GiacomoReturned (talk | contribs) |
archiving as mathematically impossible at (1/8/2/1) |
||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
*'''Recuse''': [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 15:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Recuse''': [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 15:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Decline''' per Casliber and Newyorkbrad. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Decline''' per Casliber and Newyorkbrad. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Geogre and Risker == |
|||
'''I have no idea how to do this, but I think it's time this page was nominated for deletion (someone, who knows how, see to it, please) the grounds being: it is passé, dull and nothing further beneficial will be acheived from it. It has now entered the realms of smug schadenfreude. Oh vomit!''' [[User:GiacomoReturned|Giano]] ([[User talk:GiacomoReturned|talk]]) 21:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
'''Initiated by ''' <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|282]]''</sup> '''at''' 02:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
=== Involved parties === |
|||
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> |
|||
*{{userlinks|Durova}}, ''filing party'' |
|||
*{{userlinks|Geogre}} |
|||
*{{userlinks|Risker}} |
|||
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> |
|||
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
|||
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Risker&diff=304055900&oldid=303674987] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geogre&diff=prev&oldid=304055845] |
|||
;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> |
|||
*Current arbitrators asking for formal request[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=304046323] |
|||
=== Statement by Durova === |
|||
This matter could and ought to have been handled in a more quiet and dignified manner, out of respect for the positive contributions of the persons involved. Four former arbitrators have doubted the current Committee's approach to this matter and its departure from custom. Current arbitrators have requested a formal motion, so here it is. |
|||
As noted below, Geogre has been using the account Utgard Loki since January 2007. He claims[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Utgard_Loki&diff=303557404&oldid=303556697] that it was a legitimate second account; nine current arbitrators disagree. Past practice has consistently been to desysop administrators who violate [[WP:SOCK]]. Yet no arbitrator has entered a proposal to do that and three arbitrators have delayed deciding upon an admonishment, pending a statement from Geogre that has not been forthcoming. |
|||
Another related matter is not being discussed at RFAR, although it has been discussed openly at Wikipedia Review for weeks: the role of Risker in this matter. In March of this year another Wikipedian questioned her about whether Geogre and Utgard Loki were the same person, after she referred to a post by the Utgard Loki account and attributed it to Geogre. She denied that they were the same.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Risker&diff=prev&oldid=278022960] Did she honestly not know? I have queried her repeatedly over the last couple of months, as the entire current Committee is aware, and she has not answered. The Committee notes in passing that Geogre used both accounts to create an appearance of greater consensus at her request for adminship. In addition to that, Risker and Geogre have collaborated extensively. He copyedited one of her two featured articles and, per the Soxred edit tool report, Geogre and Risker are among the most frequent posters to each others' user talk pages. Was Risker's rapid rise to the Arbitration Committee fueled by disruptive socking, and did she lie to a former arbitrator in order to conceal that? |
|||
It is likely that my own history will be challenged due to this request; there are certainly other uses for my time. Let it be noted that I supported Risker's ArbCom candidacy in the first half hour of the election. At last year's Geogre-WMC arbitration I requested time for the parties to present evidence, when an early proposed decision went up before Geogre had posted evidence. It was an impartial request: having watched my own arbitrtation rush to voting during a holiday weekend I didn't want anyone else to go through the same ordeal--no matter what their opinion about me. More recently, when Geogre engaged in a borderline wheel war under almost exactly the same circumstances that prompted Geogre-WMC, I acted as peacemaker. |
|||
There are questions here that need to be confronted, though. It appears that sunlight is the only feasible disinfectant. |
|||
Likewise, something ought to be said regarding content contribution--which has been put forward as a mitigating factor. If that concept applies then it deserves to be applied scrupulously and fairly. Mattisse, Ottava Rima, and myself are all active content editors who contribute featured content. Geogre has written featured articles, it is true, yet his most recent featured article promotion was years ago and his last 500 article space edits stretch back to January 2008. His content output is not what it used to be, yet his socking has targeted active content contributors. Consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=221464547 this post] from Utgard Loki in regard to Ottava Rima, a year ago when Ottava was nearly sitebanned. Ottava had made a public apology for his conduct. After Ottava's apology Utgard explicitly refers to himself as a non-administrator, and speaks of Geogre in the third person, and calls Ottava Rima's apology insincere. Ottava's reaction to the current motions is gracious, yet it is also worth considering whether Geogre, who has never acknowledged fault in his own actions, perhaps should be judged by the same measure he judges others. |
|||
I'm not calling for blood; I just want straight answers. |
|||
:Supplied the most crucial one as requested; see above. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|282]]''</sup> 03:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::To Rlevse: it was shortly before that diff, at FAR talk, that Risker had referred to an Utgard post as Geogre's. Yellowmonkey went to her user talk to request direct clarification. Risker could have answered with a simple 'yes', but instead gave a response that they were different people with a similar prose style. Now that it's openly discussed that indeed these two accounts were run by the same person, Geogre and people close to him are claiming that this was common knowledge. It is not tenable for Risker, who benefitted from Geogre's violation of [[WP:SOCK]], to remain silent. The only reasonable response, if one has innocently benefitted from someone else's socking, is to immediately distance oneself from it and endeavor to end the problem. At Cirt's RFA, where I conominated, many sockpuppets showed up--but only one on the supporting side. We combed the supports for evidence of other socks and supported the checkuser request because we wished to have nothing to do with such conduct. There is an issue of trust here. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|282]]''</sup> 15:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::To Giano: your interpretation is not required, and would probably reflect poorly upon both of us. The nutshell version is this: truth and reconciliation. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|284]]''</sup> 18:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
(Outdent) As stated at RFAR talk, I am checking in on this page approximately once per day. With regard to Risker's statement: |
|||
:'''Risker''': "Once I became aware of the seriousness of the concerns being discussed, I provided the Committee with additional information (most of which is in this statement) and then recused from the discussion of this matter. As Durova posted her questions about me to the Arbitration Committee as a whole, and not to me alone, I felt it was a violation of my recusal to respond outside of the walls of the Committee." |
|||
:'''Me, to Risker''': (Full text and headers available to the Committee upon request). |
|||
1. "Risker, is there anything you need to tell me? Anything at all?" - Email to Risker 12 May 2009, received no reply |
|||
There appears to be at least one email missing from this sequence. |
|||
2. "Also, as the arbitrators are aware from previous email, I have specific concerns regarding Risker and more than once I have invited her to discuss them. She has never replied to the invitations for dialog." - Sent to the Committee, 22 June 2009 |
|||
3. "Would gladly follow up with Risker when the schedule frees up a little. It's an issue that falls in the 'important but not urgent' category." Sent to the Committee, 22 June 2009 |
|||
4. "Occasionally there's a conversation that either takes a while to hold, or else is best delayed. There's a concern I've been chewing on for several months now. It's not easy to raise in a few words and--at least potentially--it hits pretty close to home. Fortunately it falls into the important but not urgent category." Sent to Risker directly in reply to a message from her, 23 June 2009 |
|||
Risker indicated off-wiki reasons for delay on 23 June, which appeared likely to be brief. |
|||
Events get pressed forward by other people, such as a Wikipedia Review thread and other matters. |
|||
5. "I could have started an RFAR the other day; I didn't. Geogre's unblock of Peter Damian was almost a play-for-play repeat of Geogre's use of the tools leading up to the Geogre-William M. Connolley arbitration. If it had been my intention to seek vengeance I would have followed up by posting evidence onsite. Starting with Geogre, and then other things. This was the matter I was asking Risker to discuss last month. By the time she responded I had accepted a commitment that would have been hard to juggle with that difficult conversation.... (mentioning unrelated matters) Was hoping to get past the current phase of that before resuming with Risker.... Now events have overtaken on another holiday weekend. I've got plans for a barbecue today, and can put that off for about six hours if Risker wants to talk." Sent to the Committee, 4 July 2009 |
|||
Risker replies in a way that suggests a weekend-long delay. |
|||
6. "There wasn't quite this urgency before the Committee looked into the matter, but enjoying my holiday is a bit less important than having a say before the Committee declares this closed. The one thing that held me back for months, Risker, was that I wasn't certain you knew that Geogre was operating Utgard Loki. Circumstances didn't look good, but in light of your exchange with Yellowmonkey it would have been difficult to raise the issue without reference to you. I know how hard it is to being on the receiving end of public accusations and public wrath about things that are worse than I've actually done, and I didn't want to take the chance of putting you in that position. At least not without trying to talk to you first. You didn't try to talk to me before you took your opinion public in November 2007. I've endeavored to do better by you." Sent to Risker, cc'd to the Committee 4 July 2009 |
|||
7. "Am interested in understanding and reconciliation, if that's possible... |
|||
There's an essay Risker wrote in user space about a year ago, about Giano. It's a good essay, and it carries a spirit worth replicating here. |
|||
:''For a lot of difficult-to-quantify reasons, many people consider Giano a community leader, or at least a high-profile editor. He edits in a fishbowl that many of us cannot imagine... With the eyes of the wiki on him, any tiny misstep is magnified beyond all reasonable value, and the reaction is equally excessive.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Risker/Giano%27s_block] (written by Risker) |
|||
There are other things to say, but I sure hope I can finally get a sliver of that understanding. Am willing to reciprocate." Sent to Cool Hand Luke, cc'd to the Committee 4 July 2009 |
|||
8. "Are the two entirely separable? That's the question that's held me back. This is going to be a bit subtle, so bear with a complex example. Two months ago I was trying to take the pulse of that at FloNight's user talk. You can read the following thread two ways. On one level, I was raising a sharp criticism of the Scientology case and not winning any awards for diplomacy. But the example that drew both Risker and Geogre into the discussion wasn't accidental: I wanted to see what they would do. Geogre makes a false claim in Risker's presence that she never contradicts: |
|||
Geogre claims: |
|||
"You've ... I mean Cirt's... be proven "right" because I quit arguing with FAR?"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FloNight&oldid=287661031#Query] |
|||
Although actually he argued extensively at FAR...on his other account.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Augustan_literature/archive1] |
|||
And at the FAR for another of his articles, also under discussion at FloNight's user talk.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/A_Tale_of_a_Tub/archive1] |
|||
The last post of the Geogre account to an actual featured article review occurred on 10 December 2007:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/1755_Lisbon_earthquake/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=176906834] |
|||
Yet as Utgard Loki he had continued participating, right up until a month and a half before the conversation at FloNight's user talk:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Restoration_comedy&diff=prev&oldid=277636759] |
|||
16 March 2009 |
|||
So if Risker was unaware that Utgard Loki and Geogre were the same person, then this is a discussion about Geogre. It would be more than a little surprising if she didn't suspect, in view of how frequently they post to each others' user talk pages. They're close; they collaborate. Perhaps she's unusually loyal and trusting. |
|||
[editing for space, concerns repeated elsewhere] |
|||
'''Those are misgivings I don't want to have, and which probably no one but Risker is in a position to disclose.''' [boldface added] And if this is wrong and she has a convincing reason for not having guessed that Geogre was Utgard Loki (even after she mistook one for the other, and a functionary raised it to her attention, and she replied how similar their syntax is), well then I hope to never have this discussion again." Sent to the Committee, 4 July 2009 |
|||
9. "Lastly, there's reason to suspect that Risker knew about the socking, benefitted from it, and lied to a functionary to conceal it. I don't want to overstate the weight of that suspicion, which is why I had held off for months on discussing any of this. Wanted to talk it over with her one on one, but events have overtaken that. Really, I'd like to find a way to reconcile." Sent to the Committee, 4 July 2009 |
|||
After 4 July Risker made no further overtures. I was not cc'd on any other response she may have made to the Committee nor was I notified when she posted to this RFAR. On at least nine separate occasions I have expressed a desire for discussion with her and on two occasions she replied to delay discussion. Per her latter delay it appeared she would resume a direct discussion on or about July 6, but she never did. Thus it is difficult to see how she reached a conclusion that my questions were for the Committee as a whole rather than to her, or how in any way she might be ethically constrained from corresponding with me (especially since she already had begun). The desire for a direct, discreet, and conciliatory dialog was something I explicitly expressed many times, both directly to her and in full view of the Committee. She is an arbitrator; I am a former administrator under formal admonishment. It appears she is being taken completely at her word, in a manner that makes my actions appear impetuous. My records contradict her assertions. I am at a loss for what else to do. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|285]]''</sup> 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by uninvolved Giano === |
|||
Ridiculous request. I should think half the ArbCom knew that Georgre was Loki, and the half that did not, probably, had never heard of Geogre. [[User:GiacomoReturned|Giano]] ([[User talk:GiacomoReturned|talk]]) 09:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
'''Below are a few quotes from Durova (above). Watch this space, I shall shortly be giving an illustrated on talk on reading between the lines, deduction and common sense. [[User:GiacomoReturned|Giano]] ([[User talk:GiacomoReturned|talk]]) 11:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)''' |
|||
*"''This matter could and ought to have been handled in a more quiet and dignified manner, out of respect for the positive contributions of the persons involved.''" |
|||
Giano's interpretation: |
|||
*"''It is likely that my own history will be challenged due to this request; there are certainly other uses for my time.''" |
|||
Giano's interpretation: |
|||
*"''having watched my own arbitrtation rush to voting during a holiday weekend I didn't want anyone else to go through the same ordeal''." |
|||
Giano's interpretation: |
|||
*"''His content output is not what it used to be, yet his socking has targeted active content contributors.''" |
|||
Giano's interpretation: |
|||
*"''Mattisse, Ottava Rima, and myself are all active content editors who contribute featured content.''" |
|||
Giano's interpretation: |
|||
*"''Geogre has written featured articles, it is true, yet his most recent featured article promotion was years ago.''" |
|||
Giano's interpretation: |
|||
*"''Risker and Geogre have collaborated extensively. He copyedited one of her two featured articles''." |
|||
Giano's interpretation: |
|||
*"''Past practice has consistently been to desysop administrators who violate WP:SOCK. Yet no arbitrator has entered a proposal to do that''." |
|||
Giano's interpretation: |
|||
*"''I'm not calling for blood;''" |
|||
Giano's interpretation: |
|||
===Statement by uninvolved Joopercoopers=== |
|||
What? "Four former arbitrators have doubted the current Committee's approach to this matter and its departure from custom." so what? The old guard trot out baying for blood? Perhaps there is a reason they're 'former' arbitrators. This looks a lot more like an attempt to settle old scores than it does a genuine complaint for the good of the project, and I'm not convinced it's entirely unrelated to Bishonen's recent action. Perhaps some diffs of 'egregious' violations might make a better start of a case, rather then this litany of innuendoes. I agree with SV, has really damaging proof of 'abuse' been proved? Where's the case? --[[User:Joopercoopers|Joopercoopers]] ([[User talk:Joopercoopers|talk]]) 11:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by Mackensen=== |
|||
Three uninvolved statements in and we've started with the trash-talking. I love these cases; the committee should have them more often. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 13:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by uninvolved Xavexgoem === |
|||
Is it usual for a named party in a case to have a say in whether there should be an arbitration case that could potentially rule against them? I see how a motion could be the wiser option, but in light of other circumstances not covered by the current motion, wouldn't either a new case or a new motion be more appropriate? |
|||
=== Statement by uninvolved Deacon of Pndapetzim === |
|||
If the puppetting was so innocent and Risker knew about it, why conceal this from YellowMonkey (let's not forget, she was free to tell YM by email)? I don't particularly care that Utgard was a sock of Geogre, but Risker does owe the community a '''public''' explanation here. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 16:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by Nathan=== |
|||
Collapsed below are some examples of editing intersection by Geogre and Utgard Loki, discussions only. I've included article talk pages, user talk pages, RfArs, RfCs, FACs, FARs, AfDs, an MfD, an RfD, etc. There are many more instances of user talk page discussion particularly, as well as other intersections that I haven't included but which fall under the umbrella of examples that are shown. I also do not show all edits to a discussion where both accounts participated, only enough edits to demonstrate that participation. To Geogre's credit, I didn't find any obvious examples of article edit warring or using his sock to circumvent 3RR - and in the discussions where a "vote" is recorded, no examples of duplicate voting (that is, specifically listing a vote in bold letters as opposed to commenting in discussion). My intent here is only to assist in providing evidence, so that its lack doesn't affect the outcome of the case in any direction. [[User:Nathan|<strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan</strong>]][[User talk:Nathan|<sup><strong style="color:#0033CC"> T </strong></sup>]] 16:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
{{Collapse top|1=Problem edits by Geogre/Utgard Loki|bg=#FFF|padding=10px}} |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=230644420&oldid=prev] (..."Not an admin") |
|||
