Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎The Students Union at UWE Controversies section: Declined as premature per clerks-l
Removing request for arbitration: declined by the Committee
Tag: Replaced
Line 5: Line 5:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}}

== Arbitrator BU Rob13 at [[WP:ARCA]] ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] '''at''' 16:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{admin|Black Kite}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|BU Rob13}}

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABU_Rob13&type=revision&diff=871987408&oldid=871751989 Notification to BU Rob13]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
At the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_The_Rambling_Man|current ARCA filing]] for [[User:The Rambling Man]] (hence "TRM"), a number of requests have been made by myself and others that Arbitrator [[User:BU Rob13]] should explain why they are casting aspersions against other un-named (with one exception) editors without providing any evidence of this in the form of diffs or anything else. They are listed below.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=870507094&oldid=870505909 Comment by [[User:Alex Shih]] concerned about BU Rob13 casting aspersions]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=870600174&oldid=870595675 Black Kite, 25Nov]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=870666053&oldid=870660095 TRM, 26Nov]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=871030834&oldid=871030510 Black Kite, 27Nov]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=871055104&oldid=871053877 Black Kite, 28Nov]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=871033212&oldid=871032442 Here, [[User:Amakuru]] is also unimpressed that BU Rob13 is casting aspersions with no evidence]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=871108313&oldid=871099119 [[User:Thryduulf]] replying to BU Rob13]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=871110508&oldid=871108313 Black Kite 2nd request for identities of "groupies", 29Nov]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=871111825&oldid=871110508 TRM, 29Nov]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=871872549&oldid=871691208 Black Kite 3rd request, 03Dec]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=871882997&oldid=871876751 BU Rob13's final two replies, stating that he would not be replying again]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=871976870&oldid=871965265 Comment by Thryduulf on the matter]

=== Statement by Black Kite ===
Currently, at [[WP:ARCA]] there is a request concerning TRM, as linked above. During this request, arbitrator [[User: BU Rob13]] has insinuated that there are a group of editors who are preventing TRM from being sanctioned. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=870284589&oldid=870281915 This] was BU Rob13's original posting, accusing an administrator of closing a request that he'd made, and threatening him afterwards. No diffs. When questioned about this, BU Rob13 finally, five days later, gave a name [*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=871037993&oldid=871033231 here] ([[User:Ritchie333]]), and accused him of being WP:INVOLVED too (no diff, or explanation). The main point: '''You will also note that the diff also accuses a number of un-named editors/admins as being TRM's "groupies", an accusation that is still there, eleven days later, with no attempt to evidence it despite a number of requests.'''

After BU Rob13's "groupies" comment. I did an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=871057644&oldid=871053877 analysis] <small>(you may need to scroll down - there are intervening diffs)</small> of admin comments on the 13 AE requests against TRM. You'll see the evidence is that Ritchie333 had only adminned one request about TRM - one of two opened by BU Rob13. No other admin had opined on more than five requests.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=871099119&oldid=871090747 BU Rob13's reply] was to deny he was only talking about admins; therefore I did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=871110508&oldid=871108313 another analysis] looking at those who had commented as non-admins/involved admins. You will notice that no-one has even commented at even 50% of the filings, and BU Rob13 himself is involved four times, including filing two of them against TRM ([[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive223#The_Rambling_Man|here]] and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive236#The_Rambling_Man|here]], both closed as "No action").

Finally, today, BU Rob13 replied [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&type=revision&diff=871882997&oldid=871881547 here], refusing to redact his comment, and making some new false statements ("''I've provided sufficient proof that anyone who even tries to bring up TRM's conduct is met with an intensely unpleasant experience''" and "''people vigorously defend TRM every time he violates his sanctions ... I have backed it up with diffs''"); however his submission only contains 3 diffs, all about Ritchie333; nothing about anyone else. Meanwhile - "''I cannot cast aspersions against unnamed editors, because all arbitration remedies involving the prohibition on casting aspersions requires aspersions to be cast to damage reputations; I can damage no reputations if I name no editors''". This is <u>ludicrous</u>. It's saying "I can cast aspersions against groups of people, as long as I don't name them". Could I comment in an ArbCom case (hypothetical example!) with "I'd like the four members of ArbCom who are incompetent to Recuse, but I'm not naming them"? No - [[WP:CIVIL]] clearly says that it includes "ill-considered accusations of impropriety", and that's clearly what we have. Since BU Rob13 is an arbitrator and has refused to evidence his accusations, I don't see any other option than to bring this here.

