Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Statement by RoySmith: ADMINCOND vs UCOC
Remove Sandstein request, declined by the committee
Tag: Replaced
Line 7: Line 7:
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}
<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>

== Sandstein ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[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>]] '''at''' 11:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Ritchie333}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Sandstein}}

;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:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=1166104943]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1166086637#Unacceptable_WP:NPA_by_User:Tony1 Unacceptable WP:NPA by User:Tony1]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#Sandstein and Eric Corbett at WP:AE]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive832#Reverse Sandstein's false accusations and destructive warnings]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#Response_by_Sandstein]]

=== Statement by Ritchie333 ===
Yesterday, a complaint was raised at ANI over {{u|Tony1}}'s behaviour in a content dispute regarding a ''Signpost'' article, which resulted in a mild personal attack from Tony1. In response, Sandstein blocked Tony1 for two weeks, claiming the block was necessary to support the [[WP:UCOC|Universal Code of Conduct]] and overrode several recommendations of response in our own [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] and [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]] policies, portions of which I quoted in the ANI thread. While some administrators supported the block, pointing out that Tony1 has had temperament problems in the past, equally as many administrators considered the block an unnecessary over-reaction. Consequently, the block was undone shortly afterwards by {{u|Bishonen}}, which Sandstein has described as "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=1165991371 an irresponsible course of action]".

Since Arbcom is the only place we can review an administrator's conduct, it means we've got to come here to look at it. I want to raise a few other points:

* I am unsure of how enforceable the Universal Code of Conduct is when it appears to contradict our own civility policies. While Arbcom can't ''make'' policy, it might be useful for them to ''clarify'' it.
* I don't believe the Universal Code of Conduct says that enforcement ''must'' be responded with blocks.
* Although the four ANI threads I mentioned above are problematic, I reviewed far more complaints against Sandstein at ANI where the filer was at fault and a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] was applied.
* We've just gone through another arbitration case where a questionable block coupled with doubling down on the decision was met with a desysop.

{{u|Barkeep49}} It seems like I have got the wrong end of the stick with this - can you advise a more appropriate venue to air the above points? [[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>]] 13:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by Sandstein ===
'''Preliminary statement:''' It is unclear from the case request that the requirements for arbitration have been met, i.e., that there is an ongoing serious dispute, that previous dispute resolution attempts have failed, and that arbitration (instead of community-based processes, such as the undoing of the block at issue) is needed to resolve the dispute. It is not even clear what the case request is about, exactly, and what action by ArbCom is being requested. My block, with which Richie333 disagreed, has been undone and has not been reinstated. The case request does not make the argument that this block violated any policy or other rule.
As to the underlying conduct issue, the matter of the conduct of {{u|Tony1}} towards {{u|Headbomb}}, it is at the time of writing still being discussed [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unacceptable_WP:NPA_by_User:Tony1|in an AN thread]]. Depending on how the matter is resolved, it may indicate systemic deficiencies in enforcing our community-based and Foundation-based conduct policies, and that might in my view be grounds for arbitration. With respect to the other noticeboard threads linked to in the case request, the request does not explain how they pertain to it.
I may make an additional statement should it become clear that arbitrators are considering acting on this request. In the interim, I refer to my statements in [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unacceptable_WP:NPA_by_User:Tony1|the AN thread]]. I also remain, of course, available to answer questions from arbitrators. <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> 11:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

:For those who are interested, I have asked for a review of Bishonen's unblock at [[Wikipedia:Administrative action review#Unblock of Tony1 by Bishonen]]. <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> 10:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by [[User:Lourdes|<span style="color:blue; background: white">Lourdes</span>]] ===
This case should have been named Tony1, not Sandstein. Headbomb and Bishonen should be made parties to the case. In my opinion, and I am confident in the opinion of many others, Sandstein's block of Tony1 was not beyond the boundaries of reasonable administrative actions. Bishonen too was reasonable in her unblock. What was and remains unreasonable is Tony1's uncivil behaviour at Headbomb and absolute and deliberate avoidance of participating in the discussion. This could be resolved if Tony1 apologises and we move on. However, bringing a case against Sandstein is not that optimal. [[User:Lourdes|<span style="color:blue; background: white">Lourdes</span>]] 11:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by Headbomb ===
First, this is not a content dispute, it is a style dispute. Second, this is really taking [[WP:UNBLOCKABLES]] to the next level. I was literally told to go to hell over commas and dashes. If that is not a blockable offense, nothing is. But not only did that block get undone, now you need to take the blocking admin to ARBCOM for a good tar and feathering? Do you want Sandstein to walking in the public square, naked, with a stern nun screaming SHAME behind him as she rings a bell, as a sign of repentance? &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 12:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by BilledMammal ===
First, I want to start this by saying that in my opinion Sandstein is an excellent admin, and generally uses the tools well. Further, it is within the bounds of discretion to block an editor for telling another editor to "fuck off", although personally I would have preferred to see additional examples of recent incivility to demonstrate a pattern.

