.
![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Amortias ( Talk) & Ks0stm ( Talk) & Lankiveil ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: GorillaWarfare ( Talk) & Kelapstick ( Talk) & Drmies ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
This is all I have to add to this, why isn't User:Banedon being cited for canvassing too? The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with OR that findings of fact as background are a Good Thing, even if they don't lead to sanctions, for the reasons they gave on the PD. If you feel you must have some follow-up note that he has already been admonished or whatever and no further action is needed at this time. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@ GorillaWarfare: Could you reword this proposal? It appears the drafting arbs were copyediting it and accidentally forgot to delete some of the words. Mike V • Talk 23:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
If the explicit scope of the case was behaviour after January 2016, why is prior activity from seven years ago listed? Step hen 02:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
AHeneen ( talk) 02:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused about the "George Ho topic banned" proposal. Besides DYK and ITN, will I be banned from also TFA, OTD, TFP, and TFL? And also Errors? What about editing articles featured on the Main Page? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Weird. The consensus passed the "topic ban" thing, but a lot of clarification in the alternative proposal leads to opposition on grounds of FA procedures. I am confused. George Ho ( talk) 22:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
How can I mention this case without mentioning... you-know-who? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Some of these remedies seem excessively heavyhanded and punitive, as well as wide of the mark. Why would TRM be desysopped over civility matters that don't involve use of admin tools? Why would GH be topic-banned from everything to do with the main page if he's only been problematic in one or possibly two processes that intersect the main page? This seems rather like desysopping someone for being too politically argumentative, or topic banning someone from all religion and spirituality articles because they were disruptive in edits about the finer points of Jainism. In both cases it seems like a failure to focus on the problems and tailor remedies to address them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Judging by some of the comments above, I think some of the contributors to this thread need to read, or re-read, WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT. Gatoclass ( talk) 08:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Some additional observations:
Predictably, the proposal as a whole wouldn't pass. However, why not separate the areas that he was working at? -- George Ho ( talk) 11:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I will be fine with me and TRM banned from interacting with and mentioning each other. However, what if TRM is desysopped and then requests to get his adminship back? What if I want to comment on his past adminship at the request page? -- George Ho ( talk) 11:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Can an objective definition of "insulting" and/or "belittling" be provided please. Of course, anything I may say or do in the future may be taken, out of context, as "insulting" or "belittling". Who is responsible for determining whether or not my future posts are "insulting"? E.g. if I said that "You seem to lack the competence to edit here, read the instructions.", would that be "insulting", or "belittling" or simply using Wikipedia's essays, guidelines, and direct information? The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I was able to recover Medeis' comments that were removed from the project page:
Having been a mere editor who requested an IBAN with TRM, this seems quite reasonable. The IBAN between us was eventually removed at TRM's request, but that seems to have had something to do with another arbcom or request for desysopping case. I am so very tired of this that I have no intention of looking for the diffs, as I am sure they have been posted to and deleted from TRM's talk page.
-- Medeis ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll mention that if TRM should be sanctioned re ITN and DYK, he will most likely revert to editing the Ref Desks and other locations where he has been found to be disruptive. I would recommend that he be restricted to editing articles only, and not policy or commentary pages.
-- Medeis ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
There you go. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Several of the proposed remedies use the phrase "processes related to determining main page content". How will this work in regards to sections dealing with featured content? Will the prohibition be limited to the portions of the featured content processes that select and display information on the Main page (e.g. WP:TFA, WP:TFL, and WP:POTD) or will this extend to the portions of the processes that determine what content is qualified to be recognized as featured content? Another way to ask this is "does the phrase cover pages such as WP:FAC, WP:FLC, WP:FPC, and their related subpages?" -- Allen3 talk 23:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The first line of WP:ADMINACCT reads "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." What a joke. Looking at the voting now, that line should be removed, WP:ADMINCOND should have the line "Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)" removed and the line in WP:CIVILITY "Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia" should have a little note added saying "Doesn't apply to admins or great content creators". jcc ( tea and biscuits) 09:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors … [if] The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blockedis currently passing 6–0? ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Generally no comment on the proposed decision - after all I can't be more involved and everything I see is through a pair of very biased eyes. I trust Arbcom to do something appropriate.
