Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Rlevse (talk | contribs)
93,195 edits
→‎Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen: archiving as motion passed
Line 2: Line 2:
= <includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case|</includeonly>Requests for arbitration<includeonly>]]</includeonly> =
= <includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case|</includeonly>Requests for arbitration<includeonly>]]</includeonly> =
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}


==Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen==
'''Initiated by''' [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

=== Involved parties ===
* {{admin|Bishonen}}, filing party
* {{admin|Jimbo Wales}}

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=303161218&oldid=303141406]
;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. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 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) Wikipedia, which distressed me.

I had disagreed with [[User:Daedalus969]] on an ANI matter, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive518&oldid=275029017#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Ohconfucius_and_User:Tony1] as had many other people, see comment by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar&diff=prev&oldid=294427204 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=291386652] Daedalus posted in response:''You do not decide what is and what is not my business. Wikipedia 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.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=291465740&oldid=291389098] I responded ''Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo!''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=291466598] 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]]'' .[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=291475335&oldid=291467902] 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.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=291476541&oldid=291475711]

(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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=302451173&oldid=302451144] 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&oldid=303086788#Question_about_Jimbo_Wales.27_block_of_Bishonen 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 Wikipedia 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.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=291531110]''

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:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=299463871].). 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 Wikipedia 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.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen/block_discussion&oldid=302984895#Good_faith_gesture.2C_my_user_rights]
[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk: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. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk: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. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk: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. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk: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. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk: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. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 19:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC).
;Reply to [[User:Iceflow|Iceflow]] and Rlevse on the role of [[User:Daedalus969|Daedalus969]]: In my opinion it would be unfair to bring in Daedalus as a party, or generally to subject him to the full weight of ArbCom scrutiny. Daedalus is quarrelsome sometimes, but he wouldn't normally be arbitrated for that. I don't think he's been RfC'd or anything. It's possible to criticize his actions; but, alternately, it's also possible to see his role as somebody who more accidentally became involved with scary people like Jimbo and me, and who has expressed regret for his role in the incident.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=304858461#Statement_by_Daedalus969] Iceflow, thank you for your sympathetic comments, and you're right about the inappropriateness of posting "retired" templates on other users; but everybody doesn't necessarily know it. Reproaches from the Committee would surely not be any help or advantage to Daedalus' adjustment to Wikipedia. If this case is accepted, I suggest the Committee leave Daedalus out of it. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 19:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
;Response to Will Beback: That's a thought. I deleted Bishzilla's userpage back in January because I thought the joke had got old, and because of the never-ending sour comments about the account by a couple of well-known users. It never occurred to me that I'd thereby deleted the information about who was running it. My intention was to completely stop using the account, and Bishzilla did in fact abandon her userpage, move in with [[User:Tex|her faithful election manager]], and cut down on her wiki activity. She wouldn't stay down, though, but kept up occasional posts, and, as Will B points out, non-admin users no longer had any way of identifying her sockiness. I guess I no longer really expect her to disappear completely, so I've recreated her userpage, personalized sock template and all. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 18:59, 31 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.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=291484671 at 21:43, 21 May 2009], and Jimbo's notification to ANI of the block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=291531110 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. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk: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:

{{Collapse top}}
:* Over a dispute that involved neither Bishonen or Daedalus, Giano quits, and never edits as User:Giano II again
:** "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=291295487 Password scrambled. Email disabled. Good luck. Your comments are all noted, I have gone to get a life.]" 00:32, 21 May 2009
:* Daedalus placed a retired tag on Giano's page
:** "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=291362526 retired tag]" 08:56, 21 May 2009
:* It stands for three hours, before Bishonen arrives and removes it
:** "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II&diff=next&oldid=291362526 Rm "retired" tag, which is none of Daedalus' business]" 12:25, 21 May 2009
:* Hours later when he's next editing, Daedalus posts on Bishonen's talk page:
:** [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=291465740 You do not decide what is and what is not my business. Wikipedia 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.] 20:03, 21 May 2009
:* Her reply, minutes later:
:** [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=291466598&oldid=291465740 Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo!] 20:07, 21 May 2009
:* They fight a bit on her talk page, he posts to ANI at 21:43, they fight some more both there and on her talk page, and despite much feedback and comment (who thought what and why will make an interesting breakdown, for a later date), nobody gets a warning or a block until Jimbo arrives nearly five hours later.
{{Collapse bottom}}

: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive518&oldid=275029017#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Ohconfucius_and_User:Tony1 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. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk: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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

