Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen		20 July 2009	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	(orig. case)	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen

Initiated by Bishonen | talk 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

Involved parties

• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• User talk:Bishonen/block discussion, a discussion/mediation between the parties, requested by John Vandenberg
• NOTE: not formally making him a party yet, but I have advised User:Daedalus969 of this RFAR. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

I'm sorry this statement is so long, but the case is so unique that that effect has been hard to avoid.

In May 2009, my friend Giano had left (as I thought) Wikipedia, which distressed me.

I had disagreed with User:Daedalus969 on an ANI matter, [2] as had many other people, see comment by Lar. Daedalus articulated this grudge (IMO) on May 21, by insisting on putting and defending a "retired" template on Giano's talkpage. This malice, as I believed it, was more effective than I should have allowed it to be: I removed the tag with the edit summary ("Rm "retired" tag, which is none of Daedalus' business") and shouted bad-temperedly at him. [3] 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.[4] I responded Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo![5] 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 .[6] 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.[7]

(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. [8] I'm not complaining of this; I'm trying to make a point to the committee. The point is that a number of arbs spoke of Jimbo as simply "an admin" on the arbitration committee page recently: "We pretty much decline to intervene in short blocks"... " We do take them sooner for admins but not usually for a single short block." But he's not merely "an admin; the block is not merely a short block. Therefore, I believe it's appropriate, and fair to me, to arbitrate Jimbo as an extraordinary case. Should more be expected of the Founder, than of "an admin"? Or less? Here, at Requests for Arbitration, I'm going speak with an expectation that he be treated the same. Arbitration ought to be equal. That said, I feel Jimbo himself has employed his Founder status inappropriately. He is obviously aware of, and makes use of, the subservience and humility of a substantial section of the community; a section which falls down and kisses the hem of his garment when he makes a pronouncement. His "godking" status gives him great advantages; the disadvantages which attend that status are tiny by comparison, and he should, indeed, consider holding his conduct to a high standard—higher, I venture to say, than he does. The most rudimentary morality bids a person in his position be extremely careful in attacking users—all of whose power is so much less than his own—and in casting editors into outer darkness. If Jimbo Wales is not aware of these matters, he needs to strive to become so.

I agree that calling Daedalus a little shit was wrong. But I want specifically to make the point in this RfAR that that statement of mine was a good deal less offensive than the things Jimbo said of me, on ANI, a public 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.[9]

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:[10].). 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.[11] Bishonen | talk 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

• P.S.: one party—Jimbo—has access to the arbcom mailing list and one—me—does not. Can something be done about this? This is not a mere technical problem; I think being able to hear the arbs' discussion makes a tremendous difference to how, as a party, one is able to manage oneself during a case. Could you please either add me to the list, or remove Jimbo from it? Either alternative will do me—I don't care—but removing Jimbo is probably the more realistic option. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

Response to statement by Jimbo Wales

I'm afraid I see your request for a "proper" mediation process, after the discussion we have previously had at User talk:Bishonen/block discussion, as a mere formality. No matter what name you call that discussion by— "mediation" or something else—the fact remains that we have tried in good faith, yet unfortunately failed, to "move forward usefully". I don't see any point in arguing about the Bishonen/block discussion page; I'll leave it to the arbs to read it and to determine whether or not they deem you to have answered my questions in a responsive and meaningful way there. As for your condescension w r t trying to "calm Bishonen", please don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

Response to question by Cool Hand Luke

Relief? OK, firstly, I would like a note in my block log stating that the block was wrongful. Please note that I don't particularly want a note signed by the blocking admin (Mr Wales); both because I would value a note by the arbitration committee more highly, and because I've no wish for Jimbo to be humiliated. And secondly, I think the arbcom should admonish him. As for the six-month blocking moratorium, I agree with User:Giano that it was offered for the purpose of "deflecting a case"; in other words, to bypass criticism and evade any stronger measures. Those measures remain needful IMO. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

