Please note: This has been subpaged so other AN/I buisness can be conducted at the same time.--Tznkai (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ease of editing break

I am indefinitely (not infinitely) blocking/banning User:FT2. His refusal to respond to a simple question which goes to his integrity, and to his suitability to be an arbitrator, is disrupting the arbitration committee and the project. I deeply regret to see the new arbitrators already apparently sucked into the pernicious esprit de corps arbcom culture which forbids sharing their concerns with the community (oh, those "concerns"—let's rather call it: sharing their horror) about the behaviour of a colleague. For diffs, please see Alex Bakharev's original question on July 4; SlimVirgin's repetition of it on Dec 9; and the November, the December and the January reminders and discussions, with more and more water-treading and foot-shuffling by FT2, and more and more comments by various respected contributors, whose time is being wasted by the bad faith of an arbitrator. Yes, I and obviously many others have reached the point of assuming bad faith, on the principle that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Forcing people to assume bad faith of him is in fact not the least of FT2's disruptiveness, as WP:AGF is one of our most basic principles. The amount of frustration engendered in the community, and on the committee, by FT2's behaviour is quite unacceptable. I'm prepared to unblock FT2 when and if he does answer SlimVirgin's question, and also to accept any other admin unblocking him on the same condition. My hope is that this block will have the effect of giving FT2 time to spend on what is now by far the most important and urgent issue on his table (although he doesn't seem to realize it, referring instead with exponentially decreasing credibility to all sorts of other things that he needs to do first). Bishonen | talk 21:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

Please don't block him. Someone will only unblock, and it will cause further drama unnecessarily. I suggest you start an RFC. Majorly talk 21:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am quite confused here; what is the actual basis for this block? He seems to explain in a fairly straightforward manner on his talk page that there are certain things he is waiting for as well, and also cites a busy home life, which I don't think any of us are in a position to challenge or doubt. I see absolutely no reason for FT2 to be blocked at all, and strongly discourage Bishonen from taking this position of 'community ban wielder' on herself in the future. GlassCobra 21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"He seems to explain in a fairly straightforward manner..." Seriously? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Too late :( Majorly talk 21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bish, please reconsider. You know how this will only lead to drama, more people wasting their time, endless headache, and other problems. Please don't do this. I would rather not see you end up blocked, desysopped, or anything else. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 is an obvious kook, and makes the entire project look ridiculous. It only shows how poorly things work here that he could get any position of responsibility, much less keep it for any length of time. However, I can't imagine this block will stick, and I can see all manner of drama ensuing. I think social ostracism works better than a block in cases like this. Friday (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I seriously think Bishonen should start an RFC on FT2. Blocking him like this is punitive. The encyclopedia isn't being damaged with him editing it. Majorly talk 21:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what good this is supposed to do. What exactly is the block going to prevent - and if we're going to be creative - what behavior, practice, norm, policy, or principle is being assuaged here?--Tznkai (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFC time. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Friday, please don't throw around terms like "kook". This is a delicate matter and inflammatory words might only cause problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While the behavior revealed is disturbing, why couldn't this have been sent to RFC or arbitration? It seems to me like Bishonen's block amounts to using a pile driver to swat a fly. Unless Bish can tell us why, this block should be overturned. Blueboy96 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 claims his behaviour is at least in part inspired by the other Arbitrators, so you may understand why some in the community feel that Arbitration may be less than helpful. DuncanHill (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I completely endorse this block. Wales and the Arbcom have steadfastly refused to address this matter, so now others who care for the project have. Hallelujah, and not before time. Giano (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I support the reasons behind the block, but not the block itself. The community has literally no confidence in him as an arbitrator. Maybe we can draft him for removal? Seeing as we elected him, we should definitely be able to impeach him. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm.. well a lot rests on how important one considers it that FT respond simply and honestly as to whether or not he lied to a fellow editor. If you see it as very important that arbitrators act ethically, and have the highest standards, then this course of action seems to make a lot of sense. If we could agree that a simple answer would be a good thing, then that might be the best path to resolving the situation, no? Privatemusings (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sceptre. I make it no secret that FT2 is a friend of mine, but there is pretty clear signs that he is no longer trusted by the community to continue as an arbitrator. It should not take as long as it has to answer one question. Majorly talk 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people aren't at all happy with FT2's behavior and refusal to answer about this issue. But FT2's lack of comment together with much of his previous behavior serves to undermine his own legitimacy quite effectively. Blocking a sitting arbitrator is just an obvious recipe for drama. An RfC would be a much more effective solution. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Don't necessarily need to block him; just de-admin him so he can't do any damage. HalfShadow 21:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ps - I don't think FT is blocked at the mo? Privatemusings (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