However, I am concerned by them justifying the block using the UCoC. Admins are empowered to enforce community consensus. Absent an [[enabling act]], this consensus does not exist for the UCoC and thus I do not believe they have the authority to enforce it; if the WMF wants it to be enforced then they cannot rely on us to do so and instead need to do it themselves. 12:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
:On reading Barkeep's comment, I do agree with that reading. Further, while ArbCom might be able to address this question I am not convinced that it should; I believe the best way to address it is to ask the community two questions, subject to wordsmithing:
:#Are admins, and the broader enwiki community through boards such as [[WP:ANI|ANI]], empowered to enforce the UCoC on the English Wikipedia?
:#If there is a consensus for #1, in circumstances where the UCoC and local [[WP:PAG|policies and guidelines conflict]], which takes precedence?
:12:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by Black Kite ===
If we're going to block people for two weeks based on the UCoC, I look forward to a blizzard of blocks on editors in nearly every contentious area, as one of the UCoC's other "unacceptable behaviour" criteria is "''Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view''". Oh, and this doesn't need a case unless Sandstein has a history of recent heavy-handed blocks, evidence for which hasn't been put forward; the ANI reports above are from 2019, 2014 and 2013 (and I actually agree with Sandstein's actions in one of them). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by Aquillion ===
This is too soon for ArbCom. Yes, it's true that if we wanted to de-admin someone we'd need to go to ArbCom, but honestly Sandstein's (and Tony1's and Bishonen's, I guess) conduct isn't the important part here. We need to answer the question of how the UCoC ''does'' relate to our policy and if or how it gets enforced. The question of who was in the wrong and whether their mistakes were so egregious as to be unreasonable is downstream of that. And ArbCom isn't really supposed to be settling those issues - the request acknowledges this, but it also indirectly asks them to provide guidance by asking them to "clarify" it, which I don't think is appropriate right now. The community ultimately needs to answer the key questions first before there's even policy for ArbCom to interpret and provide guidance on.

Also, these cases named after individual users are still bad - why focus on Sandstein and not Tony1 or Bishonen? I can understand the argument that Sandstein's behavior was the most "unusual" but we should move away from biasing cases by putting user names in the titles; clearly when a case involves a dispute between two admins over a user accused of misconduct, all three users should at least start out equally under the spotlight, even if the ultimate conclusion is likely to be that only one of them was at fault. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 12:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by [[User:QEDK|QEDK]] (Sandstein) ===
The committee should take this case '''''iff''''' the goal is to determine wiki policy and ToS interactions. The administrator (mis-)conduct or the underlying scenario itself does not rise to the level of ArbCom intervention. Also, why is this case request named Sandstein? The block was purely in the range of administrator discretion. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|<span style="color:#732">qedk</span>]] ([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:#732">t</span>]] <span style="color:#000">愛</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:#732">c</span>]])</span> 12:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by Red-tailed hawk (Sandstein) ===
With respect to the claim that {{tq|Arbcom is the only place we can review an administrator's conduct}}... no. There are plenty of places that we can review administrator conduct, including [[WP:AARV]], a board specifically dedicated to reviewing individual administrative actions. Unless one sees this as a repeated pattern of frequent suboptimal blocking or the individual block was so egregious as to warrant a desysop (neither of which are alleged by the filer), then this is the wrong venue at this time.

On the other hand, if the ArbCom believes that the ongoing ANI dispute is intractable, cannot be handled by the community, and needs its back broken, then this should be '''swiftly re-named'''; it's very clear that any case evaluated here wouldn't just be a case looking at a single editor's actions, and the current name would be deeply uncharitable towards Sandstein should a case with that broader scope be accepted.