Someone who is an Arbitrator, Checkuser and Oversighter should not be casting vague/random aspersions against other editors, and then refusing to either redact or justify them - he hasn't done either. I do not see how someone who clearly regards [[WP:CIVIL]] as optional for themselves should sit on a body which is required to determine whether others have violated it (or any other policy). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 16:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* {{reply to|Floquenbeam}} Floq, all I wanted was for him to redact his pointless and unevidenced aspersions, and he's refused to do it. So here we are. I'll withdraw this case ''straight away'' if he does so.
* {{reply to|MLauba}} No-one is looking for anyone to get blocked here, merely to act as an arbitrator should.
* {{reply to|Euryalus}} No, Rob hasn't misused his tools, so no-one is getting desysopped. The reason for not going to AN/I was summed up by Thryduulf below. In the end, this is simply about holding arbitrators to a standard. How can we take someone who has to comment on civility issues seriously when they don't comply with the policy themselves? As I said above, the ideal remedy here is Rob removing his aspersions, or actually backing them up (despite his protestations, his "evidence" is still confined to a couple of diffs about ''one'' admin who annoyed him once).
* {{reply to|Euryalus|Doug Weller|KrakatoaKatie|Premeditated Chaos|RickinBaltimore}} No, I'm not going to take this to AN/I, because as you very well know it would descend into a cesspit of TRM vs anti-TRM name calling. If someone else wants to, feel free. I did hope that Rob's fellow ArbCom members might simply ask him to cut this nonsense out. but clearly I was wrong. You can close this now if you wish, with Rob's aspersions ''still'' there on the ARCA page. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 15:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* {{reply to|The Rambling Man}} It is entirely unsurprisng for me to see the other Arbs circling the wagons, including some that I previously respected. None have explained how they are OK with a fellow Arb behaving in this way - clearly they are OK with aspersions being passed in this way which is quite odd, but I can assure you that going to ANI would seriously ''not'' be a good idea. Let's leave this here. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* {{reply to|Euryalus}} Thank you for at least taking the time to reply, and I'm glad you agree with my broader point. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 00:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by BU Rob13 ===
The statement of fact I made was that people show up repeatedly whenever someone attempts to see TRM's remedy enforced to confront the administrator or editor who reports a potential violation. They make things very uncomfortable for them. I've backed this statement up with multiple diffs, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_13#The_Rambling_Man] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BU_Rob13/Archive_9#The_Rambling_Man]. I'll add to those the current ARCA, as the abuse I've had thrown my way over saying TRM's remedy is impossible to enforce without enduring abuse has itself proven my point. Black Kite has demanded I name the specific editors that show up to several of TRM's threads. I have named one, but decline to name others because I think it will only encourage drama while not solving any underlying issues. Since I did not make any statement of fact about any specific editor, I am not required to name specific editors. Black Kite is asking me to evidence statements that I ''did not make''. I have supported the only statement of fact I did make. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 16:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*{{re|Amakuru}} Since people are demanding I provide evidence for things I ''didn't'' say, you'll need to forgive me for demanding evidence for things you're actually saying I did. Please provide a diff where I ever specified I was speaking about admins. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 21:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
**I appreciate that. Thank you. I feel like this has been somewhat of a game of telephone gone wrong. I fully agree I haven't supported some of the things people are saying that I said, but after a few iterations, that's started drifting far away from what I actually said, which I believe I've fully supported. Correcting one piece of information that has gone awry helps. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 22:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*{{re|Thryduulf}} I agree, which is why I provided such diffs above (which were also at the ARCA) of editors receiving severe pushback for non-frivolous enforcement or requests for enforcement of the sanctions on TRM. The first link I provided above related to an AE block that was not overturned. The second link related to an AE request where multiple editors agreed a violation had occurred, though no action was taken because TRM subsequently struck the violating comment. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 21:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Floq ===
This is the first time in my 10+ years on WP that I've seen Black Kite escalate pointless drama. '''Much''' less often than me. So I guess maybe he's due. Hang in there BU Rob. I know a little about what you're going thru. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 16:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
:<small>{{ping|MLauba}} Please see the "''much less often than me''" portion of my statement above... --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 19:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)</small>