;Posting in the same thread on AN/I: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=116239447&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=116278576&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=116568228&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=134998646&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=135082001&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=230401674&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=230440650&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=230454327&oldid=prev] |
|||
;Posting in same thread at AN: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=232727055&oldid=prev] (deceptive question) |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=232818460&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=232879901&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=172738827&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=172753421&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=172831912&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=172832673&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=172895670&oldid=prev] (and more edits,all Geogre) |
|||
;Posting in same FAR: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=176347925&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=176381872&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=176906834&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=110829782&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=111122689&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=111129071&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=111234293&oldid=prev] |
|||
;Risker's RfA: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=211003637&oldid=prev] (Support vote as Geogre) |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=211276927&oldid=prev] (Argue with opposer as Loki) |
|||
;Smoking gun: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=120212672&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=120212916&oldid=prev] |
|||
;Article RfC, both accounts: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=155688400&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=155698011&oldid=prev] |
|||
later... Speaks of self in third person in edit summary: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=298400316&oldid=prev] |
|||
;Both accounts participate in an argument with Ottava: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=205622972&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=205623273&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=205754593&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=205771990&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=205808044&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=205840886&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=205855633&oldid=prev] |
|||
;Discussion at WT:FA |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=186326075&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=186804261&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=186823200&oldid=prev] |
|||
;Discussion at FAC: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=140166348&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=140215483&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=140553863&oldid=prev] |
|||
;Two accounts converse: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=118292196&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=118386121&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=118561653&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=118565463&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=118750978&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=118764718&oldid=prev] (and continues, with other participants) |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=120199305&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=120211931&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=120213100&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=126405893&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=126539517&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=145222838&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=145253354&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=145279609&oldid=prev] |
|||
;Article talkpage discussion, both accounts: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=247779229&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=247962662&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=206553266&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=207619468&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=208005444&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=225581591&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=225826085&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=225826312&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=124328493&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=124335812&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=124360386&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=187682921&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=187683119&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=187709655&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=187718678&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=162204290&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=162222338&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=241572728&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=242036328&oldid=prev] |
|||
;Participation in AfD: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=225582519&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=225624135&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=225651403&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=225810171&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=226267926&oldid=prev] |
|||
;Deletion review: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=113069092&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=113238803&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=113597635&oldid=prev] |
|||
;Miscellany for deletion: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=187927069&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=187953289&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=187953625&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=188231452&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=188433667&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=188597664&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=189039997&oldid=prev] |
|||
;Redirects for deletion: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=231487947&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=231910071&oldid=prev] |
|||
;Posting in discussion about IRC on FloNight's page without disclosing history: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=191175648&oldid=prev] |
|||
;Same, NYB's talkpage: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=190013280&oldid=prev] |
|||
;RfAr/Eastern European disputes: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=244422951&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=244423114&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=244544527&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=247794840&oldid=prev] |
|||
;RfAr/Durova: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174124839&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174125345&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174125929&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174126376&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174149574&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174388584&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174389257&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174389731&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174351179&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174644323&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174852608&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174869250&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174869662&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174894716&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174917187&oldid=prev] |
|||
;RfAr/IRC: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=185039788&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=185040398&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=185060698&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=189120591&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=189255268&oldid=prev] |
|||
;WT:RFAR |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174896192&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=174952063&oldid=prev] |
|||
;RFC/Giano: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=264442249&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=264443195&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=264464027&oldid=prev] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=264464302&oldid=prev] |
|||
{{Collapse bottom}} |
|||
Also, an explanation has been offered that Utgard Loki was intended primarily as a work account. The images below (from Wikichecker.com, a tool offered on RfAs and sometimes used at SPI) graph the edits of both accounts on a 24hr UTC scale. Links to the full reports are [http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Utgard+Loki&l=all here] and [http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Geogre&l=all here]. [[User:Nathan|<strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan</strong>]][[User talk:Nathan|<sup><strong style="color:#0033CC"> T </strong></sup>]] 17:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
{{Collapse top|1=Edit graphs|bg=#FFF|padding=10px}} |
|||
[[File:Geogre edit distribution.png|thumb|left|250px|alt=|Geogre edit distribution]] [[File:Utgard Loki edit distribution.png|thumb|left|250px|alt=|Utgard Loki edit distribution]] |
|||
{{Collapse bottom}} |
|||
=== Statement by Risker === |
|||
I have just returned from the New York Wikiconference today, and hence this is my first opportunity to respond. I apologise for the length of this statement; however, there appear to be several conflated issues that should be addressed. |
|||
I was aware that Geogre had an alternate account; I do not recall at what point I became aware of it (it was well before I became a member of the Arbitration Committee), but to me it is obvious that they are alternate accounts. They use the same words, the same language constructs, the same rhythm and metre of speaking, and share the same opinions. Because of this, it did not occur to me that they were undisclosed or unknown alternates, and I never investigated further. I did not use any tools to compare their edits, I didn't check their contributions, I didn't look at the list of alternate accounts disclosed only to the Arbitration Committee and checkusers, and I didn't check their user pages to see if there was anything there. When the discussion related to the link Durova provides occurred, I was genuinely surprised and confused that there was even a question that they were alternate accounts and I resolved to have a private discussion with Geogre about the matter. |
|||
That discussion did not take place. Shortly after Yellowmonkey's and Mackensen's posts to my page, I was faced with a very serious real-life personal matter that is unrelated to Wikipedia, and is directly related to my disclosed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARisker&diff=278828333&oldid=278700592 wikibreak], my inactivity on a large number of arbitration cases, and my comparative lack of contributions to the encyclopedia. My colleagues on the Arbitration Committee were made aware of my personal situation at that time and have been kept apprised; however, this is a matter that I will not discuss publicly. The plan to follow up with Geogre on what was (to me at least) an obvious alternate account simply slipped off my radar. Nobody brought it up to me again directly until after commentary had been made in other forums, so I had no reason to think that this was much of a concern to others, either. |
|||
Once I became aware of the seriousness of the concerns being discussed, I provided the Committee with additional information (most of which is in this statement) and then recused from the discussion of this matter. As Durova posted her questions about me to the Arbitration Committee as a whole, and not to me alone, I felt it was a violation of my recusal to respond outside of the walls of the Committee. |
|||
I am not certain how anyone can think that I personally benefited from this issue. Geogre did indeed make five copy edits to [[Michael Gomez]] while it was on FAC; more than a dozen other editors also made copy edits, many of which were far more substantial, and Geogre's support of the article at FAC was irrelevant as long as there were outstanding oppose comments, none of which his copy edits addressed. (Incidentally, there are no edits with the Utgard Loki account, nor did the Utgard Loki account comment at FAC.) At RFA, only the Geogre account voted. The Utgard Loki account corrected DGG, who had written that I was running for Arbitration Committee rather than adminship at that time, and it did not vote. I am not even certain I noticed that exchange at the time, as I was trying to address a serious debate involving another oppose vote (and the reaction to it) at the time of the DGG/Utgard Loki exchange of comments. I am hard pressed to think that pointing out that I was running for adminship would have had an effect one way or the other on the outcome of the RFA, but here is a link to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Risker|my RFA]] for those who wish to analyse further. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 22:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
===<s>Statement by Jehochman</s>=== |
|||
<s>You must have a full case. Geogre wants to contest the allegations. You must give him a chance to present evidence. I've handled quite a few sock puppetry cases, and I don't quite grok what George did that was abusive. Carelessness does not equal abuse. To me, the case against him looks overstated. I think the behavior of all the involved parties should be looked at, as suggested by Roger below. Accusations against character need to be proven or retracted. Such accusations, when not supported by evidence, are egregious personal attacks. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 15:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)</s> |
|||
===Question from a confused SlimVirgin=== |
|||
I am confused by the two pages we have on this, the motions page and this one, and the different motions. A desysopping has been decided, it appears, but without a case, which apparently ignores the very clear evidence that Geogre was not intending to sock, and that he had identified himself. Statements made there have been removed, including the diffs that showed that evidence. Geogre's statement referred to here as "below" has been moved to the other page. Can the Committee explain what exactly has been decided, or what is in the process of being decided? And where interested parties should post comments or evidence? |
|||
Would the Committee please consider for the future putting the motions on the same page as the regular requests? In fact, having everything on the same page as before (requests, motions, amendments, clarifications) would make things a lot easier to follow. <font color="green">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="pink">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
====Response to Carcharoth==== |
|||
Thank you, Carcharoth, that's very helpful. A few responses: |
|||
:1) I know the restructuring was announced, but I find it tremendously confusing. Perhaps I'm in a minority, in which case I'll have to lump it, but I wonder if the Committee could ask people on some appropriate page how they feel about it, because I suspect I'm not alone in being confused. Issues are now harder to find, there is more to watch on the watchlist, and in cases like this one, where motions and requests are bouncing from page to page, people are missing opportunities to comment or submit evidence. Most of us are here as editors, not process watchers, so the more pages there are to watch, the greater the chance we'll miss something important. |
|||
:(2) I understand that the Committee didn't want to initiate a case by itself, and I support you in that, but by proposing a motion, or series of motions, that is in effect what you have done, but minus the evidence phase, and it's the evidence phase that's needed. We need to go through Geogre/Utgard's contribs, and supply diffs showing all the times the first, then the second, edited on the same page, making essentially the same kinds of edits, in the same style of writing, where it was very clear it was the same person. Geogre isn't stupid. Had he been socking, he'd have behaved quite differently. Desyopping him without that evidence being clearly laid out somewhere prominent is serving to cause an injustice, and Geogre is a respected editor who doesn't deserve injustice, even if only perceived. |
|||
:(3) I don't understand why people's statements have been removed from the motions page, just because someone has decided the statements belong to motions already passed, but not to motions being considered. I didn't post my statement in connection with any particular motion, and nor I suspect did anyone else. There are diffs in those statements that might help the Committee reach a fair decision. In short, I have never seen a case handled like this one, and I can't see any good reason to single it out for special treatment. I also can't see what difference it made that Risker was attached to the RfAr. |
|||
:(4) I'm glad you're saying Geogre can appeal, but my worry is that it's much harder to overturn a desysopping than to prevent one. <font color="green">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="pink">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 06:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
=== Clerk notes === |
|||
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' |
|||
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/8/2/1) === |
|||
* '''Request'''. "She denied that they were the same." Could we have a diff for that assertion please? <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 02:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
