User:Luna Santin/Dmcdevit 20071215
Sat, Dec 15 2007
| [17:12.01] | <Luna-San> | So I'm thinking I should probably PM you and check to see what I'm missing from your side of the story, if you want to talk to me. If not, that's fine. |
| [17:12.57] | <Dmcdevit> | Sure. |
| [17:14.13] | <Dmcdevit> | Basically, I think this is starting to take on a life of its own separate from the actual things that happen, possibly as a result of all the Durova stuff (which is odd, I started that case and was one of the major pushers of it to arbcom). |
| [17:14.23] | <Luna-San> | Okay... so. I hadn't been aware there was any OTRS discussion. Zscout didn't mention anything about that to me, which seems odd. |
| [17:15.13] | <Dmcdevit> | The frustrating thing to me is that I know there is lack of clarity, but that I'm getting it in the form of accusations instead of questions. |
| [17:16.11] | <Dmcdevit> | There was. I posted to otrs-en-l at the same time I made teh deletion, as has happened before with other BLPs. Zscout is also on OTRS, and responded there (but only after his deletion, which was, after all, 6 minutes later). |
| [17:16.14] | <Luna-San> | I had previously assumed the deletion was your decision alone (or perhaps discussed someplace like IRC where I wasn't privy or wasn't around... suppose OTRS kinda counts, but eh) |
| [17:16.38] | <Luna-San> | Ah, so you deleted, then posted to OTRS? |
| [17:16.44] | <Dmcdevit> | It was my decision, yes. |
| [17:17.25] | <Luna-San> | Okie. And then Zscout rogue undeleted, and apparently also posted to OTRS. |
| [17:17.45] | <Dmcdevit> | My point was that Zscout chose to undelete before discussing, and that many people protested to him shortly thereafter on the mailing list, so the appearance that he was not communcated with was not in fact reality. |
| [17:17.55] | <Luna-San> | *nod* |
| [17:18.12] | <Luna-San> | Was he aware desysopping was on the table? |
| [17:18.26] | <Luna-San> | He led me to believe he had no idea. |
| [17:18.27] | <Dmcdevit> | (And he notified the list a while after his deletion, so it wasn't that he hadn't seen it. Not that he couldn't have communicated on-wiki instead if he hadn't.) |
| [17:20.15] | <Dmcdevit> | I'll look at the thread again. My recollection is that he certainly knew that several of the OTRS admins with good sense were very concerned with his action, and his responses were in defense of it, and he didn't appear to be getting in (and then he went on to protect the undeleted page, while this was going on, after all). I'm not sure if desysopping was specifically implied. |
| [17:20.42] | <Luna-San> | Okay. I think he protected a redirect, though, didn't he? |
| [17:21.37] | <Dmcdevit> | Hm. He protected twice... |
| [17:22.00] | <Luna-San> | It might be plausible that he missed your OTRS post, at first, but he must have seen it after, and given the following action I'm guessing his response wasn't to the effect of "Oops, sorry." |
| [17:22.26] | <Luna-San> | Ahhh, shoot. I missed that first protect. |
| [17:23.22] | <Dmcdevit> | I guess this is the closest we got to a suggestion of desysopping: |
| [17:23.24] | <Dmcdevit> | "Summarily reversing a BLP deletion is very |
| [17:23.25] | <Dmcdevit> | verboten. For someone who has been desysopped for wheel warring before..." |
| [17:23.37] | <Dmcdevit> | Perhaps the Dot Dot Dot was not suggestive enough. ;-) |
| [17:24.22] | <Luna-San> | First protect was a soft redir to the Wikinews article, second was a redir to the WMF article on-wiki. Neither outlandish, but definitely better if he avoids so many admin actions. |
| [17:24.40] | <Luna-San> | Well, neither outlandish in the sense of "all out wheeling," I mean. |
| [17:24.59] | <Dmcdevit> | Ah, yes. The WN article was essentially the same as the initial BLP concern, though. |
| [17:25.07] | <Luna-San> | Could probably be argued that he was protecting to avoid any risk of vandalism and such, but it's hard to read motives. |
| [17:25.19] | <Luna-San> | And if he already knows he's on thin ice, then eh. |
| [17:25.46] | <Luna-San> | Right. I haven't checked if the WN article still exists. |
| [17:26.05] | <Dmcdevit> | Well, thy published it , I thinnk, but they have no standards. |
| [17:26.11] | <Dmcdevit> | erp, typos. |
| [17:26.15] | <Luna-San> | Ah, so it does: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Former_ Chief_ Operating_ Officer_ of_ Wikimedia_ Foundation_ is_ convicted_ felon |
| [17:26.28] | <Luna-San> | *nod* Okie |
| [17:27.06] | <Luna-San> | So then... did the three arbs come to you? Or did you grab them? I gather it was whichever three were available, on IRC/mailing list/whatever |
| [17:28.47] | <Luna-San> | Somebody mentioned that with 3 available, 2 would be a majority. I'm not clear on whether 2 or 3 supported the desysop. Although it's probably a moot point, if it's not public who they are (might be nice, but that's a loaded question to ask, so I specifically won't ask you). |
