rich; perhaps you should save that advice for the people who keep insisting that they need to pick at this scab some more, by starting ever-more wikien-l threads on the subject.
jayjg wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 11:51 AM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
She won't now have a shot at ArbCom. Big wow. Now compare to the various proposed remedies of banning for 90 days, restricted editing in Wikipedia namespace etc. *point to the subject line of "balance of sanction*.
What additional sanctions do you think would be appropriate for an erroneous block that was undone in 72 minutes?
Who's asking for additional sanctions. When there is an imbalance of remedies increasing sanctions to the putatively less sanctioned party is not the only solution. Sometimes reducing sanctions to the other works just as well.
Ec
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
She won't now have a shot at ArbCom. Big wow. Now compare to the various proposed remedies of banning for 90 days, restricted editing in Wikipedia namespace etc. *point to the subject line of "balance of sanction*.
What additional sanctions do you think would be appropriate for an erroneous block that was undone in 72 minutes?
Who's asking for additional sanctions. When there is an imbalance of remedies increasing sanctions to the putatively less sanctioned party is not the only solution. Sometimes reducing sanctions to the other works just as well.
Actually, there's one "remedy" that can be applied: give permission for the message to be posted.
On Nov 30, 2007 6:29 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
She won't now have a shot at ArbCom. Big wow. Now compare to the
various
proposed remedies of banning for 90 days, restricted editing in Wikipedia namespace etc. *point to the subject line of "balance of sanction*.
What additional sanctions do you think would be appropriate for an erroneous block that was undone in 72 minutes?
Who's asking for additional sanctions. When there is an imbalance of remedies increasing sanctions to the putatively less sanctioned party is not the only solution. Sometimes reducing sanctions to the other works just as well.
Actually, there's one "remedy" that can be applied: give permission for the message to be posted.
If there's a copyright claim in play (and all I have to go on is what's on wiki and public emails on this, which are suggestive but not conclusive), then nobody on Arbcom or at the Foundation has the legal right to say that.
One could hypothetically posit a remedy requiring someone to drop such a legal claim and allow posting of a message with the alternative being some sort of punishment, but such are normally described as extortion in the legal sense, and at best odious.
It's far easier to just point to the WR article or wherever it's up right now and say "the posting -> over there" than continue to fight over it on WP proper.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, George Herbert wrote:
Actually, there's one "remedy" that can be applied: give permission for the message to be posted.
If there's a copyright claim in play (and all I have to go on is what's on wiki and public emails on this, which are suggestive but not conclusive), then nobody on Arbcom or at the Foundation has the legal right to say that.
They can't give copyright permission, but they could give permission in all other ways. If Giano had to worry *only* about fair use, and not also about violating Wikipedia rules about posting private correspondence, he might be able to post it.
Furthermore, I find it disingenuous that a DMCA notice (which may or may not have been sent by Durova, because nobody's willing to say anything) is not considered to be a legal threat that violates the No Legal Threats policy.
On 01/12/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Furthermore, I find it disingenuous that a DMCA notice (which may or may not have been sent by Durova, because nobody's willing to say anything) is not considered to be a legal threat that violates the No Legal Threats policy.
People are free to complain about copyright violations. While a DMCA isn't the quickest way I see no reason to object to people using it.
On Dec 1, 2007 12:02 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Furthermore, I find it disingenuous that a DMCA notice (which may or may not have been sent by Durova, because nobody's willing to say anything) is not considered to be a legal threat that violates the No Legal Threats policy.
"A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat"." [[Wikipedia:No legal threats]]
I don't agree with the policy against legal threats, so maybe I should support these strawman arguments against it, but it seems to me it is about making legal threats *on Wikipedia*, and wouldn't be applicable to a DMCA takedown notice, especially not one which is not disputed by the Foundation. The policy also states that you should not edit Wikipedia during a legal dispute "until the legal matter has been resolved", but any legal matter in this case was resolved when the email was removed.
Anthony wrote:
I don't agree with the policy against legal threats, so maybe I should support these strawman arguments against it, but it seems to me it is about making legal threats *on Wikipedia*, and wouldn't be applicable to a DMCA takedown notice, especially not one which is not disputed by the Foundation. The policy also states that you should not edit Wikipedia during a legal dispute "until the legal matter has been resolved", but any legal matter in this case was resolved when the email was removed.
