Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 31 October 2013 (→Baiting: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: correct tally). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Baiting   30 October 2013 {{{votes}}}
Adam Bishop   27 October 2013 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Baiting

Initiated by Mark Arsten (talk) at 00:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Mark Arsten

Although the community has shown the ability to handle unprovoked incivility, how to respond to incivility that may have been provoked by baiting remains an intractable dispute. What action to take in response to provoked incivility is disputed, and how to handle these issues divides the community.

In this situation, StAnselm (talk · contribs) reported Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) to ANI for incivility, citing several recent comments he made. Spartaz (talk · contribs) blocked Eric Corbett for three hours in response. The next morning, Fram (talk · contribs) blocked Eric Corbett for three months, and Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) changed the block to indefinite. They cited a series of comments he made during and after the block. The issue was then raised in a discussion on AN. Some users in the thread have raised the concern that Eric was baited before he made the remarks he did. Several proposals of how to respond to this issue have been made in the thread, but none have gained consensus. I think this is symptomatic of a divide in the community about how to handle the issues of baiting and incivility.

As an admin, I encounter issues of bating and incivility on a regular basis. At this point, I feel that the community has not established best practices on the matter, and I believe intervention by the arbitration committee is needed in this matter. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not 100% sure if this is the best list of parties, I'm open to suggestions for additions. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carcharoth: Part of the reason that I filed this is that I encounter baiting/incivility situations regularly (I'm thinking of one in particular but will have to dig through the ANI archives to find it), and would like clarification from Arbcom on the issue. Given the difficulty finding consensus at AN today, I think it's more than just me who would benefit from this clarification. I also do not feel that this dispute can be resolved at AN because discussions about sanctions for this editor are flawed because they tend to draw old enemies and friends. I think the deliberation of the arbitration committee is needed instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Risker: Though I did have conflict with Eric in late 2012, our interactions this year have all been pleasant (as best as I can recall) and I hold no animosity towards him. I respect your judgment on the issue though, and apologize if I've given the wrong impression by filing this. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PantherLeapord

WP:CIVIL is a core pillar of the encyclopedia. Eric Corbett A.K.A Malleus Fatuorum has been blocked for incivility more times than I can bother to count! Regardless of any perceived or actual "baiting" this high number of blocks for the same thing would see ANY other editor community banned without hesitation but in this case the community is obviously willing to forget about this core pillar of the encyclopedia. As such I urge arbcom to accept this case and enforce the core the pillar that the community has forgotten about. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sportsguy17

Eric is clearly an editor who is here to write content and [wants] nothing more than that. MF/EC can clearly slip up from time to time, but seeing Eric Corbett's block log and Malleus Fatuorum's block log (his old account), it is also clear that some admins are playing games. This page sorely needs to be re-read. Blocking's not going to solve anything, except for maybe a three to twelve hour cool down for unprovoked attacks and anger, albeit why do we allow people to bait editors at all, especially ones that are dedicated to content and not just sitting at the drama boards asking for trouble. There is wheel warring occurring and ironically, we are losing the unblocking admins (INeverCry) in an unwarranted fashion, while the blocking admins have nothing happen to them. Clearly no one learned from this mess. This is something even ArbCom will struggle to handle, but its our only real option at this point. Sportsguy17 00:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: -- Eric does not wish to participate in this case. Sportsguy17 00:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bishonen: baiting by block

People who think a three-hour block is no big deal should try it sometime. The feeling of being blocked, especially when you think you've been blocked unjustly, is very peculiar, and ought to be experienced before being dismissed. It seems to me very understandable that Eric Corbett went into his (no doubt regrettable) "c'mon, block me some more, you assholes" mode after a hair-raisingly bad three-hour block. Spartaz blocked him for the (frankly silly, apart from everything else) time of three hours for "telling another editor to fuck off", as Spartaz specifically expressed it in the block message and the block log. "Fuck off" is a rough way of telling somebody to leave. Not a personal attack. It couldn't be more impersonal. It's quite a widely used locution on Wikipedia. Some people never say it, but many do, on occasion, including admins. Including myself, I'm sure. Can't find an instance… but there must be several. Anyway, has anybody ever been blocked for saying "fuck off" before this? Telling people to fuck off is so far away from being a personal attack that you could see the distance between the two from outer space, like the Great Barrier Reef. It was a miserably bad 3-hour block, either incompetent or deliberate bait. Bishonen | talk 01:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by Robert McClenon

I partly agree and partly disagree that the community has shown that it can handle unprovoked incivility. It has shown that it can handle unprovoked incivility by flamers, trolls, vandals, and similar types who are not here to build the encyclopedia. It cannot handle complicated case of incivility. This case belongs to two categories of types of complicated incivility, neither of which the community can handle effectively. The first is incivility that was prompted by baiting. The editor in question has such a long history of incivility that he has set himself up as a target for baiting by bear-pokers, who provoke him and he lashes out. On the other hand, the editor in question is bear-like, strong and irascible. He has a long history of incivility that has been intermittently tolerated because it is offset by a reputation as a content creator, and he has an entourage who will back him at the noticeboards when he is blocked, and he gets unblocked. "Community consensus" is a will-o-the-wisp in dealing with editors with complicated histories of incivility. There will not be a consensus. This leaves the ArbCom, which does not act by consensus because it votes, as the only remaining body to deal with the case that has continued to trouble the "community" because the editor has good and bad features. I urge the ArbCom to accept this case, because the "community" has shown that it is divided about this editor. I urge the ArbCom also to look at whether the bear-pokers should be dealt with. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for Next Time