Response to statements by Carcharoth and (I think) Rlevse

I have not the slightest objection to my own block actions, or my past actions altogether, being examined, in any depth desired. I'm a conservative blocker; my unblock log might be of more interest than my block log. However, I'm a little surprised at the attention Carcharoth (and Rlevse?) give to this angle. It seems to me an extravagant notion by Carcharoth that Jimbo might have done some research into my past block (or other) history, and have been provoked into blocking by what he found. If Jimbo had done anything along those lines, he would surely have mentioned it to some of the people who have charged him with dropping a block on me at random and with disregarding the Daedalus context. (I'm one of those people myself.) Secondly, and I don't quite know how to put this, since it involves an editor who is not a party here, and certainly hasn't asked to be involved—but regarding the editor CBM cites, I suggest the committee take a look at the person's background. (Some arbs, at least, know it well.) There have been, and will surely be again, users whose behaviour makes me send them from my page. Admins are human, and I make no apology for myself on that score. Bishonen | talk 14:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

Statement by Jimbo Wales

This case should be declined for a number of reasons, not least of which that there has been no attempt at mediation. I was invited to discuss the matter directly with Bishonen, and did, but under conditions that no one else get involved. This was not my requested condition, this is how it was presented to me. Until such time as we have gone through a proper mediation process, I see no reason for ArbCom to get involved.

I would like to note, as well, that I have already gone out of my way, unsuccessfully, to try to find some way to calm Bishonen. I volunteered that I will not use my block tools for a minimum of 6 months (unilaterally, with no obligation of her part - a pledge that I will honor despite it having apparently done no good as a gesture of kindness whatsoever), just to set aside that concern of hers. I put forward a very precise explanation of why I made the block, including careful and accurate citations to policy. I offered that we should hold a poll in the community to assess whether, as she claims, policy permits admins to curse at users without being blocked for it. I have explained in great detail how I believe that a general tolerance for toxic behaviors has led us to a situation in which otherwise good editors like Bishonen end up snapping at people inappropriately.

Therefore, I would like to request that Bishonen work with me to find helpful mediators to assist us in moving forward usefully, and I would like to request that the Arbitration Committee decline the case at the present time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Bishonen's tentative declining of mediation:

To be clear on my position: I am prepared *in mediation* to try my very best to give Bishonen what she wants. I am happy to put a statement into the block log, and while the exact wording of it might be a difficult issue, I am confident that if Bishonen is willing to work with me, we can find a settlement that will please everyone.

Statement by uninvolved user Martinp

It is sad to see a valued contributor still offended 2 months after an exchange of words, but I don’t see what helpful actions Arbcom can do here. Jimbo’s comment on ANI was at worst ambiguous. He has since then several times clarified that he was not labeling Bishonen a toxic personality, but was referring to the overall atmosphere prompting her remark. This is plausible in the context of the discussion above the comment in question, and both Occam’s Razor and his subsequent remarks should prompt us to accept this explanation. This is not dependent on any special status.

That leaves the potential issue of the appropriateness of the 3-hour civility or personal attack block itself, or perhaps the fact that Jimbo doesn’t follow all the steps of the notification process the community has developed around blocks. Perhaps both sides can learn something here, but hardly something to arbitrate 2 months after the fact.

Words can’t be unsaid after the fact and feelings can’t be unfelt. We can only hope that Bishonen’s sense of injustice will dissipate, and that she will accept that the worst possible interpretation of the comment in question is not the only one. More broadly, perhaps we could all try to avoid the sorts of behaviors that create an atmosphere where feelings of attack, insult, and offense can fester. Martinp (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MickMacNee

In arbcom parlance, the commmittee needs to accept this case in order to examine the behaviour of all parties, but in a very narrow scope. I am particularly thinking about the actions of Bishonen, and any and all admins justifiably considered to be 'on duty', in the period between the first complaint at ANI from Deadalus at 21:43, 21 May 2009, and Jimbo's notification to ANI of the block at 02:20, 22 May 2009 (7 minutes after the block was made), a period of nearly 5 hours, a discussion of which Bishonen was aware of and had commented within, as well as numerous admins and other editors. This examination should be against established written policy and established community practice with regard to the merits and acceptance of issuing blocks for personal attacks, in light of the failure of attempts to establish a unified community opinion in review of this block after the event. Any and all users found to be lacking should be dealt with accordingly, and any and all policies found to be innaccurate w.r.t. to normal practice should be identified for community attention. MickMacNee (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

further statement

Daedalus's apparent need to explain himself with his statement, plus the various implications from others that provocation was somehow a mitigating factor here, I thought I would just lay down of what I believe was the entire interaction between Bishonen and Daedalus in the crucial moments that ultimately led to the block of Bishonen by Jimbo, which actually were spread over nearly a day:

Extended content

Over a dispute that involved neither Bishonen or Daedalus, Giano quits, and never edits as User:Giano II again "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 "retired tag" 08:56, 21 May 2009 It stands for three hours, before Bishonen arrives and removes it "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: 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: 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.

