Revision as of 03:51, 15 November 2009

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

Case Opened on 23:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This case is currently open; as such, no changes to this page should be made. Any additions should be reverted: if you have evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider, post it at the evidence page.

Please do not edit this page directly, unless you are 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

• Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• RegentsPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

Statement by Ottava Rima

I am appealing my editing restriction via what Carcharoth has described. I am appealing on the grounds of inappropriate actions in the closing and determining of these. 13:09, 25 September 2009, User:Jehochman adds my name to the editing restriction list.

He cites this discussion in which he is involved. He does not cite the full discussion as seen here, which reveals that three people opposed it NuclearWarfare, Durova, and ChildofMidnight express direct statements that it was out of process and only two expressed direct support. There was no consensus to allow it.

After Jehochman started telling people that I was under restrictions, it was revealed that he put them up himself. This thread was started because of 1. lack of consensus on the matter and 2. he did not follow as what Carcharoth earlier states was part of the editing restriction: "could we have some discussion of whether the person logging the restriction here could be the person (hopefully an 'uninvolved' admin) that both assesses consensus at the community discussion, closes that discussion, and records the restriction at a user subpage (if needed) and on the user's talk page?". Not only was there no assessment of consensus, there wasn't even a true proposal.

I asked on the talk page for it to be closed. Ncmvocalist said it was not an appropriate forum, even though it was stated it was not supposed to be there and Jehochman even said "The list is a convenient index; nothing more. Any editor in good standing can fix what is written here if it is not correct." at Jehochman Talk 00:30, 17 August 2008 on that same page. Ncmvocalist knew this, but also knew that there was disputes at ANI and even made threats regarding it (". Again, would you like me to spell out what will happen if you continue to be disruptive by keeping this discussion here?" Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2009). I informed them that I asked Carcharoth to explain what he stated before at this thread. Before he could, an ANI discussion was opened.

RegentsPark closes the discussion as passing. He cites "22 supports, 8 opposes". He previous posted multiple times expressing opinions: , , , and . It was also pointed out on his talk page by myself that the actual tally was not 22 to 8 (73%) but 18 to 14 (53%). This is a far different gap than what he claimed existed.

I am asking that this sanction be lifted as out of process and that the actions of the two admin in determining their sanctions be investigated in their 1. involvement with the issue as a whole and 2. inappropriate use of determining consensus in such restrictions.

Statement by RegentsPark

I think it is fairly clear from the discussion that there is community consensus on some sort of civility restriction on Ottava rima even beyond the numbers counted in the !votes. A requirement that an editor be civil and assume good faith on the part of other editors is generally a good idea and enforcing that is not a bad idea if the editor has been uncivil in the past and, of the various suggestions thrown around in the discussion, this one is the least onerous and has the advantage of being a restriction that is already in place. In this case, I think I've correctly called consensus and suggest that if the editor continues to focus on content and attempts to be civil in his dealings with others, there should be nothing to worry about.

I have had very few interactions with Ottava rima himself, the most recent one being on the Byron talk page. While I was surprised at the tone and tenor of his statements in that discussion, at no point did I feel that it was necessary to take the matter further or consider a block or ban (Ottava expressed the desire to take it further but, since he did not, I assume he did not consider the matter particularly serious either). I do feel that rudeness is detrimental to the goals of a collaborative volunteer project and that is the only way in which I consider myself to be involved in this issue. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist has asked me to explain why I chose the original sanction over the alternative plan. The 'support difference' between the two was slight and the original plan was already in place and a great deal simpler. The alternative plan has clear support as well, but it is both more complicated as well as more punitive. Since there was clear consensus that there be some restrictions placed on Ottava, and since the original plan both has 'expressed support' and is as well the absolute minimum restriction that can be placed on an editor, I concluded that it has consensus support. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to questions from Ottava rima: I counted straight down, ignoring comments (unless they clearly stated a preference) in the Original thread section whereas your numbers include interpretations (for example, I would not have included the three editors who seem to be throwing up their hands at 'the whole mess' in the oppose section) across the entire thread. My views were expressed in purely general terms (I have nothing for or against you and, somewhat like you, feel that the community should either ban you or just agree to put up with you) so I see nothing wrong in my closing the thread. By 'previous dispute' I assume you refer to the Byron article naming dispute. I'm not sure why a purely content dispute, particularly a one-off thing that neither of us considered serious enough to take further, should preclude an editor from closing a thread of this sort. We would never get anything done if that were the case.

Regardless of the counting of 'votes', I would (if I were you and I do realize that I'm not you!) focus on the general opinion that your tone is less than civil. Civility is largely a social construct - what passes for polite conversation amongst a group of stevedores would scarcely pass muster at a gathering of the lords and ladies of the court - so one has to take cues on what is polite from other members of a particular society. You can see what sort of message you're getting. Durova reminds us (above) that there is a human being behind the virtual Ottava, and I urge you to bear in mind that the people you communicate with are also human, with the same need for a 'measure of dignity' that you have. (My apologies for this digression, which is doubtless both uncalled for as well as unwelcome, but I can assure you that I mean well.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/1/0/0)

• If this request to have a case opened, I decline. It is not onerous to be required to avoid edits which are uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. It is what everyone should be doing. Ottava has merely been put on notice. I would accept an appeal after a month or so of peaceful editing. John Vandenberg 10:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Accept to review all aspects of the matter, including the standards and procedures for imposing community sanctions as well as Ottava Rima's underlying conduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Change to hold temporarily in light of Ottava Rima's apparent wikibreak announcement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Return to accept since Ottava Rima has resumed editing, with scope of case as indicated above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Accept per Newyorkbrad. I don't think that declining the request will fix the situation in a way that provides long term resolution. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. As NYB and FloNight allude to, I don't think giving it to the community will move this any further than it has. Gotta be nipped in the bud. Wizardman 21:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Accept - the community handle this sort of thing poorly. ArbCom don't have a great record either (there are several other editors who make good content contributions but are abrasive when interacting with certain others, and are famed for so-called "special treatment"). However, it looks like it falls to us to try and resolve this. I would make an appeal to Ottava Rima to take a long hard look at your conduct and why it upsets people, and how that sits with your content contributions. I would also urge those who may have unnecessarily escalated some of these issues to ask themselves why they did so, as that may be noted in the case, and if a consistent pattern emerges over several cases of editors who feud with other editors, that will be just as damning. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Ottava, the point I was making is that LessHeard vanU's statement that he intended to block indefinitely swayed me to accept. Part of arbitration is deciding what course of action may be best for the encyclopedia. I don't think highly productive content contributors should be indefinitely blocked without other options being explored first. If an admin says they intend to block indefinitely and urge the case be accepted on that basis, then the situation has, in my opinion, escalated to the stage where ArbCom need to step in and resolve the dispute, to (as the phrase goes) "examine the conduct of all parties". My reference to unnecessary escalation was directed at LessHeard vanU's statement about indefinite blocks (since we obviously don't want a situation to develop where admins state their intention to indefinitely block in order to get cases accepted), and also some other comments made here, such as Moreschi's failure to take this seriously. Sandy, I will respond to your point on your talk page, if you don't mind me moving that point there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Accept - the issues here are long overdue for arbitration. Also per NYB. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Accept; this issue has been festering for some time, and the conduct of the parties needs to be examined. — Coren  23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Accept per the comments of my colleagues; whether or not Ottava Rima decides to participate in this case, it appears there are sufficient editors on all sides of this question to ensure that appropriate evidence is brought forward on the salient points. Risker (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. --bainer (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Findings of fact

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Enforcement

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• Misplaced Pages arbitration cases