| [17:29.25] | <Dmcdevit> | I was very concerned. The fact that it was Zscout certainly played into that. He was desysopped before, after all, for a similar rash reversal. So the first thin I did was forward the OTRS thread to the arb mailing lists, but there were no responses in a few minutes (I forget preceisely how long). |
| [17:29.55] | <Dmcdevit> | So I pinged the arbs in the arbcom IRC channel. |
| [17:30.04] | <Luna-San> | Yeah, mailing lists can be slow. I wouldn't fault you, there, at all. |
| [17:30.34] | <Luna-San> | Though probably good to bring it to the list, for later consideration, which you did. |
| [17:31.08] | <Dmcdevit> | Erm, I didn't realize they weren't public. I don't think anyone is trying to keep that from th public, I wasn't consciously not mentioning their names. It was Steve and James wo were in the channel. |
| [17:31.36] | <Luna-San> | Ah, okay. Isn't that only two, though? |
| [17:32.10] | <Luna-San> | (Not that two is a bad number, I'd just heard three) |
| [17:33.09] | <Dmcdevit> | Well, that's their decision, really, as the actual arbitrators. But, personally, yes if it's urgent. And there is even precedent for that (Everyking, off the top of my head). |
| [17:33.38] | <Dmcdevit> | The 3 number comes from Blnguyen, who came to the computer in the middle. I may have been unclear. |
| [17:33.44] | <Luna-San> | Ah, okie. |
| [17:34.04] | <Luna-San> | I remember Everyking, but it seemed like something I should stay out of at the time. |
| [17:34.32] | <Dmcdevit> | He was caught up, and agreed (or at least didn't disagree, I don't have the discussion in front of me), but I think that was after stewards had been tried to be reached. |
| [17:34.37] | <Luna-San> | So then... they sent you to ping stewards, as I understand? |
| [17:35.47] | <Luna-San> | Or probably a better question, who went to get the stewards? |
| [17:38.03] | <Dmcdevit> | No, they pinged stewards personally. But both soon went offline with no resolution, and Bao-Loc and FloNight (both on IRC) weren't around either when I did notice a steward come online a couple hours later (I had PM'd to see if he was awake in the initial search, originally intending just to send the arbs to him). So I relayed the message, I think accurately. |
| [17:38.51] | <Dmcdevit> | Hm, actually I hadn't PM's, I see. I set /notify on some stewards, that's what pinged me, if it makes a difference. |
| [17:38.56] | <Dmcdevit> | *PM'd |
| [17:39.14] | <Luna-San> | Well, that sequence of events was different from my previous mental image. |
| [17:39.25] | <Luna-San> | Noob question: what's /notice? Tells you when they become active? |
| [17:39.36] | <Luna-San> | *notify |
| [17:40.14] | <Dmcdevit> | /notice sends a message to everyone in the channel. ;-) But yes, /notify <nick> alerts you when they are online/active |
| [17:40.20] | <Luna-San> | Ahh |
| [17:40.21] | <Luna-San> | Heh |
| [17:41.18] | <Luna-San> | The image I unfortunately had was of you rounding up a posse of arbs, getting them to nod, then running and grabbing the first steward (or, if we're getting really bad, picking a sympathetic steward), and so on... merf. |
| [17:41.28] | <Luna-San> | I've been dealing with too many assholes, if that's my first assumption. |
| [17:42.09] | <Dmcdevit> | I think lots of people assumed something like that, and it caught me offguard. |
| [17:42.33] | <Luna-San> | Yeah. =\ Unfortunate symptom of IRC is that you have little means of dispelling that. |
| [17:43.02] | <Dmcdevit> | To my knowledge I've never been involved in any of the drama about IRC conspiracies and secret evidence. ;-) |
| [17:43.46] | <Luna-San> | I pulled a block on some offwiki evidence, a few weeks ago. That went really well. |
| [17:44.35] | <Luna-San> | Hm... so I suppose it might have been more obvious if the steward was checking timestamps carefully. When you and Jhs were talking, was it clear to him that the whole incident was a little old? |
| [17:45.08] | <Luna-San> | I think something around eight hours, by the time Jhs pushed the button. |
| [17:45.20] | <Luna-San> | Well, that's the first deletion. Lemme check timing on protections. |
| [17:45.23] | <Dmcdevit> | I linked the log to him, but it's certainly possible he didn't realize. Hadn't thought of that before. |
| [17:46.03] | <Luna-San> | *nod* Okay, then. |
| [17:47.15] | <Luna-San> | Ideally somebody else probably would have been around -- even if you're acting as diligently as can be, since you deleted it, it looks like a conflict of interest to somebody who doesn't know better. Which is probably people are frothing at you, now. |