As far as I can see, the only explanation given by Bishonen for why Daedalus would tag Giano's page, is that they had a grudge against her stemming from a single interaction between them, in this ANI thread, way back on 28 February, which is presumably the OC and Tony1 incident he refers to in his statment. I've seen no other allegation of any bad blood, either here or in the block review.

So if we have to get into issues of provocation in a case, I believe the actual series of events leading up to the fighting, the timeline, the level of prior interaction, the actual interaction, the later escalation, together with the alleged unresolved previous bad blood, raise serious questions, both collective and individual.

What I don't see here though, is a justifiable claim that Bishonen simply momentarily snapped as a result of some direct provocation from Daedalus. MickMacNee (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Greg L

I rather agree with Martinp’s response (but not entirely, as it sides a little too strongly with Jimbo). Both Bishonen and Jimbo screwed up. Jimbo didn't follow known rules for blocking, but that happens all the darned time on 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. 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.^ec This is not an editor who is engaged in the community. The wiki is huge and complicated and one has to spend a fair bit of time on it to have a good idea what's going on. Jimmy has other things to do for the projects. Desysop, with thanks.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I'll drop in a few diffs as I dig them up:

• Cas re "toxic personalities" [12] ([13])

  Jimmy's reply: [14]

• The initial deal to lay down the block button for 6 months: [15]

  then recast as unilateral: [16]

• A chat I had with Jimmy about this: [17] [18] [19] [20]
• Jimmy's RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jimbo Wales — never happened

added 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A comment by Jimmy,^diff from today, to the effect that, given the ambient toxic environment, "good users", such as Bish, have no choice other than to "join the bad behaviors":

"My position, which I have held for quite some time, is that when we are excessively tolerant of toxic behaviors, we poison the environment and push good people to join in the bad behaviors — they end up with no other choice."

If she had no choice, why the Royal smackdown? Given this rational, the culpable would be the tolerant parties.

added 06:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

addendum, and then I'm done talking ;)

It has been quite clear thought this that the intent here is to raise the bar on administrator behavior. I have no issue with the idea that admins, and founders, should be held to standards of conduct. Is this one of the the wiki's more pressing issues? I don't think so. Of far greater import is the undisciplined mob of users that swarm AN/I and whatever the drama-rich page of the moment is. There are a lot of fairly regular users leading factions of the mob. It's all very cliquey. This is a more pressing problem than "good users" provoked by snotty littluns.

added 06:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Joopercoopers

Give that Jimbo is still of the opinion that the block was 100% within policy and we should be doing more of it, there seems little room for negotiation at mediation. I urge acceptance of the case, to determine what is what, in respect to Jimbo's use of the block button. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Giano

I think it important that the ArbCom accepts this case. At the moment 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. Giano (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies

In other words, none of you, apart from Coren, are prepared to make a decision on accepting this case! Giano (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Above Giano mentions that a user was blocked for calmly suggesting that Giano was a "cock sucker". I placed that block because the insult appeared to be an attempt to harass Giano, and it could be read as an insult to sexual orientation. Bishonen's scatalogical reference appears to have been an expression of her own dismay, a hot headed display of temper. It takes a bit of thoughtfulness to distinguish between these two cases. Mere incivility should not be blockable. Bishonen's should have been asked to refactor her remark and warned that admins are expected to do a better than average job of maintaining decorum, even when upset. In the alternative, Bishonen's sysop privileges could have been suspended for a short time to make clear that admins will not be tolerated to cuss at users. I suggest Jimbo do the following:

1. Make a note on Bishonen's block log to disregard the block.
2. State that Bishonen is not a toxic personality.
3. Warn the admin corps that cussing at users will not be tolerated, and suggest state what the penalty should will be for anybody who breaks that condition.