One question: I'd like to notify Flyer22 Reborn and Jimbo Wales about the case now: Flyer22 because she's cited in my initial statement, and Jimbo because people regularly complain about civility on his talk page. Can I do so? Banedon ( talk) 13:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The notice at the top of this page demands that anyone not of ArbCom/clerks post only in their section. That's routinely ignored, both in this case and many other cases. Every case this year has seen this instruction ignored in one or more sections of PD talk pages. I fail to see the necessity for the instruction, and frankly it makes discussion extremely broken and haphazard. Of course, the instructions on this page say its not for discussion, but statements. Why? That's rather pointless. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
To preface; I'm not suggesting we need a pound of flesh from anyone. In fact, I've stated exactly the opposite of that. The following has nothing directly to do with TRM, and everything to do with WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:5P4 juxtaposed with WP:ADMINACCT/ WP:ADMINCOND.
An administrator could (and has) openly declare(d) <insert editor> to be a dick, goon, ignoramus, dictator, pathetic, joke, lazy, incompetent, liar, less of a man, and coward.
Certain members of ArbCom are opposed to a desysopping because there's been no abuse of tools. Further, apparently, if one's conduct won't improve if you are desysopped, then you won't be desysopped. If the the only basis on which an administrator can be desysopped is (really) abuse of tools, then I agree; WP:ADMINACCT/ WP:ADMINCOND need to be changed to reflect that an administrator's conduct has no bearing on their position as an administrator. With this 'remedy' ArbCom is acknowledging that administrators are not expected to lead by example when it comes to civility, and just let them be uncivil and insulting since desysopping won't improve their behavior.
ArbCom can't write policy. They can ignore it (and often do), but they can't write it. It is up to us, the community, to rewrite WP:ADMINACCT/ WP:ADMINCOND to reflect the reality of the status quo; administrators are not to be held accountable for their conduct any more so than a non-administrator, and in fact have greater leeway in conduct than non-administrators. This of course won't happen. The result being the status quo will be maintained; If you're not an administrator, don't dare call anyone a dick or you will be blocked. If you are an administrator, it's ok.
I don't care if TRM's desysopped. I really don't. It has no direct bearing on me (I banned TRM from my talk page over a year ago, and we haven't interacted since), and I couldn't care less. What I do care about is the very serious civility problems we have on this project, and ArbCom's unwillingness to do anything about it when presented with gross misconduct both here and in other cases.
I wonder how long it would take for me to be blocked if I called a member of ArbCom a dick, goon, or dictator? Since I'm not an administrator, probably not long at all. The delicious hypocrisy here of course would be if someone warned me of WP:POINT disruption. ArbCom itself is disrupting this project by refusing to uphold one of our fundamental principles. They are tangibly creating an environment where administrators can do as they please with open impunity. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, you should check out the ACN archives; you'll see we get called dictators all the time. Nobody this year has been blocked for mocking arbs about arb stuff. (Don't listen to Drmies about the souls, though - we all gave them away when we got here, assuming we had them to start with. I sold mine off years ago....) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
In addition, "incivility" is far too squishy a concept, and has far too many competing definitions, to be "unbecoming" behavior on its own. Harassment, outing, chronic copyvio, abusive socking - those are serious misbehaviors that plausibly warrant a desysopping in the absence of tool misuse. The best response to ordinary assholery is a) ignore it, b) tell the asshole to knock it off, and if necessary c) block the asshole for a while. That's true regardless of what user rights someone's account holds. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
It is extremely rare that I would call out a particular member of ArbCom over any issue. OK, I've made this dumb joke so many times now that whoever currently owns the Star Trek franchise should be charging me licensing fees, but: We're not the Borg. Arbcom is made of (at the moment) 14 "particular members" with (at least) 14 different opinions on things. Drmies is right to object to the over-generalization; I'm not speaking for anyone but me, and if you disagree with something I said in the course of entering my own vote, then "arbcom as an institution" is hardly the right place to aim your criticism.
As for your other comments: you say arbcom should "cause a culture change" in relation to civility. I disagree. Arbcom's remit does not extend to "culture changes". I especially dislike the idea that specific individuals should be sanctioned in pour encourager les autres fashion, as avatars of some vaguely defined but undesirable "culture".