| [17:47.48] | <Luna-San> | But in a case like that, if nobody else was around, I'd imagine I would do much the same thing and just try to explain. |
| [17:48.34] | <Dmcdevit> | I agree it would have been better. At the time though, with no arbitrators available, my choice was between simply being silent or saying something. I tried to be sure to communicate that it was not a personal request. |
| [17:48.41] | <Luna-San> | Right. |
| [17:49.26] | <Luna-San> | I'd probably still prefer if the immediate action had been something more akin to, say, an arbitrator redeletes the article and makes it clear that any further restorations would lead to desysopping, until further notice? Something like the old WP:OFFICE in that regard. |
| [17:50.15] | <Luna-San> | But, that's always something to consider for the future. Has its own problems and implications. |
| [17:50.30] | <Dmcdevit> | It was a bit more complex since the article *was* redeleted already, by Drini (the first angry resonse on otrs-en-l). |
| [17:50.43] | <Dmcdevit> | The remaining versions were just various attempt at redirects. |
| [17:51.05] | <Luna-San> | Ahh |
| [17:51.45] | <Luna-San> | I think the last thing I remember being concerned about, Zscout said no one informed him of the desysopping until tawker sent him a message several hours later. |
| [17:52.26] | <Luna-San> | Not that I'm pinning that on you, it's just something I wish had happened. |
| [17:52.36] | <Luna-San> | Before, after, whatever. |
| [17:53.04] | <Dmcdevit> | I'm most frustrated that most of this could have been adequately communicated if ArbCom had done something once it had time to get caught up. It still has done nothing, certainly nothing to actually resolve the issue of whether Zscout's desysopping was good or not, even though most of them have said they agree with it. The cynical voice in my head says happy that the ire is not directed at... |
| [17:53.06] | <Dmcdevit> | ...them yet. ;-) |
| [17:53.27] | <Luna-San> | Heh |
| [17:53.52] | <Luna-San> | Well, as jpg said, an emergency desysopping can be (and was) revisited later, once people had more time. |
| [17:54.07] | <Dmcdevit> | Yes, that's true about the lack of notification. To be honest, I had no idea what I was supposed to do, after a steward desysopped Zscout in PM with me, but those arbs were still not around. |
| [17:54.18] | <Luna-San> | I don't quite agree with the sentiment that doing so makes it "all better," but it's a point. |
| [17:54.31] | <Luna-San> | True, not often that we go through that process. |
| [17:54.57] | <Luna-San> | *sigh* So now we have to sell "It's okay, guys! Luna and Dmc talked it over in private, and it's okay!" |
| [17:55.04] | <Dmcdevit> | I was hoping he was asleep and no one would notice until an arb could be found. Even I could tell that it would be a terrible idea for me to tell him personally on-wiki, having done the original deletion. |
| [17:55.42] | <Luna-San> | Hmmm, hadn't thought about that. That's a really awkward position to be in. You're the only person who really knows about it, and you're in a bad position to be the messenger. |
| [17:55.57] | <Luna-San> | Why didn't Jhs leave a message? I have no idea if that's usually done, I guess you could have asked. |
| [17:56.42] | <Dmcdevit> | Yes, that's true. I didn't think to ask him. Stewards are just tools. |
| [17:56.48] | <Dmcdevit> | Like CheckUsers. :-) |
| [17:57.04] | <Luna-San> | Always. ;) |
| [17:57.19] | <Luna-San> | Uh... *scratches head* Anyway, sorry for leaping at you. |
| [17:57.24] | <Luna-San> | Where do we go from here? |
| [17:59.41] | <Dmcdevit> | I don't think I've said anything here that I haven't already tried to say on-wiki, though. Issues just like to snowball when all the same people have the same imagined events and accusations running through their minds, and only a small set of people are there to try to answer them, who get overwhelmed even when they do try to respond. |
| [18:00.21] | <Luna-San> | I could just drop the issue, but I think that leaves both of us in a bad spot. |
| [18:00.29] | <Luna-San> | Would it do any good to post this, someplace? Or bad idea? |
| [18:00.37] | <Dmcdevit> | That's fine with me. |
| [18:00.39] | <Luna-San> | "This" -> This PM, I mean. |
| [18:00.58] | <Luna-San> | Okay. Blog? Wiki? |
| [18:01.29] | <Dmcdevit> | On-wiki is probably best, if at all. Hopefully it'll help clarify things. |
| [18:01.55] | <Luna-San> | *nod* I do hope so. If nothing else, my sudden change of opinion will hopefully draw attention. |
| [18:02.44] | <Luna-San> | I suppose that means we have to release this under GFDL. Fine with me. |
| [18:05.41] | * Dmcdevit hereby releases this conversation under the GFDL (or later, !) and allows it to be posted on-wiki, slashdotted, or refactored into the next State of the Union, however it suits the fancy of the users who see it. :-) | |
