The Signpost

Arbitration report

Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Steven Zhang & Lord Roem

The Arbitration Committee opened no new cases this week, but closed one case, leaving two open.

Closed cases

Civility enforcement

On 20 February, a motion to close reached four net votes, triggering the closure of the Civility enforcement case. This case was initially opened due to the actions of several administrators in relation to an editor who was blocked over perceived incivility. That editor, Malleus Fatuorum, will be subject to an RFA talk page ban. Specifically, he is banned from "any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship", but is not prevented from !voting on RFAs, according to the Arbitration Committee's proposed decision. Further, arbitrators voted to admonish him over "repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct". In approving this sanction, the Committee rejected a proposal to ban him on a 2–8 vote.

The decision includes a provision to desysop Hawkeye7. The basis for this is the finding that Hawkeye7 has engaged in "wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator". The Committee also voted to admonish administrators Thumperward "for conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for failing to adequately explain his actions when requested by the community and Arbitration Committee" and John for "reversing another administrator's actions while said actions were under review through community discussion."

A general reminder to all editors was passed "to engage in discussion in a way that will neither disrupt nor lower the quality of such discourse. Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other uncivil conduct that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus. Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature, in order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole."

This warning is directed at conduct that deteriorates the quality of discussions, reminding all editors that uncivil conduct can be a factor in the breaking down of consensus forming, and that blocks or other restrictions may be used in the event of repeated disruption to ensure the collaborative environment of Wikipedia is maintained.

Open cases

TimidGuy ban appeal (Week 10)

This case was brought to the Committee by an editor to appeal a ban that was imposed by Jimbo Wales. The proposed decision was posted today by drafter Roger Davies. Proposals range from vacating TimidGuy's site ban to the desysop and ban of the accusing administrator. A great deal of the proposals discuss the Conflict of Interest guideline and its interaction with anti-harassment policies. Committee voting on these proposals is expected to continue into the week.

Article titles and capitalization (Week 4)

This case was opened to review alleged disruptive editing on the Manual of Style and other pages to do with article naming. Today, the workshop phase closed with a total of eight submissions from involved parties. Suggestions ranged from guidance on Wikipedia policies to claims of specific incidents of disruptive editing. Arbitrators AGK, David Fuchs, and Casliber will draft a proposed decision which is due to be posted by next Sunday (26 February).

Other requests and committee action

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Last I checked, the civility enforcement case hasn't actually been formally closed, isn't it a bit premature to announce it has been? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth! As I noted elsewhere, the 24 hour period after four net votes to close is to be triggered in about two hours from now. I thought it prudent to just put the news in this report. Lord Roem (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it to "almost" because I believe the Signpost shouldn't "make" news. Also, I added some specifics to the information provided because hardly anyone reads the arbcom stuff and the Signpost should (in my view) provide readers with specific decisions that can inform their own editing. Some of the civility case proposed decisions apply to all editors, not just admins. Anyone is free to remove my additions! Mathew Townsend (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MathewTownsend! I agree with all of your changes to put more specifics in. As to "making news", I do not think that is entirely accurate. With four net votes to close and all arbitrators voting on all proposals, the way the decision stands now will clearly be the final decision. A two-hour difference between that announcement and the formal posting of closure, in my mind, is negligible. Thanks for your copyedits! Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that the arbs said somewhere that they were hoping a few more would vote (there are four who are not recused or inactive but who haven't voted, I believe.) So isn't like announcing a man has been executed two hours before his execution time? (A dramatic example for sure, and I hope I'm not violating a civility rule!) Mathew Townsend (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, yes, I completely understand your position. I think though, for the purpose of the newsmagazine the Signpost acts as (where we publish once a week and are not a continuum of constant news updates), a slight early report (two hours) should be excused. However, where it to be a report on executing an editor... Lord Roem (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0