Also, on the case naming thing: I do kind of like the idea of numbered rather than named cases (but then, I'm a numbers person). However, I don't think you've made your case. If someone files a case request about Joe Bloggs, and arbcom accepts it and calls it "Joe Bloggs", that indicates a very high prior probability that Joe Bloggs is a problem. In order to demonstrate your "anchoring" hypothesis, you'd need to show that title parties are sanctioned in excess of that prior probability, not simply show that title parties are sanctioned more often than non-title parties. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I notice this afternoon The Rambling Man has deleted his user page per WP:CSD#U1 and blanked his user talk page. This suggests he's pretty much on the verge on quitting Wikipedia. I hope not, as we've lost too many prolific editors recently, not least Tim riley who never showed any signs of incivility at all. This has got to stop. I want all the arbs to take a long hard look at what GorillaWarfare in particular has said and wonder if all this editor attrition is really necessary? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Either civility is a pillar or it is not. One cannot demand that other users refrain from incivility and at the same time excuse it in administrators. TRM had plenty of opportunity to reform - indeed, I myself would not even have participated here had he not persisted in abusive commentary even as the case continued. That rang very loud alarm bells for me, as it strongly indicated that he lacked either the means or the will to moderate - and certainly, there hasn't been a word of contrition from TRM that I've seen during this case, or even an acknowledgement of a problem. If TRM feels so bad about losing the extra bit that he has to quit Wikipedia, maybe he should have given some more thought to his position before the arbs started voting. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection to the closing of this thread, but I do wish to register my objection to the reference to "grave dancing" made in the closing statement, which in my opinion is completely inappropriate and a clear breach of WP:AGF. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Nice job you guys. Today, a stellar admin has been desysopped and a prolific editor seems to have quit. He won't bother you anymore. But hey, at least we still got George Ho, even if two of you wanted him indeffed. Isa ( talk) 21:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The proposal that George Ho be topic banned from the main page states "He may request reconsideration of this ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter." What this means in practice is that, if the remedy was enacted on 10 October 2016, he could request the ban be lifted on 10 October 2017, 10 April 2018 and 10 October 2018, but not 11 October 2017 or any other intermediate day. Is this really your objective? Would it not be better to replace the sentence with "He may request reconsideration of this ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, or any time thereafter." Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I made a huge deal over a minor issue about commas. However, so did someone else, which started two days after I reported the same. But is that not relevant? Is this inadmissible? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not blame you for your decisions on me, Arbs. However, I requested another case about an unrelated editor. Would this conflict proposals about me in relations to this case? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Just wondering: why did you direct that George Ho (and George Ho only) be added as a party in this case? Banedon ( talk) 05:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
This case has been accepted and active for 33 days. Now, with probably no more than a day or two left on the case, the active arbitrator count for this case has changed. In this case it has caused no substantial change in that it doesn't change the number of votes to pass any element of the case; it went from 12 to 13, thus 7 is still a majority as it was before. However, if it had gone the other direction instead, from 12 to 11, it would change what is a majority vote.
I remember a case some time back where the counts kept going up and down and up and down. What was considered a majority kept changing. Follow the bouncing ball. Once a case is active, the active arbitrators should remain active, barring some incapability, and the inactive should remain so unless they are replacing an arbitrator who was previously active. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
TRM has just requested the removal of his admin access at the bureaucrat noticeboard. I think the desysop remedy will need an update. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@
GorillaWarfare: the revised motion now reads mostly like a finding of fact (which is what it now mostly is). I think for total clarity it would be better to move/copy all but the final sentence to a finding of fact (maybe adding a permalink to the BN request) and make a new remedy along the lines of "The Rambling Man's resignation of his adminship is to be regarded as being 'under a cloud'. Consequently, he may regain the tools only following a successful RFA.".
Yes, this is a bit bureaucratic, but I think it will make it absolutely clear to anyone reading this down the line who wasn't following the case as it progressed, exactly what has happened and what the consequences of that are. As it stands, without the context those who are reading this page while the case is open have, it is pretty confusing to see a finding of fact masquerade as a remedy without an associated paragraph in the fining of fact section.
Thryduulf (
talk)
22:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
.