** If Geogre appeals the recent motions, I will support opening a full case. Assuming that the Geogre matter is now resolved satisfactorily, only Durova's allegations about Risker remain, and I expect that they would come to the fore of this case if accepted. As a result I '''recuse'''. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 07:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*I'd like to see that diff too. Awaiting more input. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 03:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
**Durova: RE [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Risker&diff=prev&oldid=278022960 this diff] I have to agree with Flo, pending a stmt from Risker, I'd say that does not say Risker was saying they were the same. Still awaiting more info. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 13:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
***Durova, where is the diff supporting "instead gave a response that they were different people with a similar prose style."? <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 17:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline''' I agree with most of what Flo and Brad wrote, so I won't repeat it. I will confirm Risker was wrapped up in a most serious personal situation. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>'''Accept''' (to examine actions of Geogre and Utgard Loki)</s> - Durova, my reading of the diff you provide is that Risker was confirming that the style of the two accounts were the same, and that this was why she assumed Utgard Loki = Geogre, not that she was denying they were the same. But for more on that, we need a statement from her. Giano, I am an arbitrator that has had interactions with both Geogre and Utgard Loki over the years, and while in hindsight it now seem blindingly obvious that they are the same (the styles are indeed very recognisable), I never quite made the connection. That is probably more because I don't go looking for socks everywhere. This does not alter that fact that when I sat down to look at the contributions from both accounts, there had been unacceptable crossing of the streams (overlapping edits), with Utgard Loki being used in places where the Geogre account should have been used. To be crystal-clear here, if the edits of the Utgard Loki account had been kept 'clean' and restricted to certain areas, and not used in the same discussions and other similar edits, then it would have been a legitimate use of an alternate account. However, the Utgard Loki account was ''not'' kept separate from edits by the Geogre account, and this is a clear case of misuse, hence it has been blocked (this happened long before this request was filed). The final disposition of what to do about Geogre is still under discussion. It is unclear whether the motions [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motions#Geogre|here]] will be sufficient, or whether a full case is needed. My inclination is to accept a case about Geogre, but to wait for Risker's statement to see if she needs to be included in the case scope. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 10:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
**Changing to '''decline'''. The Geogre matter no longer needs a case (the concerns of Durova and others about the effects of the Utgard Loki account should be raised separately on a case-by-case basis). I can confirm what Risker said about the timing regarding her wikibreak in March, and that it is indeed understandable that things slipped off her radar. In addition to this, I want to repeat here that like Risker (though in my case with hindsight) I can see that it is obvious that Geogre and Utgard Loki are alternate accounts. I am familiar with Geogre's style, and I regret not spotting earlier that Utgard Loki had the same style and was taking part in the same discussions as Geogre. I should disclose here (with apologies for not doing so earlier) that I correspond (separately) with both Durova and Risker about Wikipedia in general, images and other matters, and consider myself on good terms with both. If either request that I recuse, I will do so. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 05:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
***To respond to Slim Virgin's comment here ''"having everything on the same page as before (requests, motions, amendments, clarifications) would make things a lot easier to follow"'' - this new system (having three pages, now four, transcluded onto one page) has been in operation since late April. See the restructuring announcement [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_2#Revised_plan_for_relocating_arbitration_pages|here]] (the link there to the comments might not work, as that will itself have been archived now, but it shouldn't bee too difficult to follow up). The motions page was indeed reactivated as a separate page recently (last used in January 2008). Before that, it was a redirect to 'clarification and motions', which became 'clarifications and others' and finally just 'clarifications'. It seems that motions got lost somewhere along the way, and that was a mistake. It is indeed very rare to have motions proposed without a case or even a request (it is more normal to have internal motions published at the arbitration noticeboard - look through the archives for some examples - some involving desysopping). In this case, this wasn't thought to be the best action. The confusing thing here for us (as arbitrators) is that there have been calls ranging from ''"act instantly, now, without any public notice or discussion"'' to ''"you must have a full case before doing anything"'' (I'm paraphrasing here). But no-one was stepping forward to file a case. That last point is very important to emphasise. We were reluctant to open a case, or have individual arbitrators initiate a case (again, there is ample precedent that doing so is very messy and outside our remit), but there is ample precedent for the committee initiating motions against administrators (and other holders of advanced permissions) with or without an initiating request (this has been semi-formalised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Temporary_removal_of_permissions|here]]), so we eventually settled on a public motion as the best way forward (and, after a bit of confusion as to where it had got to, the old motions page was located and revived). My colleagues may of course want to correct me if I've misrepresented any of the above, but I think that is a fair summary. I've omitted one other complicating factor, which is that at around the same time all this was being discussed, there was a discussion (on-wiki) involving how a case last year was opened. So even dropping strong hints that a case would be very likely accepted if requested, was out of the question (and that is also a very messy way of doing things and not something I personally approve of). Even those who were aware of the block of the Utgard Loki account, were in all likelihood holding back because they thought the matter was being dealt with privately. This explains in large part the 18 days between the block of Utgard Loki and the opening of the motion (with three more motions added later) concerning Geogre (the rest of the delay was due to other matters that caused quite a storm of commentary). Now, some of my colleagues may think I'm providing too much information here, but I think the community deserve an explanation of what happened here (I note that the Geogre matter is largely resolved - the three main motions have now been enacted and one other matter is being dealt with by a fourth motion - I was waiting until at least that had happened before saying anything). The question now arises as to what to do with this request? I will say that if a request had been filed concerning Geogre alone, a case would likely have been accepted - indeed, if Geogre files a request for a case or an appeal, I would still vote to accept. However, that is not what happened. Durova filed a request naming Risker. When a request is filed naming another party, it complicates things immensely. It risks conflating things that maybe should not be conflated. That is the reason why this request has hung in limbo, mostly waiting for the Geogre motions to be completed. My position at the moment is that a case named "Geogre and Risker" is not needed, but that a case named "Geogre" is viable, ''depending on how the request is framed''. The other matters could be raised within that case, or filed as separate requests for cases or clarifications. For example (not to overly suggest things here), Durova could withdraw this request, and everyone could wait for a few days to see if Geogre wants to file an appeal or case request, and once things have settled down and there has been time for reflection, people could file a request for a case or clarification if there were matters still unresolved (though if framed poorly, such requests might still be rejected - indeed, this request is currently, on balance, heading towards rejection). See also what Brad wrote below earlier. I hope that (rather long) response clarifies things. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 03:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>Leaning</s> '''Decline <s>Accept</s>''' - <s>Carch sums it up well - we ''did'' say this lacked for a requester.</s> Overriding issue is admin socking, which has been now dealt with by desysop motion, now passing. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 10:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*Leaning to '''decline'''. I see no reason for a case unless Geogre request one to be started instead of us handling it by motion as we are already doing. As I have stated internally, we have handled numerous situations with admins without a full case. The reason that you wrote to Geogre initially, Carcharoth, was to handle it by having a word with him and then acting. I see no point in rehashing it for weeks unless Geogre requests that we review the evidence (put forward by him or others), again. I want to hear from him and others on this point. Awaiting a statement from Risker, but unless the situation changes drastically from the evidence that I've reviewed several times over the past month, there is nothing to do in regard to her that would warrant a case. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|♥♥♥]] 11:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Comment''': ''If'' this case is accepted, it is probably wise to include a finding about Geogre/Utgard Loki's involvement in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova|Durova RfAr]], as that has potential for being underplayed/exploited. Tying up loose ends and so forth ... [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 12:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
**I'm perplexed about this case. The core issue is the Geogre/Utgard Loki socking. I note here though that the diff evidence is pretty much cut and dried; that no real defence has so far been offered (for example, that they are operated by different people); and that therefore in all probability we don't need a case to determine what isn't in dispute. Perhaps the main thing missing is an explanation from Geogre in mitigation though if he maintains his public silence that might be a long time coming. <p> However, other issues have been raised. These are a number of very serious allegations against a sitting arbitrator. It may well be right to look at these, with sanctions against the arbitrator in the event that they turn out to be true or elsewhere if they turn out to be specious. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 16:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Decline''': The Geogre/Utgard Loki issues have been dealt with by motion and any appeal by Geogre arising out of it can be fairly and expeditiously heard by a case on the issues covered by the motions. This leaves only the allegations about Risker's conduct to be considered in this case. These are (i) as Newyorkbrad notes, supported by diffs that are at best ambiguous; (ii) somewhat speculative in nature and (iii) they require assumptions of good faith to be suspended. In contrast, Risker's explanation is plausible, fits the known facts, and no evidence has been adduced why we should disbelieve it. For these reasons, I decline this case. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 08:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Accept''' although there's a case open for a motion which is related to this. That would depend on the Committee members' vote but I'd like to see both cases marged into one. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small><sup>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold">''Wiki me up''® </font>]]</sup></small> 06:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
* <s>'''Accept'''; with his case superseding the active motions (with the caveat that the status quo should be maintained in re the Utgard Loki account). It's obvious that the behavior of Geogre needs to be examined, though I am less certain that Risker's very peripheral involvement needs to be included in scope unless some new evidence comes to light— it's entirely possible to widen the scope as warranted once a case has started in any case. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 14:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)</s> |
|||
**<s>Switch to '''Decline''';</s> the motions seem sufficient to handle the matter, and Geogre has not expressed an interest in a full case. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
***Holding in abeyance of a possible statement from Geogre. While the motions have passed and will be enacted shortly, his recent statement seem to make it likely that he will wish to have a full case. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 17:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline''', now that the Geogre desysop motion is passing we don't really need to open a full case. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 21:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
* Reject as filed; however, like Flo, I would consider a case if Geogre himself wished to have his behaviour handled by a full case rather than by motion (this would possibly be more convenient than some later appeal). --[[User:Stephen Bain|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Stephen Bain|talk]]) 23:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>Comment: I've been attending the New York Wikiconference this weekend, and will now be catching up on the various submissions and comments on this and other matters; I expect to vote on all the Geogre-related items tomorrow morning (EDT) = tomorrow afternoon (UTC). [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 00:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)</s> |
|||
**<s>'''Decline'''</s>. I note that Durova filed this request, insofar as it concerns Geogre, largely in response to arbitrators' suggestions in the motion discussion that this matter might warrant treatment in a full case, but that no one had filed one. However, the discussion and arbitrator voting since then have clarified that the pending motions will suffice to address the issues. (The fact that I am in disagreement with the outcome of some of the motions does not change the fact that the committee has reached a decision.) Like FloNight and Bainer, I would accept a case to give plenary consideration to Geogre's status if Geogre were requesting it. I would also accept a full case if we were presented with substantial evidence suggesting that the motions being adopted by the committee were insufficient to address Geogre's conduct. But neither of these is the case, so my vote is to decline. ¶ Insofar as the request concerns Risker, I do not see a basis for a case. With regard to the at best ambiguous diff cited from March 2009, the fact is that as of March 2009, no one had compiled the substantial evidence that exists today of multiple policy violations in Geogre's use of the two accounts. (See my comments in the motions section for more, alas much more, discussion on this point.) Therefore, she probably did not feel compelled to investigate the matter when it was raised, and cannot be faulted for having failed to find or disclose the answer. (I have been reminded within the past 24 hours, through a post on the Functionaries' mailing list, that a former arbitrator asked me on Gchat one night if Geogre was Utgard Loki, and although I only dimly recall the discussion, I think my conclusion was that in the absence of evidence of misuse of the accounts it didn't much matter.) Finally, I find that any suggestion that Utgard Loki's single comment on Risker's RfA might have played any role whatsoever in the success of the RfA (result 128/10/9, and one of the opposes was frivolous) or in her ensuing "rapid rise to the Arbitration Committee" is unsupported. ¶ By way of full disclosure, I met Risker in person, for the first time, in New York this weekend, as she was here for our New York Wikiconference. We did not discuss any aspect of this matter. ¶ I urge that Giano restrain himself from adding to his statement in this case, especially in an intemperate fashion. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
***The statement from Geogre, below, materially changes the situation. For the present, I withdraw my vote. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
****Reinstating my decline vote. Having reviewed Geogre's statement, I remain in disagreement with the disposition of this matter, but given that all the other non-recused arbitrators concurred in motions 1, 2, and 3, and the impending passage of motion 4, there seems little likelihood that further discussion at this time would change the result. I remain open to a case or further discussion if and when requested by Geogre, and I remain of the view that there is insufficient reason to warrant opening a case regarding Risker. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Recuse''' - obviously, perhaps, but consistent with my recusal on all related matters. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 22:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
==Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen== |
==Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen== |
Revision as of 23:33, 31 July 2009
Requests for arbitration
Category naming and review, Jewish supra-nationality
Initiated by William Allen Simpson (talk) at 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previously initiated at 12:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC), but withdrawn because severe lag prevented research for the links.
- (Filing in progress, no notifications will be given until completed, as that might be prejudicial.)
Involved parties
- William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Diff. 1
- Diff. 2
- (Filing in progress, no notifications will be given until completed, as that might be prejudicial.)
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Link 1
- Link 2
Statement by William Allen Simpson
- Divided from previous case #Category naming policy and discussion, too many issues. If the previous case is not accepted, the policy aspects of this case may be moot, as the naming conventions will become haphazard and unenforceable. However, the abuse of process and abusive behavior remain germane.
This has been brought for arbitration because a few editors coordinating with each other have become severely disruptive. There have been a large number of attacks on the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and Wikipedia:Deletion review processes, and personal attacks on the administrators involved.
Category:Jewish surnames ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 7
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 25
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 28
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 6
- Category talk:Surnames
Statement by Alansohn
Statement by Badagnani
Statement by Epeefleche
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
Category naming policy and discussion
Initiated by William Allen Simpson (talk) at 11:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previously initiated at 12:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC), but withdrawn because severe lag prevented research for the links.
- (Filing in progress, no notifications will be given until completed, as that might be prejudicial.)
Involved parties
- William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Kotniski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Occuli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Diff. 1
- Diff. 2
- (Filing in progress, no notifications will be given until completed, as that might be prejudicial.)
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Link 1
- Link 2
Statement by William Allen Simpson
This has been brought for arbitration because a few editors coordinating with each other have become severely disruptive, and dispute resolution has failed.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) was created by consolidating various related Wikipedia:Naming conventions (policy) and Wikipedia:Categorization (guidelines) into a single policy page. After months of widespread discussion and participation, the policy tag was approved on 2005-09-25 by the then bureaucrat Raul654.
The purpose of the page was for policy. Moving the policy language from the primary naming conventions policy page to a more detailed page was intended to strengthen the policy, not
The policy tag has been removed and reinstated, until the most recent 2 removals by Aervanath.
- Radiant!
- Radiant!
- Radiant!
- Aervanath protected, inappropriately removing well-founded edits by me and Vegaswikian
- Aervanath again, after my restoration of page to state before Debresser and Kotniski began edit war
The policy page was stable and had been occasionally updated, until the edit war begun by Debresser and Kotniski. Their edit war had no prior discussion on the Talk page, nor at any of the venues required by the preamble:
If you wish to propose a new or modified category related naming convention, please do so on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories), while also publicising the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, Requests for comment, and the Village Pump, as well as at any related pages.
In large part, the edit war by Aervanath, Debresser, and Kotniski was over this very requirement of wide-spread discussion beyond the talk on the policy page. Note again that there was no substantive talk on the policy page prior to their edit war.
The edit war and its aftermath was coordinated on the User talk page of Aervanath, who is/was an involved editor prior to the edit war.
Statement by Aervanath
Statement by Debresser
Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Statement by Kotniski
Statement by Occuli
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
Carabinieri Dispute
Initiated by Bibiki (talk) at 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Discussion on Carabinieri discussion page: [2] and [3]
- 3O: [4]
- Mediation cabal case: [5]
- Discontinued/Inactive mediation cabal discussion: [6] and my communications to the mediator are here: [7]
- Unresponded (by second party) requests for formal mediation: [8]
Statement by Bibiki
Hi there and thank you very much in advance for taking the time to review this.
There are currently two separate unresolved edit disputes between myself Bibiki, and noclador. These two disputes correspond to two separate issues regarding the Carabinieri.
First, there is the issue of whether, in an article that praises part of the Carabinieri for having participated in the post-1943 resistance movement (against the Mussolini regime), it should also be noted that the Carabinieri had collaborated with the Mussolini regime for the 20 years before that. Refs regarding this (including carabinieri attrocities) are here:
Based on these historical facts, my article edit that noclador has reverted (and tagged as "vandalism") reads: "During the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini (1922-1943) the Carabinieri collaborated with the regime" (Diff: [14]). My opinion is that based on the activities that the Carabinieri undertook during the Mussolini regime era (as demonstrated by refs above), including the fact that they were entrusted by Mussolini himself with the task of suppressing any opposition to the regime (ref: [15]) it is fair to say that the Carabinieri did indeed collaborate with the regime before 1943.
