Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:03, 11 September 2011

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

500 words is a strict limit?

Since this is my first (only? God willing) time at Arbcom, I just want to be sure that the 500 words is a strict limit. I'm at just over 700 (w/24 diffs) and can't figure out what to cut. If it's a strict limit, I'll find some way, but if it's more of a target, I'd rather stay up around my current number. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally some lattitude is allowed, though obviously within reasonable limits. Important points tend to get lost in overly verbose statements, so keep to the essential is my advice. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should define this "reasonable limit" then, because that sounds rather arbitrary. 600? 700? 1000? How about diffs? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer the use of discretionary. If you want a hard and fast limit, it is 500 words and 50 diffs. However, clerks are not going to start refactoring at 501 words as we are expected to use our judgement in these matters, especially if it means that essential evidence cannot be presented. If a statement appears excessive, then I'll drop a polite note on the party's talkpage and work with them to reduce it to within acceptable limits. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I had Alexandr Dmitri review my evidence prior to posting, and he felt it was acceptable in length, even though it's a little over 700 words. My apologies; I couldn't figure out a way to cut it shorter and still provide at least a minimal amount of context for all 4 people I wanted to comment about. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Late submission

Unfortunately, a situation has come up in the family and I will be unavailable for the next few days. I knew about it earlier, but the timing keeps changing (funeral for a highly unexpected death... planning it has been off-the-cuff). As such, I'm not going to be able to present any evidence at this time.

However, I would really appreciate if ArbCom could grant me a few days extension.

If not, I will have access to my mobile phone and network, so I will be able to prepare a very short statement, but it probably won't have any diffs. I don't know if ArbCom accepts those or not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries Magog. Whenever you're back, could you let us know and we'll work out whether it is still feasible for you to collate diffs and submit evidence. It shouldnt be a problem for you to add evidence in the next week or a bit longer. Take care, John Vandenberg 13:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As the second drafter, I agree with John Vandenberg. Real life comes first, especially in this circumstance, and a reasonable additional time will certainly be granted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Great! I will write up the draft today, given time availability; if not, then I'll get it tomorrow or Monday at the latest. But I don't expect it to go beyond tomorrow (I am not hugely busy tomorrow). Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your patience; I really just became crazy IRL busy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment from the Mediation Committee

On behalf of the Mediation Committee, I reaffirm our perpetual intention to prevent all communications during formal mediation from being used in subsequent arbitration proceedings, while not protecting "users who deliberately disrupt and subvert official dispute resolution" nor "allow its policies to be abused to protect bad-faith actions" (WP:MC/P#The privileged nature of mediation). With the other mediators, we have decided that, in relation to the proceedings of our Senkaku Islands case, to preserve the Privilege, there is no reason to blank and delete any pages other than the mediation case talk page and archives. Specifically, discussions between individual parties or between the mediator and a party, on user talk pages, will not be covered by the Privilege.

The Mediation Committee makes no statement about any claims of misconduct by the mediator who was assigned to the case, and we would view such an allegation are incorrect (and possibly frivolous). However, if the Arbitration Committee does pursue that line of enquiry, we will publish a relevant statement as formal Evidence (upon request to the MedCom mailing list). Lastly, if the arbitrators require any other information from the mediators, please contact us on the usual address.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 12:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Evidence presented by Magog the Ogre

May I make my such response here? If not, please let me know and I will remove it and put where it should be. It is a pain for me to have to make this response because I ever respected Magog the Ogre before, and some parts of Evidence presented by Magog are so incorrect but quite subtle that I have to respond.

• Re his "Background - my involvement": Who changed? Magog once was neutral as a neutral administrator for the page "Senkaku Islands dispute", but he has not been neutral any more since Qwyrxian returned from Q's "wiki topic break" on August 2, 2011 (UTC). Frankly, now he has behaved on the topic in question as if he did so for Qwyrxian. In Elen's talk page when discussing the case I was blocked but Tenmei was not, I said some odd might happen that made Magog changed . E.g. although user Bobthefish2 made some comment about him at other's talk page not appropriate/necessary , Magog didn't complain it nor criticized Bob that time. Magog and Bob had had benign talk exchanges between July 23 and July 30. But on 07:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC), 2 days after Qwyrxian's return, Magog suddenly started to blame Bob (here not meaning I agree on everything Bob did). Several hours later, on 16:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Tenmei made his edit violating the sanction applied by Magog (more detail as below). Contrast to how tough Magog blamed Tenmei when invoking IAR to apply this sanction and how tough Magog applied his sanction to block me on July 22, he did not respond my 4 reports until 31 hours later, and gave a soft treatment to Tenmei by declaring his decision that Tenmei did not violate his sanction. In his Evidence, Magog claimed that my attitude toward him or his action changed due to Bob's tactic . No, that is due to Magog's changes. When I said "confused and disappointed" (emphasis added) to his decision on Tenmei's violation, I politely expressed my opposition and disagreement.

