This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Risker (talk | contribs) at 22:51, 27 July 2009 (→Statement by {Party 3}: Statement by Risker). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Geogre and Risker

Initiated by Durova at 02:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Risker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Current arbitrators asking for formal request

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 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. Durova 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. Durova 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. Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield. Durova 18:04, 25 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. Giano (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. Giano (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? --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. 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. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 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. Nathan 16:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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 here and here. Nathan 17:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages, and is directly related to my disclosed 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 my RFA for those who wish to analyse further. Risker (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/5/1/3)

• Request. "She denied that they were the same." Could we have a diff for that assertion please? John Vandenberg 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. John Vandenberg 07:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'd like to see that diff too. Awaiting more input. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Durova: RE 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. — Rlevse • Talk • 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."? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Accept (to examine actions of Geogre and Utgard Loki) - 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 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. Carcharoth (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Leaning Decline Accept - Carch sums it up well - we did say this lacked for a requester. Overriding issue is admin socking, which has been now dealt with by desysop motion, now passing. Casliber (talk · 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, Carcharth, 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. 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 Durova RfAr, as that has potential for being underplayed/exploited. Tying up loose ends and so forth ...  Roger Davies 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.

    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. Roger Davies 16:58, 26 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. -- FayssalF - 06:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• 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. — Coren  14:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Decline, now that the Geogre desysop motion is passing we don't really need to open a full case. Wizardman 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). --bainer (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• 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). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline. 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 vull 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 this 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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 27 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) Misplaced Pages, which distressed me.

I had disagreed with User:Daedalus969 on an ANI matter, 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. 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 WP:NPA . 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 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. 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 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. 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).

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:

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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. 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" ()

  Jimmy's reply:

• The initial deal to lay down the block button for 6 months:

  then recast as unilateral:

• A chat I had with Jimmy about this:
• Jimmy's RfA: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Jimbo Wales — never happened

added 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A comment by Jimmy, 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

1. Make a note on Bishonen's block log to disregard the block.
2. State that Bishonen is not a toxic personality.
3. Warn the admin corps that cussing at users will not be tolerated, and suggest state what the penalty should will be 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 13:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be equally or more beneficial for ArbCom to take the above steps. Jehochman 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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. Misplaced Pages: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 .

Finally: the inappropriate edit that led to the block was not an isolated incident. Compare these two edits (and edit summary) from a week before the block: . — 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.

1. 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.
2. The block was a "cool off block." We all know that cool off blocks are not allowable.
3. After the block, Jimbo refused to discuss the matter with other administrators. Several people tried to engage Jimbo on Misplaced Pages, 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,

1. 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.
2. "Civility" has no more of a meaning than "polite," and, for many, seems to imply the same thing.
3. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Postlethwaite 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Bishonen-Jimbo Wales. We're currently waiting for the parties to decide whether or not to agree to mediation. Ryan Postlethwaite 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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."

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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 |  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 Misplaced Pages.

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)

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 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  12:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, holding pending instructions. MBisanz 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)
• 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 12:33, 22 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 Misplaced Pages other than voluntary changes made by Jimbo. And I don't think a case is the best venue to discuss his general role on Misplaced Pages 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 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  16:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

  To make things clear, I move to accept the case if no other method of resolution can be found. If the parties agree to a way forward that doesn't need to involve ArbCom, then we shouldn't simply barge in. — Coren  10:14, 22 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)
• 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 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 11:11, 25 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
• 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 - 06:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)