A no-legal-threats policy makes sense if it is meant to deal with intimidation or extortion.
The actual takedown does not resolve the case; it only puts it under the carpet.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ken Arromdee wrote:
Furthermore, I find it disingenuous that a DMCA notice (which may or may not have been sent by Durova, because nobody's willing to say anything) is not considered to be a legal threat that violates the No Legal Threats policy.
I am amused by your belief that anyone editing Wikipedia must abandon all legal recourse.
Since you have explicitly stated that you believe No Legal Threats prohibits Wikipedians from using the legal system to protect property rights, the next question would be:
If one Wikipedian physically assaulted another and the victim pressed charges, would you ban the victim?
- -- Sean Barrett | The other side to the Wikipedia that nobody really sean@epoptic.com | likes to talk about... is that a large portion of | the content is fairly pornographic, and actually | quite lewd. --Encyclopedia Britannica spokesman
Quoting Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com:
Ken Arromdee wrote: Furthermore, I find it disingenuous that a DMCA notice (which may or may not have been sent by Durova, because nobody's willing to say anything) is not considered to be a legal threat that violates the No Legal Threats policy.
Excuse me, but are you aware of how ridiculous this is? That means if someone had a copyright violation on Wikipedia and they were an editor on Wikipedia and they sent a take-down notice we'd respond by blocking them? Are you aware of how ridiculous that sounds? Granted sending take-down notices is not the best way of handling this sort of situation, but the idea of blocking someone who is legitimately protecting copyright seems a bit... off. The no legal threats rule is primarily for dealing with things like libel suits that are directed at other editors.
I'll have to admit I made a mistake on this one, since policy does allow DMCA notices. It still seems bizarre, but it was obviously part of the policy for a while.
However, the answer to the question about assault is "that would be irrelevant, unless the assault happened on Wikipedia or the lawsuit threat was made on Wikipedia".
On 12/1/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I'll have to admit I made a mistake on this one, since policy does allow DMCA notices. It still seems bizarre, but it was obviously part of the policy for a while.
Well, nobody complaining about copyright infringement needs to fill out any sort of form, or consult an attorney, or have any idea what DMCA stands for, only to say "hey, you people copied my shit and I can prove it." and we take it down while the matter is investigated.
If he turns out to be trolling, and the content in question isn't actually plagiarized, we put it back up. Then maybe we block him for wasting our time, but never for any sort of "legal threat", even if he did mention suing us.
Copyright issues have always superseded "legal threats" issues as far as I know. Common sense.
—C.W.
On Dec 1, 2007 5:54 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/1/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I'll have to admit I made a mistake on this one, since policy does allow DMCA notices. It still seems bizarre, but it was obviously part of the policy for a while.
Well, nobody complaining about copyright infringement needs to fill out any sort of form, or consult an attorney, or have any idea what DMCA stands for, only to say "hey, you people copied my shit and I can prove it." and we take it down while the matter is investigated.
If he turns out to be trolling, and the content in question isn't actually plagiarized, we put it back up. Then maybe we block him for wasting our time, but never for any sort of "legal threat", even if he did mention suing us.
Copyright issues have always superseded "legal threats" issues as far as I know. Common sense.
—C.W.
More or less, if Durova called or emailed the office saying "Take down this email or I'll have to pursue legal options", and Cary said "Ho, she seems to be right here!" There may have been an ~5 minute period where she should've been prevented from editing between when she asked and when Cary actually did it and resolved the situation. However, it would've been an incredible violation of m:DICK to enforce that point, under the circumstances.
Regardless, any legal threats she may or may not have issued seem to be resolved, and she shouldn't be blocked *now* under the terms of NLT, so the issue is moot.
Cheers WilyD
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 10:14 -0500, Wily D wrote:
Regardless, any legal threats she may or may not have issued seem to be resolved, and she shouldn't be blocked *now* under the terms of NLT, so the issue is moot.
WP:NLT specifically state "until the legal matter has been resolved" and "while legal threats are outstanding" so the issue is moot, period.