— [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 13:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

===Statement by RoySmith===
Just to answer {{u|Ritchie333}}'s question about venue, it seems you are mostly concerned with how the UCOC affects enwiki. I suggest [[WP:VPP]] and/or [[WP:VPW]]. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 13:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
{{ping|Cabayi}} regarding the UCOC, I think there's more to ADMINCOND than you give it credit for. There's a long-standing and well-accepted convention that anybody performing admin-like actions (i.e. [[WP:NAC]]) is subject to [[WP:ADMINCOND]]. For example, [[WP:NACRFC]] says, {{tq|Just as other editors are free to question or criticize the actions of administrators, they may also do so for non-administrator actions, such as closing an RfC. Non-admins are similarly expected to promptly justify their decisions when required.}} The principle doesn't seem to be written down as clearly for the general case as it is for NACRFC, but it is universally enforced as if it were. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 02:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by Deepfriedokra (sandstein) ===
*Too early, There are several other venues, already mentioned, where this would be better discussed.[[User:Deepfriedokra|-- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 13:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
*:{{yo|SilkTork}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&diff=1166134368&oldid=1166124901 You cannot see it from there, but I am giving you a standing ovation.] [[User:Deepfriedokra|-- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 15:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by WaltCip ===
Surely, by being a Wikimedia matter in general, the WMF and T&S will decide on their own volition whether or not the UCoC is enforceable. As {{u|Worm That Turned}} stated, it's not the duty of ArbCom to enforce it any more than they would enforce any other policy that currently exists on English Wikipedia. The use of it as a block rationale is certainly within the admin's discretion, as is the action of the admin that happens to unblock, but ArbCom should not and cannot rule on the UCoC as it's not technically within their jurisdiction. As the UCoC says: {{tq|This Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) defines a '''minimum''' set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour.}} ''(Bolded mine.'')) Cheers, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 13:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
:Recommend speedy decline with filer conceding that this is not the best venue to deal with this. Cheers, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 15:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
::It almost doesn't surprise me that three arbitrators openly disagree on whether "go to hell" was a personal attack or even uncivil (or even insinuating the revert which led to the personal attack was uncivil, which I think grinds my gears a little). If there is such open disagreement as to what constitutes incivility among the Arbitration Committee, how can the greater admin corps expect to enforce or interpret the civility policy with any sort of consistency? Cheers, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 13:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by RevelationDirect ===
I hadn’t ever looked at an ArbComm page prior to last week and was surprised when the naming of a case request was controversial. There seemed to be a clear naming convention with recent cases: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong|1]] and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW|2]]. But Banedon’s concern about anchoring with an editor’s name is a perspective I hadn’t considered before. And, in this request as well, the naming of a proposed case adds a (probably minor) controversy on top of the underlying issues.

If The Committee should ever find itself with any spare time, it might be worthwhile to clarify whether case request names should include user names. [[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 14:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]]'s suggestion to empower clerks to adjust names of requested cases would accomplish the same goal with no red tape. - [[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 00:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by Nosebagbear ===
The UCOC sets functionally no "severity of sanctions" obligations, including any sanction beyond warning someone. The upshot of that is that unless you believe there is a UCOC aspect that is ''not'' covered by en-wiki's PAGs, the base policy text doesn't have much applicability. Such an area may exist in, say, the doxing section - but that's all irrelevant here. The arbs are already noting that unless we want to desysop an admin, we're way too early to be here. Discussion on "is x sanction too severe", even "much too severe", can continue to be done by the community. Indeed, if the close sticks, it already ''has'' been done. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 15:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by Lepricavark ===
If this isn't a case of pouring kerosene on smoldering embers in a teapot (pardon the mixed metaphor), then I don't know what is. While I don't agree with Sandstein's invocation of UCOC, the block was a valid sanction that frankly should not have been overturned without some assurance that the behavior would not be repeated. I'm surprised that an editor as well-versed in community affairs as Ritchie would consider this a matter for ArbCom, and I'm absolutely gobsmacked that he anchored the request to Sandstein. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 18:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by Folly Mox (Sandstein / Tony1) ===
1. Isn't this the exact sort of thing we have [[WP:XRV]] for?<br />
2. This seems like the freshest instance of "block against silent consensus of no action", classic examples of which involved Eric Corbett or EEng or each separately, where multiple admins have looked at a complaint and declined to take action, but don't say anything, so when eventually one admin taking a stricter interpretation shows up and blocks, it soufflés into some drama.{{pb}}Admins feeling no action is required on a complaint but lacking the strength of opinion to straight close the thread as such should be encouraged to leave a brief message registering their thoughts, so an out-of-tune action that seems obviously against consensus in retrospect can be avoided by informing later admins reviewing the thread. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 19:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