It’s time to drop it. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk: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.<sup class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&name=Jimbo+Wales ec]</sup> 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, [[User:Jack Merridew|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" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=291622939] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=291531110])
*: Jimmy's reply: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=291624318&oldid=291623590]
* The initial deal to lay down the block button for 6 months: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABishonen%2Fblock_discussion&diff=299673110&oldid=299672652]
*: then recast as unilateral: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABishonen%2Fblock_discussion&diff=299757658&oldid=299673110]
* A chat I had with Jimmy about this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Civility/Poll&diff=prev&oldid=300218918] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Civility/Poll&diff=prev&oldid=300225264] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Civility/Poll&diff=prev&oldid=300227722] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Civility/Poll&diff=prev&oldid=300234097]
* Jimmy's RfA: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jimbo Wales]] — never happened
: added 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A comment by Jimmy,<sup class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greg_L&diff=prev&oldid=303272482 diff]</sup> 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&nbsp;— they end up with no other choice."''
If she had no choice, why the [[meatball:GodKing|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 [[littlun]]s.
: added 06:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved user Joopercoopers===
Give that Jimbo is still of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greg_L&diff=prev&oldid=303272482 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. --[[User:Joopercoopers|Joopercoopers]] ([[User talk: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 Wikipedia 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. [[User:GiacomoReturned|Giano]] ([[User talk:GiacomoReturned|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! [[User:GiacomoReturned|Giano]] ([[User talk:GiacomoReturned|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:
# Make a note on Bishonen's block log to disregard the block.
# State that Bishonen is not a toxic personality.
# Warn the admin corps that cussing at users will not be tolerated, and suggest <s>state</s> what the penalty should <s>will</s> 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. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 13:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

: It may be equally or more beneficial for ArbCom to take the above steps. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

::Aside from an occasional profanity, Bishonen is one of the most humane and civil Wikipedians. She actually cares about people's feelings and treats them as humans instead of mere objects to be manipulated. Civility is about much more than word choice. It is possible to be horribly incivil while using the politest words. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 21:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

::A proper, civil response would have been:

:::''Bishonen, you seem to be stressed. You're cursing at another user. It makes me feel very uncomfortable when a Wikipedia administrator curses at any of our volunteers. Could you please refactor your remarks as quickly as possible. If you'd like to discuss your concerns with me, I am available. - Jimbo''

::That would most likely have ended the drama and spared the community a lot of needless difficulties. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 20:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Lar ===
As I said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACivility%2FPoll&diff=300328790&oldid=300327971 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ALar 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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|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. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk: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. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk: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 <u>admin</u> 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 Wikipedia 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.<br>
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? [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tex|Tex]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/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. [[Wikipedia: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=next&oldid=287639984].

Finally: the inappropriate edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=291466598] that led to the block was not an isolated incident. Compare these two edits (and edit summary) from a week before the block: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=289579745] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=289739548]. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 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". &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 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.

#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.
#The block was a "cool off block." We all know that cool off blocks are not allowable.
#After the block, Jimbo refused to discuss the matter with other administrators. Several people tried to engage Jimbo ''on Wikipedia'', 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,
#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.
#"Civility" has no more of a meaning than "polite," and, for many, seems to imply the same thing.
#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 Wikipedia'' 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." [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bishonen-Jimbo Wales]]. We're currently waiting for the parties to decide whether or not to agree to mediation. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greg_L&diff=prev&oldid=303272482 Jimbo does], that we should not tolerate incivility by anyone under any circumstances, because of the toxic and unprofessional atmosphere it generates. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 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 Wikipedia 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. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 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 Wikipedia. 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[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Jimbo+Wales&page=User%3ABishonen&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=], 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):

<blockquote>
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Jimbo+Wales&page=User%3AZscout370&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 Abuse of local steward tools] -- Jimmy was an involved participant in this dispute. Any other Admin or Steward here would be stripped of position.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Jimbo+Wales&page=User%3ABishonen&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 Out of process blocks]. Flagrant.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Jimbo+Wales&page=Arch+Coal&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 Abusive deletions]. Flagrant, and Jimmy was ''also'' an involved party in this dispute.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Jimbo+Wales&page=Joe+Lieberman+%E2%80%8E+&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 COI-violating use of Administrative tools], protecting [[Joe Lieberman]] before appearing before him and the US Senate. Flagrant.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Jimbo+Wales&page=BonziBUDDY+&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 Using his tools and self-claimed status to influence article content inappropriately]; no OFFICE claim.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Jimbo+Wales&page=User%3ATawkerbot2&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 Misuse of admin tools in asserting his self-claimed status]. Flagrant.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Jimbo+Wales&page=Inherently+funny+word+&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 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.
</blockquote>

Jimmy is neither bulletproof nor invaluable any longer to the success of Wikipedia, 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. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

===Statement by uninvolved Pharaoh of the Wizards===
Jimbo Wales wished to see high standards of civility from Admins.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive492#Possible_compromised_account.3F 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. <u>I remind all sysops that certain standards of behavior are expected of all of us as Wikipedians, and that this applies doubly to admins.</u>--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 Wikipedia 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.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Giving_up_the_use_of_block 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 '''<u>I remind all sysops that certain standards of behavior are expected of all of us as Wikipedians, and that this applies doubly to admins.</u>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.
[[User:Pharaoh of the Wizards|Pharaoh of the Wizards]] ([[User talk: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 Wikipedia and its international promotion whether it is events and media.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187286,00.html I cannot understand how the encyclopedia will benefit by removing him. ] [[User:Pharaoh of the Wizards|Pharaoh of the Wizards]] ([[User talk: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.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 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 Wikipedia'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. <font color="green">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="pink">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 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 Wikipedia 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.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=299947990&oldid=299942072] 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."''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=300128762&oldid=300002522]

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 Wikipedia. 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.

;Civility policy
Currently the [[Wikipedia:Civility/Poll|poll]] on the civility policy stands at Satisfactory - 8 / Too lenient - 45 / Too strict - 8 / Unenforceable - 48

This shows two things; that civility is considered a problem, as evidenced by the 45 "too lenient", and that the current policy is considered unenforceable.