Setting expectations before taking action is a good way to minimize drama. I agree with Giano's point above that our civility and no personal attacks policies are applied very inconsistently. Jehochman ^Talk 13:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Statement by Lar

As I said here:

An unjustified and one sided block can be extremely demoralizing, especially to someone with a pristine record. If Jimbo Wales ever wants to be shut of me, the first entry in this would probably do the trick. I suspect there are others who feel the same way, one unfair sanction by ArbCom, or even one block, and that would be it. Did you want a recounting of the editors we've lost so far for reasons similar to this?

I think this block was ill considered, and yes, I think it could cost us good editors. Could Bishonen have done better in her interactions? Yes. Was the block by the book correct from a strict policy violation perspective? Perhaps. But in context, no. Circumstances were not properly taken into account, it did not lessen disruption, and it sent the wrong message, by shooting the messenger and doing more to enable further incivility and drama than it did to lessen it. Admins should be held to higher standards but an out of the blue block, without the appropriate level of prior discussion, is not a good way to starting that vital change in our approach. Jehochman spells it out quite nicely just above.

That said, what's to be done about it now? Is taking Jimbo to ArbCom likely to get a good result? I don't know but I'm somewhat dubious that there will be a good outcome from this. Perhaps lessons learned going forward would be the best that can be hoped for. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I would like to suggest that serious consideration be given to wiping Bishonen's block log rather than just making a note, but making a note is better than nothing. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)a

Statement by dave souza

There's clearly an unresolved issue here, in that Bishonen has accepted wrongdoing in an isolated loss of temper under very trying circumstances, but Jimbo above is clearly holding to a position that unprecedented blocks without warning on a productive user who happens to be an admin, but wasn't acting as an admin on that occasion, are an acceptable way of improving the behaviour of other admins. Jimbo also appears to believe that it sets a good example of the behaviour expected of such exalted janitors to make assertions that a block is for a "toxic personality", now modified to "toxic behaviours", without providing evidence and clarification beyond said isolated rude word. Worthy as the aim is of trying to ensure that off duty janitors never lose their cool to the point of saying a rude word, punitive blocking of stressed admins without warning does not seem to me to be productive in any way. A block after a warning and repeated misdemeanour is justifiable, but an unexpected block for shock effect is a bad idea. I really hope that Jimbo can bring himself to agree that his own behaviour falls below the ideal set for admins, and that mutual agreement on improved standards is a better way forward than punitive blocks.

While the dramaout may cause some delay, my hope would be that it increases the time for reflection in order to quietly achieve a mutually agreeable form of words, rather than going through teh dramaz of the full gamut of dispute resolution procedures. The good offices of the arbiters appear to me to be the best way of achieving that. My excuse for ignoring the dramaout? By my reckoning I've fully complied with the conditions of the dramaout for a fortnight already, though that's down to wikisloth rather than principle. Unless, of course, you count Das entdeckte Geheimnis der Natur im Bau und in der Befruchtung der Blumen as drama. . . dave souza, talk 18:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The proposals set out by Jehochman above appear to be a good way forward, with the caveat that the penalty for admin corps cussing at users should be carefully considered, preferably with community agreement. In my view a temporary loss of the tools would seem appropriate given the loss of self control, but that should be a measured penalty aimed at avoiding disruption, not a public humiliation of the admin. . . dave souza, talk 18:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

Responding specifically to the points by Luke and Roger Davies; yes, this is specifically over whether Jimbo Wales has shown the necessary competence to continue using the block button, and why a hearing needs to be made. Jimbo has made a number of poor sysop actions over the last few years, and since he is not particularly active in that area it is then a rather greater percentage than would be expected, and he has been extremely unwilling to recognise that his actions were not in keeping with either practice or indeed policy. The immediate example is the one that originated this action by Bishonen, a sanction that did not lead to diminishing disruption since it took place so long after the incident to possibly effect any ongoing dispute, one that did not refer to any of the ongoing discussion about same on the admin noticeboard and therefore disregarded any consensus existing, and one that takes the concept of a cooldown block (which is not a valid reason, anyway) to the furthest extreme of chilling effect. The actions of a few years ago was the one that related to a block enacted by Jimbo against an editor for an incident some months previous, which had been dealt with by the community at the time, and made with the comment - I paraphrase - "I am now off for the weekend, don't do anything about my sanction until I get back". When, following the inevitable drama and debate, an admin did do something, and undid the block with reference to policy, Jimbo returned he blocked and desysopped the admin concerned (and reblocked the editor). Jimbo's response was, again paraphrasing, "Wheelwaring is not permitted". My point is that it was Jimbo who acted contrary to policy in blocking an editor (I note that Jimbo mentioned something about removing trolls from 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.
Further to the above, I am also very concerned with regard to the manner of Jimbo Wales' response to the Request - notwithstanding there may be more once the "dramaout" has been observed. Despite the use of the term "request" at the close of the statement, most of it appears to be dictating how the request should be responded to. I suggest that should the Request be granted, some scope should be given to how Jimbo Wales (the account and rights holder), Jimbo Wales the Founder, and Jimmy Wales the public person, interacts and relates to the community. If not now, here, then when, where, and by whom can it ever be done? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment regarding response by Arbitrator Carcharoth