@Sceptre: It would probably be easier to ask him to resign. That being said, I have almost no knowledge of the situation, and do not endorse or condemn the reasons for his disapproval. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't approve of FT2's conduct and I feel he should be sanctioned for it. At the same time, however, I cannot approve of a unilateral ban on a long-term contributor. If FT2 should be banned, that's a matter for community discussion—before the ban is imposed. Both FT2's conduct and Bishonen's conduct are unacceptable. Everyking (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with those that have suggested an RfC. If the RfC reveals significant concerns about FT2's ability to serve as an arbitrator, then the results should be taken to Jimbo (I assume that's the only way to remove an arbitrator). Blocking a sitting arb indefinitely does not appear to be the proper first step in dispute resolution. Karanacs (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Scarian unblocked a while ago, it seems - you around, Pat? Privatemusings (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Déjà vu: please step back, Bish. Learn from my mistake. Durova^Charge! 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Durova, you mean well, I assume, but I'm at a loss at to the similarity between blocking FT2 and blocking User:!!, if that is the action you refer to as your mistake. A complete loss. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

Obviously Bish has just heavily invested in popcorn stocks and is trying to make a quick return on investment. *munch* –xeno (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Damned right. Pass the salt. _Gb^T/c 21:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Like others have commented, I support the reasoning behind the block, but I'm not sure that the block is the best way forward. Perhaps FT2 will take this as a signal to resign his bit and arb privileges. I hope the unblocking admin followed FT2s exacting standards (for others) Verbal chat 21:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2's conduct has been unacceptable at times, but a block/ban should never be set upon an established editor without the community's approval. I hope Bish can explain this. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC) So rather than distracting ourselves and adding to unnecessary drama by talking about the block/unblock, let us instead discuss whether a community ban of FT2 s supported. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think FT2 should just step down from ArbCom, and let drama die down. Secret ^account 21:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I come home and was surprised to see this in my watchlist: FT2 indefinitely blocked? Surely, this is someone playing around. While I have been disapproving of some of FT2's conduct in the past, punitively blocking him because you can is not the way to handle this. Did you follow through with a RFC? Was the community involved in prior discussions about FT2 that would lead to an indefinite block later? Both of those questions should be answered with a "no." Unblock now, or you may find yourself on the receiving end of heat in the future. seicer | talk | contribs 21:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 has already been unblocked. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(Not that I wasn't going to post, I had a lot of EC's, apologies for the delay) I'm always around, PM. I made the unblock because it seemed/seems to have no consensus. I think this is a situation where less "gunning and running" and more "talk and... erm... balk [sic]" is needed. My only problem is with the block being too heavy handed and without discussion; I have no opinion on FT2's conduct. - That being said, any administrator may reverse the unblock, I will not re-unblock again for obvious reasons. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think this block was a good idea, and I say that as someone with great respect for Bishonen's judgement. But can we please stop fooling ourselves about an RfC? What purpose would an RfC possibly serve that this has not already served? You'll hear the same voices saying the same things, and nothing will be accomplished besides a case or two of carpal tunnel syndrome. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Something does need to be done, though. I was greatly disturbed by FT2's behavior in l'affaire OrangeMarlin, and called for him to resign over it. The diffs Bish cited only prove why. I find it hard to believe Jimbo wouldn't pay notice to an RFC being filed against an arb. Blueboy96 22:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• • It's part of the dispute resolution process, as opposed to some poll. It would be specifically about FT2's conduct as an arb. Majorly talk 22:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