===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 Wikipedia more than one's personal ego. None of these will be demonstrated by bringing or accepting this case. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:DR#Last resort: Arbitration|last resort]] in dispute resolution. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 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. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk: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 <s>Jimbo's continued blocking privileges and</s> 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 Wikipedia.

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.

<s>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.</s> Per the comments and subsequent link in the motion below, I strike this part of my statement - since Jimbo has permanently given up his use of the block, this section is no longer relevant. 07:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

[[User:Iceflow|Thor Malmjursson]] ([[User talk:Iceflow|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. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 19:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

===Comment by uninvolved SilkTork===
Daedalus was unwise in the action of tagging Giano's talkpage -[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=291362526]. Bishonen's response was inappropriate - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=291466598], but I understand that such incivility is out of character. Jimbo's blocking [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&user=Jimbo+Wales] with the reason "Incivility unbecoming an admin" has been questioned. The block appeared to be the result of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive540#Bishonen_using_status_as_admin_to_control_others_while_violating_our_civility_policy this ANI thread], in which Jimbo made the comment that the incident and the block was a "direct consequence of our having been too tolerant, for too long, of toxic personalities". The blocking was questioned by some, though others felt that Bishoven's behaviour was unacceptable to the community. The block, in fairness, can be seen as an attempt by Jimbo to make a statement about user conduct, and especially the conduct of those who have been granted special privileges. Though, also, the block stepped up the drama of the incident rather than adequately deal with it. Bishoven and Jimbo then engaged in a discussion on the block and the implications of the block - [[User talk:Bishonen/block discussion]]. Jimbo's main argument that he wishes to improve behaviour across Wikipedia in order to create a more positive and welcoming working atmosphere. Bishoven's main argument being that Jimbo's pattern of blocking is out of policy, is out of touch with the community, is inflammatory, and that he needs to re-examine it. Jimbo agreed to reflect on Bishoven's comments, to be more careful in future, and to impose a 6 month blocking restriction on himself in order to cool matters down. In the meantime a [[Wikipedia:Civility/Poll|civility poll]], influenced by the incident, was started. The trend of the poll is that people feel that the current civility policy is not strong enough, and is not being enforced consistently. A casual reading of this would be that the community would welcome some attempt to reduce tolerance of general toxic behaviour. Not to say that the community would necessarily be generally supportive of Jimbo's block for Bishoven's emotional reaction. People do make isolated errors. However, the general principle appears to be that the community would like more effort to be made in reducing incivility. Then Bishoven requests an ArbCom case be opened on Jimbo's block of her. Opinion is divided on should ArbCom take the case before mediation has taken place. Ryan Postlethwaite requests mediation - [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bishonen-Jimbo Wales]]. Jimbo agrees. Bishonen declines. The request is closed. This incident has raised the issues of civility, tolerance toward toxic behaviour, blocking patterns, power struggles, and the individual ego v the community. Interesting questions. Also to be added is the importance of communication and wiliness to discuss and negotiate. And, finally, the negative consequence of creating drama. Questions regarding civil behaviour are at the heart of the ArbCom's role, as are questions regarding appropriate blocks for behaviour, and creating disruptive drama. So at the heart of this ArbCom request are issues central to ArbCom's role. However, if there are signs that those issues are already being dealt with by the community, then it might be better for ArbCom to allow the community to deal with this themselves, and to diminish the potential for more drama by not accepting this case. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 10:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
:In short. ArbCom should decline this request because 1) Jimbo has stated that he will reflect on his blocking, and will impose a six month ban on himself, so there is nothing for ArbCom to do in that direction. 2) The community is looking into the civility policy; individual members of ArbCom may get involved in that discussion, though the committee as a whole over-riding that discussion by starting one here (which will be conducted mainly in secret) would be divisive. 3) It would escalate the drama of this incident rather than calm it. 4) It may do more harm than good to Bishoven, who is clearly still hurting from Jimbo's block and may not be acting in her own best interests. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 11:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

===Comment by uninvolved Jayen466===
Drama. Not befitting our purpose. Everyone snap out of it and go home. Let's not drag it out even longer, the worst that can happen is that ''[[The Register]]'' will have to go without a Wikipedia story for a month. Please. '''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 23:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

===Comment by Will Beback===
[[User:Bishzilla]] is an alternate account of [[user:Bishonen]], however there is no disclosure of the connection. (I realize that disclosure has been made in the past, but the user page containing that disclosure has been deleted, meaning that new users have no easy way of connecting the accounts.) The account has been controversial and has not furthered the goals of this project. Its use is inconsistent with the [[WP:SOCK]] policy and the basic principle of "one editor, one account." If the ArbCom takes up this case I request that it address this issue. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 19:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
:PMAnderson's remarks below seem odd to me. This grows out of a thread at [[Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#Highly restrictive policy on second accounts?]]. He suggested that I post a comment here.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry&diff=prev&oldid=305115764] I don't see how asserting that undisclosed alternate accounts are inappropriate would make me a party to this case, or why it would call my judgment into question. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