=== Statement by somewhat involved Ritchie333 ===
It's Christmas about in three weeks. I could happily sit down for a pint of [https://www.shepherdneame.co.uk/beer/christmas-ale Shepherd Neame Christmas Ale] with Rob and I'm sure we could thrash out our differences out in about two hours. Unfortunately, geographical logistics make this impossible. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 16:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
:Wait, you're British? Who knew? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 00:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Bemused observation by MLauba ===
Amusingly enough, the only time I remember seeing a sitting arb getting blocked, it was another champion of civility holding himself to a lower standard than what he expected of others, and I believe the blocking admin was Floq. [[User:MLauba|MLauba]] ''<sup>'''('''[[User talk:MLauba|Talk]]''')'''</sup>'' 17:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
:<small>{{ping|Floquenbeam}}For the sake of clarity, I was musing about "thing exists", not implying "thing bad", and indeed, while some parallels are there, we are, fortunately, a couple of orders of magnitude lower than the 2012 situation. [[User:MLauba|MLauba]] ''<sup>'''('''[[User talk:MLauba|Talk]]''')'''</sup>'' 22:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)</small>

=== Statement by MrX ===
{{u|Ritchie333}}, why not just pick up the phone an give him a call?- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 17:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Amakuru ===
Black Kite is an admin I respect greatly and yes, he is basically right about the issue at hand here. Rob made vague comments on an arbitration page, implying impropriety by certain <s>admins</s> editors, but without naming <s>those admins</s> them. I agree that he should have either retracted the remark or named <s>the admins</s> those concerned, since the outcome of the ARCA case might depend on such evidence. But having said all that, I also agree with Floq that bringing the matter here is an unnecessary escalation. I'm therefore tempted to say we just accept that Rob isn't going to change his mind on this, [[WP:TROUT|find a suitable wet fish to propel his way]], and then we can all sit down together and enjoy that beer that Ritchie mentions. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 17:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{ping|BU Rob13}} yes you're right, you never said admins. Thank you for pointing that out. I've struck that above. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 21:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

