| Revision as of 17:00, 20 July 2009 view sourceBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,276 edits →Requests for arbitration: Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,350 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
| ⚫ | <noinclude>{{ |
||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| ⚫ | <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | ||
| ===Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen=== | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| '''Initiated by''' ] | ] 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC). | |||
| ⚫ | <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | ||
| Involved parties | |||
| * {{admin|Bishonen}}, filing party | |||
| * {{admin|Jimbo Wales}} | |||
| (Could clerks please fix this up if there's a special admin/founder template for Jimbo?) | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried | |||
| * ''']''', a discussion/mediation between the parties, requested by John Vandenberg | |||
| ====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) Misplaced Pages, which distressed me. | |||
| I had disagreed with ] on an ANI matter, as had many other people, see comment by . 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. Daedalus posted in response:''You do not decide what is and what is not my business. Misplaced Pages 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.'' I responded ''Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo!'' 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 ]'' . 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.'' | |||
| (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 ] 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 ]); and incidents never cease to be brought up, that would be long forgotten by the community if they didn't involve Jimbo Wales. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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.'''' | |||
| 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:.). 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 Misplaced Pages 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. | |||
| ] | ] 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC). | |||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.