The filing party has (reasonably) requested withdrawal. On the other hand, a case against Eric Corbett will at some time come back to the ArbCom (again). I have a few comments. First, I was not asking for any clarification of the civility policy. I agree with those other editors who say that the policy is clear as stated. I was asking for enforcement of the existing policy as it is written. Some ideas that the policy requires clarification may be because the policy is enforced inconsistently by the "community" at the noticeboards. The policy makes it clear that baiting of an editor in order to provoke him into incivility is uncivil. It has been shown that community enforcement at the noticeboards is not effective with regard to baiting, but baiting is uncivil. Also, it is true that Eric Corbett's comment did not rise to the status of a personal attack. That does matter, but personal attacks are not the only form of incivility. His comment was uncivil, although it probably did not call for a block. Civility enforcement in cases of baiting requires analysis of the record of evidence, a function that is done reasonably well by the ArbCom, and is not done at all well if at all at the noticeboards. A case against this editor will come back to the ArbCom. It will not require clarification of the policy on civility, which is clear. It will need effective application and enforcement of the policy, for which the ArbCom is the only workable forum in cases like the next one will be. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by John Cline

I have observed the actions which led to this request and will remain to participate as an interested editor. I think this request however, should be declined as it is being handled by the community and is solvable there. If a case does ensue, expect my participation as it will surely be an endeavor of mine; as well.—John Cline (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Scottywong

No clarification of the civility policy is required, and there is no need to complicate the civility policy by requiring an analysis of why someone decided to be uncivil. If you're uncivil for any reason, then you're uncivil. If someone called you an asshole, and you responded by calling them an asshole, then you're both equally uncivil. It doesn't matter who "started it first". We're all (supposed to be) adults here. If you can't remain civil in the face of someone else who is being less than civil to you, then maybe you don't belong here. The proper response to someone who you perceive as trying to "bait" you is to report the incident to an administrator or at ANI, and don't take the bait by responding in kind. Ask them politely to stay off your talk page, or to refrain from being uncivil, and if they don't, then they'll eventually end up being blocked and you won't have to deal with them anymore. The minute you take the bait and are uncivil back to them, then that's the point where you will also be blocked. And, if you happen to have been blocked 23 times in the past for civility, then you will probably get blocked a lot sooner than someone else.

Moral of the story: the civility policy, as it currently exists, is sufficient. It's not necessary to provide additional clarifications about the perceived reasons why someone is being uncivil. Incivility is incivility, regardless of the reasons behind it. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 02:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Drmies

It is obvious that "civility" in our joint is considered to be nothing more than a matter of checking someone's words against a list of words deemed unacceptable. Treating someone as an outcast, a persona non grata, or a less-than-whole editor is much more uncivil than telling someone to fuck off. I'm disappointed that admins who ought to know better if only by the virtue of their being an admin look for nothing but that--who said "cunt" first? It's shortsighted and childish; these are the editors that think that a civility block is like a lesson. Bishonen's comment on what a block might feel like is relevant: I am lucky that mine was lifted before I logged back in (so I never actually saw a "you got blocked" message--I wonder what it's like), because I don't know if I would have been able to keep my cool. Anyway, I would like ArbCom to step in and make some statement about what civility really is. Hint: it is not what Scottywong, Fram, Spartaz, and others seem to think. And no, that doesn't mean that anything goes. Duh. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Guy Macon

I have requested some actual numbers for provoked vs unprovoked incivility at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for data/evidence --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: we have some interesting numbers, but could use another set of eyes looking them over. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fram

Baiting is a serious problem, but not every negative comment is a case of baiting or poking the bear. In this specific case, I have explained at the AN discussion that I don't consider the comments that lead to my block of Eric Corbett to be directly caused by baiting, but were made calmly and deliberately (as far as one can be certain of these things as an observer on a website), in the full knowledge of what the result would be. Even so, I was accused by one editor of poking and of being the cause of Eric Corbett's "incense". Again, baiting is a problem, but too often it is used as an excuse to defend the indefensible. But I don't think this is the right scope for an ArbCom case. Fram (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Worm That Turned

I suppose it was inevitable that this was going to end up here. Arbcom is the wrong place to deal with this, as quite simply I do not believe a nuanced solution would come out of it, it'd be a ban. I request that the arbitrators decline the case and leave it to the community as discussion is still progressing at AN. If that closes without any outcome I would prefer the next step to be RfC/U - as it's currently a red link, where the community can work towards a more permanent solution. If that fails also, then Arbcom should be the final resort. On the other hand, if this case does get accepted, I request that discussions be held on a list that does not include me - I want nothing to do with it. WormTT(talk) 07:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Spartaz

Arbitration for a short block of a user imposed for telling another editor 'Fuck off troll'? What next? An RFC to see which way the sun rises in the morning? I certainly understand Eric's frustration with the block and I wasn't offended by his having a go at me on his talk page after the block but some of his persistent supporters need to get a grip on reality. The idea that everyone else has to accept Eric's foul language because he was provoked isn't the slightest bit compatible with the same argument that he isn't expected to accept anything from other editors he disagrees with. Indeed this argument seems rather bogus and lacks logic, consistency & fairness.