....... While I have nothing but respect for Bishonen... I think this action is.... well, not productive, counter-productive isn't strong enough, but it'll have to do. I echo Durova above. Please, step back, Bishonen. This is not helpful, and could be actively harmful. As for the question above by SheffieldSteel whether a community ban of FT2 is supported/supportable, I sincerely hope that is rhetorical, as I think it is neither supported, nor is it supportable. SirFozzie (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Bad block, but good reasons. Whether or not FT2's actions in this matter have been fine, his stalling has certainly been problematic. --NE2 21:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an indefinate block of FT2 (which is a "ban" as long as nobody is willing to unblock), as a result please note that any administrator can unblock per Wikipedia:BAN#Community_ban point 2. That is how I read it anyway. —— nixeagle 22:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Arb Committee should not have to judge its own members. Wales has few roles, this is one where even a constitutional monarch is allowed to step in, but ours seems to be on a yacht in the Riviera, rather than seated on his throne. He needs to wake up. Giano (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• FT2 has had ample opportunity to answer the questions put to him. He has repeatedly promised to answer, only to fail to keep his word. He currently appears to be blaming the rest of Arbcom for his failure to answer. It is a very great shame indeed that the newly expanded Arbcom, with their new ideas to improve it, should be undermined by FT2. DuncanHill (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• FT2 has unfortunately fudged the truth in some recent comments, about which I will say more in a few hours. That may be a reason to ask him to step down from Arbcom but it is certainly not a reason to block him from editing. This seems to have been an exercise in attention-getting. Thatcher 22:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Bishonen has maintained an adversarial tone with FT2 for some time, in looking at recent contributions. This obvious involvement makes for a bloody awful block. Good unblock. No comment on FT2's behaviour. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The block was undone, but it's fair to say FT2's obfuscation and continuing delay are becoming disruptive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Vote of no confidence

(ec^n) The community has already executed a vote of no confidence in FT2 at Wikipedia:Village pump/Arbitration Committee Feedback. I supported FT2, and I also think a block is the wrong tool. I am extremely sad that an explanation was not delivered promptly, as I recommended time and again. At this point, the best thing FT2 can do for his own reputation and for Wikipedia is to resign. Whether or not that result would be fair, it would be the honorable thing to do. Jehochman ^Talk 22:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree 100% Secret ^account 22:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What would you suggest if he doesn't? Majorly talk 22:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Requests for impeachment --B (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• The committee could fix this. Those reasonable people on it could simply make it clear that they have no interest in working with him. Friday (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, or maybe a ArbCom case involving the new elected members only. It's clear he needs to leave ArbCom and I don't think that the older members participating is a good idea because they worked with FT2 for over a year and has a clear conflict of interest. Secret ^account 22:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Forcibly remove if he doesn't stand down. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• He should resign from arbcom and the bit. Verbal chat 22:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: anyone remember my comment on Jehochman's ArbCom bid about his habit of passing out pitchforks and torches? Recommending speedy closure of this subthread: this is no way to solve anything. Durova^Charge! 22:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Durova, I have witnessed the spat between you and Jehochman and I would liek to suggest that this is not the time or place to continue it. Viridae^Talk 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You're right; striking through. Durova^Charge! 23:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• See WP:STICK. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• • But where would all the drama go :P. I agree this subthread won't solve anything in the short-term, but we need to decide what we are going to deal with this situation. Secret ^account 22:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Why is this horse dead? Has he resigned? It would solve the problem of FT2 being an arb. Verbal chat 22:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• No confidence, as demonstrated by a majority of the community. Should FT2 not resign, then an RfAR should be opened - with all sitting arbs requested to recuse which would then devolve to Jimbo having to decide. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Without question, FT2 should resign from the ArbCom or be removed from it in some manner. However, I am deeply concerned about this block and the tremendously destructive style of problem-solving it represents. Everyking (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• I voted no confidence in the last fruitless one of these. No one editor has with his conduct impelled me so much to leave the project as FT2. I doubt I'm alone. And as long as he continues in his role as arbiter, he is a damage to Wikipedia. I beg Jimbo to please step in and end this. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Confidence. FT2 is a good arbitrator, who appears to have run afoul of a couple tag teams who are seeking vengeance for decisions of his that they disliked. FT2 may not be perfect, but this entire situation is overblown, and in no way do I see this issue as something that he should be forced to resign over. As Jimbo and others have said, the ArbCom has been looking into this, and there's no hurry, especially because we've got a new Committee that is still trying to get a handle on many other issues that are far more pressing than this one minor (and extremely stale) question about something FT2 may or may not have said several months ago. I'm as curious as everyone else about what the final ArbCom determination will be, but I see no need to force a rapid resignation of FT2, and this concept of indefinitely blocking him until he talks, is just bizarre. Folks, we've got an encyclopedia here, not a public torture chamber. Get back to the articles, please. --Elonka 00:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  "Stale"? If it is, then it is only because FT2 has been obfuscating for so long. DuncanHill (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"FT2 is a good arbitrator, who appears to have run afoul of a couple tag teams who are seeking vengeance for decisions of his that they disliked." I can't believe an admin(!!) would show such bad faith like that. That is an incredibly hurtful not to mention untrue comment. I ask that you strike it please. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this so complex?