:To touch briefly on the cognitive anchoring bit, arbcom clerks should feel encouraged to change the names of case requests anchored to a username, rather than requiring filers to name requests differently or wait until a case is accepted to change the name. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 19:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by JPxG ===
The original edit war (to wit: whether a live ''Signpost'' piece should have commas or en-dashes) was stupid and unnecessary, the insults (to wit: a grown man telling another grown man to "go to hell" over aforementioned punctuation disagreement) were stupid and unnecessary, and this arb request is stupid and unnecessary.

In fact, the statement I'm typing out right now may be the most stupid and unnecessary of all. How about we all give ourselves a good solid kick in the pants and get on with our lives? '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 19:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

===Statement by Robert McClenon (Sandstein)===
I have a comment about a question that was asked. I will comment on the question before I comment on the merits of this request. The question is whether admins should refer to UCoC in block rationale. I think that the answer is "Yes, at least occasionally" for a reason that may be counter-intuitive, but is not paradoxical. The enforcement guidelines for the UCoC provide that enforcement of the UCoC will be done on a project basis, and the English Wikipedia is the largest project, but that the U4C will be responsible for enforcement of the UCoC on projects that do not have an effective enforcement mechanism. We have already seen, in the Fram case, that there are individuals in the WMF who are eager to intervene in English Wikipedia matters. We know that the ENWP policies and guidelines fully implement the UCoC and are effectively enforced by ENWP administrators and the ENWP ArbCom. We know that. But there are individuals in the WMF who may be looking for an excuse to say that we are not effectively enforcing the UCoC. So if an administrator sometimes cites the UCoC in a block, they are checking the box to show that we are enforcing the UCoC. That was a reason for Sandstein to cite the UCoC. We also have mechanisms for reviewing UCoC actions and [[WP:PAG|policy and guideline]] actions. Sandstein had a reason to cite the UCoC.