If the committee seriously believes that an admin shouldn't block any user who tells another editor to fuck off or calls them a cunt then desyop me now and block me from the project forever because there is no way I'm ever going to accept that either is acceptable.

Oh, and can you pass a motion prohibiting Mark from raising any more RFARs from situations he is not involved in? This is turning into an unpleasant habit and the last editor I remember obsessively raising RFArs like this was John254 and we all remember how that ended up. Spartaz Humbug! 09:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Last part struck at the request of AGK. Spartaz Humbug! 13:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC) @Jehockman, if Eric could find some way to express his frustrations without telling people to fuck off or comparing them to cunts then we wouldn't be here in the first place. I'm sorry but your attitude stinks. Spartaz Humbug! 13:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by Jehochman

@Spartaz:, could you please refrain from making blocks that intensify disputes? If you're going to continue administrating this site, you need to understand when an action makes things worse, and when it makes things better. If a user is aggravated (evidenced by them saying something like "fuck off"), it is often helpful to have a friendly editor go to their talk page and ask why they are upset, and what can be done to make things better. Did you consider that the user was in fact being trolled and that maybe it would have been a lot better for the encyclopedia if you had blocked the troll instead of the victim? Blocking a user for simple profanity, one that is not in any way a personal attack, is poor judgment. Please don't do it again. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 12:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched

If this stays open much longer, then I WILL make a statement. The committee as a whole has been an embarrassment to a noble effort for some time, and if this project is to survive - then changes must be made. As a collective group you all should be ashamed of your behavior. As individuals you are all wonderful people - but as a group? You should be kicked to the curb. — ChedZILLA 23:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Time and again this committee has refused to even make a statement about administrative misconduct. You've collectively declined to review the "administration" of this site. My comments are not really relevant to the case at hand, and I realize that - but I know that at least a few of you are burned out due to time and real life situations. You are making some very poor judgments. The "protect your own" is very obvious. To accept this particular case or not is not the point I'm trying to make. There is a real and volatile situation in regards to "wp:civil" when it comes to people who game our site and bait experienced editors. Mark did not bring this here lightly - rather he considered the situation and asked the committee to review a standing policy in wp:civil. The fact that some of you would take cheap pot-shots at him is embarrassing. How dare you - you should be ashamed of yourselves. The committee's behavior over the last year has enabled the childish admin. to act in foolish ways, and discouraged adult editors from contributing in positive ways. I would think you would be grateful to have a request brought in an uninvolved fashion rather then the "he/she pissed me off" fashion. Yes, I did complain about the harsh committee of the 08 era - but there is still need to have rules. You people need to grow a pair .. you need to be "Management" ... As it is? You are a laughingstock. When an admin screws up? Then make a motion that admonishes them. I don't give a shit what you do to me, but please don't let children overun this site. UseNET outlived "useful" ... do you really want Wikipedia to go down that same road? Some of you owe Mark an apology. Be big enough to do it. — ChedZILLA 01:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SandyGeorgia

I'm seeing some pots calling the kettle black. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by / Comment by X