===Statement by Alanscottwalker===
I remember long ago, some arbitrator saying that Arbcom is suppose to try to 'break-the-back' of disputes (hopefully I am not mis-remembering), so it seems most unfortunate when an arbitrated dispute generates a dispute, which generates a dispute, and on and on. Perhaps for getting to the backbone or the nub, as they say, I'll repeat from the ARCA: ''parsing the vague difference(?) between "specific" and "general" competence is either a game, or will tend to lead to madness for all involved.'' I'll add, here, it does not sound like a really fun game, either. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
::Well, after reading some more comments, I think decline, because, there is a forum already open for this and it is the ARCA (where the same committee is already meeting and in session), and it being there, not a whole new process is far, far less bureaucracy. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 19:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Sandstein ===
I don't see how this minor, run-of-the-mill spat meets any of the requirements for an ArbCom case. The request is vexatious. All it illustrates is that ArbCom should get a move on and come to a decision, one way or the other, in the amendment request at issue, which has long since descended into pointless bickering of this sort. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 18:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Thryduulf (re BU Rob13) ===
{{ec}} The whole issue here can be summed up as follows:
*The arbitration committee has repeatedly required accusations of impropriety to be
*#Specific.
*#Backed up with evidence (usually in the form of diffs)
*The arbitration committee has sanctioned editors for repeated failures to do this
*BU Rob13 has on multiple occasions made accusations of impropriety that are:
*#Vague
*#Not backed up with any evidence at all
[[user:Black Kite|Black Kite]], myself and others would simply like BU Rob13 to be held to the same standards as other editors. We have tried to resolve this in the original forum (the ARCA regarding TRM) but this has not proved possible. I agree with Black Kite therefore that this is the only option available (an AN/I regarding a sitting arbitrator's actions in an arbitration forum would be a useless dramafest that could not solve the issue even if there was somehow miraculously no drama).
I'm not sure what sanctions are appropriate here, but I certainly hope it doesn't get to the point that anybody is blocked. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Isaaci}} by that definition anyone who has ever expressed an opinion at AE that is favourable to TRM is one of his groupies - including everybody who agreed with the consensus about the frivolous request (which includes people like [[user:Sandstein|Sandstein]] who cannot be rationally described as a fan of TRM). However even if we do accept that definition, it doesn't absolve BU Rob13 from the requirement to provide evidence for his accusations. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by isaacl ===
In the real world, a band's groupies will have a rotating cast as the band moves from city to city. Similarly, an editor's supporters can vary from incident to incident. That being said, I suggest referring to an editor's supporters as groupies isn't the best way to achieve a collaborative understanding. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 18:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Thryduulf}} Actually, I didn't define the term groupies, since, as I said, I don't think using the term is helpful. But in the broader sense, there are some issues where there is a vocal number of editors advocating a specific view that makes it difficult for any action to be taken. Due to limitations of English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions, a small number of objectors (whether they are changing from discussion to discussion or the same persons) can hamper consensus from being achieved. I wouldn't call it an impropriety: it's just a dynamic that naturally arises with the large, sprawling discussions on English Wikipedia. <small>Note your ping wasn't to the right user.</small> [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 22:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hijiri88 ===
I have positive working relationships with multiple editors on both sides of this (honestly I'm probably more "affiliated" with the editors BU Rob13 asserts show up to prevent TRM's sanction being enforced than most of the editors in question themselves are), but I sympathize with BU Rob13 in this case; it's near-impossible to provide "evidence specifically in the form of diffs" (which, let's be honest, is usually what editors mean when they quote this or that policy requiring evidence "preferably" or "normally" in the form of diffs) to demonstrate recurring patterns like the one he is referring to. It should be a simple matter of checking the AE logs to see if, whenever someone reports TRM for something, one or more users show up more than once or twice each to defend him. I'm saying this, not having actually done this check, and honestly having an intense dislike of so-called "civility restrictions", which most seem to do less to create a more civil editing environment than to paint targets on the heads of unpopular editors. (If BU Rob13 is correct in this case, it seems have ironically had the opposite effect here, since the editor on whose head the target is painted is actually ''too'' popular.)

=== Statement by Banedon ===
I think this case request is pretty silly. If Black Kite or anyone thinks BU Rob13 is a bad arbitrator who does not behave as an arbitrator should, vote against him in the next Arbcom elections (if he seeks re-election). If some Wikipedia rule were violated and sanctions sought because of that, word the RFAR as such instead. In the meantime, I'd say this is a sign that Arbcom should make some decisions about the ARCA. It seems to be just paused right now, as though the current Arbcom is waiting for the incoming arbitrators to make the hard decisions, which sounds like a cop-out. [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 04:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Comment by Kurtis ===
{{ping|MLauba}} I'm aware of one other instance in which a sitting arbitrator was blocked by an administrator for failing to hold themselves to the same standards as those they hold for others. This was all the way back in early 2009, when the Arbitration Committee's popularity was at its all-time low. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 05:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by DBigXray ===
Hi {{yo|Euryalus}}, In response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&curid=22747298&diff=872123409&oldid=872121165 your comment here]. One would think of raising and discussing such a case of "casting aspersions" at AN/I and reasonably so, but based on my own personal experience at ANI [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Black_Kite_and_his_aspersions|WP:ANI#Black Kite and his aspersions]] where the aggrieved party (myself) starting the thread was bludgeoned by the ANI groupies with threats of boomerang and blocks, without addressing the actual problem. So I can understand why Black Kite decided to give the ANI a miss and raised the matter with a case request here.

I am glad that admins are now raising concerns about "[[WP:Casting aspersions|Casting aspersions]]" instead of ignoring it and allowing it to continue. Being optimistic here and I hope the very existence of this discussion brings a positive change in conduct of some users. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 09:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Alex Shih ===

{{u|Euryalus}}, are you implying that a case request should only be filed when a sanction is potentially deemed necessary? I am under the impression that there is a consensus against this notion since the question [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2016/Candidates/Euryalus/Questions#Questions_from_Collect|comes up frequently]] in every ArbCom election. [[WP:ARBCOND]] is far more relevant in this case, since this is involving an arbitrator allegedly casting aspersions on an arbitration page and refusing to redact their alleged aspersion. Under this scenario, regardless of the capacity in which they have commented in, any person(s) with passing familiarity of ANI should know this is not a matter that can be resolved at these ordinary noticeboards without being pointed to ArbCom. My understanding is that we are not looking sanctions, rather only seeking for accountability and solutions here.