I've been following this for a number of weeks across various pages, without commenting. The solution seems obvious. FT2 resigns all positions on this website with immediate effect and can choose whether or not to continue as an editor. It is clearly evident that the community no longer has any trust in him, and it is intimated that he has abused the fromer trust placed in him a number of times. If FT2 cares for Wikipedia (and one assumes with the tenure and edits he does) he would do the right thing. Just resign and go. Pedro :  Chat  22:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree FT2 should resign as an admin. That's a separate issue. Majorly talk 22:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pontless to discuss with the ec's. Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Vote of no drama

This really smacks of me like folks are upset that FT2 wouldn't take their "Suggestion" in AC Feedback to step down and is once again attempting to Storm the Bastille. He's not going to resign, and there's no indication that ArbCom will move him to resign. So, rather then creating needless, pointless, UNNECESSARY Drama, let's instead have a cup of WP:TEA and LET. IT. GO. SirFozzie (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Let's figure out what the formal channel ought to be and take it there. Durova^Charge! 22:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. Won't happen, but great idea nonetheless. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Polls are evil mm.. donuts. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This mostly calls for an RFC. I wouldn't worry about lack of input. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• WP:RFC rarely does anything but inflate more drama, lets avoid that. Secret ^account 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Too late? (Only sayin') Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with SirFozzie. (Btw, I posted this before, where'd it go?) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• What a stupid idea. He ignores a vote of no confidence, and the rest of the arbcom don't have the balls to kick him out, and therefore we should let it go? How is that going to do anything positive? Giggy (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Short Short version. The Community has the ability to vote people in. The community does not have the ability to vote people out. SirFozzie (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Really short version - Arbcom membership is the personal gift of one man, and has nothing to do with the community. DuncanHill (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that's just silly. Do you have any examples of people that the community voted into ArbCom being blocked by Jimbo? SirFozzie (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at it the other way round. He's appointed plenty who weren't elected according to what the community was told the election was for. DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on actual block

Before everyone starts throwing apples at FT2, I'd like to point out that this block is an extremely poor one, an obvious violation of the blocking policy. Bishonen has been in a kind of conflict with FT2 for a while now, and a block being used to try to "get his attention" (FT2 is well aware of the issue, and has edited today), is completely and utterly stupid. Bishonen should also be seriously considering whether she should be continuing as an admin. Majorly talk 22:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Get his attention"? Are you under the impression that I said that? Bishonen | talk 23:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

In short, yes. Not those exact words of course. You blocked him to try to bring his attention to what you feel is the most important issue for him right now. Right? Majorly talk 23:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. And I see you repeat this not-in-those-exact-words "quote" below as well. What I said is fortunately easily available above, so there's no need to argue the point. Maybe you and some other people would care to read it more slowly? There is thought behind it. Bishonen | talk 23:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

I read and reread, but still come up with the same conclusion: "My hope is that this block will have the effect of giving FT2 time to spend on what is now by far the most important and urgent issue on his table". That's the sentence that makes me believe you did it to get his attention. I might be wrong, but that's the impression I got from that. If you meant something completely different, I didn't see it. Majorly talk 23:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Time = attention in your dictionary? I suppose I could have given some quotes where FT2 complains about lack of time to address the matter, because it was those complaints I had in mind. I thought of quoting them, but wanted to avoid going long. OK, here's one—"It also has to fit round my work and others' work, my real life, and other historic matters, and coincides with a family season, a new arbcom season and the start of the working year. I am sure some would dash a 3 line note off in moments and be reckless with it; not here."[1] You see how it's complete with standard FT2 disclaimer about how "some" don't have the integrity he's himself showing, but I haven't seen any complaint from him about not being able to spare the attention. And indeed I had and have no notion that he's failing to give the vexed question his full attention. I'd bet he thinks about it a whole lot. Seriously, Majorly—surely you must see you're wrong, to be "quoting" me the way you do? Over and over, yet. I'd appreciate it if you stopped repeating that phrase of yours with quote marks. People may start believing it's something I said, as opposed to something you thought (why?) I meant. Bishonen | talk 01:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