Second, there is the issue of whether it is fair to say that "the Carabinieri have not significantly changed their appearance (uniform, insignia, etc.) since WWII, when they fought on the side of the Axis powers and were part of the occupation forces in places like Ethiopia, ex-Yugoslavia and Greece." (Diff: [16]) This is exactly what I wrote and Noclador reverted it, tagging it as "vandalism". In my opinion this is a factual statement based on trustworthy Internet resources (including the Carabinieri's own official web site) and abundant photographic evidence. References follow:
- Carabinieri's own site states that the Carabinieri still use a version of the old uniform for ceremonies today: [17]
- However the Carabinieri's site does not explicitly state the obvious, i.e. that the appearance of Carabinieri today is very close to that of 60 years ago (even when it comes to every-day uniforms). There is ample photographic evidence testifying to that, like:
Further, the Carabinieri's attire and appearance has caused/generated visible controversy on the web; here is a couple of blog reactions with photographic evidence and further references: [20] [21]
Statement by noclador
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/1/0)
- Decline (sorry) this appears to be very much a content dispute. As such, other areas where review may be asked for include Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. I am not too sure how active the Italy wikiproject is, but the military history one is very active. Surely some more knowledgeable people are out there who can assist this one? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Decline per Casliber. Wizardman 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Decline; the community should be able to handle this straightforward content dispute. The venues suggested by Casliber are almost certainly going to be adequate. — Coren (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Decline per Casliber. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Decline per Casliber. Please be assured that this does not mean we don't think your dispute is important. It means that it is not the type of dispute that this committee usually decides, plus there are other avenues where your issues can be discussed that will be more profitable for everyone than a long drawn-out arbitration case. It might be helpful if an uninvolved administrator or experienced editor helped to steer these parties in the right direction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Recuse: Roger Davies talk 15:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Decline per Casliber and Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen
Initiated by Bishonen | talk 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC).
Involved parties
- Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
- Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- User talk:Bishonen/block discussion, a discussion/mediation between the parties, requested by John Vandenberg
- NOTE: not formally making him a party yet, but I have advised User:Daedalus969 of this RFAR. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Bishonen
I'm sorry this statement is so long, but the case is so unique that that effect has been hard to avoid.
In May 2009, my friend Giano had left (as I thought) Wikipedia, which distressed me.
I had disagreed with User:Daedalus969 on an ANI matter, [23] as had many other people, see comment by Lar. Daedalus articulated this grudge (IMO) on May 21, by insisting on putting and defending a "retired" template on Giano's talkpage. This malice, as I believed it, was more effective than I should have allowed it to be: I removed the tag with the edit summary ("Rm "retired" tag, which is none of Daedalus' business") and shouted bad-temperedly at him. [24] Daedalus posted in response:You do not decide what is and what is not my business. Wikipedia is everyone's business, if such was the case, AN/I would not be an open noticeboard, nor would we be allowed to edit each others' userpage. That notice's purpose was alerting others that he was gone, so I don't see how you're logic arrived at the point that it wasn't needed, or it wasn't my business.[25] I responded Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo![26] Daedalus then posted:I suggest you retract your personal attack, as it is unwarranted, and, as I'm sure you know, being an admin, against the rules here, per WP:NPA .[27] and posted again: And really, you don't. Just because you have admin powers does not mean you get to decide who is involved and who isn't.[28]
(The above contains all pertinent diffs; please let me know if a fuller diff list is wanted.) The way I spoke to Daedalus was wrong, especially for an admin. I have stated that numerous times. Jimbo claims that I "think it's OK" to speak like that, which he has said frequently at the discussion page User talk:Bishonen/block discussion and in other places. He is mistaken. I ask the committee to please refer to Bishonen/block discussion for the facts. Losing my temper with Daedalus was not ok, but neither, in the Daedalus context, do I think it was heinous. I was very taken aback by Daedalus' aggression, which I did not expect, and by the opportunity he made (in my opinion) to poke at me at a vulnerable moment.
Jimbo Wales isn't an ordinary admin, and a block by him isn't an ordinary block. When he blocked me on May 22, it affected me in a way an ordinary block wouldn't. I have for instance been accorded a section of my own on Casliber's Civility Poll, where my personality and wickedness have been debated in detail (a bit like being in the community stocks); and incidents never cease to be brought up, that would be long forgotten by the community if they didn't involve Jimbo Wales. [29] I'm not complaining of this; I'm trying to make a point to the committee. The point is that a number of arbs spoke of Jimbo as simply "an admin" on the arbitration committee page recently: "We pretty much decline to intervene in short blocks"... " We do take them sooner for admins but not usually for a single short block." But he's not merely "an admin; the block is not merely a short block. Therefore, I believe it's appropriate, and fair to me, to arbitrate Jimbo as an extraordinary case. Should more be expected of the Founder, than of "an admin"? Or less? Here, at Requests for Arbitration, I'm going speak with an expectation that he be treated the same. Arbitration ought to be equal. That said, I feel Jimbo himself has employed his Founder status inappropriately. He is obviously aware of, and makes use of, the subservience and humility of a substantial section of the community; a section which falls down and kisses the hem of his garment when he makes a pronouncement. His "godking" status gives him great advantages; the disadvantages which attend that status are tiny by comparison, and he should, indeed, consider holding his conduct to a high standard—higher, I venture to say, than he does. The most rudimentary morality bids a person in his position be extremely careful in attacking users—all of whose power is so much less than his own—and in casting editors into outer darkness. If Jimbo Wales is not aware of these matters, he needs to strive to become so.
I agree that calling Daedalus a little shit was wrong. But I want specifically to make the point in this RfAR that that statement of mine was a good deal less offensive than the things Jimbo said of me, on ANI, a public Wikipedia place. I hope the arbcom will address that point. These were his words:
- This all seems sadly unbecoming to me, and a direct consequence of our having been too tolerant, for too long, of toxic personalities.[30]
Unlike myself, Jimbo thinks his statement was ok; in fact he insists that "toxic personality" didn't even refer to me. (see Bishonen/block discussion, all over the place, and especially the comment of Raul654:[31].). I won't go into any syntactic subtleties here, but merely note that the community has assumed Jimbo was talking about me. His statement is gross and disgraceful, and he has no right to speak of an editor, or indeed of anybody, like that.
Another point: I don't think Jimbo ought to have admin tools, especially not a block button. I have attempted to show above that his block of me was wrongful. Looking at his admin log, there are a number of bad blocks. Entering mean, triumphant, power-speaking block reasons into the log is far from being conduct of "the highest standard." "User says he is leaving. Good timing." Treating users as children is not a high standard. Giano, for instance, is an adult, and a dignified guy; not a child to be sent to the corner with a "be good". Jimbo prevents most blockees from using Wikipedia e-mail: a very bad idea, which shows ignorance of what blocks are for. It took Jimbo half an hour and a poke from MzMcBride to get round to performing his basic admin obligation of posting a block message on my page back in May; time which he spent posting on ANI and on his own talkpage. He is altogether not good with blocks. The six months of block moratorium which he offers (coercively) are insufficient.[32] Bishonen | talk 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC).
- P.S.: one party—Jimbo—has access to the arbcom mailing list and one—me—does not. Can something be done about this? This is not a mere technical problem; I think being able to hear the arbs' discussion makes a tremendous difference to how, as a party, one is able to manage oneself during a case. Could you please either add me to the list, or remove Jimbo from it? Either alternative will do me—I don't care—but removing Jimbo is probably the more realistic option. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC).
- Response to statement by Jimbo Wales
- I'm afraid I see your request for a "proper" mediation process, after the discussion we have previously had at User talk:Bishonen/block discussion, as a mere formality. No matter what name you call that discussion by— "mediation" or something else—the fact remains that we have tried in good faith, yet unfortunately failed, to "move forward usefully". I don't see any point in arguing about the Bishonen/block discussion page; I'll leave it to the arbs to read it and to determine whether or not they deem you to have answered my questions in a responsive and meaningful way there. As for your condescension w r t trying to "calm Bishonen", please don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC).
- Response to question by Cool Hand Luke
- Relief? OK, firstly, I would like a note in my block log stating that the block was wrongful. Please note that I don't particularly want a note signed by the blocking admin (Mr Wales); both because I would value a note by the arbitration committee more highly, and because I've no wish for Jimbo to be humiliated. And secondly, I think the arbcom should admonish him. As for the six-month blocking moratorium, I agree with User:Giano that it was offered for the purpose of "deflecting a case"; in other words, to bypass criticism and evade any stronger measures. Those measures remain needful IMO. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC).
- Response to statements by Carcharoth and (I think) Rlevse
- I have not the slightest objection to my own block actions, or my past actions altogether, being examined, in any depth desired. I'm a conservative blocker; my unblock log might be of more interest than my block log. However, I'm a little surprised at the attention Carcharoth (and Rlevse?) give to this angle. It seems to me an extravagant notion by Carcharoth that Jimbo might have done some research into my past block (or other) history, and have been provoked into blocking by what he found. If Jimbo had done anything along those lines, he would surely have mentioned it to some of the people who have charged him with dropping a block on me at random and with disregarding the Daedalus context. (I'm one of those people myself.) Secondly, and I don't quite know how to put this, since it involves an editor who is not a party here, and certainly hasn't asked to be involved—but regarding the editor CBM cites, I suggest the committee take a look at the person's background. (Some arbs, at least, know it well.) There have been, and will surely be again, users whose behaviour makes me send them from my page. Admins are human, and I make no apology for myself on that score. Bishonen | talk 14:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC).
- Reply to comment by Carcharoth, July 25
- From where I stand, it looks more like the case is being left in limbo because some arbitrators seem determined to leave it there, than because I have "gone on vacation." As the template I have posted on my page states, I "may pop in now and then from an available online source.". I am not inaccessible, just slightly slower than usual. It's not me that's preventing this case from moving forward. Please stop procrastinating, Carcharoth. Bishonen | talk 19:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC).
- Reply to Iceflow and Rlevse on the role of Daedalus969
- In my opinion it would be unfair to bring in Daedalus as a party, or generally to subject him to the full weight of ArbCom scrutiny. Daedalus is quarrelsome sometimes, but he wouldn't normally be arbitrated for that. I don't think he's been RfC'd or anything. It's possible to criticize his actions; but, alternately, it's also possible to see his role as somebody who more accidentally became involved with scary people like Jimbo and me, and who has expressed regret for his role in the incident.[33] Iceflow, thank you for your sympathetic comments, and you're right about the inappropriateness of posting "retired" templates on other users; but everybody doesn't necessarily know it. Reproaches from the Committee would surely not be any help or advantage to Daedalus' adjustment to Wikipedia. If this case is accepted, I suggest the Committee leave Daedalus out of it. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
- Response to Will Beback
- That's a thought. I deleted Bishzilla's userpage back in January because I thought the joke had got old, and because of the never-ending sour comments about the account by a couple of well-known users. It never occurred to me that I'd thereby deleted the information about who was running it. My intention was to completely stop using the account, and Bishzilla did in fact abandon her userpage, move in with her faithful election manager, and cut down on her wiki activity. She wouldn't stay down, though, but kept up occasional posts, and, as Will B points out, non-admin users no longer had any way of identifying her sockiness. I guess I no longer really expect her to disappear completely, so I've recreated her userpage, personalized sock template and all. Bishonen | talk 18:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC).
Statement by Jimbo Wales
This case should be declined for a number of reasons, not least of which that there has been no attempt at mediation. I was invited to discuss the matter directly with Bishonen, and did, but under conditions that no one else get involved. This was not my requested condition, this is how it was presented to me. Until such time as we have gone through a proper mediation process, I see no reason for ArbCom to get involved.
I would like to note, as well, that I have already gone out of my way, unsuccessfully, to try to find some way to calm Bishonen. I volunteered that I will not use my block tools for a minimum of 6 months (unilaterally, with no obligation of her part - a pledge that I will honor despite it having apparently done no good as a gesture of kindness whatsoever), just to set aside that concern of hers. I put forward a very precise explanation of why I made the block, including careful and accurate citations to policy. I offered that we should hold a poll in the community to assess whether, as she claims, policy permits admins to curse at users without being blocked for it. I have explained in great detail how I believe that a general tolerance for toxic behaviors has led us to a situation in which otherwise good editors like Bishonen end up snapping at people inappropriately.
Therefore, I would like to request that Bishonen work with me to find helpful mediators to assist us in moving forward usefully, and I would like to request that the Arbitration Committee decline the case at the present time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Response to Bishonen's tentative declining of mediation:
To be clear on my position: I am prepared *in mediation* to try my very best to give Bishonen what she wants. I am happy to put a statement into the block log, and while the exact wording of it might be a difficult issue, I am confident that if Bishonen is willing to work with me, we can find a settlement that will please everyone.
Statement by uninvolved user Martinp
It is sad to see a valued contributor still offended 2 months after an exchange of words, but I don’t see what helpful actions Arbcom can do here. Jimbo’s comment on ANI was at worst ambiguous. He has since then several times clarified that he was not labeling Bishonen a toxic personality, but was referring to the overall atmosphere prompting her remark. This is plausible in the context of the discussion above the comment in question, and both Occam’s Razor and his subsequent remarks should prompt us to accept this explanation. This is not dependent on any special status.
That leaves the potential issue of the appropriateness of the 3-hour civility or personal attack block itself, or perhaps the fact that Jimbo doesn’t follow all the steps of the notification process the community has developed around blocks. Perhaps both sides can learn something here, but hardly something to arbitrate 2 months after the fact.
Words can’t be unsaid after the fact and feelings can’t be unfelt. We can only hope that Bishonen’s sense of injustice will dissipate, and that she will accept that the worst possible interpretation of the comment in question is not the only one. More broadly, perhaps we could all try to avoid the sorts of behaviors that create an atmosphere where feelings of attack, insult, and offense can fester. Martinp (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by MickMacNee
In arbcom parlance, the commmittee needs to accept this case in order to examine the behaviour of all parties, but in a very narrow scope. I am particularly thinking about the actions of Bishonen, and any and all admins justifiably considered to be 'on duty', in the period between the first complaint at ANI from Deadalus at 21:43, 21 May 2009, and Jimbo's notification to ANI of the block at 02:20, 22 May 2009 (7 minutes after the block was made), a period of nearly 5 hours, a discussion of which Bishonen was aware of and had commented within, as well as numerous admins and other editors. This examination should be against established written policy and established community practice with regard to the merits and acceptance of issuing blocks for personal attacks, in light of the failure of attempts to establish a unified community opinion in review of this block after the event. Any and all users found to be lacking should be dealt with accordingly, and any and all policies found to be innaccurate w.r.t. to normal practice should be identified for community attention. MickMacNee (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- further statement
- Daedalus's apparent need to explain himself with his statement, plus the various implications from others that provocation was somehow a mitigating factor here, I thought I would just lay down of what I believe was the entire interaction between Bishonen and Daedalus in the crucial moments that ultimately led to the block of Bishonen by Jimbo, which actually were spread over nearly a day:
Extended content
|
---|
|
- As far as I can see, the only explanation given by Bishonen for why Daedalus would tag Giano's page, is that they had a grudge against her stemming from a single interaction between them, in this ANI thread, way back on 28 February, which is presumably the OC and Tony1 incident he refers to in his statment. I've seen no other allegation of any bad blood, either here or in the block review.