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Baiting: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/1/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Several issues are at play here:
1) Eric failing to rise above provocation:  Working on a collaborative, volunteer-run project means one will encounter both well- and ill-meaning stupidity. Contributors are expected to rise above this, by reacting like mature adults. Eric failed to do so in this latest instance, and in many others beforehand. Provocation is a mitigating but not exonerative factor. I disagree that a block was not warranted here.
2) General policy issues:  The distinction between "provoked incivility" and "unprovoked incivility" is an artificial construction and is not evidence of a gulf in site policy. If Eric has been uncivil, he should be dealt with by the community in the ordinary way. Arbitration cases on general policy issues are useless, and I will not vote to open one.
3) Sanctioning Eric:  He is actually already been dealt with in the ordinary way. An administrator has indefinitely blocked Eric, pending satisfactory assurances that he will stop being so hostile and potty-mouthed. This block has been referred to the community, at AN, for endorsement. The community should now review and endorse the indefinite block; an arbitration case on this specific instance of incivility would be a worse means of reaching the same end.
4) Three-hour blocks:  Short blocks are frequently used by administrators to make people cool off; the notion that we do not use “cool down blocks” seems like another artificial construction. Even if we posit that such blocks should not be and are not used, Spartaz’s block in any case fell within the range of fair administrator discretion to prevent ongoing disruption. By the sake token, WormThatTurned’s block was also acceptable.
For these reasons, I would decline this request and refer Eric’s indefinite block to the community for endorsement. If the AN thread fails to produce a satisfactory result, the community really would be incapable of resolving this dispute – and I would (only then) be minded to open a case on Eric. AGK [•] 12:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also awaiting statements, but not inclined to take a case. Mark, may I ask why you have filed this case? Were you involved in the dispute at any stage, or is this one of those 'bystanders filing a case' matters? I would prefer it if someone actually involved in this incident filed a request - that would seem to be either Eric, or one of the three blocking administrators. If none of those four want to file a request, then no-one else should be filing a request either. It may be better for this request to be withdrawn, and then we can wait and see if the matter gets resolved in the ongoing discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline procedurally, per the filing party's desire to withdraw this request. Couple of additional comments: (i) Ched, can you please get a sense of perspective? This request (at least as currently framed) is clearly not going to result in a case. The arbs that have commented are declining the case request. I commented last night, and am commenting again tonight. What more do you want? The clerks will withdraw the request 24 hours after the filer requested it be withdrawn, providing the conditions are met (follow the link provided by Courcelles). It may be bureaucratic, but it is the system we have (it was intended to discourage frivolous filings, but maybe stronger measures are needed to discourage such premature filings). (ii) Having reviewed what led to this latest round of discussions, there might possibly be a case to be made for examining whether the annual tensions that arise at the Guy Fawkes/Guy Fawkes Night/5 November suite of articles should be the subject of an arbitration case. It seems to cause problems every year. Maybe a closer look will identify any chronic problems there. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ched, Risker was absolutely right to say that Mark was the wrong person to be filing this case. Please don't push that. On a wider point, there is a problem with bystanders filing a case. Arbitration cases work best when those involved in the dispute realise that enough is enough and agree that arbitration is needed. When others take them to arbitration, you end up with parties less willing to participate in a case and/or continuing the conflict during a case. There is a reason there are prior steps in dispute resolution, and there are reasons why short-circuiting those steps is not a good idea. And finally, ArbCom are not there to hand-hold the editorial community over policy. The policy is written by the community. If it is not fit for purpose, the impetus to make changes needs to come from the community and those senior editors most familiar with policies and able to propose, draft and gain consensus for lasting changes. Former arbitrators may be able to help if no-one else steps forward, but don't drag current arbitrators into policy changes. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting statements, but leaning toward declining per Carcharoth. Mark, you have a history with Eric, and you're definitely the wrong person to be filing this. Risker (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse WormTT(talk) 07:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not clear what ArbCom is being asked to do here that is within the Committee's remit. Are we being asked to consider admin misconduct in relation to the blocks? If so, that seems too early as there are other venues to discuss the blocks first. Policy on civility or baiting is not within the Committee's remit, and I would decline the case if that is the request. Unless there is something for the Committee to do, this looks like a decline. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline procedurally, per the filing party's desire to withdraw this request (relevant procedure) No prejudice or impediment towards this working its way back here in the future, either short or long term, such matters can be considered freshly. Courcelles — Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Fuck off Archive request as withdrawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bishop

Initiated by Looie496 (talk) at 21:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Looie496

Adam Bishop blocked Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) today. Bugs is not listed here as a party because the validity of the block is irrelevant (it was very quickly reversed by another admin, though). What is relevant is that when asked to explain the block, Adam Bishop replied, "I blocked him for being useless. Blocking is a joke anyway, I'm sure it will be reversed momentarily.[1]" An admin who applies blocks in such a cavalier way cannot have the confidence of the community. This seems to me to be a straightforward matter, and I hope that it will not generate unnecessary drama.

Let me clarify a couple of things at this point. First, the validity of the block is not at issue. Disruption is a legitimate reason for blocking, and an erroneous block on that basis is a forgivable error. The issue was that Adam showed no understanding that blocking is a serious action that has to be handled in a serious manner. He did not show any such understanding until this case was filed -- even now it is not clear that he fully understands it. But I am satisfied to leave it up to the arbs to decide what is appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mark Miller