::Per this edit,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bishzilla&diff=prev&oldid=305316299], Bishonen has restored the disclosure statement to Bishzilla. So I withdraw this request and thank Bishonen for quickly resolving it. My request here was prompted by PMAnderson's repeated assertions that this was the proper venue to address the issue of undisclosed alternate accounts. In light of the recent Geogre matter, it appears clearer than ever that undisclosed alternate accounts are ultimately harmful to the project. However that disussion is better held at [[Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry]]. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 20:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Apologies for intruding into your statement Will, but I just want to note that my understanding is that WP users are allowed a second account for the purpose of preventing issues should their original or main account be compromised. I believe this is known as a Doppelganger account. If I am wrong, please be kind enough to let me know, as I have one! Thanks [[User:Iceflow|Thor Malmjursson]] ([[User talk:Iceflow|talk]]) 07:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

===Comment by Septentrionalis===
I regret having inspired, to any degree, the previous comment. Is there anyone who has seen Bishzilla who doubts its connection with Bishonen?

Will Beback is engaged in [[WT:SOCK#Highly restrictive policy on second accounts?|some sort of personal feud with Bishonen]] and her ''alter ego''s. He has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry&diff=305113868&oldid=305112894 also suggested] that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry&diff=prev&oldid=302112185 this edit]:
:''Oh, Mr Chillum, that was such a brave action. Are you per chance one of the [[Cheshire|Cheshire Chillums]] (we may be related)? Please do try to understand that people like myself enjoy a little harmless [[joie de vivre]] now and then. Now, do excuse me I must find Monsieur Roux, I'm sure he was once the sous-pastry chef at Scrotum Towers in the happy days before the war. [[User:Ka of Catherine de Burgh|Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late)]] ([[User talk:Ka of Catherine de Burgh|talk]]) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)''

discusses policy. If ArbCom accepts his suggestion, <s>which I do not recommend</s>, he should be added as a party and -at a minimum- admonished; I certainly have no confidence in his judgment or discretion. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 19:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
*Asking for sanctions against a party (and cutting off Bishzilla is a fairly severe one) should make Will Beback a party; asking for them on patently invalid grounds should result in penalties. I have changed my mind; he should be included, his suggestion rejected publicly, and enough said to discourage this incursion of Wikipedians who would like to be Teacher and make every volunteer at Wikipedia do exactly what Teacher likes.
**I continue to intensely dislike the provision Will is asking ArbCom to enforce here; but [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Privatemusings|I have requested it be amended elsewhere]]. Better to solve the problem than shoot the messenger. 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

On the same grounds, I hope ArbCom will review any settlement between Bish and Jimbo; Jimbo really cannot be both constitutional monarch and a party figure simultaneously - giving Jimbo an alt account as an admin (which neither side admits to) would in fact be one reasonable solution. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 23:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
===Response by Mattisse to comment by Septentrionalis===
* You said: "Is there anyone who has seen Bishzilla who doubts its connection with Bishonen?"
:I do not doubt your information that there is a connection, but I was unaware there was a connection until now. Is there any limit on the number of "alternative accounts" an editor is allowed? &mdash;[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 16:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
*Recuse. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk: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? '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 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. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 12:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
***Ok, holding pending instructions. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
**** I can open the case if MBisanz is unavailable. [[User talk:AGK|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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 12:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
:just wondering what the status of this case is? [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 12:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)<small>no surer way to encourage a clerk out of their staff room than to post in their section!</small>
::Please refer to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_guide#How_requests_are_processed_and_the_decision_to_accept|the guide]] for the case status procedures. Assuming nothing changes (or that I haven't missed some vital conditional arb vote), the case will be archived sometime soon after 17:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC). '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 12:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
::Ok, Roger's vote just changed it, so now it will open as a case 24 hours after his vote, assuming nothing else happens. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 14:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
::Changed yet another time, so back to waiting for another couple days. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/4/0/1) ===
*'''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. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 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 Wikipedia other than voluntary changes made by Jimbo. And I don't think a case is the best venue to discuss his general role on Wikipedia unless we want 100's of people commenting on the case pages. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 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. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 00:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
*: This is a typical block if we look at it in the minute detail. However Jimmy is [[WP:JIMBO|exceptional]], this was not a routine block, and he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=291536122 expects] that he is to be held to the highest standard. However this high standard is mostly undefined. He can do anything, including dismiss ArbCom at will.<br/>Bishonen is not annoyed that she was blocked. She is annoyed because Jimbo took this opportunity to block her at an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=291529491#Bishonen_using_status_as_admin_to_control_others_while_violating_our_civility_policy early point] in the community discussion about a situation that involved two immediate parties, and lots of history. There are many other instances of incivility where Jimbo has not stepped in. Why then? Why her? Why say "toxic personalities" shortly after the block? Is it appropriate to [[WP:CANVASS|canvass]] for action from Jimbo like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=291519637 this]? If he was making a [[WP:POINT|point]] about civility, we as a community need to decide whether it is appropriate for Jimbo to make a point using unilateral actions. <br/>We are all involved when it comes to Jimbo, and vis versa. Is this a fundamental problem? Jimbo is ''especially'' [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]] with regards to Giano and Bishonen. <br/>Arbitrators are expected to not generate controversy when acting as individuals. When arbitrators do a block or unblock, or anything in between, as individuals, it radically affects the status quo. All of a sudden people reorganise along political lines. For this reason we should be cautious about responding to private solicitation, otherwise we encourage the notion that politics is important. Does this apply to Jimbo also, or is it valuable to have someone free from expectations like that? Where do we draw the line and hold Jimbo to our communal policies and best practises? <br/>I've withheld my vote for a long time now, as I had hoped that mediation would work, but the formal mediation has failed, and the informal mediation conducted by arbcom has failed too. The committee has given Jimmy time to answer some of these questions for himself, and we have even tried to answer them ourselves. As a result of all efforts failing, these are questions the community needs to muddle through, with the arbitrators providing a binding decision so that we can move forward.<br/> I vote to '''accept''' this case, for good or ill. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 15:56, 3 August 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 (psychology)|Closure]] is needed, and I don't believe that can be achieved without a formal decision from ArbCom. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 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. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 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? [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|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.<br />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.<br />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&mdash;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. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
*<s>'''Comment''':</s> I'm with Cool Hand Luke on this one. I'm having trouble seeing an arbitrable issue that's worth the powder and shot. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger&nbsp;Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 19:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
**<s>'''Decline for now''':</s> 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.<p>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. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger&nbsp;Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 11:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
**'''Decline''' <s>HOLD</s> <s>Accept: Though</s> As this is probably best dealt with by motion. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger&nbsp;Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 14:15, 30 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 Wikipedia 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. Incivility 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 Wikipedia 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.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 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.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' <small>suspending acceptance for 24 hours [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 21:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC) - and now reactivating my acceptance. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 09:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)</small> (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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=303908368 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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 09:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
*'''Decline <s>Accept</s>''' motion has reviewed specific actions, and given them about as much oxygen as they deserve. A full case here will not resolve ''anything'' due to the players and longstanding disputes and alliances. <s>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??).</s> [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 09:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
*'''Accept'''. I can't see mediation working here, a case is probably what has to be done. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small><sup>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold">''Wiki me up''® </font>]]</sup></small> 06:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
*'''HOLD''' - for further consideration of means of resolving this short of a full case. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
*<s>'''Hold''' from me too. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC) </s>