Yes, if there is to be a general review of the sysop action history of Jimbo Wales, then all by means have a history of the interactions of Bishonen - and the unfortunate editor who chose to impose themselves upon Giano's userpages and provoked Bishonen - since another commentator on this page has already cast aspersions upon Bishonen civility record. I should very much like to see evidence that Bishonen has been anything but a positive role model in her interactions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tex

I see many people, including Cool Hand Luke below, continuing to refer to this incident as a so called three-hour block that Bishonen should just shrug off. I think they are missing the point. Blocks are humiliating and hurtful to most regular editors. Especially so to those editors who have been here a long time and have provided hours of their lives developing high quality content voluntarily. Add to that the fact that this particular block was handed out by the so-called "god king" and it becomes even more hurtful. We have a very large number of people on this site who think Jimbo can do no wrong, no matter how wrong he is (we all know this is true). Calling Bishonen a toxic personality was also way over the top and backpedaling to say he didn't mean it that way is just a cop out. All the fanboys who go to his talkpage to "thank him for developing wikipedia" now are of the mistaken belief that Bish is a "toxic personality". If admins should conduct themselves better than us lowly editors, then Jimbo should conduct himself to the absolute highest level. His block was not based on policy no matter how he tries to say it was. I think it is high time that the committee looks into Jimbo's use of his "god-king" status. Tex (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

This case should be declined. Even though he is signed on to the No Drama Days 2009 festival (also indicated on his page), Jimbo responded courteously to Bishonen's talk page post and offered to discuss the issues and concerns: "It could be helpful if you could state for me what you think is in live dispute here?" To which there has been no response from Bishonen. This refusal to discuss the matter means the proper dispute resolution protocols haven't been followed. Polite discussion would have been the first step. I'm a big supporter of checks and balances on admins and admin actions (I'm all for blocks being reviewed and oversighted if they're out of line), and I'm not sure the block was right, but it's over now and if Bishonen is unwilling to discuss it respectfully with Jimbo then it's grossly unfair to put the rest of the community through this hearing when there are real disputes and problems that need resolving. The point has definitely been made that Bishonen, like many of us, is unhappy with the arbitrary way the civility policy is enforced and I think a warning is always appropriate when dealing with editors who have demonstrated good faith. But calling someone a little shit seems to stretch anyone's tolerance (and it was only a 3 hour block). The broader discussion of the civility policy, checks and balances on admins and admin actions should be had, but this isn't the appropriate venue. It's time to move on from this incident. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Baseball Bugs

Directing obscenities at another user is not acceptable, and a 3-hour block is getting off easy. Blocks are not done without a reason. When issued a short-term block, a user should shut up and reflect - not whine about the occasional capricious and arbitrary nature of blocks, but reflect on the reason they were blocked - and pledge to do better the next time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 [21].

Finally: the inappropriate edit [22] that led to the block was not an isolated incident. Compare these two edits (and edit summary) from a week before the block: [23] [24]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re the last paragraph: Bishonen's response above misses the point I am making, which is that there is a broader pattern of incollegiality in her editing. Sending someone away from your talk page is acceptable, although unnecessary because one can simply ignore comments. Doing it by saying "piss off" is patently inappropriate. After MZMcBride gently pointed that out, her response was not to amend the initial comment; instead she responded with "fuck off". — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Geogre

I will dissent from the other views and argue that this is about Jimbo as an admin. Whatever "powers" Jimbo has, these are powers given by the editors in aggregate, and Jimbo is bound, in fact and practice, by ArbCom rulings. He is, in essence, merely an administrator getting special veneration. The veneration depends upon good will.