![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Amortias ( Talk) & Ks0stm ( Talk) & Lankiveil ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: GorillaWarfare ( Talk) & Kelapstick ( Talk) & Drmies ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
This is all I have to add to this, why isn't User:Banedon being cited for canvassing too? The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with OR that findings of fact as background are a Good Thing, even if they don't lead to sanctions, for the reasons they gave on the PD. If you feel you must have some follow-up note that he has already been admonished or whatever and no further action is needed at this time. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@ GorillaWarfare: Could you reword this proposal? It appears the drafting arbs were copyediting it and accidentally forgot to delete some of the words. Mike V • Talk 23:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
If the explicit scope of the case was behaviour after January 2016, why is prior activity from seven years ago listed? Step hen 02:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
AHeneen ( talk) 02:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused about the "George Ho topic banned" proposal. Besides DYK and ITN, will I be banned from also TFA, OTD, TFP, and TFL? And also Errors? What about editing articles featured on the Main Page? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Weird. The consensus passed the "topic ban" thing, but a lot of clarification in the alternative proposal leads to opposition on grounds of FA procedures. I am confused. George Ho ( talk) 22:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
How can I mention this case without mentioning... you-know-who? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Some of these remedies seem excessively heavyhanded and punitive, as well as wide of the mark. Why would TRM be desysopped over civility matters that don't involve use of admin tools? Why would GH be topic-banned from everything to do with the main page if he's only been problematic in one or possibly two processes that intersect the main page? This seems rather like desysopping someone for being too politically argumentative, or topic banning someone from all religion and spirituality articles because they were disruptive in edits about the finer points of Jainism. In both cases it seems like a failure to focus on the problems and tailor remedies to address them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Judging by some of the comments above, I think some of the contributors to this thread need to read, or re-read, WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT. Gatoclass ( talk) 08:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Some additional observations:
Predictably, the proposal as a whole wouldn't pass. However, why not separate the areas that he was working at? -- George Ho ( talk) 11:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I will be fine with me and TRM banned from interacting with and mentioning each other. However, what if TRM is desysopped and then requests to get his adminship back? What if I want to comment on his past adminship at the request page? -- George Ho ( talk) 11:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Can an objective definition of "insulting" and/or "belittling" be provided please. Of course, anything I may say or do in the future may be taken, out of context, as "insulting" or "belittling". Who is responsible for determining whether or not my future posts are "insulting"? E.g. if I said that "You seem to lack the competence to edit here, read the instructions.", would that be "insulting", or "belittling" or simply using Wikipedia's essays, guidelines, and direct information? The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I was able to recover Medeis' comments that were removed from the project page:
Having been a mere editor who requested an IBAN with TRM, this seems quite reasonable. The IBAN between us was eventually removed at TRM's request, but that seems to have had something to do with another arbcom or request for desysopping case. I am so very tired of this that I have no intention of looking for the diffs, as I am sure they have been posted to and deleted from TRM's talk page.
-- Medeis ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll mention that if TRM should be sanctioned re ITN and DYK, he will most likely revert to editing the Ref Desks and other locations where he has been found to be disruptive. I would recommend that he be restricted to editing articles only, and not policy or commentary pages.
-- Medeis ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
There you go. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Several of the proposed remedies use the phrase "processes related to determining main page content". How will this work in regards to sections dealing with featured content? Will the prohibition be limited to the portions of the featured content processes that select and display information on the Main page (e.g. WP:TFA, WP:TFL, and WP:POTD) or will this extend to the portions of the processes that determine what content is qualified to be recognized as featured content? Another way to ask this is "does the phrase cover pages such as WP:FAC, WP:FLC, WP:FPC, and their related subpages?" -- Allen3 talk 23:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The first line of WP:ADMINACCT reads "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." What a joke. Looking at the voting now, that line should be removed, WP:ADMINCOND should have the line "Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)" removed and the line in WP:CIVILITY "Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia" should have a little note added saying "Doesn't apply to admins or great content creators". jcc ( tea and biscuits) 09:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors … [if] The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blockedis currently passing 6–0? ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Generally no comment on the proposed decision - after all I can't be more involved and everything I see is through a pair of very biased eyes. I trust Arbcom to do something appropriate.