===Motion===
====Comment by Bishonen on motion====
So there's no section for comments on the motion, but creating one is being considered:..? LOL. I mean, thanks. You'll be sorry to hear that I've gotten tougher since the first motion the committee opened on me—perhaps the first public motion altogether, back in January, when I'd blocked an arbitrator (I wonder if that is more, or less, offensive than requesting arbitration of a Founder? But I digress.) So I'm just plonking down a comment here, please feel free to delete it or move it or whatever.
As somewhat expected, I find myself labelled "grossly uncivil", "condescending", and "unrepentant", while Jimbo's actions are merely described as "careless"—good start! I also note that the committee—or Carcharoth, who posted the motion?—or the committee insofar as they buy this arbcom.motion.1?—or Newyorkbrad, who first mooted the idea of "resolving" the case by motion?—have elected to use Jimbo's own terminology. I. e. they state that he ''clarified'' that by "toxic personalities" he meant "incivility in general". I have never accepted or used the singularly inappropriate word ''clarified'' for Jimbo's back-pedalling in this instance; I have protested against the word again and again. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen/block_discussion&diff=298475650&oldid=298474675 Here], I call it "performing convolutions") and have myself chosen alternative wordings. This is because using it means choosing sides and coming down unquestioningly on the Jimbo side, and also because I don't consider Jimbo's explanation to have clarified anything, nor to be true. ''Intending'' to be true, no doubt, but not succeeding. The explanation is not in the least ''clear'' or ''clarified'', but is seriously confusing and confused. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen/block_discussion&diff=298199750&oldid=298131197 Here it is: the first paragraph.]. How ''could'' "toxic personalities", through any magnifying glass, mean anything like "incivility in general"? Yet the committee buys his claim that it does, wholesale, without making any allowance for my view of it. (A view laid out in detail in [[User talk:Bishonen/block discussion]]) A neutral choice of words would be that Jimbo "stated" that he meant incivility in general.

I conclude from the favor shown to power in the motion that neutrality between me and Jimbo has not been treated as desirable, either consciously or unconsciously. One reason for its imbalance between the parties is perhaps—though I would hope not— that Jimbo's mixture of blandishments and threats—of carrot and stick—towards me on the arb mailing list has affected the arbs. An example would be the way he promises to make me look good if I enter mediation with him, but assures me he'll push for me to be desysopped if we go to a case. (Hmm... I wonder which it'll be if we go to a ''motion''? Wait and see.) I realize I'm not supposed to mention anything about the sekrit arb list. However, I do not consider it ethically wrong in this instance, considering that I've kept my mention down to one or two bare essentials; that it would sound a lot worse if I quoted his actual words; and especially, that the committee has completely ignored his attempts to bully and browbeat me under their very noses, down to leaving out the slightest hint of those attempts from this motion. (Oh, and considering the number of people who have nagged me to mediate with Jimbo; would ''you'' mediate under threat?) It would be interesting, too, to hear some representative of the committee tell us whether or not Jimbo gets to "push for" the arbitration outcome he prefers, especially in a case where he's a party. How about it, Carcharoth? Is the Founder merely delusional, or does he get away with stuff like that? The community might want to know. Finally, not that I suppose there's any point in my mentioning it, but I have come round to thinking there should be a full case. Motions are supposed to be for simple cases; this is the most complex case that has come along in a long time. Perhaps ever. It's in my opinion an ideal vehicle for discussing the role of Jimbo fully, containing as it does a request for arbitration of him, at the same time as it has a small and simple cast. When will you get another one like that? That's on the perhaps wild assumption that you ''want'' to discuss the role of Jimbo. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 22:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC).