We should be focusing [[WP:NPA|on content, not on the contributor]]; the [[Special:Diff/871882997|latest comment]] by {{noping|BU Rob13}} at ARCA seems to explicitly suggest the otherwise. This entire episode could have been avoided if BU Rob13 simply struck their vulgar accusation; instead they doubled down on their accusation over this unnamed group of people, with the justification that because apparently according to them it is "{{tq|a true statement}}" when all of the discussions we have had so far on this matter have clearly led to no consensus (which is what their "diffs" have demonstrated), that they are free to call anyone "groupie" (whether or not it is unnamed is absolutely irrelevant). This is not the kind of conduct expected of an administrator, functionary and arbitrator; and since an arbitrator is required to resolve disputes and be seemed as impartial, that makes this particular incident part of a wider concern that can only be addressed here. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] ([[User talk:Alex Shih|talk]]) 10:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Fish and karate ===

I think there's a distinction to make here - Rob's comments were not being made as an arbitrator, they were in the 'comments by administrators' section of a clarification request. While I agree the comment in question was neither specific nor well-evidenced, and either clarification or a retraction might be helpful, this case seems like another self-defeating use of AN, ANI, arbcom, and so on, as a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground]]. It's frustrating to see so much time and effort of numerous very smart people and excellent editors being frittered away on meta arguments. Apologies are seen as 'defeats', and animosity inevitably exacerbates until we lose more good people from the project. I note there has been no attempt to discuss this with Rob on his talk page, or on any other talk page, or on ANI, and so it is therefore inevitable that Arbcom will decline this, because of the reasoning that just because Rob happens to be currently on the arbitration committee, this does not mean he is not an editor/administrator, the comment was not being made as an arbitrator, concerns about such comments should be raised in the usual routes first, etc. Kicking this back to ANI is sadly not going to resolve anything, the only ways to defuse this whole thing are for Rob to retract the statement, as asked both here and at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_The_Rambling_Man]], or for the people demanding this of him to drop it and go and find something better to do. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em">[[User:Fish and karate|<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish</u>]]+[[User_talk:Fish and karate|<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate</u>]]</u> 14:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by The Rambling Man ===
{{U|Black Kite}} happy for you to take this clear of casting aspersions (and alluding to abuse of ADMINACCT) to ANI. It's not a surprise at all to see the sudden rush of Arbs declining, falling into line within a few hours, and it's very sad, you're right, that pretty much not one single one of them has noted that the behaviour is indeed not becoming of an admin, let alone an Arb. As noted, I'm a big boy and if we have to go to ANI to see this get a proper hearing (which actually seems more appropriate now Arbcom have shown their obvious hand) where normal editors and admins (who don't lurk around this specific drama board) can contribute, so be it. The ongoing abuse I'm suffering will continue regardless of where it's hosted. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{U|Robert McClenon}} um, the review case on my "sanction" is in full swing, in fact is pretty much ending as a complete farce, much like the original sanction and its amendment. Feel free to opine at [[WP:ARCA]]. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{U|Alex Shih}} well if nothing else, Arbcom Rob has defined his future, this is something that the community will never forget, the arrogance of being above reproach, to be able to cast aspersions guilt-free, to be able to rely on a group of friends to defend that position unreservedly and to continue to serve as an admin and Arb. Some would say that would be unbelievable, but no, it's very real. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

===Statement by Robert McClenon===
I have reviewed the record, and have concluded that there are two cases that should possibly be considered here. The first is the case as presented, which is a silly complaint against an arbitrator about a comment in an Arbitration Enforcement proceeding. That case is already about to be dismissed. The second is the underlying case, which should be a review of the sanctions against The Rambling Man. It appears that the sanctions against The Rambling Man, which were intended to minimize his negative effects on the community, are counter-productive because efforts to use the sanctions further divide the community. I urge the arbitrators to decline the case against Rob, but to open a case to review the sanctions against The Rambling Man.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by {{U|Cinderella157}} ===

Looking at a past case with which I was involved, I see many matters that are worthy of comment and note in this case request.

