Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Issues relating to administrators

Hmm... the matter with the Magog the Ogre has not been raised by the arbitrators [1][2]. I felt there are compelling evidence about his recent conduct and the way he slander other parties in this ArbCom case. Since the ArbCom does not even intend to "advise" or "remind" him of his actions, I suppose the take home message is that he did nothing wrong even after all the personal attacks he threw and the permanent ban proposals he made?

Since he has taken up the role of the supervising administrators, it's troubling that his misconduct is overlooked. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In analyzing the evidence provided on the evidence page, I found the allegations against Magog the Ogre and Qwyrxian pretty unconvincing. As far as I can see, the main argument against Magog is that he once unfairly blocked one party and not another, which if correct, would indeed be misuse of the tools, but a single misuse doesn't justify desysopping, perhaps not even a mention. Most of the other evidence seems to come down to "he wasn't nice to me/someone on my side" or "he disagreed with my content position". Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not desysop is an appropriate measure is another question, but his general attitude towards his critics is something I consider to be problematic. An example would be this [3] where he'd use all sorts of libels and personal attacks on others even though his critics were obviously justified in their scrutiny of his decisions. He then proceeded to propose a block on a rule-abiding party whose only fault appeared to be having a role in criticizing his decisions [4]. I thought this is pretty ironic, since this ArbCom case is mostly about incivility and admins are generally expected to adhere to higher standards of user conduct. Or maybe I am simply suffering from insanity and that all that I thought to be inappropriate is, in fact, perfectly appropriate. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely nonplussed about the concerns over the admins who tried to help, and they were attacked repeatedly by each sides whenever a decision didnt go their way. When you wear out multiple admins who started as neutral admins, the problem isn't the admins. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

How was he even attacked? The whole ordeal with him was civil until he decided to accuse other people of trolling. These two threads constitute the bulk of the recent interactions with him outside of ArbCom [5][6]. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)