- So if we have to get into issues of provocation in a case, I believe the actual series of events leading up to the fighting, the timeline, the level of prior interaction, the actual interaction, the later escalation, together with the alleged unresolved previous bad blood, raise serious questions, both collective and individual.
- What I don't see here though, is a justifiable claim that Bishonen simply momentarily snapped as a result of some direct provocation from Daedalus. MickMacNee (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved user Greg L
I rather agree with Martinp’s response (but not entirely, as it sides a little too strongly with Jimbo). Both Bishonen and Jimbo screwed up. Jimbo didn't follow known rules for blocking, but that happens all the darned time on Wikipedia. Really, Jimbo's block was a symbolic slap on the wrist to make a point. Supposedly, blocks are only protective and aren't punitive nor symbolic, but reality doesn’t work that way on Wikipedia. Symbolic warnings are met out all the time and will always so. I’ve been given a “gentle tap” (three-hour block) by an admin for “edit warring” (two reversions—not three) with the blocking admin; my experience can't be all that unusual.
No, where Jimbo screwed up big time is in writing “…and a direct consequence of our having been too tolerant, for too long, of toxic personalities”. There is no possible reasonable interpretation of that other than to conclude he believed at the time that Bishonen had a toxic personality. That was a deeply cutting remark that was thoughtless to a hard-working volunteer on Wikipedia. It would be better, in my opinion, if he had took ‘ownership’ of the remark, conceded that any reasonable person would interpret it as Bishonen did, and retracted it as having been thoughtless and hurtful.
However, exactly like Martinp pointed out, this all occurred two months ago. Further, Bishonen could learn a lesson from P.T. Barnum: “there's no such thing as bad press, as long as they spell your name right.” Most Wikipedians wouldn’t know of Bishonen were it not for that little two-way gaff and the resultant stink Bishonen has made of it. Bishonen would do well to stop acting like God himself suggested she had a toxic personality and drop it. Jimbo puts on his pants one leg at a time, just like everyone else; no one pretends that he is perfect. However, Jimbo shepherds Wikipedia quite well in my opinion and has an unfailing personal belief that whatever the community consensus is on matters is always the right thing to do. Like the monarch of the U.K., he is an important figurehead who has a crucial role in helping to steer Wikipedia.
It’s time to drop it. Greg L (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Jack Merridew
This case should be accepted. I have followed it all along and have a good understanding of how events played out.
- Precis
- Very poor behavior by Daedalus969 over time, Bishonen snapped at him in a fairly mild manner due to strong provocation, and Jimmy blocked the wrong party on a diff without a full understanding (imo) of the broader context, and without warning or discussion.
Jimmy's initial use of the term "toxic personality" rather clearly was intended to adhere to Bishonen; Casliber's immediate comment to him supports this view. She most certainly does not have a toxic personality. Over the course of subsequent discussion, this term has been downgraded to "toxic behaviors" and has been recast as applying to poor behaviors in the wider community; which in this case would mean Daedalus's conduct. I see the "recasting" as damage control. I agree with the latter view; there is a lot of toxic behavior about and it has been far too tolerated for far too long. It is not about incivility in the sense of George Carlin's little list; shit, I use the word "fuck" in civil discourse. Incivility is about strident internet tough guy attitudes, the professional wiki-lawyers playing power politics, &c. There are lots of cabal-wannabes who are in the wiki-game for the argumentation, for the joy of the vandal-hunt. To them, teh wiki is a new Great Game with high stakes and live targets. For those who level-up a bunch, there are seriouz resume items and whole livelihoods at stake. It's not just about building an encyclopaedia ;)
So, Jimmy made a Bad Block™ and emboldened a genuinely disruptive user. He has made a pledge to set down the block button for the rest of the year. nb: the initial offer was by no means a unilateral one; that, too, was recast. I see this case as a referendum on Jimmy's meatball:GodKing status. I believe he should recast himself more as meatball:FirstServant and that he owes Bishonen an apology. He should not be in the blocking business and most of the other rights should be little used. He is an editor with less than 5000 edits; only 700 to articles and more than a third of them to his own talk page.ec This is not an editor who is engaged in the community. The wiki is huge and complicated and one has to spend a fair bit of time on it to have a good idea what's going on. Jimmy has other things to do for the projects. Desysop, with thanks.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
p.s. I'll drop in a few diffs as I dig them up:
- Cas re "toxic personalities" [34] ([35])
- Jimmy's reply: [36]
- The initial deal to lay down the block button for 6 months: [37]
- then recast as unilateral: [38]
- A chat I had with Jimmy about this: [39] [40] [41] [42]
- Jimmy's RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jimbo Wales — never happened
- added 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
A comment by Jimmy,diff from today, to the effect that, given the ambient toxic environment, "good users", such as Bish, have no choice other than to "join the bad behaviors":
- "My position, which I have held for quite some time, is that when we are excessively tolerant of toxic behaviors, we poison the environment and push good people to join in the bad behaviors — they end up with no other choice."
If she had no choice, why the Royal smackdown? Given this rational, the culpable would be the tolerant parties.
- added 06:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
addendum, and then I'm done talking ;)
It has been quite clear thought this that the intent here is to raise the bar on administrator behavior. I have no issue with the idea that admins, and founders, should be held to standards of conduct. Is this one of the the wiki's more pressing issues? I don't think so. Of far greater import is the undisciplined mob of users that swarm AN/I and whatever the drama-rich page of the moment is. There are a lot of fairly regular users leading factions of the mob. It's all very cliquey. This is a more pressing problem than "good users" provoked by snotty littluns.
- added 06:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved user Joopercoopers
Give that Jimbo is still of the opinion that the block was 100% within policy and we should be doing more of it, there seems little room for negotiation at mediation. I urge acceptance of the case, to determine what is what, in respect to Jimbo's use of the block button. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved user Giano
I think it important that the ArbCom accepts this case. At the moment Wikipedia lacks consistency. Two days ago there was the case where Admins pointedly refused for several hours to block an established editor with 7K edits for calling another editor a "cocksucker." Yet, Jimbo can appear from nowhere and without warning block a very established and respected Admin for a momentary (and pretty mild loss of cool) with an editor who was clearly making a nuisance of himself. Therefore the case should be used to achieve I: consistency of when it's justified to block. II: Of late, Jimbo's authority is being challenged all over the site - was Jimbo's block just a punitive attempt to humiliate an admin, and re-establishing his authority by use of fear. III: Does Jimbo have this authority to re-establish? IV: Was Jimbo correct to refer to Bishonen (or anyone involved) as a toxic personality? This case is not about seeing anyone de-sysopped or punished. To deflect a case, Jimbo has already agreed not to block anyone for 6 months; this case needs to be accepted to determine a definitive ruling to establish clarity on these issues. These are not matters the ArbCom can avoid; the community and Jimbo needs guidance, it is expected that the ArbCom provide it. Giano (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to Roger Davies
In other words, none of you, apart from Coren, are prepared to make a decision on accepting this case! Giano (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Jehochman
Above Giano mentions that a user was blocked for calmly suggesting that Giano was a "cock sucker". I placed that block because the insult appeared to be an attempt to harass Giano, and it could be read as an insult to sexual orientation. Bishonen's scatalogical reference appears to have been an expression of her own dismay, a hot headed display of temper. It takes a bit of thoughtfulness to distinguish between these two cases. Mere incivility should not be blockable. Bishonen's should have been asked to refactor her remark and warned that admins are expected to do a better than average job of maintaining decorum, even when upset. In the alternative, Bishonen's sysop privileges could have been suspended for a short time to make clear that admins will not be tolerated to cuss at users. I suggest Jimbo do the following:
- Make a note on Bishonen's block log to disregard the block.
- State that Bishonen is not a toxic personality.
- Warn the admin corps that cussing at users will not be tolerated, and suggest
statewhat the penalty shouldwillbe for anybody who breaks that condition.
Setting expectations before taking action is a good way to minimize drama. I agree with Giano's point above that our civility and no personal attacks policies are applied very inconsistently. Jehochman Talk 13:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- It may be equally or more beneficial for ArbCom to take the above steps. Jehochman Talk 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Aside from an occasional profanity, Bishonen is one of the most humane and civil Wikipedians. She actually cares about people's feelings and treats them as humans instead of mere objects to be manipulated. Civility is about much more than word choice. It is possible to be horribly incivil while using the politest words. Jehochman Talk 21:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- A proper, civil response would have been:
- Bishonen, you seem to be stressed. You're cursing at another user. It makes me feel very uncomfortable when a Wikipedia administrator curses at any of our volunteers. Could you please refactor your remarks as quickly as possible. If you'd like to discuss your concerns with me, I am available. - Jimbo
Statement by Lar
As I said here:
- An unjustified and one sided block can be extremely demoralizing, especially to someone with a pristine record. If Jimbo Wales ever wants to be shut of me, the first entry in this would probably do the trick. I suspect there are others who feel the same way, one unfair sanction by ArbCom, or even one block, and that would be it. Did you want a recounting of the editors we've lost so far for reasons similar to this?
I think this block was ill considered, and yes, I think it could cost us good editors. Could Bishonen have done better in her interactions? Yes. Was the block by the book correct from a strict policy violation perspective? Perhaps. But in context, no. Circumstances were not properly taken into account, it did not lessen disruption, and it sent the wrong message, by shooting the messenger and doing more to enable further incivility and drama than it did to lessen it. Admins should be held to higher standards but an out of the blue block, without the appropriate level of prior discussion, is not a good way to starting that vital change in our approach. Jehochman spells it out quite nicely just above.
That said, what's to be done about it now? Is taking Jimbo to ArbCom likely to get a good result? I don't know but I'm somewhat dubious that there will be a good outcome from this. Perhaps lessons learned going forward would be the best that can be hoped for. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Addendum: I would like to suggest that serious consideration be given to wiping Bishonen's block log rather than just making a note, but making a note is better than nothing. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)a
Statement by dave souza
There's clearly an unresolved issue here, in that Bishonen has accepted wrongdoing in an isolated loss of temper under very trying circumstances, but Jimbo above is clearly holding to a position that unprecedented blocks without warning on a productive user who happens to be an admin, but wasn't acting as an admin on that occasion, are an acceptable way of improving the behaviour of other admins. Jimbo also appears to believe that it sets a good example of the behaviour expected of such exalted janitors to make assertions that a block is for a "toxic personality", now modified to "toxic behaviours", without providing evidence and clarification beyond said isolated rude word. Worthy as the aim is of trying to ensure that off duty janitors never lose their cool to the point of saying a rude word, punitive blocking of stressed admins without warning does not seem to me to be productive in any way. A block after a warning and repeated misdemeanour is justifiable, but an unexpected block for shock effect is a bad idea. I really hope that Jimbo can bring himself to agree that his own behaviour falls below the ideal set for admins, and that mutual agreement on improved standards is a better way forward than punitive blocks.
While the dramaout may cause some delay, my hope would be that it increases the time for reflection in order to quietly achieve a mutually agreeable form of words, rather than going through teh dramaz of the full gamut of dispute resolution procedures. The good offices of the arbiters appear to me to be the best way of achieving that. My excuse for ignoring the dramaout? By my reckoning I've fully complied with the conditions of the dramaout for a fortnight already, though that's down to wikisloth rather than principle. Unless, of course, you count Das entdeckte Geheimnis der Natur im Bau und in der Befruchtung der Blumen as drama. . . dave souza, talk 18:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- The proposals set out by Jehochman above appear to be a good way forward, with the caveat that the penalty for admin corps cussing at users should be carefully considered, preferably with community agreement. In my view a temporary loss of the tools would seem appropriate given the loss of self control, but that should be a measured penalty aimed at avoiding disruption, not a public humiliation of the admin. . . dave souza, talk 18:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by LessHeard vanU
Responding specifically to the points by Luke and Roger Davies; yes, this is specifically over whether Jimbo Wales has shown the necessary competence to continue using the block button, and why a hearing needs to be made. Jimbo has made a number of poor sysop actions over the last few years, and since he is not particularly active in that area it is then a rather greater percentage than would be expected, and he has been extremely unwilling to recognise that his actions were not in keeping with either practice or indeed policy. The immediate example is the one that originated this action by Bishonen, a sanction that did not lead to diminishing disruption since it took place so long after the incident to possibly effect any ongoing dispute, one that did not refer to any of the ongoing discussion about same on the admin noticeboard and therefore disregarded any consensus existing, and one that takes the concept of a cooldown block (which is not a valid reason, anyway) to the furthest extreme of chilling effect. The actions of a few years ago was the one that related to a block enacted by Jimbo against an editor for an incident some months previous, which had been dealt with by the community at the time, and made with the comment - I paraphrase - "I am now off for the weekend, don't do anything about my sanction until I get back". When, following the inevitable drama and debate, an admin did do something, and undid the block with reference to policy, Jimbo returned he blocked and desysopped the admin concerned (and reblocked the editor). Jimbo's response was, again paraphrasing, "Wheelwaring is not permitted". My point is that it was Jimbo who acted contrary to policy in blocking an editor (I note that Jimbo mentioned something about removing trolls from Wikipedia at the time) whose indiscretion was both in the past and reviewed by the community without sanction, did so knowing they were unavailable for contact yet refusing permission of other admins to review and act, wheel warred with the unblocking admin - and got it wrong when he claimed the warring was by the other admin - and then blocked/desysopped the said admin, where they were most certainly engaged in a dispute with each other. While there are other, less notable perhaps, incidents between these, I believe these two indicate a sufficient lack of appreciation of the potential harm in carelessly applied sanctions, and an unwillingness to review and acknowledge concerns, a confusion between the roles of sysop and founder, and the absolute divergence that each requires from the other, that requires proper deliberation by the Committee.