I believe that Adam Bishop abused his tools with this recent block and compounded the situation with uncivil remarks afterwards and the declaration shown above however, I do not feel there was actual damage done to the project and would ask Arb Com to consider that, many admin will sometimes abuse their tools in an unthinking manner. If there is clearly a pattern of abuse that would certainly be an issue. If, on the other hand, there is no real pattern and Adam simply lost it for a moment, I see a stern warning as sufficient. I have seen admin do far worse (like locking a highly controversial article just so they could edit in peace: See Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article history where Admin User:Dennis Brown warned the offending admin not to do that again) and only be warned. I leave this in the hands of the committee to decide but feel that the block itself was wrong and that "grave dancing' seemed somewhat apparent from their actions afterwards.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Hullaballoo Wolfowitz statement below I would have to agree that this is something of a personal nature as well and that the block was certainly not supported by policy but do fall short of the opinion that Bishop was "involved" to an extent to disqualify him at all in blocking, just that it was a bad block that abused the tools. However...I can only say that from the current situation and do not know if Bishop and bugs have had interaction previously that would make Adam too involved.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bishop said: " I'm sure he's a good editor if he's dealing with something he actually knows about, as we all are " Really? Because I do actual research to "know" what I didn't know before and to answer almost EVERY reference desk question. After all, it's a "reference' desk, not a question and answer forum. Having said that, I also see it as common for editors to have some fun and use humor. After all....how is asking our opinion on what the future of 600,000 years from now even relevant to the entertainment reference desk? Perhaps more over site to remove nonsense is needed and this is merely a symptom of that. Adam Bishop is the single longest running Admin I have ever run into on Wikipedia. I am shocked by his behavior and have concerns that he is acting out of his nature and that perhaps real world circumstances have become overwhelming. It is possible and for that I feel we should all have patience.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe The Devil's Advocate has demonstrated that it was Bugs that turned that discussion into what he described...considering it was User:Medeis that stated: "Ron Paul's an anarchist crackpot (close to your defend the US with machine guns)" and " The only common denominator of the various Tea Party organizations is a return to limited, constitutional government. Although people were starving in the streets that year, even a return to 2006 spending levels would cut $1 Trillion off the deficit. All things being equal, of course conservatives and the Tea Party prefer lower taxes.". Is it simply the use of the term "Jim Crow" and did that cross a line? I believe there is clear evidence that all parties were discussing issues outside the subject. So, why block only Bugs?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ The Devil's Advocate I guess our definitions of "pedantic" must differ as it was you that stated: " Bugs turned a conversation about Sweden into some rant about how all Republicans talking of limited government are secretly racists who want to go back to the Jim Crow era singling out several named living people in the process" Problem is, he didn't say that..you did that in your post. I have also shown that another editor crossed the BLP line by calling Rand Paul "an anarchist crackpot", yet you claim Bugs crossed that line with that link that shows no such BLP violation. What really disturbs me is this: "It does not help that ArbCom just sanctioned Bugs for similarly egregious commentary in the Manning name dispute case" Thanks for pointing out the bulls eye on Bugs back over what was a completely different issue, but as I said about those sanctions...they would make things worse, not better. Perhaps that is the very heart of the issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:Medeis, I do apologize for having discussed you. I only did so because another editor made a claim I felt was simply inaccurate and had to point out where BLP violations occurred in the link they left. If you feel it needs to be addressed , that I understand, but do not wish you to feel attacked or being used as deflection.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: I strongly disagree.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Medeis

It's 1am, and I will respond to Miller in the afternoon, Monday, when I am able--but bottom line, neither BB or I were edit warring, so there were no grounds for blocks, and Bishop came out of the blue to berate Bugs and say he was the problem with wikipedia, and then blocked him when Bugs ignored the provocation, and said "you lost me at bakery." I was shocked, and asked Adam is he was blocking BB for this sentence, and Adam confirmed it, although blocking is a joke, and he expected to be overruled. Night for now. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mark I'll just leave this as is for now in light of your clarification. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Adam Bishop's action was in no way "unthinking" as his response on being asked to clarify the reason for his block was not to reverse it, but to respond "I blocked him for being useless. Blocking is a joke anyway, I'm sure it will be reversed momentarily" diff. Arbitrary and unapologetic abuse of privilege makes it very difficult for non-admins to trust or respect the system. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Adam Bishop is not an active administator, having exercised his administrative powers only a handful of times since 2011. He was involved in a dispute with Baseball Bugs, albeit one of no great moment. As a result of that dispute, he blocked Baseball Bugs. Aside from violating policy requiring noninvolvement, the block had no grounding in relevant policy. Bishop's comments accompanying the block, and those following the block, should leave no doubt that Bishop deliberately acted improperly. His motives were not to promote any significant policy, but to retaliate against an editor he disliked. The Committee, in these circumstances, should desysop him by motion. He would, of course, be free to file an RfA for community decision (not likely, I expect, to be received favorably in the near future). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

Does posting "please resign" on someone's talk page really count as "a step in dispute resolution"?

This is probably an over-reaction to one mistake. If this is a pattern - if he's done this even once before - RFC/ADMIN or ArbCom makes sense, and I'll probably support a desysop myself. If it's one-off frustration, then a clear statement from other editors that this was really wrong, and that he should consider Bugs someone else's problem from now on, is probably enough. I am perhaps blinded by a certain... empathy... with someone making a block they know is going to be overturned. But if this isn't a habit, then taking a break is probably better than getting desysopped. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bbb23

(Disclosures: I unblocked Baseball Bugs; I do not know Adam.) I largely agree with Floq. At most Adam deserves a warning. As has already been noted, Adam hasn't used his tools much since 2011. Looking at his contribution history, he spends a lot of his time at the reference desks, which explains why Baseball Bugs's comments on the talk page there attracted his attention. Whether Baseball deserved a block is debatable, but it probably shouldn't have been Adam who imposed it. He also should have posted a notice (doesn't have to be a template) on Baseball's talk page informing him of the basis of the block. The worst thing he did, in my view, was his comment that evinced contempt for the tool itself (calling it a "joke"). However, the initiator of this request has not identified a pattern of behavior that warrants desysopping. Nor has the initiator demonstrated that this single event is serious enough to warrant Committee action.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat suprised by some of the statements after Adam's statement. It was the first time Adam illuminated his thinking and explained his actions and remarks. I don't necessarily agree with everything he said, but I thought it showed insight into the issues and made it seem unlikely he would repeat his actions. Thus, my views in this area are most closely aligned with @Worm That Turned:.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

Yes, posting a "please resign" and verifying the editor has edited before filing here at ArbCom is dispute resolution, because blocking editors on a whim is reason for bit removal and this is the place for that.

