Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Jéské Couriano		30 January 2010	{{{votes}}}

[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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Jéské Couriano

Initiated by Mbz1 (talk) at 22:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs), filing party
• Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

link to post at AN/I

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by Mbz1

On January 25/26 I was the subject by 5+ hours of bulling and harassment by administrator Jéské Couriano and some other users. During those 5+ hours administrator Jéské Couriano never assumed a good faith toward me.

Here are few differences:

1. "Troll-o-meter is thru the roof; maybe I should ask for a CU to see if this is Israelbeach...")
2. Now get off my talk page and stay off; you're trolling.
3. if the CU returns otherwise, Mbz1's done.
4. if you carry on like this you'll end up blocked irrespective of the CU results
5. Chummliechen, you were trolling. And given the totality of the evidence, it was very reasonable to assume you are a sock.]
6. Mbz1, you're hunting for a sanction here

The last one is a bran new threat for me filing the arbitration request.

(everywhere highlighted by me) Administrators work with people. People cannot be undeleted or restored as images or articles could. 5+ hours of an absolutely unwarranted harassment, PA, treating with blocks and bulling cannot be undone or overwritten with an apology. Jéské Couriano cannot be an administrator.

Here Jéské Couriano explains why he believed CU was justified in my case "If there's behavioral evidence that an account is compromised (i.e. a sudden and radical change in editing pattern) then it's not fishing to ask a CU to look into it." Let's apply the same rules to administrator Jéské Couriano own behavior. I am sure that Jéské Couriano is Jéské Couriano, the account was not compromised, which means that few hours of harassing and bulling me was usual "editing pattern" of the administrator, and I could provide quite a few differences to prove it. IMO a behavior like this one even on a single occasion is one time too many. I assure you that the request I filed has nothing to do with revenge. The only purpose of filing it is preventing other users to be bullied and harassed by Jéské Couriano under the cover of his administrator-ship. Because, and I hope you'd agree with me, it is one matter being harassed by a regular user, and absolutely different being harassed by an administrator. I'm asking you to consider the case please.

I realize that everybody including administrators :) are entitled to make mistakes, even such a silly mistakes as claiming me being a sock of Israelbeach, Israelbeach, who speaks not only native, but absolutely perfect English, while my own English is anything, but :( My request here is not about mistakes Jéské Couriano has made, but about incivility, bulling and harassing. I hope that everybody would agree with me that no matter what an administrator thinks about a user, he/she is never entitled to be uncivil. Being uncivil is not a mistake, it is an edit pattern of the administrator,the edit pattern that nobody, and administrators especially, are entitled to.

Response to Steve Smith comment. According to Minimum requirements of WP:RFC/U "Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified"." I have no dispute with administrator Jéské Couriano, I have absolutely nothing against him personally, but I believe that somebody, who's using such language should not be an administrator. That's why I've brought the matter here.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Jehochman. It is very nice of you do not think I am a sock! Thank you. I have no conflict with administrator Jéské Couriano, and I will not drop this request. I will let it to stand its course because I rather strongly believe that a user, who is assuming bad faith over and over again, whose language is abusing to other users should not be an administrator.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Everybody, I did move on. I have no anger toward Jéské Couriano at all, and I have no dispute with him. I repeat that this request has nothing to do with revenge, but I honestly believe that the user cannot be an administrator.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To Steve Smith. 5+ hours of PA, assuming a bad faith and harassment cannot be called "an isolated incident" even on its own. IMO the administrators, who are working with people should try to do their job the way that no apologies would have been needed later on. Harm that is done to people cannot be undone by an apology. Requesting SPI on me was a mistake, threatening me with that was an abuse. Once again I have no dispute with Jéské Couriano, but I know that, if my request is declined (as I am sure it will be), it would not be the last time you'd hear about administrator Jéské Couriano's conduct.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just re-read Administrator conduct "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful], civil manner in their interactions with others". Are they really?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

@SirFozzie, If you've read the rules of submitting the request you would have seen that rule "State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time.". @SirFozzie, if you have looked at the links provided by me and Avenue, you would have seen a pattern, but I assume you did not bother to hit the links, did you, chummer?