Other editors have already commented about the merits of this case, to say that it doesn't have merit, and I concur with them.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by Lightburst ===
I am dismayed by the overuse of the block button. Many administrators should reread the blocking policy because it is not supposed to be used to punish. In the past few months I have seen a person blocked for ivoting oppose at RFA, and another who was blocked for posting holiday greetings on users talk pages. In this case Sandstein blocked someone that should not have been blocked - and then doubled down. When I first started regularly editing in 2018 I was blocked when I messaged an admin about an edit war I was involved in: no warning just an immediate block. Then I was blocked from my talk page when I questioned the admin. Back to this case, or non-case from what I am reading below... I have not been Sandstein's biggest fan but I can say they are mostly a fair arbiter - not in this case though. Blocks should be to protect the content and content creators. Just recently this group blocked Allisonw when they blocked an individual to protected content... and we wave off these bad blocks by other admins. Arbcom does not look to be taking this case but they should. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 21:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Sandstein: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Sandstein: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/10/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Sandstein: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
*{{re|Ritchie333}} Regarding {{tqq|1=Since Arbcom is the only place we can review an administrator's conduct, it means we've got to come here to look at it.}}: This is true in the sense that ArbCom is a first point of call when considering ''sanctioning'' an administrator ([[WP:ARBPOL#Scope and responsibilities]], point #3). But we are not really a body for first review of every administrator action (even ones broadly viewed as incorrect) unless there's some desysop argument or, of course, for "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve" ([[WP:ARBPOL#Scope and responsibilities]], point #1) or other criteria described at that link. I understand the UCoC element here is unique, but could your statement further address either why you think Sandstein should be desysopped or why you think the community has shown it's incapable of resolving this dispute? Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 11:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
*:'''Decline'''. '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 12:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
*I am normally not one to decline based on the framing given by whoever happens to file a case. But in this case it feels like the real case request is a desire to get Arbcom to interpret the UCoC through a half hearted ADMIN conduct case request. I will be read community feedback but it will take a fair amount of work to get me to not decline. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 12:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
**'''Decline''' per my comments above and Worm's first comment below. I will note to {{u|Ritchie333}} and others who'd like to see ArbCom weigh in about the UCoC, that this committee has [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland#Universal_Code_of_Conduct|done so]]. The part of that which feels relevant to this request is {{tqq|The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) defines a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour. The English Wikipedia has developed policies and guidelines (PAG) that add to this minimum that take account of local and cultural context, maintaining the UCoC criteria as a minimum standard and, in many PAGs, going beyond those minimums.}} [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 13:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
**{{re|WaltClip}}, I can't find the evidence you refer to when you say {{tqq|It almost doesn't surprise me that three arbitrators openly disagree on whether "go to hell" was a personal attack or even uncivil}}. The two comments I see are {{tqq|the conduct was plainly an incivil personal attack}} and {{tqq|while "go to hell" and "fuck off" are not personal attacks, they are certainly uncivil}}. So there is no disagreement that they were uncivil that I can see. The other two arbs who address civility, WTT and SilkTork, seem to be doing so in general rather than tied to the specifics of this instance. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
*Let's be clear here - UCoC is a baseline, a minimum that every project should adhere to. There's nothing in there that our policies don't cover, there's nothing new in it. So '''UCoC is already covered by policy'''. The problem is that we're inconsistent on how we enforce our civility policies and that's been a problem for 2 decades. Trying to invoke the UCoC to enforce a preferred enforcement of civility is just asking for trouble. I see nothing in the case request that needs Arbcom involvement at this point - and I don't want to force a UCoC case that we don't need. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 13:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. We have an ArbCom request to desysop an admin which trails back to what? A huffy revert of some minor and helpful copy-editing. Reverts in themselves can be felt as insults. You don't like the edits? Improve them, and move on. Don't deliberately throw them back in the face of the person who made them, and grandstand about it (and then actually carry out most of the suggested improvements yourself). Each action we make on Wikipedia has a consequence. If we push someone, we can generally expect to be pushed back. Don't push if you don't like being pushed back. And certainly don't go shouting PA if the other person gets annoyed because you've pushed. Civility starts with yourself. Inappropriate reverts are themselves uncivil. Trouts all round, and let's get back to work. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 15:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' The only real issue here is "should admins be making blocks with UCOC rationales?" (For the record, I think they should not. The UCOC is already duplicative to or less stringent than local policy). But that's not an ArbCom decision to make; or if it is, this is certainly not the case to do it in. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 17:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 18:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per basically all the above declines. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' I agree with everyone above, but want to add that the framing of "another arbitration case where a questionable block coupled with doubling down on the decision was met with a desysop" really misses the point. While in the minority on ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW|AlisonW]]'', the framing here minimizes the issues present in that case and exaggerates the issues in the request. The block in ''AlisonW'' was not merely "questionable", it was unequivocally ''wrong''. While arbitrators may disagree on how to ''remedy'' a situation, it does not transform the underlying facts, and we were unanimous in our findings that tool use was not merely questionable but contrary to well established policy (see FoFs 5 and 7). By comparison, while [[WP:CIVIL]] points out the pitfalls of using blocks to enforce civility, it does not forbid them, and even says "Exceptions to this may include users who [...] have received multiple warnings or blocks" which relates to Sandstein's block rationale at AN where says: "Considering that they have a long block log for similar conduct[...]". Now again, while we may disagree on how to ''remedy'' the issue it does not transform the underlying facts: the conduct was plainly an incivil personal attack, but neither the block nor unblock was contrary to any policy (including UCOC, as others have pointed out). Maybe that's not a good thing, but that's not for us to decide. The community needs to either outright prohibit civility blocks or better balance the second-mover advantage for administrators undoing them created by [[WP:WHEEL]]. Until then there's nothing for the Committee to really do in cases like this because no one misused any tools even if it routinely leads to flame wars (as [[WP:CIVIL]] points out often happens). <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 21:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
* '''Decline'''. From an arbcom perspective, the block and unblock were both well within admin discretion and there is no abuse of admin privileges here, plus last I checked blocks are not subject to consensus. Speaking just for myself, while "go to hell" and "fuck off" are not personal attacks, they are certainly uncivil, [[WP:5P4|5P4]] is a thing, and I would like people to try to be a little nicer to each other please. [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] ([[User talk:GeneralNotability|talk]]) 00:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' per the others. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 13:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' - I do not agree that UCOC is completely a subset of enwiki policy. [[:foundation:Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#3.2 – Abuse_of_power,_privilege,_or_influence|3.2]] covers ''"someone in a real or perceived position of power, privilege, or influence"'' which is more extensive than [[WP:ADMINCOND]]. That aside, I agree with the rest. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 08:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:37, 22 July 2023

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

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
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1166516705"