Given Adam's acknowledgement they were hasty and are unlikely to repeat the no committee action needed. NE Ent 02:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adam Bishop

Contrary to Looie's statement, I believe the validity of the block is relevant. Baseball Bugs is a disruptive nuisance who has been blocked several times in the past (not by me). I can't speak to his edits in the article space, if there are any, but several Reference Desk discussions, even the desks themselves, frequently become useless thanks to Bugs and his irrelevant posts. Anyone who calls him out on it is labelled a "nanny" and indeed, bringing it up at all only makes him amplify his behaviour.

It's an ongoing problem with people answering every question whether they know anything about it or not and turning the Desks into chatrooms, and I'm not the only one to complain. Just peruse the Reference Desk talk page for a few seconds and you'll see what I mean. I'm sure he would have been blocked several more times in the past, except blocking someone for being a simple nuisance leads to arbitration cases like this, which is hardly worth the trouble.

That being said, I'm sure he's a good editor if he's dealing with something he actually knows about, as we all are - I would not hesitate to ask for his help with a sports question, and in fact I think it was Bugs who introduced me to the Hockey Reference website, which is extremely useful to me.

So, considering that this is probably limited to the Reference Desks and he's not a simple vandal account, I admit I did act hastily and out of frustration. I am of course well aware of Wikipedia's other avenues for dispute resolution. I also reacted with sarcasm and levity, because I know how these processes work, I know how easy it is to undo a block, I know that nothing will change whether I blocked him or not. Sometimes I find the best way to deal with things on Wikipedia is to not take them too seriously...

In the overall picture, I think the block was justified, but it was also a hasty overreaction. I don't think this one act undoes my previous years of service. I have been an administrator on the English Wikipedia for over 10 years, and a bureaucrat on the Latin Wikipedia for about that long as well. True, I'm not as active as I once was, thanks to events and obligations in the real world, but I use the admin tools in the article space to revert vandalism, move pages, etc. If something like this situation annoys me again the future, I'll just have to ignore it. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

This is situation where an immediate desysop is called for. Admin are assumed to always behave in a professional way when using their tools. The way Admins should be judged when there is a dispute, is by considering whether from a professional point of view one could motivate what the Admin did. In that case an Admin can still be judged to have acted wrongly, e.g. an Admin can go overboard in the way he enforces BLP. In that case there is a professional dispute about the way BLP should be enforced, the Admin can then be asked to do this differently in the future. The Admin has to repeatedly make the same sorts of mistakes before desysopping is called for.

In contrast, when an Admin is not using the tools in a serious way, that Admin should be immediately desysopped. The alternative would be to ask that Admin to use his tools in the way they should be used. But if we're going to do that, we could just as well abolish RFA and ask editors who are perhaps not so suitable to be Admins if they want to get the tools and ask them to please be serious when using the tools. Count Iblis (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

No question Bishop was being flippant in his justification of the block, but I can hardly see how the behavior Bugs was exhibiting did not warrant a block. Bugs turned a conversation about Sweden into some rant about how all Republicans talking of limited government are secretly racists who want to go back to the Jim Crow era, singling out several named living people in the process. Even after an editor hatted the conversation, Bugs and several other editors kept their incendiary off-topic discussion going in spite of the hat. Another editor blanks the whole thing because of them ignoring the hat and, after the second attempt at blanking it, Bugs reports that editor for edit-warring, while leaving provoking remarks on the editor's talk page. Bishop's block came about because the drama was being taken to the talk page of the RefDesk as well. If I were an admin seeing this nonsense from someone who just recently got sanctioned in an arbitration case, then I would feel compelled to block as well. He should have just tagged it as disruptive editing and taken it to ANI, but I can hardly see how Bugs was not running headlong into block territory.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark, I feel you are being a bit pedantic on that. Who began taking it off-topic is not nearly as important as where Bugs took it. Calling someone a "crackpot" is gratuitous, but accusing an entire swath of people of being closet racists, including several named individuals, is crossing the Rubicon. Medeis began the derailment, but Bugs turned it into some sort of hate-fest against named Republicans. It does not help that ArbCom just sanctioned Bugs for similarly egregious commentary in the Manning name dispute case.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Baseball Bugs is a long-standing editor here with considerable contributions to the encyclopedia and the project, and, whatever opinion one may have about him personally, he deserves better treatment than he received in this instance. Whether Bugs is generally a "disruptive nuisance" deserving of a block simply for being a disruptive nuisance is the kind of question which is usually brought to the community for its consideration, not acted on by a single admin, and certainly not by an admin who is not active. (Adam Bishop's last admin action took place on August 14, and his last block on June 28, 2011.)