1. The block was issued without warning. Blocking without warning is supposed to occur in emergency situations only. If some minority section of the admin corps believes that "cursing" is so abhorrent as to cause a block, then the degree of their passion or consistency of their action does not amount to a change of policy, and it darn sure doesn't translate into an emergency.
2. The block was a "cool off block." We all know that cool off blocks are not allowable.
3. After the block, Jimbo refused to discuss the matter with other administrators. Several people tried to engage Jimbo on 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,

1. The current policy that is so often cited does not match up with the practice. It says that extreme cases may (i.e. might) result in a block, not that "every" instance will definitely result in a block.
2. "Civility" has no more of a meaning than "polite," and, for many, seems to imply the same thing.
3. Cursing is surely not the way to determine "civility," as there are as many ways to be cruel with clean words as ways of being friendly with profane words.

ArbCom does not make policy, of course. However, ArbCom can rule against any person arguing that he, by fiat, has created policy with his decision that, forever hence, any person who uses a curse word will get a block of particular length.

I urge acceptance to rule that Jimbo's function as an administrator is conditioned upon consultation on 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." Geogre (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

If this case is to be accepted, the Committee could do far worse than to have a series of motions deciding what issues they'll consider as part of this case; it has, quite simply, an infinite number of possible limits as to its scope. Further, there are conflicting Arbitrator comments already regarding whether Jimbo's role in the community will be considered if the case is accepted; this is merely one example of an issue which should be explicitly determined as included or excluded in the case by the series of motions I propose. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

Offer of mediation

I'm confident this can all be sorted without the need for arbitration. Both Bishonen and Jimmy make good points and it would be good to channel those thoughts towards some form of conclusion that both of them are happy with. I really believe that we can sort this out amicably. I'd like to offer to mediate the dispute between the two users, along with two other adminitrators (offers would be much appreciated) to help keep ideas flowing. I'm not sure how much time we'd need, but I think it's much more likely to come to a positive conclusion than arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein

I'm not sure what there might be to arbitrate about an expired (and patently justified) three-hour incivility block. If the Committee takes the case, though, it might be a good occasion to underline, as Jimbo does, that we should not tolerate incivility by anyone under any circumstances, because of the toxic and unprofessional atmosphere it generates.  Sandstein  13:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim

I hope the media don't get a hold of this and make it look worse for us than it is; accepting this case may turn out to be a mistake, I fear. On-wiki issues like this are so petty and inconsequential, I can't figure out why Jimbo thought this would be wise. I'm sure there are loads of admins who could have done it for him if he really thought it necessary. Maybe not? I suppose Jimbo doesn't spend so much time any more building relations with members of the community, and maybe as a result he is weak and easily isolated. Or maybe not, we'll see what the result is.

I guess this might be a lesson for Jimbo: Don't hit a lion on the face with a stick, either shoot it or leave it alone. It seems no middle line between "constitutional monarch" and "autocrat" is possible. Jimbo should probably for everyone's sake either withdraw entirely from making such gritty decisions, or else regularly do so and assert his authority over the various boards, ArbCom and the rest of the pedia, and see how that works out. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad. "Consensus" is an anthropologically impossible method of government for a community over a certain size, a size which 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. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Rootology

Do not edit my formatting, thank you

I was not going to post ever again until Deacon above mentioned media impact. This is utterly rubbish and irrelevant.

I strongly, strongly urge that any consideration of any decisions or actions by the ArbCom here firmly, and utterly disregard any consideration of Jimbo Wales’ self-appointed status which stems from his being the co-founder of 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[25], or any other possibly questionable administrative actions, that’s a shame, but it’s his own fault. Jimmy’s status as anything is irrelevant, he’s one piece and one pawn in service of the encyclopedia, and to the encyclopedia. Jimmy Wales is not a special bird flying above the encyclopedia; the encyclopedia is not Jimmy Wales; and all of us are not and never have been in service to Jimmy Wales. If anything his courtesy role that we grant him ‘’gratis’’ puts him in service to us.