:''OK, is this where my response to Carcharoth's response to me is wanted? Regular threaded discussion would surely be a lot easier to read. In my opinion. But the clerks have told me threaded discussion on these pages is a no-no. Please let them know if you've changed your minds about that, dear arbs. Anyway, here goes.''
#Sorry, no, I didn't know it wasn't you. I studied the history tab and thought it showed it ''was'' you. I must have got it wrong. I don't understand for what purpose you think I would invent such a thing.
#A section wasn't just being "considered"? Sorry again to have caused so much irritation through my choice of words. I was speaking with MBisanz on IRC at the time, and he was tearing his hair out in frustration with being unsure what the arbs wanted of him. That's why I thought the matter of a new section was some kind of problem—something not decided or resolved. Actually, I advised him to create a new section, but there seemed to be some clerk-type reason why he didn't think that was the best way. In any case, it's surely a small thing, hardly worth your heavy artillery?
#Yes, I know I originally talked about a motion being a good idea, but I changed my mind. I tried to indicate the change by using the phrase "I have come round to thinking". I changed my mind about doing it through a motion when I learned that motions were specifically for simple cases. Then I no longer thought them suitable for this case.
#And now for the real heart of the matter: what you call "our" behaviour during this request. I hardly suppose that is directed at me, Carcharoth, now that I've finally received the much delayed relevant e-mail thread from the arbcom list. I'm about halfway through reading it here--I actually got the e-mails and started reading them well ''after'' I had posted my comment above, with its question about what Jimbo could get away with on the mailing list. So if you thought that question of mine was ironic or pointed, you're quite wrong. I'm still running after the rest of you trying to catch up. I'm sorry the committee is in a cleft stick; I don't want to make things worse. The committee has more pressing problems than my "hurt feelings", or even than Jimbo's use of the block tool. Your statement that "what happens as regards his wider role is between him and the community" is problematic, obviously, in that only the committe (and me) has the information that the community would need to address the problem. The message to Jimbo that I can read between your lines needs to be clarified and shared with the community, and the sooner the committee does it the better. I note your post on the mailing list expressing agreement with pretty much everything I say here. So why are you blustering at me, exactly? I'm not a child, and if my feelings are hurt about anything, it's about being out of the mailing list loop while everything happened, and while I might have had a chance to, for instance, defend myself against some unfounded charges. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 14:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

====Comment by Heim====
So, let me get this straight: we've got a motion that tells us... '''absolutely nothing''' we didn't already know, acknowledges those things we already knew (was there some doubt that the committee acknowledged that facts of this case?), and then does absolutely nothing at all? What is this frivolity? We can read what happened ourselves; we don't need the committee to summarize it for us! If you're not going to accept a full case (and notice I haven't argued that you should, since I have serious doubts about the possibility of good coming of it), then just drop it completely instead of bothering to vote on a completely meaningless motion.

====Comment by Mattisse====
I was very glad to read [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]]'s statement below. Many of us have had unfair blocks, some that have almost immediately been overturned. Yet those remain on our block log. Hence, if Bishonen had a special "erasure" of her block, then there are thousands of us (probably, I am guessing at the number) who will request the same. The lesson of Wikipedia is to "get over it" and move on. That has been the lesson for me. &mdash;[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 02:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

==== Comment by Jack Merridew ====

Hmm. This mostly seems to amount to [[Ostrich#Behaviour|makeitgoaway]].

I am rather stunned at the use of the term <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=303604839 permanent abdication]</span>. *Totally* inappropriate. Has anyone reviewed [[wikt:abdication]]? (hint: "[[wikt:sovereign|sovereign]] power"). This amounts to endorsing [[meatball:GodKing]]. no-cheers, [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 08:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

==== Comment by MickMacNee ====
Well, if we are not to have a full case, at least the motion corrects some of the myths presented as fact about the incident. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 21:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

==== Comment by LessHeard vanU ====
Are you seriously going to carry through with the wording of 1.1? At the very least you might wish to link to the diffs that indicate that Jimbo acted as he did in response to the <u>discussion</u>, since my recall of the thread was to censure Bishonen for her remarks but acknowledge the circumstances (involving the ever contentious matter of peoples perceptions regarding Giano). As has been mentioned, the first involvement of Jimbo and the relevant noticeboard was a advisory comment some hours after the block (and with the problematic language also discussed above). Could not the motion be amended to record that Jimbo acted without interaction with the parties previously discussing the matter, nor the sanctioned admin?

Generally, I am disappointed (but not surprised) that the focus of the motion rests in the condemnation of Bishonen's behaviour prior to Jimbo's block - even though it had or was being satisfactorily resolved by the admin community, and was only mentioned in passing as background in this Request - and very little if anything about the lack of application of the various policies and guidelines by Admin Jimbo Wales in his use of the admin flags; particularly the block button, and the responsibilities inherent in its applications.