It appears to me that the blocking admin was shooting from the hip and acting emotionally rather than rationally, without giving the due consideration that any block (but especially a block of a long-term editor) requires, and then compounded this poor judgment by being inappropriately flippant about his actions, even going so far as to denigrate one of the basic tools in the admins toolbox, the block, the very tool he had just abused.

If the blocking admin was a regularly active sysop with a record of good adminstrative activity to stand by, I would agree that a pattern of behavior would be necessary to consider removing the bit, but someone who basically pops up to performs a controversial and poorly thought-out block accompanied by a lack of seriousness about his actions has to be judged by a different set of standards. I believe that ArbCom should take this case, and deal with it by motion, and that, given his egregiously poor judgment, the result should be the desysopping of Adam Bishop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves

Wow. I was originally going to pretty much make a comment like NE Ent ... but then I saw the statement by Adam Bishop. I cannot believe the cavalier attitude towards the tools and "power" behind them...but it might have been forgivable until the unbelievable disregard for the community as a whole he shows in his statement. This should be a pretty simple desysop by motion, and since "blocks are useless", his desysop should likely be as well ES&L 16:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Arbs - perhaps a simple motion of admonishment for somewhat gratuitously undermining the nature and intent of the block process by referring to it they way they did, and a reminder of the seriousness of blocking, and their requirement to respond appropriately as per our admin accountability policies. ES&L 11:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AGK Although you're correct, BB's behaviour might not have been fully appropriate, ANI/AN have been used in the past to topic-ban him from specific noticeboards. I think if his behaviour has been disruptive enough, it's wiser to allow that process be begun and enabled by the community en masse, rather than from above right now. Unless, of course, ArbCom chooses to take either a) a case or b) a motion involving the admin in question, that changes everything... ES&L 20:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GregJackP

I align myself with EatsShootsAndLeaves, Count Iblis, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. This is something that is not acceptable under any circumstances and an abuse of the bit. As noted by Courcelles, this merits a desysop. Other than this comment, I have not been involved in the matter. GregJackP Boomer! 20:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hasteur

I observe that we have processes elsewhere for desysoping admins who are inactive and we have processes for giving admins the benefit of the doubt and processes for admins to get a second opinion on an action (The self "community reviewed sanction"). I observe that Adam Bishop did not voluntarily invoke the self review and that their actions (and lack thereof) border on the edge of desysop processes. I observe that many eyes are on ArbCom as there will be a precedent made regarding how many "mistakes" a admin is allowed to make before corrective action is taken. Hasteur (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wizardman

I have to say I'm shocked that the committee isn't bothering to look into it. Adam Bishop made one prior block before this in the previous five years, and his demeanor immediately afterwards showed that he didn't really care about whether or not an argument could be made for it, showing conduct unbecoming of an admin. Were I still an arb I would have already posted a motion to desysop. Yes, it was an isolated mistake, but the way it was conducted was just ridiculous (FWIW, I have no opinion on the merit of the block itself). Wizardman 16:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth: I am unaware of any pattern for Bishop on misconduct, though it's possible others have noticed said pattern themselves. That being said, declining this outright essentially gives free reign for admins to perform rash actions without regard for anyone else. Since they will clearly get away with it without so much as a slap on the wrist, that's a major issue. Wizardman 02:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 80.174.78.40

So an admin writes "I blocked him for being useless. Blocking is a joke anyway". An editor brings these comments to the attention of arbcom. Arbcom responds with "Yeah, and?".

How would you explain this case to someone who knew nothing about Wikipedia? For example, how would you explain it to one of those coveted New Editors? What would you tell her? Assume that she read The Pillars, read the policy, witnessed the block, and then came here?

No doubt you would let her know that she needs to understand the WP culture, needs to understand how things work here. Only then would she understand that an admin can block an editor for "being useless" if, and only if, arbcom likes the admin and doesn't like the editor; that had the blocked editor himself been an admin, then all hell would have broken loose, and the blocking admin would have found himself an ex-admin muy pronto. Of course she would also understand that all editors are equal and being and an admin confers no special privileges, that in fact admins are, if anything, held to higher degree of accountability than non-admins.