I concur. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So Bish's open and transparent "poor use of the tools" is desysop worthy, yet FT2's secretive use of powers to remove unfortunate evidence isn't? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a complicated case, a admin blocking a unpopular ArbCom member. This can't be taken to ArbCom easily because of a clear COI though. We can't vote for desyropping here. She's not in recall. Secret ^account 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What secret powers has he abused? Majorly talk 22:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree. This kind of unilateral action warrants desysopping. Everyking (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? We don't de-sysop for one-off mistakes (or at least, we don't when it is only proles that are affected). DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A block like this is not an ordinary or minor mistake. Either Bishonen is completely unaware of what constitutes acceptable and productive dispute resolution, or she acted in deliberate defiance of that in hopes that massive drama would suit her goals. Everyking (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, this block was purposefully carried out to draw attention to FT2's own issues. Bishonen is no n00b admin, and should have known better that the block was not a good one. Majorly talk 22:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Controversial blocks are not nearly as problematic when the admin immediately goes to ANI to report the block for evaluation. Indeed, they remove almost the entire problem of a block being controversial. If there was a pattern in Bish's behavior there might be an argument but there isn't. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, she's clearly in conflict with FT2, her block had no basis whatsoever in policy, and was a "wake up call". Majorly talk 22:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Where were all you brave outspoken men when FT2 hs been taking the piss out of the project for the last year? Giano (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no it doesn't. Blocks, like all things on a wiki, are easily undone. One block is never a reason for desysoping, so long as the admin believed the block to be justified. Prodego ^talk 22:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So I can then go block Jimbo and not get punished? Only one block... (disclaimer: I do not believe Jimbo should be blocked.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a plausible reason for the block, immediately report the block to ANI for evaluation and comment and you have no serious history of misusing the block button then yes. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I might firmly believe John Smith needs a block because he failed my GA. I wouldn't go blocking him even if I "firmly believed" it. What's the point of policy if it's just the admin's "belief". And it's clear that the block is not endorsed by the community. Majorly talk 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bish's block while not a great idea had a much more coherent rationale than than in your hypothetical. Moreover, I agree that it was a bad block and is correctly being not endorsed by the community. But we don't desysop for admins making bad decisions. Bish took the proper step of reporting a potentially controversial block to ANI. That's the key in this sort of situation. Unless anyone can show any pattern of misbehavior by Bishonen there's no good argument for desysoping. To use an explicit example, a while back I blocked indefinitely User:CrazyInSane and then went to ANI to discuss the block. The consensus against my block was pretty strong. That doesn't make my action desysopworthy. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Were you in direct conflict? Was your block based in policy? Was your block of a long-term admin? Majorly talk 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that long-term admin should be a relevant criterion at all. CrazyInSane was certainly a long-time user. My block was based on what I judged to be a history of disruption. Apparently most people considered it to be not nearly as serious as I judged it. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My view is that one mistake is not grounds for desysop.... unless it was incredibly foolish (as it was in this case). --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This was a clear abuse of administrator tools. Bish should either resign, or be de-sysopped. --Elonka 22:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, thank you for your input, you are the best possible admin to opine about stepping down. Bishonen | talk 23:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

I cannot believe the gall of those calling for Bish to be desyssopped. She made a block, and reported it here. She has not wheel-warred, she had a good reason for the block (i.e. preventing further disruption caused by FT2's failure to be honest). DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Duncan, please tone your language down. This is a delicate situation already. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Which language do you object to? "gall" or "failure to be honest"? DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The block was astoundingly bad, poorly thought out, and no basis whatsoever in policy. It was to "get FT2's attention". Simply inappropriate. Majorly talk 22:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with the theory, I believe that such a thing will only cause more drama right now. We need to slow the pace of this down, go through proper channels, and get people back to discussing instead of acting in a manner that can cause more problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC - Request for Calm