"I complained to the Sheriff that the Lord of the Manor's pigs had broken my fences and ate the apples in my orchard, and they have fined me for giving the swine stomach aches..."

[[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 21:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

==== Comment by Seth Finkelstein ====

(pre-emptive disclosure - I have many reasons for my cynical views). One of the very painful things I've learned from activism and misplaced trust, is that when making deals, especially with powerful people, you really have to consider long and hard about whether you can <em>enforce</em> it. One of my sayings is: Don't ever think "They can't get away with it". They <em>can</em>. With concepts like "Jimbo Wales' permanent abdication of the use of the blocking tool" or "Jimbo has foresworn use of the block tool", I'd worry greatly about an interpretation where it might be kept in terms of the letter, but not in spirit. Simply for illustration, and not accusing but rather pointing out a loophole, I can well imagine IRC statements like "This action by User:TroublesomePriest is an outrage. I'd block if I could. But alas, in my infinite benevolence, I have forsworn the tool. Will noone rid us of this toxic personality?". Maybe that's an improvement because it wouldn't be a Jimbo block. But I don't think it really addresses the problem, which is basically arbitrary and capricious use of authority. I know, the obvious answer is to deal with that if/when it happens. But sometimes just treating a symptom, and hoping everything will get better, means the underlying disease gets worse. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] ([[User talk:Seth Finkelstein|talk]]) 22:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

==== Comment by [User] ====

====Proposed motion====
:''With thirteen active arbitrators on this case, seven is a majority.
1.1) On 21 May, a [[user:Daedalus969|user]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=291362526 added] the {{tl|retired}} template to the userpage of [[User:Giano II|another user]]. An administrator, [[user:Bishonen|Bishonen]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II&diff=next&oldid=291362526 reverted] the addition with the edit summary "Rm 'retired' tag, which is none of [your] business". The user then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=291465740 stated] on Bishonen's talk page that "You do not decide what is and what is not my business. Wikipedia is everyone's business..." to which Bishonen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=291466598 replied] with "Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with [another user's] page. Now get lost. Shoo!" The user initiated [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive540#Bishonen_using_status_as_admin_to_control_others_while_violating_our_civility_policy|a discussion]] about the placement of the tag and Bishonen's comment at the administrators' incidents noticeboard (during which Bishonen made several more condescending remarks towards the user), and as a result of this discussion [[user:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Jimbo+Wales&page=User%3ABishonen&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= blocked] Bishonen for three hours.

1.2) Although people do not "own" their user pages, editors should avoid – with [[Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space|certain well-established exceptions]] (of which adding retirement templates is not one) – making substantial changes to other people's user pages without their consent. The committee notes the user subsequently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=303621425 apologised] for his edit.

1.3) Bishonen's response to the user was grossly uncivil. Her subsequent comments (on the noticeboard and on her talk page) were condescending and unrepentant. While, in this context, a block may be justified on civility grounds, its delayed timing and short duration - and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=269757418 prior interaction] between the blocking and blocked editors - made it controversial. Additionally, the block was placed some time after Bishonen had finished posting, at a time when no ongoing conduct was prevented by the block.

1.4) Jimbo Wales did not notify Bishonen immediately of the block, as is required by [[WP:BLOCK|blocking policy]], and it was not until [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=291535730 half an hour] after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=291531110 announcing it] at the incidents noticeboard that he did so. In his announcement of the block on the incidents noticeboard, Jimbo Wales [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=291531110 stated] "This all seems sadly unbecoming to me, and a direct consequence of our having been too tolerant, for too long, of toxic personalities". Although the use of this latter phrase was later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=291624318 clarified] as intending to refer to incivility in general, the phrasing was careless and has been interpreted, reasonably, by some editors as referring to Bishonen.

1.5) The Committee acknowledges (i) Bishonen's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=303162859 recognition] that "The way I spoke to [the user] was wrong, especially for an admin" and (ii) Jimbo Wales' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=303604839 permanent abdication] of the use of the blocking tool. In light of the foregoing, the committee need take no further action at this time.

==== Arbitrators' vote on the motion ====
; Support
:# '''Broadly support''': [placeholder for comments] &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger&nbsp;Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 00:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
:# '''Broadly support''': [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 00:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
:# '''Support'''; &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 15:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
:# '''Support'''. Will comment further if any of those affected by this have views on the motion. It may be easier if the clerks create a new section for comments on the motion, to separate those from comments on the request. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 16:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
:# '''Broadly support'''. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 16:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
:#:<s> '''Basically support'''. I agree with much of what FayssalF said below but I strongly feel the case should be accepted to look at the bigger issues (as I mention in my accept), which will not go away. IOW, this motion doesn't go near far enough. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 00:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)</s>
:# Support to end the discussion about "The 3 hour block". Further discussion about the broader issues can happen through RFCs (or methods of giving input) can still happen. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 14:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

; Oppose
:# While I broadly support this as a finding of fact, it is not a remedy to the underlying problems. I prefer a full case. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 16:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:# Moving to oppose, I'd rather see a full case than the motion after further thought. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 22:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:# Switch to oppose. While a good summary of facts, this does nothing to resolve the issue. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 00:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