Above all she would understand that millions of Wikipedians voted for the admins and for arbocom, and in doing so they expressed their desire that admins and arbcom should do whatever they see fit in any given situation, should use their Solomonic judgement, should make no attempt to base their decisions on, nor make any reference to, the policies they were elected to enforce. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Adam Bishop: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/7/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Comment - awaiting statement from Adam Bishop. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline - per WTT, this sort of thing is best handled by RfC/U for both Adam Bishop and Baseball Bugs. That will help both of them to understand what those who comment at the RfC/U expect of them going forward. If the RfC/U came back as an overwhelming consensus (by a wide cross-section of editors looking at this with fresh eyes) that Adam should resign his tools, then I would look at this again. Ditto if the consensus was that there is a pattern of misconduct for Baseball Bugs. But until that legwork is done, and those previous stages of dispute resolution attempted, this is not ripe for arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wizardman, if you or anyone else can demonstrate a pattern of misconduct at an RfC/U for either of these users, I will accept a case. The tendency to take admins straight to ArbCom for single incidents is often the wrong approach. Carcharoth (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given Adam's comments, I'm going to decline. This appears to be a one off, and whilst his behaviour was not acceptable, his comments certainly do imply the action will not be repeated. If there is a pattern that I'm missing - then that's what we use RfC/U for, a step that I would expect to be taken before this goes any further. That works both ways, if people believe Adam is a poor admin, an RfC/U should be held on him - if Adam or other editors have a problem with Baseball Bugs, an RfC/U should be held on him. Overall, I'm not keen on de-sysopping for a single bad block and an insulting comment. WormTT(talk) 09:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @EatsShootsAndLeaves: I don't know if there's any precedent to an admonishment by motion, but I do think it's a poor idea of bureaucracy for the sake of it. No arb is condoning Adam's behaviour. If he ends up back here, this incident will be taken into account, which is pretty much equivalent admonishment. WormTT(talk) 11:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out the committee has admonished by motion[2], as pointed out at my user page. Still seems pointless to me. WormTT(talk) 08:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • Decline, substantially per Worm That Turned. Given Adam Bishop's comments here, I do not anticipate that his error here will be repeated. Although this request is said not to be about Baseball Bugs, I ask him, not for the first time, to clean up his act. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: also per WTT,  Roger Davies talk 17:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think this deserves a desysop, but by motion, as there is no point in going through the usual processes of a case here, as the underlying facts are really not in dispute. Adam Bishop's use of the tools here was so far out of line, and his response when questioned was just as bad, a desysop is the only choice. So, accept but handle by motion. Courcelles 17:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. The admin action in question doesn't meet the threshold for desysop by motion under normal circumstances, and a pattern of poor admin tool use has not been established to warrant a case. As Carcharoth points out, there may in fact be merit in RfC/Us for Bishop and Baseball Bugs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users do not need to have patience to work on the encyclopedia, but we do expect them to exercise restraint if they wish to serve as administrators. Adam's flippant, carefree attitude to blocking BB persisted after the block was reversed, and only vanished when this arbitration case was filed; I am therefore not convinced by his protestation (above) that he will not act in this way again. The block was clearly valid on some level, and Adam is obviously an enormously valuable contributor, but these events unfortunately demonstrate he is not suited to administrating. Accept and dispose by motion. AGK [•] 22:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, under other circumstances, at this point I would be willing to apply further sanctions to Baseball Bugs, whose conduct in the reference desk thread was entirely unacceptable and who has been a source of considerable disruption over recent months. None of this would have happened if he hadn't been so abrasive and confrontational. AGK [•] 00:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Risker (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The block was prompted by the exchange at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Debate_under_question_about_Sweden. Taken in isolation, a block for what occurred in that discussion is inappropriate, and grounds for a discussion with the admin. Not sure that it would warrant a desysop by itself. Admins are human and can make mistakes. That Adam Bishop was dismissive when a discussion was initiated was more than unhelpful: it is a cause for concern. We expect admins to reflect on mistakes they make, and to either explain their thinking or to undo the mistake. Waiting for another admin to correct one's mistake is not the right way of going about things. Balanced against this is Adam Bishop's comment above in which he shows understanding that what he did was inappropriate, and explaining some of the background. I note that a second request to explain his actions was left on Adam Bishop's talkpage, and that remained unanswered. However, this case request was filed within hours of both the blocking and the invite to explain, with few edits being made by Adam Bishop in the meantime - that seems too soon. While Adam Bishop's behaviour is concerning I don't see that there is a clear and urgent case for a desysop. I would like to see more community discussion of the incident and/or Adam Bishop's general behaviour before coming to ArbCom for a desysop. It looks like Baseball Bugs has irritated Adam Bishop, and Adam Bishop has not reacted well to the situation. As with some of my colleagues, I feel the community would benefit from holding a discussion regarding Baseball Bugs and maybe Adam Bishop as well. I would vote for a desysop in requests that are brought to the Committee where there has been repeated or gross examples of misconduct or where there is clear community consensus. That is not the case here. Decline. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When an administrator blocks an editor, there is an imbalance of authority between the two and, for that, the sysop in question needs to be extremely careful in the way he expresses his opinions from that moment on; statements which are acceptable when made by others, may be unbecoming when made by an admin who has just used his tools. Although, to be honest, I can't think of a case where saying that another editor is useless is proper – and it is even more inappropriate, a fortiori, here.

    Furthermore, while admins should always try not to take themselves too seriously, this does not entail that adopting a dismissive approach when asked about one of their actions is ever kosher. It is not, because such an attitude gives the impression that the admin in question was acting capriciously. And that's exactly the impression Adam's actions here give me.

    Then again, Adam's word have somewhat reassured me that this was an error on his part which is unlikely to reoccur; for that reason, I'm not sure a desysop is warranted. In my opinion, however, it is opportune for us to investigate this issue more deeply and, so, I think we should accept this case, although I'd rather we didn't dispose of it by motion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=579672209"