Accept the case to look into all of his actions (and Bishonen's, of course), including his inappropriate actions historically, such as (please use these as Evidence, and I ask that someone submit this as my /Evidence section):

• Abuse of local steward tools -- Jimmy was an involved participant in this dispute. Any other Admin or Steward here would be stripped of position.
• Out of process blocks. Flagrant.
• Abusive deletions. Flagrant, and Jimmy was also an involved party in this dispute.
• COI-violating use of Administrative tools, protecting Joe Lieberman before appearing before him and the US Senate. Flagrant.
• Using his tools and self-claimed status to influence article content inappropriately; no OFFICE claim.
• Misuse of admin tools in asserting his self-claimed status. Flagrant.
• More COI protection with tools. Flagrant.
• Jimmy has also fomented trouble off-wiki as an agitant, particularly in his participation on a stalking e-mail list on Wikia.com, of which is he a partial owner and corporate office, from which sprang the entire controversy wherein User:Durova blocked User:!! inappropriately.

Jimmy is neither bulletproof nor invaluable any longer to the success of 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. rootology (C)(T) 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Pharaoh of the Wizards

Jimbo Wales wished to see high standards of civility from Admins.This is clear here from the desysop of Scarian for attacking a sockpuppet.

Here he stated that Update: Scarian apologized without hestitation and supported that the desysop was the right thing to do under the circumstances. Therefore, I have reinstated him immediately and without prejudice. I remind all sysops that certain standards of behavior are expected of all of us as Wikipedians, and that this applies doubly to admins.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Now if Bishonen had not made the comment to the user she would not have been blocked and it is similar to what happened to Scarian. 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. 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 Penelese someone for this I remind all sysops that certain standards of behavior are expected of all of us as Wikipedians, and that this applies doubly to admins.Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC) IT WILL SEND A VERY WRONG SIGNAL THAT USERS CAN GET AWAY WITH INCIVILITY HOWEVER MILD.Please dismiss the case. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment regarding response by Arbitrator Coren

As the first one accept the case 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 ?Now Jimbo has said that he will stop blocking people and hence the issue of future blocks is resolved.

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 users write and this would led to unending drama and be media circus which our Encyclopedia can do without.We are here to improve the Encyclopedia. Further is the Arbcom enpowered to do it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Daedalus969

I am going to be short with this, as, at this time, I do not really have much to say on the matter;

I regret making those series of edits. It was a very bad move, and one I did not put very much, if any, thought into. To clarify something said by Bish above, the placement of that tag had nothing to do with you. I realize it is incredibly hard to assume good faith with me at the moment, but please trust that I only placed it there because I thought the editor had retired. Please also believe me when I note that I am sorry for doing such a thing. I understand your reaction, in that you two were, and probably still are(they came back after all) close friends. Yes, I disagreed with her regarding the obvious baiting of OC and Tony1. I have a problem being baited, I've had this problem for many years. To the point, although I dislike Bish because she seemed to have this idea that I wasn't being baited, the addition of the tag had nothing to do with it, and, I am sorry for this addition.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 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. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recuse. Daniel (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Assuming no arbs issue a decline to hear or unless I hear further, I think a case will open at the earliest at ~09:55, 23 July 2009 if my math is right. Granted that is 5AM my time, so that would be the earliest any clerk would open it. If I'm the opening clerk, it will probably be a bit later in the day. If the arbs do intend to define a scope of the case, could they let the clerks know somehow in advance so we can start patrolling the evidence and workshop pages from the get go? Lastly, I noticed an arb mentioned the behavior of Daedalus969 as something at issue, yet he is not listed as a party. Should he be added? MBisanz ^talk 12:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Please do not open this case without an explicit go-ahead from an arbitrator; acceptance depends on the results of further attempts to mediate the dispute without ArbCom intervention. — Coren ^(talk) 12:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, holding pending instructions. MBisanz ^talk 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I can open the case if MBisanz is unavailable. AGK 21:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Second point, the name "Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen" would work as a case name, but it is a bit long and the apostrophe can be annoying to remember, I think a name like like "Jimbo Wales-Bishonen" would better define it and fit the usual system, unless the arbs have a different preference. MBisanz ^talk 12:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/1/0/4)