*[[WP:ARBGWE]] was accepted without community attempts to resolve with support by Arbs now opining to decline this one on basis of policy. This is an inconsistency.

*There is a presumption by some that complaints about Arbs can be dealt with at AIN while others acknowledge it is inappropriate to expect higher position holders to be dealt with by a lesser process. My position is: it is unreasonable for adjudicators to be dealt with within the same process that they adjudicate. However, there is no higher process. This is a deficiency in WP.

*An Arb case (including [[WP:ARCA]]?) has the capacity to deal with an emerging issue of civility or a personal attack without a separate case. Is there evidence that {{U|Black Kite}} raised same in that process? However, I observe the failure of ArbCom to deal consistently and without (the appearance of) bias.

*Fairness (and the appearance of fairness) and bias (or the appearance of bias) are central to [[natural justice]] (procedural fairness). Natural justice is the "spirit" of Arb policy wrt transparency. My experience is: practice is inconsistent with policy and this "spirit".

*Arb pages are inherently for dealing with "allegations". The distinction from an insinuation is evidence (or the ability to substantiate). Comments made broadly are not directed at an individual unless there is a "reasonable" case to the contrary.

:Civility is more than "appearance" - apparent civility may not be (civil). Hypersensitivity can stifle "reasonable" discourse and feigned indignation is a misrepresentation: falling to a personal attack(?), adding to the drama and thereby disrupting WP.

:I have observed Arbs make much more (IMO) egregious statements without consequence. I have also observed apparent bias by Arbs in dealing with civility and personal attacks being made on Arb pages.

*WP sanctions are not intended to be punitive in their application but to protect and prevent disruption of WP. While I have observed the application of sanctions contrary to this principle, the matters raised beg the question, what disruption has been caused by BU Rob13 and whether raising this case is not more disruptive?

The conduct ''may'' be less than exemplary but I do not believe that this reaches a reasonable threshold for accepting a case against BU Rob13.

I do believe there may be a case for considering more widely the conduct of Arbs in the course of cases and whether they have acted in the spirit of the governing policy - how this can, has been and should be dealt with. This represents a systemic failing - ie ''for the want of a system''. However, ''[[nemo iudex in causa sua]]''. The issue is the lack of a reasonable alternative. Regards, [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 00:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by (Non-party) ===

=== Arbitrator BU Rob13 at [[WP:ARCA]]: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*Recuse --[[User:Cameron11598|Cameron<sub><small>11598</small></sub>]] <sup>[[User Talk:Cameron11598|(Talk)]] </sup> 19:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

=== Arbitrator BU Rob13 at [[WP:ARCA]]: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/2> ===
{{anchor|1=Arbitrator BU Rob13 at [[WP:ARCA]]: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
*'''Recuse''', obviously. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 16:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Recuse'''. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Question''' Hi {{u|Black Kite}}. A clarification: fair to say you're seeking an Arbcom case against BU Rob13 because you believe the issue is sufficient to justify sanctions if he doesn't withdraw his ARCA comments? If so: thanks for raising this, but the "Dispute Resolution" section of [[WP:CIVIL]] suggests AN/I as a first port of call. There's an additional obligation in [[WP:ADMINCOND]]: {{tq|Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors}}, but on what's been posted so far I don't think this presently points towards a desysop and absent that particular sanction there's again no reason not to go to AN/I first and see what the community thinks. In passing, please note that as a retiring Arb I have no vested interest in the issue and would make the same suggestion on any similar case request. Views and disagreement welcome-- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 08:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
::Thanks for the replies, but if you want to pursue the issue then AN/I is the next step. Arbitrators are elected to do a specific set of tasks, none of which exempt them from basic editing policies. Enforcement of those policies should be done in the usual way. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]])
::{{replyto|Alex Shih}} No, as above I'm saying arbitrators aren't exempt from the usual processes and rules; and the process as outlined in WP:CIVIL is to take this complaint to AN/I for the community to review it in the usual manner. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 10:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
::For the formality of it: '''Decline''' - should be treated like any similar complaint, and other forms of dispute resolution pursued first. There are neither special privileges nor special rules for arbitrators that exempt them from WP:CIVIL. Also per the policy, the case request is welcome to be reposted if the processes in the policy fail to resolve the issue. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 10:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|Black Kite}} No one is "ok" with an allegation of an arbitrator being uncivil. In fact the message from this part of the thread is to treat the allegation seriously by taking it through the usual community process rather than sweeping it away in a quiet chat among the Committee. As above, there's no special rules for arbitrators that exempt them from en-WP policies or allow them to have civility allegations resolved behind the scenes.