Further to the above, I am also very concerned with regard to the manner of Jimbo Wales' response to the Request - notwithstanding there may be more once the "dramaout" has been observed. Despite the use of the term "request" at the close of the statement, most of it appears to be dictating how the request should be responded to. I suggest that should the Request be granted, some scope should be given to how Jimbo Wales (the account and rights holder), Jimbo Wales the Founder, and Jimmy Wales the public person, interacts and relates to the community. If not now, here, then when, where, and by whom can it ever be done? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment regarding response by Arbitrator Carcharoth
Yes, if there is to be a general review of the sysop action history of Jimbo Wales, then all by means have a history of the interactions of Bishonen - and the unfortunate editor who chose to impose themselves upon Giano's userpages and provoked Bishonen - since another commentator on this page has already cast aspersions upon Bishonen civility record. I should very much like to see evidence that Bishonen has been anything but a positive role model in her interactions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Tex
I see many people, including Cool Hand Luke below, continuing to refer to this incident as a so called three-hour block that Bishonen should just shrug off. I think they are missing the point. Blocks are humiliating and hurtful to most regular editors. Especially so to those editors who have been here a long time and have provided hours of their lives developing high quality content voluntarily. Add to that the fact that this particular block was handed out by the so-called "god king" and it becomes even more hurtful. We have a very large number of people on this site who think Jimbo can do no wrong, no matter how wrong he is (we all know this is true). Calling Bishonen a toxic personality was also way over the top and backpedaling to say he didn't mean it that way is just a cop out. All the fanboys who go to his talkpage to "thank him for developing wikipedia" now are of the mistaken belief that Bish is a "toxic personality". If admins should conduct themselves better than us lowly editors, then Jimbo should conduct himself to the absolute highest level. His block was not based on policy no matter how he tries to say it was. I think it is high time that the committee looks into Jimbo's use of his "god-king" status. Tex (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by ChildofMidnight
This case should be declined. Even though he is signed on to the No Drama Days 2009 festival (also indicated on his page), Jimbo responded courteously to Bishonen's talk page post and offered to discuss the issues and concerns: "It could be helpful if you could state for me what you think is in live dispute here?" To which there has been no response from Bishonen. This refusal to discuss the matter means the proper dispute resolution protocols haven't been followed. Polite discussion would have been the first step. I'm a big supporter of checks and balances on admins and admin actions (I'm all for blocks being reviewed and oversighted if they're out of line), and I'm not sure the block was right, but it's over now and if Bishonen is unwilling to discuss it respectfully with Jimbo then it's grossly unfair to put the rest of the community through this hearing when there are real disputes and problems that need resolving. The point has definitely been made that Bishonen, like many of us, is unhappy with the arbitrary way the civility policy is enforced and I think a warning is always appropriate when dealing with editors who have demonstrated good faith. But calling someone a little shit seems to stretch anyone's tolerance (and it was only a 3 hour block). The broader discussion of the civility policy, checks and balances on admins and admin actions should be had, but this isn't the appropriate venue. It's time to move on from this incident. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Baseball Bugs
Directing obscenities at another user is not acceptable, and a 3-hour block is getting off easy. Blocks are not done without a reason. When issued a short-term block, a user should shut up and reflect - not whine about the occasional capricious and arbitrary nature of blocks, but reflect on the reason they were blocked - and pledge to do better the next time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by CBM
Given that part of Wales' role is to usually stand back, then intervene occasionally when he sees things going awry, it seems odd to seek to admonish him precisely for fulfilling that role by intervening here. The complaint seems to be akin to "If everyone on the road was speeding, why did I get pulled over when nobody else did?". It may be true that we have too often looked away when other editors made inappropriate comments. We should certainly address that as a matter of practice going forward, but it is not something arbcom can address in this particular setting. Wikipedia:Civility/Poll is a more productive forum for a wide collection of editors to express opinions about that policy.
The issue of "warning" is a red herring here. The IRC arbcom case and Bishzilla arbcom motions, on their own, are enough for her to know her edits need to meet the highest standards. She has more than enough experience to know our policies about civility and personal attacks. And two weeks before the block, she expressed to another editor the importance of administrators leading by example [43].
Finally: the inappropriate edit [44] that led to the block was not an isolated incident. Compare these two edits (and edit summary) from a week before the block: [45] [46]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Re the last paragraph: Bishonen's response above misses the point I am making, which is that there is a broader pattern of incollegiality in her editing. Sending someone away from your talk page is acceptable, although unnecessary because one can simply ignore comments. Doing it by saying "piss off" is patently inappropriate. After MZMcBride gently pointed that out, her response was not to amend the initial comment; instead she responded with "fuck off". — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Geogre
I will dissent from the other views and argue that this is about Jimbo as an admin. Whatever "powers" Jimbo has, these are powers given by the editors in aggregate, and Jimbo is bound, in fact and practice, by ArbCom rulings. He is, in essence, merely an administrator getting special veneration. The veneration depends upon good will.
- The block was issued without warning. Blocking without warning is supposed to occur in emergency situations only. If some minority section of the admin corps believes that "cursing" is so abhorrent as to cause a block, then the degree of their passion or consistency of their action does not amount to a change of policy, and it darn sure doesn't translate into an emergency.
- The block was a "cool off block." We all know that cool off blocks are not allowable.
- After the block, Jimbo refused to discuss the matter with other administrators. Several people tried to engage Jimbo on Wikipedia, via his user talk page, on the subject, and he would not discuss the matter. Blocking policy requires that we speak, that we consult.
Therefore, we are dealing with a "bad block." Well, we all make bad blocks. The fact that the bad block was for three hours is not germane. It was a bad block, and, as Lar says, the fact of the block is sufficient to cause a grievance and to need redress. Further, though, Jimbo is unrepentant, and that means that ArbCom needs to intervene, lest he continue to behave in the same way again, as he has said that he will do, and as he has encouraged, with his status, others to do.
Further, I would argue that this needs to address the issue, the vexed, self-consuming, hideous issue of "civility," bearing in mind that,
- The current policy that is so often cited does not match up with the practice. It says that extreme cases may (i.e. might) result in a block, not that "every" instance will definitely result in a block.
- "Civility" has no more of a meaning than "polite," and, for many, seems to imply the same thing.
- Cursing is surely not the way to determine "civility," as there are as many ways to be cruel with clean words as ways of being friendly with profane words.
ArbCom does not make policy, of course. However, ArbCom can rule against any person arguing that he, by fiat, has created policy with his decision that, forever hence, any person who uses a curse word will get a block of particular length.
I urge acceptance to rule that Jimbo's function as an administrator is conditioned upon consultation on Wikipedia with other experienced administrators and that we cannot have unilateral declarations by any administrator of a "rule" for blocking for any person's concept of "cursing." Geogre (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Daniel
If this case is to be accepted, the Committee could do far worse than to have a series of motions deciding what issues they'll consider as part of this case; it has, quite simply, an infinite number of possible limits as to its scope. Further, there are conflicting Arbitrator comments already regarding whether Jimbo's role in the community will be considered if the case is accepted; this is merely one example of an issue which should be explicitly determined as included or excluded in the case by the series of motions I propose. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite
- Offer of mediation
I'm confident this can all be sorted without the need for arbitration. Both Bishonen and Jimmy make good points and it would be good to channel those thoughts towards some form of conclusion that both of them are happy with. I really believe that we can sort this out amicably. I'd like to offer to mediate the dispute between the two users, along with two other adminitrators (offers would be much appreciated) to help keep ideas flowing. I'm not sure how much time we'd need, but I think it's much more likely to come to a positive conclusion than arbitration. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Mediation request now filed
Please note that I have now filed a request for mediation which can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bishonen-Jimbo Wales. We're currently waiting for the parties to decide whether or not to agree to mediation. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Sandstein
I'm not sure what there might be to arbitrate about an expired (and patently justified) three-hour incivility block. If the Committee takes the case, though, it might be a good occasion to underline, as Jimbo does, that we should not tolerate incivility by anyone under any circumstances, because of the toxic and unprofessional atmosphere it generates. Sandstein 13:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim
I hope the media don't get a hold of this and make it look worse for us than it is; accepting this case may turn out to be a mistake, I fear. On-wiki issues like this are so petty and inconsequential, I can't figure out why Jimbo thought this would be wise. I'm sure there are loads of admins who could have done it for him if he really thought it necessary. Maybe not? I suppose Jimbo doesn't spend so much time any more building relations with members of the community, and maybe as a result he is weak and easily isolated. Or maybe not, we'll see what the result is.
I guess this might be a lesson for Jimbo: Don't hit a lion on the face with a stick, either shoot it or leave it alone. It seems no middle line between "constitutional monarch" and "autocrat" is possible. Jimbo should probably for everyone's sake either withdraw entirely from making such gritty decisions, or else regularly do so and assert his authority over the various boards, ArbCom and the rest of the pedia, and see how that works out. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad. "Consensus" is an anthropologically impossible method of government for a community over a certain size, a size which Wikipedia has long since past. We're probably gonna get one dictatorship or another, and at this stage it's either gonna be Jimbo or the Oligarchs. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Rootology
- Do not edit my formatting, thank you
I was not going to post ever again until Deacon above mentioned media impact. This is utterly rubbish and irrelevant.
I strongly, strongly urge that any consideration of any decisions or actions by the ArbCom here firmly, and utterly disregard any consideration of Jimbo Wales’ self-appointed status which stems from his being the co-founder of Wikipedia. The potential media impact is irrelevant, any potential fallout is irrelevant. Per Jimmy’s own now-oft cited words, he’s held to the highest standards. If the community finds he’s fallen short in his actions toward Bishonen[47], or any other possibly questionable administrative actions, that’s a shame, but it’s his own fault. Jimmy’s status as anything is irrelevant, he’s one piece and one pawn in service of the encyclopedia, and to the encyclopedia. Jimmy Wales is not a special bird flying above the encyclopedia; the encyclopedia is not Jimmy Wales; and all of us are not and never have been in service to Jimmy Wales. If anything his courtesy role that we grant him ‘’gratis’’ puts him in service to us.
Accept the case to look into all of his actions (and Bishonen's, of course), including his inappropriate actions historically, such as (please use these as Evidence, and I ask that someone submit this as my /Evidence section):
- Abuse of local steward tools -- Jimmy was an involved participant in this dispute. Any other Admin or Steward here would be stripped of position.
- Out of process blocks. Flagrant.
- Abusive deletions. Flagrant, and Jimmy was also an involved party in this dispute.
- COI-violating use of Administrative tools, protecting Joe Lieberman before appearing before him and the US Senate. Flagrant.
- Using his tools and self-claimed status to influence article content inappropriately; no OFFICE claim.
- Misuse of admin tools in asserting his self-claimed status. Flagrant.
- More COI protection with tools. Flagrant.
- Jimmy has also fomented trouble off-wiki as an agitant, particularly in his participation on a stalking e-mail list on Wikia.com, of which is he a partial owner and corporate office, from which sprang the entire controversy wherein User:Durova blocked User:!! inappropriately.
Jimmy is neither bulletproof nor invaluable any longer to the success of Wikipedia, and per previous commentary from Michael Snow and Florence Devauard, past and present WMF chairpersons (anyone--feel free to edit my section ONLY to cite to the comments, I can't find them now) have stated that Jimmy is just another board member. WMF chair outranks Jimmy.
- Note that Jimmy Wales was successfully desysopped per local policy on both English Wikibooks AND on English Wikinews.
He has no inherent claim to any rank, title, nor position that the local community does not deem to give him. Any spin by him to the contrary is a falsehood. He does anything he does here at our pleasure, and we are never here at his pleasure. Jimmy Wales is not the legal owner of this website. He's allowed to edit because we allow it, the same as any other user.
As a closing note, I also request in the STRONGEST possible terms that Jimbo be removed immediately from the Arbcom-L mail list, and that the Arbs provide immediate disclosure of ANY activities by him to influence or sway, or weigh in on this pending decisions with him privately on that list, or in direct 1:1 e-mail. His self-claimed status may not be allowed to sway what happens here. Jimmy should also be removed from the list for the duration of this, and I ask that this be put forward as an official motion if he will not. rootology (C)(T) 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Pharaoh of the Wizards
Jimbo Wales wished to see high standards of civility from Admins.This is clear here from the desysop of Scarian for attacking a sockpuppet.
- Here he stated that Update: Scarian apologized without hestitation and supported that the desysop was the right thing to do under the circumstances. Therefore, I have reinstated him immediately and without prejudice. I remind all sysops that certain standards of behavior are expected of all of us as Wikipedians, and that this applies doubly to admins.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Now if Bishonen had not made the comment to the user she would not have been blocked and it is similar to what happened to Scarian.
- Jimbo used his discretion in blocking Bishonen and do not see any misuse of tools unless I missing something hidden.
- This block comes under this statement and hence feel Jimbo Wales may have blocked any admin whom he sees being incivil and further the comment about a toxic environment Please Assume Good Faith that he made in context with the environment and not about any user.
- In Wikipedia trolls ,sockpuppets,Vandalism only accounts,IP attack users should respond civility and not go down to the level of the trolls.This block is line with desysop done earlier for making comments.
- If one is an Admin one has to maintain high standard of civility even under extreme provocation.Now Jimbo Wales has said he will no longer the block users. hence the issue of future blocks by Jimbo Wales is resolved.
- Now the second issue of the powers of Jimbo Wales is a different and that has nothing to do with this block.Hence the case should be dismissed.
- Please do not Penalese someone for this I remind all sysops that certain standards of behavior are expected of all of us as Wikipedians, and that this applies doubly to admins.Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- It Will Send a very wrong signal that users can get away with incivility however mild actually we need to follow a zero tolerance policy towards incivility as we are a ENCYCLOPEDIA with Editor from different cultues and children editing in large numbers.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment regarding response by Arbitrators accepting the case
- I have agree with Cool Hand Luke and Roger Davis just want know what is the arbitrable issue?Are you going into the 3 hour block by Jimbo Wales as per his policy of maintaining high standards for Admins ?
- Or are you going into the Powers of Jimbo Wales now if that is done in public domain one will be spending weeks if not months reading what all the several 100's of users write and this would led to unending drama and be media circus with the press going overboard with it which our Encyclopedia can do without.We are here to improve the Encyclopedia. Further is the Arbcom enpowered to do it and feel this is not the forum for that.
- Comment regarding response to Rootolgy
- Jimbo Wales is the face of Wikipedia and its international promotion whether it is events and media.I cannot understand how the encyclopedia will benefit by removing him. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Daedalus969
I am going to be short with this, as, at this time, I do not really have much to say on the matter;
I regret making those series of edits. It was a very bad move, and one I did not put very much, if any, thought into. To clarify something said by Bish above, the placement of that tag had nothing to do with you. I realize it is incredibly hard to assume good faith with me at the moment, but please trust that I only placed it there because I thought the editor had retired. Please also believe me when I note that I am sorry for doing such a thing. I understand your reaction, in that you two were, and probably still are(they came back after all) close friends. Yes, I disagreed with her regarding the obvious baiting of OC and Tony1. I have a problem being baited, I've had this problem for many years. To the point, although I dislike Bish because she seemed to have this idea that I wasn't being baited, the addition of the tag had nothing to do with it, and, I am sorry for this addition.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by SlimVirgin
I have no knowledge of this case. I want to respond only to Rootology's very unfair claim that, "Jimmy has also fomented trouble off-wiki as an agitant, particularly in his participation on a stalking e-mail list on Wikia.com ..."