One question: I'd like to notify Flyer22 Reborn and Jimbo Wales about the case now: Flyer22 because she's cited in my initial statement, and Jimbo because people regularly complain about civility on his talk page. Can I do so? Banedon ( talk) 13:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The notice at the top of this page demands that anyone not of ArbCom/clerks post only in their section. That's routinely ignored, both in this case and many other cases. Every case this year has seen this instruction ignored in one or more sections of PD talk pages. I fail to see the necessity for the instruction, and frankly it makes discussion extremely broken and haphazard. Of course, the instructions on this page say its not for discussion, but statements. Why? That's rather pointless. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
To preface; I'm not suggesting we need a pound of flesh from anyone. In fact, I've stated exactly the opposite of that. The following has nothing directly to do with TRM, and everything to do with WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:5P4 juxtaposed with WP:ADMINACCT/ WP:ADMINCOND.
An administrator could (and has) openly declare(d) <insert editor> to be a dick, goon, ignoramus, dictator, pathetic, joke, lazy, incompetent, liar, less of a man, and coward.
Certain members of ArbCom are opposed to a desysopping because there's been no abuse of tools. Further, apparently, if one's conduct won't improve if you are desysopped, then you won't be desysopped. If the the only basis on which an administrator can be desysopped is (really) abuse of tools, then I agree; WP:ADMINACCT/ WP:ADMINCOND need to be changed to reflect that an administrator's conduct has no bearing on their position as an administrator. With this 'remedy' ArbCom is acknowledging that administrators are not expected to lead by example when it comes to civility, and just let them be uncivil and insulting since desysopping won't improve their behavior.
ArbCom can't write policy. They can ignore it (and often do), but they can't write it. It is up to us, the community, to rewrite WP:ADMINACCT/ WP:ADMINCOND to reflect the reality of the status quo; administrators are not to be held accountable for their conduct any more so than a non-administrator, and in fact have greater leeway in conduct than non-administrators. This of course won't happen. The result being the status quo will be maintained; If you're not an administrator, don't dare call anyone a dick or you will be blocked. If you are an administrator, it's ok.
I don't care if TRM's desysopped. I really don't. It has no direct bearing on me (I banned TRM from my talk page over a year ago, and we haven't interacted since), and I couldn't care less. What I do care about is the very serious civility problems we have on this project, and ArbCom's unwillingness to do anything about it when presented with gross misconduct both here and in other cases.
I wonder how long it would take for me to be blocked if I called a member of ArbCom a dick, goon, or dictator? Since I'm not an administrator, probably not long at all. The delicious hypocrisy here of course would be if someone warned me of WP:POINT disruption. ArbCom itself is disrupting this project by refusing to uphold one of our fundamental principles. They are tangibly creating an environment where administrators can do as they please with open impunity. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, you should check out the ACN archives; you'll see we get called dictators all the time. Nobody this year has been blocked for mocking arbs about arb stuff. (Don't listen to Drmies about the souls, though - we all gave them away when we got here, assuming we had them to start with. I sold mine off years ago....) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
In addition, "incivility" is far too squishy a concept, and has far too many competing definitions, to be "unbecoming" behavior on its own. Harassment, outing, chronic copyvio, abusive socking - those are serious misbehaviors that plausibly warrant a desysopping in the absence of tool misuse. The best response to ordinary assholery is a) ignore it, b) tell the asshole to knock it off, and if necessary c) block the asshole for a while. That's true regardless of what user rights someone's account holds. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
It is extremely rare that I would call out a particular member of ArbCom over any issue. OK, I've made this dumb joke so many times now that whoever currently owns the Star Trek franchise should be charging me licensing fees, but: We're not the Borg. Arbcom is made of (at the moment) 14 "particular members" with (at least) 14 different opinions on things. Drmies is right to object to the over-generalization; I'm not speaking for anyone but me, and if you disagree with something I said in the course of entering my own vote, then "arbcom as an institution" is hardly the right place to aim your criticism.
As for your other comments: you say arbcom should "cause a culture change" in relation to civility. I disagree. Arbcom's remit does not extend to "culture changes". I especially dislike the idea that specific individuals should be sanctioned in pour encourager les autres fashion, as avatars of some vaguely defined but undesirable "culture".