; Abstain
:# Abstain for now... a) I consider Jimmy's block as legitimate in essence although could be avoided as the uncivil comment happened hours before. Bishonen has been uncivil and many of her remarks usually carry some kind of sarcasm when they are not offending. Otava Rima and MzMcBride did absolutely nothing at all to hear those offending comments and yet Bishonen still believes that she is the only victim here. I totally don't buy that at all. b) I consider Jimmy's use of "toxic personalities" as offending and he needs to totally re-explain it and apologize here. c) I consider Bishonen's statement of "this is the most complex case that has come along in a long time. Perhaps ever. It's in my opinion an ideal vehicle for discussing the role of Jimbo fully" as inaccurate. If this was the aim of filing this case then I'd have rejected it. The Arbitration Committee deals with behavior and has nothing to do with roles and statutes of people. It is up to the community and Jimmy to sort out that issue. Bishonen says it is the most complex, yet I see it as one of the least complex cases. I am not sure if Bishonen is seeking justice or seeking the head of Jimmy because of -I repeat and insist- a totally legitimate block. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small><sup>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold">''Wiki me up''® </font>]]</sup></small> 23:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
:#: <s>For the most part I agree with Rlevse here. While the motion, while not perfect word-wise, works, I would rather see the case opened than a motion passed, given the circumstances involved. Might switch, still mulling everything over. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 00:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)</s>
:# [[User:Stephen Bain|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Stephen Bain|talk]]) 02:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

====Arbitrators views and discussion====
*Bishonen, a few responses to what you said. First point is that I said ''"Will comment further if any of those affected by this have views on the motion. It may be easier if the clerks create a new section for comments on the motion, to separate those from comments on the request."'' This was, I hope, an obvious invitation for people (including you) to comment on the motion. It was equally an open invitation for the clerks to create a section for this purpose, to keep things separate from the comments made in response to the initial request, and despite some initial confusion, that is what has resulted. In other words, keeping a dialogue open here and giving people a chance to express any dissatisfaction (or agreement) they had with the motion. That is a world of difference from your assumption of bad faith that a section for more comments was only being "considered". Turning to the motion passed in respect of your actions in January, that was not the first-ever public motion, as you should have remembered from the discussion we (you and I) had back then. I was aware, however, that you had wanted to have a full case back then, rather than have your actions be dealt with by motion. This was one reason why I voted to accept a case here. What swung me towards at least considering dealing with this by motion was the comment you made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Bishonen-Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=304484921 here], where you said: ''"NYBrad has said he's proposing to deal with the matter by a motion instead, and what's wrong with that?"''. As to who posted the motion, you know full well it wasn't me, as you can see in the history of this page.</br> Turning now to the heart of the matter, I agree with what Fayssal said above, but unlike him I am able to support the motion proposed. My view is that what needs to be decided here is whether this is about Jimbo's use of the block tool or your hurt feelings. I'll be clear here - if Jimbo had not voluntarily given up the use of his block tool, I would have called for it to be removed anyway, and if you had not acknowledged that what you said was wrong, then I would have been calling for sanctions against you. So all in all, both you and Jimbo have got off pretty lightly here. To put it even more bluntly, we are not here to assuage hurt feelings. This has gone on long enough. Jimbo has foresworn use of the block tool. What happens as regards his wider role is between him and the community. It is past time for you both to move on from this. There is one final point: ''"...the committee need take no further action at this time."'' That phrase at the end of the motions means that if either you or Jimbo repeat any of the behaviour you both displayed during this incident and during this request, then further action (I would suggest a request to amend or extend this motion) will almost certainly need to be taken. You are both being put on notice with this motion, which acts as a warning. That is strong language, not used in the formal motions, but I am using it here informally to get the point across to you both. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 02:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
**Thanks, Bishonen, for reading between the lines of what I said. I agree that the community need to know what happened in that mailing list thread - indeed, that is what I said there. I won't say more than this about that, because Jimbo has informed us he won't be available for the next few days. The timing is unfortunate, but I see no reason to delay closing this part of things. My wider point still holds. The last time you were sanctioned it was for forcing an issue between FT2 and the rest of the committee. In this case, you are close to doing the same regarding issues between ArbCom and Jimbo. To be perfectly frank, there are issues that need to be sorted out between ArbCom and Jimbo (and the community), and much as you (and some others) might want this case (i.e. your block and subsequent upset) to be the vehicle by which such matters get resolved, that is not, in my view, the right way to do this. Trust us to sort out what needs doing vis-a-vis Jimbo (it may take a while, but we have the resolve to see it through and get a fair solution sorted out), and trust us to then communicate that to the community, so they (and Jimbo) can sort out the role Jimbo has within the community. If this sounds like we are close to a constitutional crisis, then yes, we are. So please, accept the motion put forward here, put aside your case, and let us (ArbCom) concentrate on sorting out things with Jimbo when he is available again. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 15:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

==== Clerk notes on motion ====
*Just a note that the motion is now passing at 6-0-2 and should now be closed as it has been at a majority for 24 hours, but given that the arbs probably aren't aware it is at a majority, I'm going to wait for a few more hours. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 00:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
**Please wait a full 48h since passing, MBizanz, I believe some off-timezone arbs have something pending. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 00:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:48, 5 August 2009

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=306150033"