This is a completely false description of Jimbo's participation in the cyberstalking list. I started that as a cc-list to discuss Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking; lots of people were included on it, Jimbo among them. After a couple of weeks, it was converted to a mailing list for ease of posting, and it wasn't Jimbo who suggested hosting it on wikia. He was repeatedly criticized on it by people who felt he wasn't doing enough about cyberstalking or wikihounding, yet he stuck around, took the criticism, and tried to address it. It was an example of him trying to be responsive to a portion of the community that felt let down, even though he didn't agree with them. It shouldn't be used as a weapon against him. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by KillerChihuahua
The entire incident was regrettable and unfortunate. Yet more regrettable than any block, though, is that Jimmy insists on framing his block as unquestionably just, when there were and are questions, to say the least; his revisionist history tactics, which either lack character or bring into question his comprehension; and his persistence in being bellicose and patronizing, even on this ArbCom request, where he once again presumes to inform Bishonen her (unstated, completely speculative, and IMO inaccurate) views. These three issues are ongoing matters of conduct relating to the administrator (in this instance, he was acting as an administrator.) and show a fundamental problem.
- Listening and discussing
First, Jimmy said that it was his preference to not discuss the matter on Wikipedia at all. However, after some coaxing, he agreed to discuss the matter, but only if it were in a subpage, and only if it were one on one. The one-on-one nature of the discussion held between himself and Bishonen may have excluded others, but others certainly attempted to discuss the matter with him, and he stated it was his preference to keep the matter between the two of them, with no others offering insight or assistance.[48] Meanwhile, anyone who did go to Jimmy's talk page to discuss the matter had the section deleted without reply. Both blocking policy and general guidelines for administrators not only recommend but require that we be willing to discuss and converse.
During the one-on-one, Jimmy continued to reiterate his version of Bishonen's point of view, no matter what she herself said, prompting one editor to say, ::"I have never seen two people conduct a conversation so completely at cross-purposes to each other, and since Jimbo's line of questioning repeats consistently three points which you have already disproven--that you allegedly think you were right to cuss at Daedalus, that you think all admins should be allowed to cuss at will, and that you believe policy should be adapted to encompass that ability-- I would say your assertions are much better-supported. (And that's to say nothing of yet another most-beloved Wiki-principle: AGF, anyone? The assumptions made about your opinions--assumptions which, I repeat, you had already debunked several times--show an expectation of spectacularly BAD faith."[49]
This agrees with my own feelings. Jimmy asked Bishonen, "Can you explain to me why you think current policy allows admins to engage in personal attacks, indeed to curse at users and not be blocked for it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)" - (the same charge he keeps making, ad nauseum, despite Bishonen's having never said that), forcing me to reply to Jimmy, :: "Ye gods, Jimmy, she never said she thought that. Would you stop this "when did you stop beating your wife" line of questioning? She never said that she thought that, she never indicated she thought that, and your obtuse persistence in repeating the question only makes you look extremely dense, or else hostile and manipulative. If such is not your intent then I advise striking this accusation masquerading as a question. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 06:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC) ' He has neither struck nor amended his assertion, and contiues making it to this moment.
- Damage
Jimmy made a block six hours after the incident. This cannot have prevented a thing; the block was clearly punitive. The original "incident" (an exasperated "shit") was minor, with no damage. The "harmed" editor may have even felt vindicated by Jimmy's bizarre intervention. Certainly it has led to a rise in demands for those useless civility bloocks, to me if no one else. I find it particulary hypocritical that Jimmy, who expresses grave concern over BLPs, has apparently no concern about how his action has affected one of our best contributors and admins. Bishonen's impeccable record has been tarnished and her character questioned, without any attempt at resolution or discussion whatsoever. Jimmy owes her an apology, publicly placed in her block log, and unless and until he learns to moderate his high-handed behavior, he should refrain from blocks. I do not suggest that ArbCom remove his ability; this would generate press which would not be beneficial to Wikipedia. However, should they choose to do so, I am certain we would easily weather the storm. It would cost us no valuable contributors, at any rate, unlike this ill-advised block seems likely to do.
- Civility policy
Currently the poll on the civility policy stands at Satisfactory - 8 / Too lenient - 45 / Too strict - 8 / Unenforceable - 48
This shows two things; that civility is considered a problem, as evidenced by the 45 "too lenient", and that the current policy is considered unenforceable.
Statement by uninvolved GRuban
Bishonen, please withdraw the request; arbitrators, please reject. Can anyone really not see the newspaper headlines here, about Jimbo Wales being tried by a court of his appointees? As so many have written above, neither "little shit" nor "toxic personality" is worth the three ring circus. Being an admin requires three things: the ability to behave well yourself; the ability to accept being called names occasionally; the ability to accept apologies gracefully; merely being a Wikipedian requires valuing the Wikipedia more than one's personal ego. None of these will be demonstrated by bringing or accepting this case. --GRuban (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Sunray
Jimbo has said that he thinks that this case should go through a proper mediation process. Bishonen responded that she sees Jimbo's request as a mere formality, and points out that attempts at discussion between them have failed thus far. Several people who have commented, including some members of ArbCom, have suggested that formal mediation should be tried. The primary interests in this case seem to be the need for an accommodation between the two of them and the affirmation of the community's values (and policies). Cool Hand Luke has also pointed to the need for negotiation between Jimbo and the community. One way to approach this would be to see mediation, (a "facilitated negotiation"), as a way of dealing with these interests outside of the formality and glare of publicity that would accompany arbitration. There are good reasons why arbitration is usually the last resort in dispute resolution. Sunray (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note to Bishonen
- Further to Ryan Postlethwaite’s offer of mediation and what I’ve said above, I would like to add that I think that the prospects for mediation are good in this case. For one thing, Jimbo’s willingness to mediate bodes well for finding a solution, if you are also willing to give it a good try. Although your discussions thus far may not have been productive, the presence of a mediator, so that it is a facilitated discussion, usually makes a big difference. Mediation tends to be less adversarial than arbitration. Thus it is often possible for a win/win result. Since it is usually the step before arbitration in the dispute resolution process, arbitration remains an option if mediation were to be unsuccessful. Please feel free to contact Ryan or me if you wish to discuss this further. Sunray (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to John Carter
- John, you say "they both screwed up." This may well be the case, but I think that is difficult to arbitrate. Relative power is at the heart of actions taken by both Bishonen and Jimbo. There may be objective "right" and "wrong" in each case, however, it seems important to first a) reconcile these two members of our community and b) clarify how policy should be interpreted in each case. The first part can be mediated. The second is a community-wide negotiation. I can think of no better way to approach that than to have the parties come to an agreement and then present that agreement in an RfC. If there are issues that have to be arbitrated that can come later. Sunray (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved SB_Johnny
I'm a bit hesitant to speak up here, but I've been watching this with serious disappointment for several weeks now, and really think this case should be accepted. Jimmy's approach to this has been highly uneven, in that he has more or less been trying to control the remedy while at the same time being one of the parties to the dispute (for example, removing any third POV comments from his own talk page). He's also made some statements to the effect that he wants to just talk this out between himself and Bishnonen, but there are two problems there: (1) the two of them don't seem to be able to stick to one discussion (talking past each other), and (2) it stopped being between the two of them when he employed an admin tool. That second point is what I've found so alarming about this, since blockings are done by admins both on the behalf of and according to the policies of the community.
I'm generally pretty happy to have Jimmy as out spokesman, ambassador, and "enlightened despot" (the "god-king" moniker is a rather insulting way to refer to him and should really be dropped, IMO). I think it's only natural, OTOH, that when it comes to internal affairs -- especially when acting as a sysop -- he should be approached as an equal among equals. The issue here would be minor if he had simply responded to criticism (and perhaps even apologized) in the manner any admin would be expected to do, but he didn't. This issue needs closure: there's nothing to lose by closing it, and the lack of closure looks to me like a ticking time bomb. The considered opinion of this committee is needed to bring things back into balance. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Ottava Rima
The block was necessary not only to make it clear that the behavior was unacceptable to one individual but to the whole community. People can state whatever they want, but this is a classic Sword of Damocles situation. Jimbo, with his experience, knew that there would be such fallout. If he didn't think it was necessary, he could ignore everything, stay on some other project, etc. He chose not to. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved User Iceflow
Right. I believe that the ArbCom should accept this case, but purely to review Jimbo's continued blocking privileges and Daedalus's comments which initially started this whole shebang.
Daedalus was wrong to add the retired template to Giano's page. I had that very thing made clear to me about 6 months after joining Wikipedia.
I added a retired tag to someone's page, where they stated they were not coming back, and was clearly told it is their choice if they wish to mark themselves as having formally retired, not yours!.
The initial remarks about "Don't decide what is and is not my business" were incivil. Bishonen reacted like she did, I believe, because of some form of pressure. While her comments were incivil, and did amount to a personal attack, I believe it was a mistake. How many of you have honestly wished on here, that you could say what you were thinking? Be honest... I'd say about 90% of you.
I see Bishonen's actions as defensive, and under pressure.
I also believe Jimbo's continued blocking privileges should be reviewed, as stated above. He did not go through an RfA, and as such, should not be making admin blocks unless he absolutely knows what he's doing. He rarely uses admin functions, and as such, I feel, does not use those functions to best effect and with knowledge of current procedures and best practice.
In short, I feel that this RfAR is reasonable and should be considered. It is also my opinion that Bishonen's block log should be amended or wiped.
Thor Malmjursson (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved John Carter
This case is a truly unfortunate one. We have, basiclly, an administrator linguistically misbehaving, and another administrator coming in to sanction that misbehavior, possibly in a legal manner, even if it is a rather strict interpretation of policy. We then have the first party saying it was an unfair block. Yep, they both screwed up, but let's let him who is without sin cast the first stone here. I've got a big pile of them over here waiting for one of you infallible types to pick them up. Please note I haven't touched one here myself.
I personally believe the case should be taken, although probably not for the most obvious reasons. One, there is a good question as to what are and are not in practice sufficient grounds for a civility block, and what circumstances do and do not impact those grounds. I know ArbCom can't write policy, but it can perhaps more clearly set some standards as to what are and are not sufficiently "bad" blocks to merit their intervention one way or another. Also, there is the question of Jimbo's adminship and ability to use the tools. I have real trouble seeing this person lose as RfA, were he to choose to run, and I do note that he has said that he would not use them in the near future. But some sort of clear, even if unbinding, statement about whether he should continue to have admin rights here would be a good one. ArbCom itself might not be able to make that determination, but they could, if they saw fit, indicate that they think Jimbo should seek adminship through normal channels, and maybe study policy a bit more clearly. They have changed over time, and Jimbo might not have been able to keep up with all the changes. He wouldn't be the only one.
These issues are real ones, even if not the most superficially important aspects of the case, and I think would be sufficient grounds to proceed with this matter. Thank you for your time. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved SilkTork
Daedalus was unwise in the action of tagging Giano's talkpage -[50]. Bishonen's response was inappropriate - [51], but I understand that such incivility is out of character. Jimbo's blocking [52] with the reason "Incivility unbecoming an admin" has been questioned. The block appeared to be the result of this ANI thread, in which Jimbo made the comment that the incident and the block was a "direct consequence of our having been too tolerant, for too long, of toxic personalities". The blocking was questioned by some, though others felt that Bishoven's behaviour was unacceptable to the community. The block, in fairness, can be seen as an attempt by Jimbo to make a statement about user conduct, and especially the conduct of those who have been granted special privileges. Though, also, the block stepped up the drama of the incident rather than adequately deal with it. Bishoven and Jimbo then engaged in a discussion on the block and the implications of the block - User talk:Bishonen/block discussion. Jimbo's main argument that he wishes to improve behaviour across Wikipedia in order to create a more positive and welcoming working atmosphere. Bishoven's main argument being that Jimbo's pattern of blocking is out of policy, is out of touch with the community, is inflammatory, and that he needs to re-examine it. Jimbo agreed to reflect on Bishoven's comments, to be more careful in future, and to impose a 6 month blocking restriction on himself in order to cool matters down. In the meantime a civility poll, influenced by the incident, was started. The trend of the poll is that people feel that the current civility policy is not strong enough, and is not being enforced consistently. A casual reading of this would be that the community would welcome some attempt to reduce tolerance of general toxic behaviour. Not to say that the community would necessarily be generally supportive of Jimbo's block for Bishoven's emotional reaction. People do make isolated errors. However, the general principle appears to be that the community would like more effort to be made in reducing incivility. Then Bishoven requests an ArbCom case be opened on Jimbo's block of her. Opinion is divided on should ArbCom take the case before mediation has taken place. Ryan Postlethwaite requests mediation - Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bishonen-Jimbo Wales. Jimbo agrees. Bishonen declines. The request is closed. This incident has raised the issues of civility, tolerance toward toxic behaviour, blocking patterns, power struggles, and the individual ego v the community. Interesting questions. Also to be added is the importance of communication and wiliness to discuss and negotiate. And, finally, the negative consequence of creating drama. Questions regarding civil behaviour are at the heart of the ArbCom's role, as are questions regarding appropriate blocks for behaviour, and creating disruptive drama. So at the heart of this ArbCom request are issues central to ArbCom's role. However, if there are signs that those issues are already being dealt with by the community, then it might be better for ArbCom to allow the community to deal with this themselves, and to diminish the potential for more drama by not accepting this case. SilkTork *YES! 10:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- In short. ArbCom should decline this request because 1) Jimbo has stated that he will reflect on his blocking, and will impose a six month ban on himself, so there is nothing for ArbCom to do in that direction. 2) The community is looking into the civility policy; individual members of ArbCom may get involved in that discussion, though the committee as a whole over-riding that discussion by starting one here (which will be conducted mainly in secret) would be divisive. 3) It would escalate the drama of this incident rather than calm it. 4) It may do more harm than good to Bishoven, who is clearly still hurting from Jimbo's block and may not be acting in her own best interests. SilkTork *YES! 11:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved Jayen466
Drama. Not befitting our purpose. Everyone snap out of it and go home. Let's not drag it out even longer, the worst that can happen is that The Register will have to go without a Wikipedia story for a month. Please. JN466 23:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Will Beback
User:Bishzilla is an alternate account of user:Bishonen, however there is no disclosure of the connection. (I realize that disclosure has been made in the past, but the user page containing that disclosure has been deleted, meaning that new users have no easy way of connecting the accounts.) The account has been controversial and has not furthered the goals of this project. Its use is inconsistent with the WP:SOCK policy and the basic principle of "one editor, one account." If the ArbCom takes up this case I request that it address this issue. Will Beback talk 19:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- PMAnderson's remarks below seem odd to me. This grows out of a thread at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#Highly restrictive policy on second accounts?. He suggested that I post a comment here.[53] I don't see how asserting that undisclosed alternate accounts are inappropriate would make me a party to this case, or why it would call my judgment into question. Will Beback talk 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Per this edit,[54], Bishonen has restored the disclosure statement to Bishzilla. So I withdraw this request and thank Bishonen for quickly resolving it. My request here was prompted by PMAnderson's repeated assertions that this was the proper venue to address the issue of undisclosed alternate accounts. In light of the recent Geogre matter, it appears clearer than ever that undisclosed alternate accounts are ultimately harmful to the project. However that disussion is better held at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Will Beback talk 20:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Septentrionalis
I regret having inspired, to any degree, the previous comment. Is there anyone who has seen Bishzilla who doubts its connection with Bishonen?