• Comment. I've had private correspondence with both Bishonen and Jimbo about the matter, so if one or both parties requests it, I will recuse. Otherwise, I won't recuse because I don't think that my discussion with either of them has caused me to prejudge the situation differently than others that have read their on site discussion. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Tentative decline. Premature as there are ongoing discussions that might resolve the situation. Jimbo's public offer to voluntarily stop using his block tool addresses one of the concerns raised by Bishonen and others in their statements. As well, a note for the block log can be worked out without a case. I'm still considering if there are other issues outside of those that will be best resolved in a case rather than through discussion. But so far, I think not. Several RFC's and discussions about Jimbo's status are open now so those need to run their course before any action should be taken in regard to changes in his role on 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. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, Jimbo and many of the arbitrators are participating in the WP:DRAMAOUT, which will mean that this request wont have much traction until after it ends. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Accept; I understand the desire to settle this via other venues, but the fact of the matter is that the request is based around allegation of misuse of administrative tools and a number of behavioral incidents surrounding that use of tools. The matter has been festering for many weeks, now, and the amount of acrimony, disputes and drama surrounding it shows little sign of abating anytime soon. Closure is needed, and I don't believe that can be achieved without a formal decision from ArbCom. — Coren ^(talk) 16:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

• Question: what kind of remedy do you want ArbCom to provide? It seems very unlikely we would desysop Jimmy unless there's a secret wheel war you're not telling us about. It looks like a marginal three-hour block from months ago. Jimbo has already offered to not block any user for six months. Are you asking us to decide whether "toxic personality" is somehow worse than "little shit"? That seems like an enormous waste of time to me. What relief do you want from ArbCom? Cool Hand Luke 18:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I find myself in something of the same boat as FloNight; I've discussed the case somewhat with Bishonen, and from correspondence I certainly know Jimbo's views. I see no reason that I could not be impartial in this case, and will participate unless requested otherwise promptly by one of the parties. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm with Cool Hand Luke on this one. I'm having trouble seeing an arbitrable issue that's worth the powder and shot.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:01, 21 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. Incivilty is rarely, if ever, the best way to handle something; as it invariably causes more drama. There is almost always a better way to handle something than being incivil. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that different people have different ideas of what is incivil. Occasional lapses can be easily understood, especially minor ones. Patterns are much more problematic. Warnings are good. Was this block within the civility policy? Perhaps, but no warning makes it problematic. Was Bishonen's use a scatalogical term of profanity acceptable? No, and certainly not from an admin. The role of Jimbo in 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. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarify CBM makes some good points. To clarify re Jimbo, while I don't think Arbcom has remit over Jimbo's over role as GodKing (which is only on en wiki, prob because it's his native language), I do think it has remit over his use of admin tools, appeals, etc. Arbcom has remit over his userrights at enwiki (including the local founder flag), but the GodKing role is an informal social role that Arbcom can't control anymore than it can control the reasons behind user comments at RFA. H global Founder role is board-defined and doesn't actually have anything to do with enwiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Accept (unless RfCs or further mediation takes place). There are issues that need airing here that won't go away. However, if the scope is expanded to include past block actions by Jimbo, then there is an argument that the scope could also be expanded to include past actions by Bishonen (or others) that may have led Jimbo to decide that action was needed here. That would be very messy. In other words, the question of the single three-hour block here does not warrant an arbitration case, but the underlying dispute may do. One step I would like to have seen before this reached arbitration was a request for comment or other public discussion on the specific matters of: (a) Bishonen's past conduct; and (b) Jimbo's block actions over the years. If the community could give their opinions on those two matters at two separate requests for comments, that might be one last step that could be taken. If someone can indicate that specific community discussions on this have already taken place (there have been discussions of Jimbo's role, but whether these have specifically focused on his use of blocks, I'm not sure), that would help. I'll also note here that since drafting this statement earlier, other comments have been made and I find myself agreeing with what Rlevse wrote above, but also with what CBM wrote as well, so this is not an entirely set-in-stone accept. Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Accept unless some mediation is successful in the meantime. To me, this is has issues WRT dispute resolution and admin conduct (especially how involved is "involved") worth reviewing. I do hope there is some resolution otherwise which will remove the need for this, but I doubt it at this point (unless it has already happened??). Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. I can't see mediation working here, a case is probably what has to be done. Wizardman 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

---