Indeed, this was an unfortunate and sad turn of events. To report: the ArbCom has been in daily, careful, and thoughtful discussions of this issue with FT2, with dozens of messages so far this year including by my count 14 emails this morning alone (pre-Bishonen block). There is no reason whatsoever for drama and excitement, and Bishonen should not have done this. I am taking no action at this time, but trust me simply that there will be emergency desysoppings and blockings as necessary if drama continues. Incident finished, everyone. The yellow tape is up. :) Police line, do not cross.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fully endorse. Let's be reasonable. Am willing to withdraw the request for arbitration pending Jimbo's advisement: was seeking regular means of resolving an irregular situation, and that appeared to be the logical destination of this dispute. Durova^Charge! 22:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Daily, careful, and thoughtful discussions" of *what* issue? Whether or not FT2 was telling the truth when he said he wasn't aware that his edits had been oversighted? That seems an odd thing to have discussed with Arb Comm to the tune of fourteen e-mails this morning alone. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue of misstatements on the oversight matter is only one issue under discussion. There are other issues as well, related to FT2's role in internal Arbcom discussions and processes. Thatcher 23:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  So as well as lying about the oversights, he's been internally disrupting Arbcom? DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not for me to say. I lack standing to comment on Arbcom's internal discussions, and all my information is second or third hand. All I should say is that the oversight matter is not the only matter under discussion. Thatcher 23:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, Mr Wales, you should have said that a month ago! You need to regain some respect now, by acting not lecturing those who have forced you to belatedly act. Giano (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Giano, you are as usual ranting without the least bit of information to inform your rant. Lay off.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So give us the information, stop patronizing us by saying we can't comment because we don't have the information! DuncanHill (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR

I have initiated a request for arbitration. Durova^Charge! 22:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• And I emailed and left a brief note on Jimbo's talk page. He just can't ignore this one. Secret ^account 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I blame Jimbo 100% for the fact that this unseemly debacle has been allowed to develop over so prolonged a period. It is easy to look for scape-goats in every corner, but the buck has to stop somewhere, and only a constitutional monarch can fire one of his royally appointed arbitators, that is the long and the short of the matter. Stop blaming others and look to the top. Giano (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way Giano, but simply note for the record that, as has been the case many times in the past, you're deeply uninformed about the issues you are commenting on.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So inform us then. DuncanHill (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yah bah boo sucks Jimbo - I remeber the last time you told me that - you were forced to appolagise! Giano (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And let's stop lynching each other, I think this subpage should be protected and discussion over. Let him and ArbCom deal with FT2, even if it's painfully slow. Secret ^account 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The community doing so would be so much faster. There is a clear consensus FT2 should be removed from ArbCom. I say this even as a friend of his, so it's not like I'm biased to remove him. Why are we waiting? Majorly talk 22:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Because quite probably, it's the wrong action to be taken here? SirFozzie (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How so? This could be over so swiftly. Majorly talk 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

An arbitrator is elected specifically to make hard decisions. Tough Decisions. Unpopular decisions. At least half the people who enter Arbitration will exit disappointed and unhappy with the Arbitrators. That's if the Arbitrators are lucky. If they're unlucky, they come out with a decision that is necessary, but will have the unfortunate side effect of torquing EVERYONE involved off. Imagine your local politician. Now imagine the stress they're under if they could be recalled instantly if they make a necessary (but unpopular) decision. The strain is bad enough when they are likely to be re-elected in their normal term.

Now let's look at the history of folks re-running for ArbCom. Except for Brad, and maybe one or two others, I don't think that any arbitrator could win re-election after serving a full term. Again, the job is filled with stress and unpopularity. But it is NECESSARY. Wikipedia's disputes can not always be fixed by consensus. If it was, we wouldn't have any of the cases that appear before the committee time and again (Episodes/Characters? The Troubles? Eastern Europe? Etcetera). Per Jimbo, there is active, ongoing discussion within ArbCom (15 emails in a day certainly sounds like active discussion, doesn't it?).