KTC
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:14:37 -0500, "Wily D" wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless, any legal threats she may or may not have issued seem to be resolved, and she shouldn't be blocked *now* under the terms of NLT, so the issue is moot.
There's no evidence any threat was made. It is sufficient to point out that copyright is violated; we normally self-police such matters without threat. See {{db-copyvio}}.
Guy (JzG)
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, George Herbert wrote:
Actually, there's one "remedy" that can be applied: give permission for the message to be posted.
If there's a copyright claim in play (and all I have to go on is what's on wiki and public emails on this, which are suggestive but not conclusive), then nobody on Arbcom or at the Foundation has the legal right to say that.
They can't give copyright permission, but they could give permission in all other ways. If Giano had to worry *only* about fair use, and not also about violating Wikipedia rules about posting private correspondence, he might be able to post it.
Furthermore, I find it disingenuous that a DMCA notice (which may or may not have been sent by Durova, because nobody's willing to say anything) is not considered to be a legal threat that violates the No Legal Threats policy.
One needs to distinguish between legal actions and legal threats. The issue of a formal DMCA notice would be a legal action. It would be a legal threat if I said, "Stop doing X or I will sue you." Legal threats are often tactics for intimidation, and they are effective when most people are fearful of any kind of legal action.
I have often said however that all formal DMCA notices should be considered public documents. Once they are public anyone has the standing to issue a put-back order.
Ec
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:51:51 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
Then trash Giano's credibility all you like.
Look, Giano behaved abysmally. He was rude, aggressive, repeatedly posted a private email after being asked not to, has pursued this with the zeal of the Witchfinder General.
Yes we know this is normal for Giano, and we are all glad that Giano usually does not set foot outside article space for this reason, but there is no denying that he was being disruptive.
Guy (JzG)
On 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'm sorry, we don't do tar and feathers here.
Or at least only to Essjay.
- d.
On 11/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'm sorry, we don't do tar and feathers here.
Or at least only to Essjay.
- d.
How very Godwinesque of you, David.
Durova voluntarily gave up her administrative privileges when it became clear to her that the community had genuine concerns about her judgment. I salute her for recognising that fact; she should be applauded for putting the community above herself. It is very sad to see her friends diminish her personal decision.
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 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:30:56 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
As a result Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions.
What, apart from losing all her credibility, her sysop bit and her shot at ArbCom you mean?
Hum.
Before I start, let me clarify that I am trying quite hard not to pay attention to the specific case, because it's all so damned silly, and for all I care you can ban everyone involved or give them all chocolates or do both on alternate weeks. (I believe the latter form of discipline is known as "parenting", but I digress)
The point brought up here as a result of it, though, is worth discussing, because it bears very heavily on how the community treats its members as opposed to outsiders, and how we treat privileged versus normal members of that community in our internal judicial processes.
And this divide, or the perception of such, is at the root of a lot of our current dysfunctionality. So let's talk about it.
----
The sentences immediately following what you quote: "...The argument from her supporters seems to be that she was punished in having to resign her admin bit and being made to look foolish. An admin bit is not some shield that can be used to deflect a blow, something we can drop in lieu of a sanction" - ie, directly addressing the argument you raise.
One assumes that the other party has come out of this with no sysop bit, no credibility, and no chance of getting onto Arbcom. But they've also had *other* sanctions applied to them, because we determined they didn't have those to lose.
The argument quoted by KTC seems to be that if two people transgress equally they should be punished equally, and that equal punishment involves meting out the same level of punishment rather than reducing both equally by "loss of X points worth of privileges". (as a corrolary, we have the assumption that both transgressed equally, which may or may not be the case but is certainly percieved as such here)
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that philosophy in all possible occurences, and there are certainly cases where equal punishment is unhelpful, but it has a degree of logic and principle behind it.
I mean, take a more general (and more common) case - I, an admin, edit-war with another user, who isn't. Should we both be banned from editing for a few days, or should I be prevented from using my admin tools for a few days whilst he's banned for the same time period? In the simpler case, the answer would seem to be "punish us both equally"; why [is / should it be] it different here?
Thoughts appreciated.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:13:25 +0000, "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
One assumes that the other party has come out of this with no sysop bit, no credibility, and no chance of getting onto Arbcom. But they've also had *other* sanctions applied to them, because we determined they didn't have those to lose.