• Re: his BRD sanction blocking me but not blocking Tenmei . A single/unitary standard shall be used for justice. Magog argued he did both correctly, against Elen's opinion that he did both wrong. Bottom line: he must have at least done one thing wrong but not both correct as I initially expressed in Elen's talk page when using either one of his BRD standards (as he has used two in fact: tough one and soft one). Had he used the very tough one that was for blocking me, for Tenmei's edit he should have blocked Tenmei swiftly too. Key point: in his subpage Magog said "3 days later, and with no intermediate edits, Tenmei made another edit. Tenmei didn't commit a BRD violation - ...". The fact: 3 days later the discussion was still ongoing because Qwyrxian had joined in as Tenmei's partner and I had to talk with Q first by following BRD's Talk with one or at most two partners at once. Also this "D" was exactly started by Tenmei after his "R", he should have had to include his version he actually did 3 days later in the "D" for discussing and waiting for the discussion fully finished and satisfied to see which version could be used for starting next "B". Tenmei broke the "D" as "D". Magog's tough standard did not allow "BRD" → "BRD", so Magog should have blocked Tenmei. Magog was wrong for not doing so. I had accepted his blocking me because trusted him to use this tough standard to every one, but he did not.

Had Magog used the very soft one by which he explained why Tenmei didn't break his BRD sanction, he should not have blocked me: with this soft standard John Smith's did not do an "R" (for not totally same as before nor indicating "R" in his edit summary, and adding a template asking RS) although he claimed, and I did not do an "R" either (for key words changed and RS added), here were only "B" → "B" → "B", no "R". So I was mistakenly blocked. As Tenmei cannot be retroactively blocked using the tough standard, the only possibility to correct this mistake is using the soft standard to correct the block on my account. The true consequence of using these double standards is Tenmei became bolder and bolder to break Magog's sanction and Magog still refused to recognize his violation when I reported until Qwyrxian asked Magog to protect the page and started this RfAr . --Lvhis (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• In case you didn't see his subpage User:Magog_the_Ogre/Senkaku_Arbitration_-_BRD_instance, Magog circumvented the word/diff limit by stashing content there.

What I find disturbing is that he totally twisted our words, went on a tirade, and then suggested a block over all this (especially when he advocated a 1 year block for you). To be honest, I've never said you did not deserve that BRD block and I don't think you ever really tried to make a case about that after your unblock appeal. To my understanding, we were both just pushing for a uniform standard of law enforcement.

Admins with this kind of ethic is just meh... --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just like all your personal attacks aren't direct, no, you just managed to imply it, and never disabused your ally Lvhis of the notion when he brought it up in the very conversations in which you were taking part (instead, just repeating and repeating and repeating your grievances against myself and Q) see. Yawn. If you want to change your evidence or create your own subpage to counter my claims, feel free. But I trust naturally that you will continue to wikilawyer and find an excuse to accuse me, rather than actually address the substance, as is your style, not the least of which reason is that you know that my version of events is entirely correct and your trolling has been exposed for what it is. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That's some BATTLEGROUND and ABF there, Magog. I don't think I wiki-lawyered, as I was really just commenting on facts and a substantiated observation of abuse. I am sorry you consider my inquiry into your actions as trolling. If you actually stop wearing your coloured lens, much of what I wrote to you during that dispute was genuinely polite (including the smilies you complained about). And also, you really were my favourite admin because I thought you had a funny badass attitude that I considered to be cool. But unfortunately, that attitude turned out not to be backed up with humility and sound judgement. Looking back, you could've diffused the situation if you acknowledged your mistake and blocked Tenmei.

By the way, I would like to reiterate again that I've never ever said Lvhis did not deserve his BRD-induced block. If you felt I implied it because I assisted him in critiquing your stubbornly incorrect assessment on Tenmei's misconduct, then you might as well complain that I also implied that everyone here eats babies. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A small correction to the above. Lvhis states " until Qwyrxian asked Magog to protect the page" with a link; actually, if you read the link, I asked Magog to block Tenmei, not protect the page. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand something?

At this point, I still recommend a block of Tenmei (probably 24 hours, to match the block of Lvhis; alternatively, 48 hours, if you think it should escalate across the dispute rather than per person), and I recommend fully protecting the page, since multiple users have shown themselves unable to either understand or abide by the principle you advanced... -- Qwyrxian

--Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you're right; I'm getting old and/or tired and/or foolish--I didn't remember requesting the page lock, only the blocking of Tenmei, and so when I read that sentence on the link, I didn't keep reading to the end of my section. I guess my main point was that I didn't request a protection in lieu of blocking--I thought then and think now that Magog should have blocked Tenmei, which, in fact, Magog also said. I've struck out my comment above. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)