The community Storming the Bastille (and I keep using that term, because I hope that people catch the allusion I'm using. It's deliberate.) and forcing a resolution here is counter-productive. It sets a bad example going forward. We elect ArbCom to do their job. If we don't like the job we're doing, we "throw the bums out" when it comes time to re-elect them (if they run again). Let discussions with ArbCom continue till its natural exit point, and once we know more, act then, with all due measuredness. SirFozzie (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but from what I, a mere mortal, can see, this is simply over the issue that the party in question has not, in 8 months(?), answered the question about what the oversighted edit (or edits) was? Why does it need to take this long to disclose what appears to be an easy answer? Maybe I don't understand ArbCom and they apparently live under different rules, but it seems to me that the party here is involved in a case needing ArbCom, but they won't take the case because he's an Arb? Forgive my bluntness, but WTF is that? If you want an example of drama, it's not this discussion, nor the blocking, but the underlying issue; if you want an example of loosing confidence in system (i.e., me, and I guess I'm glad I chose to never seek beyond mere editor-hood), this is ie. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The slowness (glacial, frankly) is the cause of the drama. If we are deeply uninformed then we should be enlightened, instead of patronized. DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The ArbCom is discussing alternatives and will act when they have reached a consensus. What's the rush?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it's taken months? Majorly talk 22:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do hope that the needs of many will eventually come tooutweigh the needs of one. But of course, bureaucracy moves like plate tectonics. You can't go directly to Reason in one step. Then it wouldn't be a real bureaucracy ;) Until then, I'll remain calm, and my opinion of Arbcom and the PTB here will also remain. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

When will that be? 2010? 2011? DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

After multiple conflicts, I cannot beleive JWales is so out of touch as to have posted that? Giano (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• What alternatives are they discussing? FT2 answers honestly or FT2 doesn't. I can't think of any more. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, since clearly, for FT2 to "answer honestly," he must tar himself as guilty. (The joy of conspiracy theories--because it's impossible to prove a negative, the theorists can always just claim that any revelations that don't fit their theory are "just more of the coverup.") In any event, for FT2 to clear his name, he'd have to post information that was already oversighted to show the content of the oversighted posts, which would almost certainly then have to itself be oversighted for the same reason as the original posts were oversighted, which would just lead to more accusations of a coverup and malfeasance.

In any event, last I knew, refusal to comment on ArbCom's closed-door deliberations isn't a blockable offense, so this whole issue is ridiculous. Support trouting everyone involved, and then getting back to, y'know, writing an encyclopedia. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom case

In relation to the FT2 thread above, an RfArb has been started at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Bishzilla. DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Note on the previous thread

Resolved

 – See the thread linked below - was in good faith. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Explaining my actions quickly:

The above thread was crowding out all other ANI business - which granted may have been a good thing, but admin noticeboards need to remain accessible. I have subpaged it to keep things moving. The subpage is titled WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Bishonen-FT2 watchlist and edit to your hearts content, but please don't move it unnecessarily.

Protecting to get that done was unorthodox, yes - but I stand by it. Negligible harm, a bit more good. Complaints can be left here or at my talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Somebody already complained at WT:AN... --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK the complaint was more due to the misunderstanding caused by the imperfection of the English language. –xeno (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement from a fellow arbitrator