Okay, I see my request helped to establish three very important things:

1. "The filing party (In other words me) does not look like a sock" a very thoughtful conclusion by Jehochman. I feel so much better already.
2. I've just learned a new, funny word, and realized that to call my fellow Wikimedians "chummer" is perfectly alright.
3. I understood that if one wants to harass and to bully other users, to assume bad faith toward users, and do not get neither warned nor blocked for doing so, the best way to proceed is to became a Wikipedia administrator before going on with harassment and bulling.

With that I withdraw my request. I knew there is no use to file it from the very beginning. I kind of thought that I own it to other people, who one day could find themselves in a similar situation that I was on January 25/26. Well, I've done what I could.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@Xeno, last night I provided some new evidences at SirFozzie talk page here. I was sure that after reading my new evidences SirFozzie would change his decline vote because in his decline reason he said "Show us the pattern of repeated misuse of the tools, and the unwillingness to learn from them, and we'll talk." Honestly I was more than surprised, when instead I've got this response: "It shows he has been uncivil, or a little over the top yes, but not anything with regards to administrative tools". Probably I am too naive, but I kind of thought that working with people is the most important tool an administrator gets with his position, and that tool can never be misused. Do you still believe I should file RFC? What for? According to the member of the Arbitration Committee the admin did nothing wrong "with regards to administrative tools" . Oh, well...--Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@Xeno, thank you for responding my comment. I actually posted it more for the record than to get a response, but because you responded, I'd like to ask you to clarify something for me. English is not my first language, and sometimes it is hard for me to understand what the person, who is communicating with me really means. For example, you said "if there is an ongoing persistent pattern of incivility" My question is about the using of the word "if". I understood your "if" that way that you personally are not sure that there is "ongoing persistent pattern of incivility" or my understanding of your statement is wrong?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@Xeno, thank you for responding my question. If nothing else at least I learned some English in process of this request :) I would like to ask everybody, who commented here or have read this request to answer one question, which is: What do you think would have happened to a user (not an admin), who would be using such language over and over and over, and over again? I tend to believe that the user would have been blocked over, and over, and over again, and I doubt that a blocking admin would have been asked to go through dispute resolution before imposing the block. I do not ask you to respond my question here, rather just to think about it, and to respond it to yourself. Thank you for your comments, and your time, everybody.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jéské Couriano

I have already sincerely apologized for this; the revision is in the deleted edit history on her talk page and thus is admin access only, unfortunately. Mbz1 needs to drop it, and I urge the Committee to reject this request as moot. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That last diff you just posted cannot be construed, in any way, as a threat, Mbz1. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 00:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, the Sbs101 wasn't "me assuming bad faith" as I got involved after the user was blocked and practically everyone, including CheckUsers, initially thought that he was a sockpuppet. In fact, when proof otherwise came out, I unblocked him. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 01:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman) I did apologize for it and was kinda stunned to see how it played out afterwards, including this arbitration request. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 22:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

DuncanHill) How can that be construed a threat? I merely noted that she's just seeking sanctions against me rather than going thru dispute resolution. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Avenue) Wrong on that count. While it does have homosexual connotations, it's not an epithet (contrast "faggot" or "breeder") or "accusation" of homosexuality, and in either case it also means "friend" (in the same way "chum" does). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 06:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The filing party does not look like a sock. Generally it is best not to threaten users with any process like Checkuser. If process is needed, just do it without threats. Also, calling a user a troll is invariably unhelpful. If they aren't, you've unjustly attacked them, and if they are, you've given them troll-glee by showing that you can be baited. I believe the involved parties should walk away from this conflict and chalk it up to lessons learned. There is no need to force any apology, or to have arbitration. Simply drop it. If anybody refuses, come see me and I'll see what else can be done to prevent further disruption or abuse. Jehochman ^Brrr 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

@Mbz1: If you're going to be snarky towards me, I'm not going out of my way to do you any favors. Above comments struck accordingly. Jehochman ^Brrr 05:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by DuncanHill

The comment in the 6th diff provided by the filer is, when made by an admin, a clear threat and wholly inappropriate as a response to a notification of a request for case. DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Avenue

I concur with Jehochman in hoping that the parties will move on and not rehash the January 25/26 AN/I drama. However, I think there is a serious issue here with how Jéské Couriano chooses to communicate.