Also, on the case naming thing: I do kind of like the idea of numbered rather than named cases (but then, I'm a numbers person). However, I don't think you've made your case. If someone files a case request about Joe Bloggs, and arbcom accepts it and calls it "Joe Bloggs", that indicates a very high prior probability that Joe Bloggs is a problem. In order to demonstrate your "anchoring" hypothesis, you'd need to show that title parties are sanctioned in excess of that prior probability, not simply show that title parties are sanctioned more often than non-title parties. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I notice this afternoon The Rambling Man has deleted his user page per WP:CSD#U1 and blanked his user talk page. This suggests he's pretty much on the verge on quitting Wikipedia. I hope not, as we've lost too many prolific editors recently, not least Tim riley who never showed any signs of incivility at all. This has got to stop. I want all the arbs to take a long hard look at what GorillaWarfare in particular has said and wonder if all this editor attrition is really necessary? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Either civility is a pillar or it is not. One cannot demand that other users refrain from incivility and at the same time excuse it in administrators. TRM had plenty of opportunity to reform - indeed, I myself would not even have participated here had he not persisted in abusive commentary even as the case continued. That rang very loud alarm bells for me, as it strongly indicated that he lacked either the means or the will to moderate - and certainly, there hasn't been a word of contrition from TRM that I've seen during this case, or even an acknowledgement of a problem. If TRM feels so bad about losing the extra bit that he has to quit Wikipedia, maybe he should have given some more thought to his position before the arbs started voting. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection to the closing of this thread, but I do wish to register my objection to the reference to "grave dancing" made in the closing statement, which in my opinion is completely inappropriate and a clear breach of WP:AGF. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Nice job you guys. Today, a stellar admin has been desysopped and a prolific editor seems to have quit. He won't bother you anymore. But hey, at least we still got George Ho, even if two of you wanted him indeffed. Isa ( talk) 21:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The proposal that George Ho be topic banned from the main page states "He may request reconsideration of this ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter." What this means in practice is that, if the remedy was enacted on 10 October 2016, he could request the ban be lifted on 10 October 2017, 10 April 2018 and 10 October 2018, but not 11 October 2017 or any other intermediate day. Is this really your objective? Would it not be better to replace the sentence with "He may request reconsideration of this ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, or any time thereafter." Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I made a huge deal over a minor issue about commas. However, so did someone else, which started two days after I reported the same. But is that not relevant? Is this inadmissible? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not blame you for your decisions on me, Arbs. However, I requested another case about an unrelated editor. Would this conflict proposals about me in relations to this case? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Just wondering: why did you direct that George Ho (and George Ho only) be added as a party in this case? Banedon ( talk) 05:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
This case has been accepted and active for 33 days. Now, with probably no more than a day or two left on the case, the active arbitrator count for this case has changed. In this case it has caused no substantial change in that it doesn't change the number of votes to pass any element of the case; it went from 12 to 13, thus 7 is still a majority as it was before. However, if it had gone the other direction instead, from 12 to 11, it would change what is a majority vote.
I remember a case some time back where the counts kept going up and down and up and down. What was considered a majority kept changing. Follow the bouncing ball. Once a case is active, the active arbitrators should remain active, barring some incapability, and the inactive should remain so unless they are replacing an arbitrator who was previously active. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
TRM has just requested the removal of his admin access at the bureaucrat noticeboard. I think the desysop remedy will need an update. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@
GorillaWarfare: the revised motion now reads mostly like a finding of fact (which is what it now mostly is). I think for total clarity it would be better to move/copy all but the final sentence to a finding of fact (maybe adding a permalink to the BN request) and make a new remedy along the lines of "The Rambling Man's resignation of his adminship is to be regarded as being 'under a cloud'. Consequently, he may regain the tools only following a successful RFA.".
Yes, this is a bit bureaucratic, but I think it will make it absolutely clear to anyone reading this down the line who wasn't following the case as it progressed, exactly what has happened and what the consequences of that are. As it stands, without the context those who are reading this page while the case is open have, it is pretty confusing to see a finding of fact masquerade as a remedy without an associated paragraph in the fining of fact section.
Thryduulf (
talk)
22:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)