Here's the problem.
Durova's actions stopped the editing of one editor for 75 minutes, and ended with an apology.
Giano's actions fuelled the flames of drama, made a humiliating experience into a bloodbath for Durova, were wounding and bruising, violated privacy, and Giano has made *no apology whatsoever*.
Durova has been co-operative with the Committee in its deliberations,Giano has been obstructive. And Giano is *normally* rude and obstructive. I can see why the Committee might feel this was a behaviour pattern that might need addressing, especially since it has been the case for a very long time.
Guy (JzG)
On 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:13:25 +0000, "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
One assumes that the other party has come out of this with no sysop bit, no credibility, and no chance of getting onto Arbcom. But they've also had *other* sanctions applied to them, because we determined they didn't have those to lose.
Here's the problem.
Durova's actions stopped the editing of one editor for 75 minutes, and ended with an apology.
(...)
At the end of the next paragraph - " as a corrolary, we have the assumption that both transgressed equally, which may or may not be the case but is certainly percieved as such here". So, you know, there is a perception in that initial post (and associated commentary) that Durova's misdeeds extended beyond a 75-minute block.
But, hey, I can see when an attempt to have a discussion about something in general terms is going to get sidetracked, so I think I'll abandon this one for a few months until everyone's forgotten the specific case and then bring it up again with the serial numbers filed off... :-)
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:45:03 +0000, "Andrew Gray" andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
" as a corrolary, we have the assumption that both transgressed equally, which may or may not be the case but is certainly percieved as such here". So, you know, there is a perception in that initial post (and associated commentary) that Durova's misdeeds extended beyond a 75-minute block.
I disagree with that view. The degree of contrition exhibited by both parties is *markedly* different - Giano is quite unapologetic.
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Durova's actions stopped the editing of one editor for 75 minutes, and ended with an apology.
Giano's actions fuelled the flames of drama, made a humiliating experience into a bloodbath for Durova, were wounding and bruising, violated privacy, and Giano has made *no apology whatsoever*.
Blowing the whistle on misconduct is the fault of the one on whom the whistle is being blown, not the fault of the one blowing the whistle. Giano posting the email could not have resulted in drama if the email hadn't been part of Durova's misconduct. Any drama from posting the email should then be attributed to Durova.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:34:48 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Giano's actions fuelled the flames of drama, made a humiliating experience into a bloodbath for Durova, were wounding and bruising, violated privacy, and Giano has made *no apology whatsoever*.
Blowing the whistle on misconduct is the fault of the one on whom the whistle is being blown, not the fault of the one blowing the whistle. Giano posting the email could not have resulted in drama if the email hadn't been part of Durova's misconduct. Any drama from posting the email should then be attributed to Durova.
I am reminded of the episode of Yes, Minister, in which I think it is Sir Humphrey who points out the essential difference between that which is in the public interest.
Sending the email to ArbCom may well have been in the public interest. Publishing the contents of private emails is much more often for the prurient interest of the public - in this case to feed the insatiable demand for "MOAR DRAMA"
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:06:28 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
the essential difference between that which is in the public interest.
... and that which merely interests the public.
Got cut and pasted somewhere else for some reason.
Guy (JzG)
On 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I am reminded of the episode of Yes, Minister, in which I think it is Sir Humphrey who points out the essential difference between that which is in the public interest.
Sir Humphrey also defined "in the public interest" as "in the interest of the Civil Service".
Andrew Gray wrote:
The point brought up here as a result of it, though, is worth discussing, because it bears very heavily on how the community treats its members as opposed to outsiders, and how we treat privileged versus normal members of that community in our internal judicial processes.
And this divide, or the perception of such, is at the root of a lot of our current dysfunctionality. So let's talk about it.
Indeed! Sometimes I think that we have persons in position of middle management before they have developed the maturity needed for such a role. Experienced people should know better; they cannot credibly rely on ignorance for their misdeeds. They have the advantage of having established friendships that they can rely upon in a dispute. Newcomers who view things to be wrong are faced with an opaque decision-making system that isolates anyone with proposals for improvement. It's understandable that direct changes to policy pages would be discouraged, but then too a talk-page proposal can be safely ignored. Nothing short of a programme of scheduled policy review would overcome that.