On Jéské's talk page, there are several posts from people objecting to him addressing people as "chummer" and similar Shadowrun lingo,[2][3] or advising him against it.[4][5] Despite this, he has placed a note at the top of the page saying "If you are here to complain about my use of Shadowspeak (specifically chummer), please do not waste your fingers. I will not cease using it." Note that he addressed Mbz1 as "Chummliechen" while accusing her of trolling; see her diff number 5.

If someone persistently and unrepentantly addresses other editors with sarcastic claims of friendship, they seem to enjoy being hurtful, and I do not think it is appropriate for them to remain an admin.

("Chummer" is also apparently an accusation of homosexuality,[6] which makes this variant even less appropriate.)

-- Avenue (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to SirFozzie's comment:

I had never come across "chummer" until a week ago, so I don't know whether its meaning is closest to "friend", "buddy", "pal" or whatever. But that doesn't matter. The main point is that Jéské uses the term on people he is in active conflict with, i.e. editors who are definitely not his friends. He's clearly being sarcastic. Because he knows his target will probably not immediately understand the term, an innocent explanation (that he might be trying to defuse the situation by actually being friendly) doesn't wash. And he continues to do this consciously, even defiantly, after several uninvolved admins have told him it's unwise (at AN/I and elsewhere).

Admittedly he doesn't use the term much in actual block logs (I only saw one instance in the last month, along with 1 "fuck <username>", 1 "wankers", 2 "git"s, and various other terms of endearment), but I think it is also inappropriate when discussing whether to block someone. -- Avenue (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@Xeno: Good point. And now that I see SirFozzie's edit summary, I think I probably misinterpreted his comment, thinking it was directed at me when it was not. Sorry for the unnecessary repetition. -- Avenue (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno

This request is premature as evidenced by the "prior steps in dispute resolution" section - which links to a diff by the named party?! Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jéské Couriano remains redlinked. –xeno^talk 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

@Avenue - an RFC would be a more appropriate venue if concerns linger about his use of slang terms. If it is widely held that he should modify his approach, and he doesn't, then at least the prior steps in dispute resolution would have been attempted. –xeno^talk 14:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@Mbz1 - yes, if there is an ongoing persistent pattern of incivility then you should file an RFC so that the community-at-large can provide scrutiny and offer constructive criticism as to how Jeske might modify his approach to administration, and editing generally. –xeno^talk 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@Mbz1, the "if" is part of an "if, then" construction, and it can be expanded further: "if (there is a problem) then (file an RFC) if (the user does not take the community's advice on board) then (file a request for arbitration)". An important step was skipped there. –xeno^talk 17:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

• Comment - Is there a reason that an WP:RFC/U hasn't been attempted here? Steve Smith (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline - If this was an isolated incident, Jeske's apologized and it would be best for all to move on. If it was part of some pattern of inappropriate behaviour, that should be fleshed out in earlier steps of dispute resolution. Steve Smith (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Decline, try Requests for Comments. It sounds concerning but not serious enough to open an arbitration case outright. - Mailer Diablo 02:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline One mistake does not a pattern make. Show us the pattern of repeated misuse of the tools, and the unwillingness to learn from them, and we'll talk. SirFozzie (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, a comment.. I do not consider the phrase chummer to be an insult, because I happen to know the version where it means "friend", so, unless you're extrapolating something here, I do not see any issue there. SirFozzie (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Decline Nothing so far indicates that there is an ongoing problem. Shell ^babelfish 03:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline at this time, as prior steps in dispute resolution should be tried first. Having said that, I hope that Jeske Couriano takes to heart that there are concerns about his manner of communicating. Risker (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Decline in favor of dispute resolution. KnightLago (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)