Alright, clearly there needs to be some tea passed around. Of course that's not going to help everything, so allow me to explain. Without commenting on the block or the merits of the question (I can't be judgmental as an arb), clearly this is an issue where the community has boiled over. Yes, this has been discussed by arbcom. I have not strenuously followed it so I can't speak specifics, but here's the issue. Can the Arbitration Committee remove FT2 or investigate? Without asking whether or not they should, I don't think we can really look at the issue, since by now we'd be recused if the case were on the floor. This means that the community needs to make the decision, no? The community, per the no confidence motion, does not approve of FT2 as an arbitrator. FT2 was brought into the arbcom after being approved by the committee in the elections. The decision seems to lie with FT2. Does he resign under pressure, or does he continue to take this pressure throughout these 24 months? I do think he at least has to really think about his role, as well as the community, and think of what is best for the project. I am purposely avoiding implying any personal opinion of my own, now is not the time for that. All I can say is that FT2 needs to make a firm stand one way or the other, on-wiki, about whether or not he will resign. After that, it's entirely up to the community what to do next; not because we're trying to sidestep this and clean our hands, but because if you guys feel this strongly about this matter, then the community will find the path to what you want. (I'm heading to a class, but I'll be back as soon as I can.) Wizardman 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, Jimbo also has the authority to remove FT2, and I suspect he would do so if there was a strong consensus among the rest of the Arbitrators that it should be done. FT2 voluntarily resigning or FT2 bravely withstanding the slings and arrows for two more years are not the only alternatives. Thatcher 23:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed, just as a clarification of the constitutional question, I do have the authority to remove FT2, and there is precedent for removal. I have called for creation of a Arbitrator recall process, but we are months from having a process in place. In the meantime, I intend to continue working with the ArbCom to discuss and find a proper resolution to this situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Can I suggest that if there are concerns that people would like addressing, the best place to do so would be in RfC. I've seen threads on his talk page with a few editors popping up to make snide comments and that isn't the way that things should be sorted here. The people who have problems should file an RfC (there's been ample time for resolution of this through askinf FT2 to explain and multiple users have attempted this). An RfC could give the community a chance to air their views and ask two key questions. Was what FT2 did wrong? and, Does FT2 still have the confidence of the community. If he does not, then I suspect Jimbo would remove him, but I see the best way of doing this is to go through an RfC and I'm positive we'd get a wide community input. It'd be hard not to listen to that which ever way it goes. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan, though the recent no confidence vote was a very sure indicator of how the community feels. Majorly talk 23:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people didn't vote in that because of how it was handled. I personally didn't because I felt it was a lynching. I would however participate in an RfC which is a more official process. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC is good for sounding of views and opinions, but it's not a fact finding exercise. What RfC would do would be to poll peoples views on what they believed, heard, or saw, not on what was actually up, nor the actual reason it's been as it is. It would easily establish that most people felt it was bad there was no comment, but it would be incapable of assessing why that was so, or fact-finding on the realities of it, or checking why nothing had been possible so far.

For that some kind of separate fact-finding or disclosure is needed, and the issue is I myself need guidance on that, and whereas it had seemed very simple, in fact it was not; then it was a new Arbcom; and now it is even more clear this is not just imagination - Arbcom themselves having seen the full evidence are finding it is taking time to consider what advice to give. Each of the usual means of disclosure fails, even self-requested RFAR which I have said I would be happy with. When they do suggest how disclosure might be done, I will probably take it -- after all, that is what I asked in the first place. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you and Arbcom were to be open about who said what to whom and when, then an RfC would be capable of making those assessments. DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point about private material, you don't get to know it because it's private. That is precisely the issue here, what I have asked Arbcom's advice on, how to have some kind of meaningful resolution given that the evidence is not able to be made public.

I've said I would be glad to have a self-requested RFAR if there is no other good alternative. There are some issues there as well, such as simply, "what would its proposed outcome be". Their view whether standards were good? Their view whether there was honesty and integrity or good evidence of their absence? Their view on communal emotions? Its not an easy one there either. Nonetheless Arbcom are trusted and mandated to handle privacy related cases and issues, so ultimately a way must be found. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that you are currently an asset or a liability to the operation of Arbcom? DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• This misses the point. It's no longer about disclosure; that ship sailed awhile back. It's about whether someone can be an effective Arbitrator in the absence of community trust and support. Fairly or unfairly, that trust has been lost, and even a full disclosure at this late date seems unlikely to restore it. The problem is not so much a few oversighted edits, but the response, the way the issue has been handled - or not handled - for the past 6 months. I don't expect that FT2 will step down now - if he were so minded, he'd have done so after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin, which was 20 times worse than this. I don't begrudge anyone their privacy, and we all make occasional errors of judgement. But there is a price for stalling and ignoring concerns over time, even if you turn out to be "right" on particulars. MastCell ^Talk 00:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An asset. A list of what I have been doing and done in my role as arb, for the community, is strikingly notable. It is also to a high standard, whether looked at in terms of off-wiki matters handled by the committee, work done on improving the committee's well-known historic failings, use of WMF tools, insight and integrity on-wiki in voting on RFAR, openness, or any other matter within arbitrator remit. Of the two well known issues in 2008, the committee ruled on one that it was in fact a committee overall failing (which it was), and not due to personal lack of care or thoroughness; and the other is held back by privacy issues rather than fears over openness. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Missing the point, indeed. I doubt FT2 will step down, and I doubt that the community has the means to force him to do so. Too bad, because FT2 has been "strikingly notable" in damaging the committee's standing, and spectacularly clueless in recognizing his role in doing so. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)