:::In this instance, a respected editor (you) has raised a concern re incivility, BU Rob13 has responded but you feel the issue is not resolved. The next step per the policy is to take it to the community for review at AN or ANI. You'd prefer not to do so, for the commendable reason that this could create additional drama for third parties like The Rambling Man. That's a possibility, though I think the community will understand that your complaint is about what BU Rob13 said and not the editor he said it about. Either way, following the process makes sure a complaint against an arbitrator is heard in exactly the same way as a complaint against anyone else, which is a principle worth upholding.

:::As the case request is going to be declined I may as well also add my personal view as an editor: while plenty of worse things get said on case pages, the comment as it stands is unhelpful and I'd prefer it was either substantiated or withdrawn. That request has been made by you and effectively declined by BU Rob13, on this page. If this is worth pursuing at all the correct next step is not a backroom chat, it's community review. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 00:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

::::{{replyto|Black Kite}} No worries. Not running again gives more freedom to share some views.

::::If I can offer a semi-related point, I think one of the failings of the Arbcom way of doing business is lots of discusisons happen on the mailing list that could just as easily be held on Wiki. Obviously not privacy, child protection or other sensitive issues: just the basic workings and thinking of committe members when discussing publicly-known disputes. It's not necessarily interesting stuff, but it would a) make sure people knew who was active in discussion and who was apparently absent; b) give some confidence that Arbcom is not a monolith and differing viewpoints are actually heard, and c) avoid some of the criticism that there's "secret arb business" designed to protect random editor A or vicitimse random editor B.

::::We do see a little bit of this kind of arbitrator discusson in case workshops, but could see more of it at ARCA and AC/N. There's nothing wrong with arbitrators disagreeing with each other in public, provided no personal or sensitive info gets shared. As someone first elected to Arbcom in Dec 2014, I think this overuse of the mailing list for harmless deliberative discussion is getting worse. The next Committee might think about whether this should be reversed. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 00:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

*I've commented that on the ARCA, that we allow a bit of leeway for people given the highly emotive topics by the time we get to Arbcom, and especially after a case - those opinions won't go away. However, in this particularly case, I agree with Euryalus - the first place for this sort of complaint is [[WP:ANI]], to allow the community to handle it. Other forms of dispute resolution should be tried before raising an Arbcom case - and so I '''decline''' this one. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 09:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' Euryalus is correct, we aren't exempt from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I agree with him and Worm that this is premature, we are here for situations that the community has been unable to resolve. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 11:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' Rob is an editor first, and we don't bring editors straight to Arbcom without going through the intermediate steps first. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 12:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' as premature, per Euryalus and my other colleagues. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 12:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' This is not the first step in a dispute resolution process. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 14:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' as above. Premature and unnecessary. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 18:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
**Regarding "arbs falling into line within a few hours", sorry but like most conspiracy theories on Wikipedia, this is a false positive. Unless the other arbs were conspiring against ''me'' and caused me to miss my train earlier, which caused me to have an extra few minutes at my computer, which caused me to post then instead of now :) Anyway, I agree with Euryalus, and equally with Floq above. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 05:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*Most of the discussion and diffs provided are from the on-going ARCA which has a different focus. I do not think the community has had an opportunity to directly address ''this'' issue in the appropriate way and therefore a case is not suitable yet. I am '''declining''' this case request, but I do want to take the opportunity to state that the current ARCA has been without question contentious and controversial. People have vented their frustration and expressed their exasperation about the current situation and leniency has been granted on both sides. Addressing civility is one of our most difficult and challenging issues to address and I hope both sides can find a way to address their concerns. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 19:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:59, 8 December 2018

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=872715752"