This is not to deny that there are some newcomers whose frustrations turn to outright hostility, or who are just plain problems for anyone to get along with.
The argument quoted by KTC seems to be that if two people transgress equally they should be punished equally, and that equal punishment involves meting out the same level of punishment rather than reducing both equally by "loss of X points worth of privileges". (as a corrolary, we have the assumption that both transgressed equally, which may or may not be the case but is certainly percieved as such here)
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that philosophy in all possible occurences, and there are certainly cases where equal punishment is unhelpful, but it has a degree of logic and principle behind it.
I saw that proposal as more a premise than a philosophy. I certainly have not looked at the Giano situation enough to suggest anything in his case. If that premise has any validity it does not imply that because Durova somehow received a lower penalty her penalty should be increased to achieve equality. Nobody is arguing for that.
Remedial solutions are applied to restore peaceful collaboration. If punitive actions are to be a part of this they should never exceed what is absolutely necessary to accomplish this. Blocks or bans for arbitrary amounts of time do not accomplish this.
I mean, take a more general (and more common) case - I, an admin, edit-war with another user, who isn't. Should we both be banned from editing for a few days, or should I be prevented from using my admin tools for a few days whilst he's banned for the same time period? In the simpler case, the answer would seem to be "punish us both equally"; why [is / should it be] it different here?
Thoughts appreciated.
If you are taking advantage of your superior privileges that's a sin that is unavailale to the ordinary user. Equal punishment would derive from equal guilt.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
<snip> > I mean, take a more general (and more common) case - I, an admin, > edit-war with another user, who isn't. Should we both be banned from > editing for a few days, or should I be prevented from using my admin > tools for a few days whilst he's banned for the same time period? In > the simpler case, the answer would seem to be "punish us both > equally"; why [is / should it be] it different here? > > Thoughts appreciated. > If you are taking advantage of your superior privileges that's a sin that is unavailale to the ordinary user. Equal punishment would derive from equal guilt.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Edit warring, while of course unacceptable, is not abuse of admin tools unless, for example, the admin blocks the editor (s)he is edit warring with, protects the page on his/her preferred version, or uses rollback. The "edit this page" button is available to every editor.
Todd Allen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
<snip>
I mean, take a more general (and more common) case - I, an admin, edit-war with another user, who isn't. Should we both be banned from editing for a few days, or should I be prevented from using my admin tools for a few days whilst he's banned for the same time period? In the simpler case, the answer would seem to be "punish us both equally"; why [is / should it be] it different here?
Thoughts appreciated.
If you are taking advantage of your superior privileges that's a sin that is unavailale to the ordinary user. Equal punishment would derive from equal guilt.
Edit warring, while of course unacceptable, is not abuse of admin tools unless, for example, the admin blocks the editor (s)he is edit warring with, protects the page on his/her preferred version, or uses rollback. The "edit this page" button is available to every editor.
Sure enough, and the third party investigating the matter still has to sort out the facts. Of course if you are the admin who is banned in a regular edit war it would be hard to use your admin tools without editing.
Ec
On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 00:48 -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Sure enough, and the third party investigating the matter still has to sort out the facts. Of course if you are the admin who is banned in a regular edit war it would be hard to use your admin tools without editing.
It would be a complete abuse of the tools, but the admin can unban themselves or the one who banned them etc.
KTC
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:30:32 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
It would be a complete abuse of the tools, but the admin can unban themselves or the one who banned them etc.
That is a one-way ticket to ArbCom.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:30:56 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
As a result Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions.
What, apart from losing all her credibility, her sysop bit and her shot at ArbCom you mean?
In my mind Durova's credibility may have improved because of her willingness to be more open about what has happened, and to not dwell on argumentatively. That clearly distinguishes her from some of the more bloody-minded attitudes that I have been hearing.
Ec
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:51:35 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In my mind Durova's credibility may have improved because of her willingness to be more open about what has happened, and to not dwell on argumentatively. That clearly distinguishes her from some of the more bloody-minded attitudes that I have been hearing.
I am sure you are right.
Guy (JzG)