Will Beback is engaged in some sort of personal feud with Bishonen and her alter egos. He has also suggested that this edit:
- Oh, Mr Chillum, that was such a brave action. Are you per chance one of the Cheshire Chillums (we may be related)? Please do try to understand that people like myself enjoy a little harmless joie de vivre now and then. Now, do excuse me I must find Monsieur Roux, I'm sure he was once the sous-pastry chef at Scrotum Towers in the happy days before the war. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
discusses policy. If ArbCom accepts his suggestion, which I do not recommend, he should be added as a party and -at a minimum- admonished; I certainly have no confidence in his judgment or discretion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Asking for sanctions against a party (and cutting off Bishzilla is a fairly severe one) should make Will Beback a party; asking for them on patently invalid grounds should result in penalties. I have changed my mind; he should be included, his suggestion rejected publicly, and enough said to discourage this incursion of Wikipedians who would like to be Teacher and make every volunteer at Wikipedia do exactly what Teacher likes.
- I continue to intensely dislike the provision Will is asking ArbCom to enforce here; but I have requested it be amended elsewhere. Better to solve the problem than shoot the messenger. 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
On the same grounds, I hope ArbCom will review any settlement between Bish and Jimbo; Jimbo really cannot be both constitutional monarch and a party figure simultaneously - giving Jimbo an alt account as an admin (which neither side admits to) would in fact be one reasonable solution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- Recuse. Daniel (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming no arbs issue a decline to hear or unless I hear further, I think a case will open at the earliest at ~09:55, 23 July 2009 if my math is right. Granted that is 5AM my time, so that would be the earliest any clerk would open it. If I'm the opening clerk, it will probably be a bit later in the day. If the arbs do intend to define a scope of the case, could they let the clerks know somehow in advance so we can start patrolling the evidence and workshop pages from the get go? Lastly, I noticed an arb mentioned the behavior of Daedalus969 as something at issue, yet he is not listed as a party. Should he be added? MBisanz talk 12:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not open this case without an explicit go-ahead from an arbitrator; acceptance depends on the results of further attempts to mediate the dispute without ArbCom intervention. — Coren (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, holding pending instructions. MBisanz talk 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I can open the case if MBisanz is unavailable. AGK 21:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Case is no longer net four to accept. I suspended my acceptance for 24 hours, giving the parties one last chance to see what they can come up with. That also gives time for other arbitrators to make up their minds or opine here if they have not yet done so. Carcharoth (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I can open the case if MBisanz is unavailable. AGK 21:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, holding pending instructions. MBisanz talk 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not open this case without an explicit go-ahead from an arbitrator; acceptance depends on the results of further attempts to mediate the dispute without ArbCom intervention. — Coren (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Second point, the name "Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen" would work as a case name, but it is a bit long and the apostrophe can be annoying to remember, I think a name like like "Jimbo Wales-Bishonen" would better define it and fit the usual system, unless the arbs have a different preference. MBisanz talk 12:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- just wondering what the status of this case is? Privatemusings (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)no surer way to encourage a clerk out of their staff room than to post in their section!
- Please refer to the guide for the case status procedures. Assuming nothing changes (or that I haven't missed some vital conditional arb vote), the case will be archived sometime soon after 17:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC). MBisanz talk 12:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, Roger's vote just changed it, so now it will open as a case 24 hours after his vote, assuming nothing else happens. MBisanz talk 14:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Changed yet another time, so back to waiting for another couple days. MBisanz talk 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/3/0/2)
- Comment. I've had private correspondence with both Bishonen and Jimbo about the matter, so if one or both parties requests it, I will recuse. Otherwise, I won't recuse because I don't think that my discussion with either of them has caused me to prejudge the situation differently than others that have read their on site discussion. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Tentative decline. Premature as there are ongoing discussions that might resolve the situation. Jimbo's public offer to voluntarily stop using his block tool addresses one of the concerns raised by Bishonen and others in their statements. As well, a note for the block log can be worked out without a case. I'm still considering if there are other issues outside of those that will be best resolved in a case rather than through discussion. But so far, I think not. Several RFC's and discussions about Jimbo's status are open now so those need to run their course before any action should be taken in regard to changes in his role on Wikipedia other than voluntary changes made by Jimbo. And I don't think a case is the best venue to discuss his general role on Wikipedia unless we want 100's of people commenting on the case pages. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment, Jimbo and many of the arbitrators are participating in the WP:DRAMAOUT, which will mean that this request wont have much traction until after it ends. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Accept; I understand the desire to settle this via other venues, but the fact of the matter is that the request is based around allegation of misuse of administrative tools and a number of behavioral incidents surrounding that use of tools. The matter has been festering for many weeks, now, and the amount of acrimony, disputes and drama surrounding it shows little sign of abating anytime soon. Closure is needed, and I don't believe that can be achieved without a formal decision from ArbCom. — Coren (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Question: what kind of remedy do you want ArbCom to provide? It seems very unlikely we would desysop Jimmy unless there's a secret wheel war you're not telling us about. It looks like a marginal three-hour block from months ago. Jimbo has already offered to not block any user for six months. Are you asking us to decide whether "toxic personality" is somehow worse than "little shit"? That seems like an enormous waste of time to me. What relief do you want from ArbCom? Cool Hand Luke 18:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Decline for now. If this is framed as a narrow case about this incident, it's not worth taking. Jimbo and Bishonen might be admonished, and we might be able to close it quickly, but it's just not worth the bother. Moreover, Wikipedians might believe that we're dodging the issue of Jimbo's role.
So why not a broad case examining Jimbo's entire history within the community (and perhaps Bishonen as well)? Well, it would be a prolonged three-ring circus. I don't think the committee should be in the business of lion taming and tightrope walking over issues of fundamental importance to the entire community.
Therefore, I would instead prefer to use this momentum so that the community can negotiate with Jimbo Wales. We could iron out his position on blocking, desysoping, checkuser, and appointing arbitrators—perhaps as a package deal. RFCs and/or ad hoc mediation (between Bishonen and others) might be in order, but I would only resort to arbitration if Jimbo refuses to deal. So far, the results look encouraging. Cool Hand Luke 13:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Decline for now. If this is framed as a narrow case about this incident, it's not worth taking. Jimbo and Bishonen might be admonished, and we might be able to close it quickly, but it's just not worth the bother. Moreover, Wikipedians might believe that we're dodging the issue of Jimbo's role.
- Comment: I find myself in something of the same boat as FloNight; I've discussed the case somewhat with Bishonen, and from correspondence I certainly know Jimbo's views. I see no reason that I could not be impartial in this case, and will participate unless requested otherwise promptly by one of the parties. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Updated comment: My current thinking is to try to resolve this via a motion; I think we are all not as far apart at this point as some people think. But I now see that Bishonen is travelling, so there may be a timing issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment:I'm with Cool Hand Luke on this one. I'm having trouble seeing an arbitrable issue that's worth the powder and shot. Roger Davies talk 19:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Decline for now:Looked at narrowly, this is about what is acceptable within the broad spectrum of incivility and the broad spectrum of admin discretion in blocking. Better, less drama-fraught, cases will come along to resolve those issues. Taking a case to decide the wording for a block log statement strikes me not only a colossal waste of time but also a wonderful opportunity for axe-grinders of all persuasions; this does not strike me as being in the best interests of the encyclopedia, where part of ArbCom's role is to calm dispute not fuel it.Otherwise, much of the drama in this case arises out of the tensions that exist between Jimmy's "constitutional" role and his role as the holder (and occasional user) of various special permissions. These can be resolved, as Cool Hand Luke notes, in ongoing negotiations and I am declining this for now to enable those negotiations to continue. Roger Davies talk 11:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- HOLD
Accept: ThoughAs this is probably best dealt with by motion. Roger Davies talk 14:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Accept; There are many issues here, some not in Arbcom's remit. If Jimbo were Joe Admin and Bish were Jane User, this would be an obvious "decline", but it's not such a case. Several issues of these have been festering within the community for a long time, including but not limited to, 1) what is/isn't incivil and how should incivility be handled, 2) what is Jimbo's role in Wikipedia and what authority should he have, 3) what state is the community atmosphere and how does it affect user/admin conduct, and 4) what is the standard for user and admin conduct? Plus 5) what was improper with the behavior of Daedalus969, Jimbo, and Bishonen in this case? 6) How to apply admin actions by different admins more consistently. Jimbo says he used "toxic personality" to refer to the current community atmosphere, but I can see why Bishonen took it personally. Regardless of what any of us may think is or isn't incivil, this case is a shining star of the negative effect of incivility. Incivilty is rarely, if ever, the best way to handle something; as it invariably causes more drama. There is almost always a better way to handle something than being incivil. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that different people have different ideas of what is incivil. Occasional lapses can be easily understood, especially minor ones. Patterns are much more problematic. Warnings are good. Was this block within the civility policy? Perhaps, but no warning makes it problematic. Was Bishonen's use a scatalogical term of profanity acceptable? No, and certainly not from an admin. The role of Jimbo in Wikipedia is not in arbcom's remit and I suggest a RFC or Centralized Discussion about it (yes I know there was one but a new one won't hurt). Some of the people commenting here have asked for guidance on civility and admin standards and I think we can provide that. Admin conduct is certainly in arbcom's remit. The effect of community atmosphere is something we all should consider. The behavior of Daedalus969, Jimbo, and Bishonen should be looked at. Jimbo has asked for mediation but their remit is content, not user and admin conduct. Off the top of my head I can not think of such a case that medcom accepted and I feel that is unlikely here and today. Therefore, I vote to accept this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Clarify CBM makes some good points. To clarify re Jimbo, while I don't think Arbcom has remit over Jimbo's over role as GodKing (which is only on en wiki, prob because it's his native language), I do think it has remit over his use of admin tools, appeals, etc. Arbcom has remit over his userrights at enwiki (including the local founder flag), but the GodKing role is an informal social role that Arbcom can't control anymore than it can control the reasons behind user comments at RFA. H global Founder role is board-defined and doesn't actually have anything to do with enwiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Accept suspending acceptance for 24 hours Carcharoth (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC) - and now reactivating my acceptance. Carcharoth (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC) (unless RfCs or further mediation takes place). There are issues that need airing here that won't go away. However, if the scope is expanded to include past block actions by Jimbo, then there is an argument that the scope could also be expanded to include past actions by Bishonen (or others) that may have led Jimbo to decide that action was needed here. That would be very messy. In other words, the question of the single three-hour block here does not warrant an arbitration case, but the underlying dispute may do. One step I would like to have seen before this reached arbitration was a request for comment or other public discussion on the specific matters of: (a) Bishonen's past conduct; and (b) Jimbo's block actions over the years. If the community could give their opinions on those two matters at two separate requests for comments, that might be one last step that could be taken. If someone can indicate that specific community discussions on this have already taken place (there have been discussions of Jimbo's role, but whether these have specifically focused on his use of blocks, I'm not sure), that would help. I'll also note here that since drafting this statement earlier, other comments have been made and I find myself agreeing with what Rlevse wrote above, but also with what CBM wrote as well, so this is not an entirely set-in-stone accept. Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Suspending my acceptance for 24 hours, based on observing e-mail correspondence between the two parties. In my opinion, they need to sort out a joint statement acceptable to both, or find a mediator they can both accept - it is possible that a mediated private discussion will make better progress than the previous public discussion, or a public spectacle, which is what a case is likely to be. I would also vote for a suspension of this request if either party asks for an extension with reasonable cause. However, if no further movement or progress is made, then I'll switch back to accepting the request. Both parties need to try one final time to sort something out and pull back from the brink here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Extending my suspension (of my acceptance of the case) since the editor who filed the request has gone on vacation. This leaves this request hanging in limbo somewhat, as it may end up rejected, but equally a case cannot be opened in the absence of one of the parties, nor can motions be enacted (though they could be posted and discussed). I would suggest that everyone just wait and sees what happens. There are other things that can be done while we are waiting, and this request can wait until it is clearer whether the differences between the parties are truly irreconcilable. If Bishonen is not back after a week, I will switch to reject without prejudice to refiling the request at a later date. Carcharoth (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since Bishonen has said she is available, and I've heard nothing further about any formal mediation, in private or public, being started or accepted by the parties, then switching back to acceptance of a case. Carcharoth (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Extending my suspension (of my acceptance of the case) since the editor who filed the request has gone on vacation. This leaves this request hanging in limbo somewhat, as it may end up rejected, but equally a case cannot be opened in the absence of one of the parties, nor can motions be enacted (though they could be posted and discussed). I would suggest that everyone just wait and sees what happens. There are other things that can be done while we are waiting, and this request can wait until it is clearer whether the differences between the parties are truly irreconcilable. If Bishonen is not back after a week, I will switch to reject without prejudice to refiling the request at a later date. Carcharoth (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Suspending my acceptance for 24 hours, based on observing e-mail correspondence between the two parties. In my opinion, they need to sort out a joint statement acceptable to both, or find a mediator they can both accept - it is possible that a mediated private discussion will make better progress than the previous public discussion, or a public spectacle, which is what a case is likely to be. I would also vote for a suspension of this request if either party asks for an extension with reasonable cause. However, if no further movement or progress is made, then I'll switch back to accepting the request. Both parties need to try one final time to sort something out and pull back from the brink here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Accept unless some mediation is successful in the meantime. To me, this is has issues WRT dispute resolution and admin conduct (especially how involved is "involved") worth reviewing. I do hope there is some resolution otherwise which will remove the need for this, but I doubt it at this point (unless it has already happened??). Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Accept. I can't see mediation working here, a case is probably what has to be done. Wizardman 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Accept -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- HOLD - for further consideration of means of resolving this short of a full case. Risker (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hold from me too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Motion
- With fourteen active arbitrators on this case, eight is a majority.
- [Placeholder for text of imminent motion]
- Support
-
- Oppose
-
- Abstain
-