Nihonjoe Has Been Naughty

[tarantino]

The archive still works. I've saved a copy locally.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180831032 ... ok2014.pdf

[Vigilant]

ToBeFree doesn't understand what recuse means or why it's important.

HJ Mitchell is so far above the hoi polloi.

Firefly has given recusal some thoughtful thought.

[Vigilant]

"My point is that we shouldn't care what someone's motivation is, just what they contribute." by this logic should we be changing the way we interact with sock puppets? This doesn't seem compatible with wikipedia as I understand it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

And suddenly starting a Wikipedia editing agency looks like an attractive business idea! Bon courage (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Only if its app based... "Find my Admin" has a nice ring to it, nothing wrong with paying for admin tool use of course... As long as the edits themselves are good. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"You're trying to out me!!1!" claimed Qworty.

[utbc]

It has transitioned from tongue-in-cheek funny to black comedy funny. There are many "no big deal"s and "has clue"s in RFAs. I wonder if people will actually start looking for evidence of clue in candidates moving forward, considering they can immediately get into arbcom with no understanding of policy, no institutional knowledge, no experience in the trenches, and no self-awareness of their own inadequacies.

[rnu]

Barkeep thinks it is better to have lots of people whom no-one trusts to do the right thing than have few people in whom there is still some trust making decisions:

[...]
As to the second paragraph, asking an 8 member committee to rule on this case also carries risk - for instance that Arbcom gets the result wrong and that damages the legitimatacy of the committee in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

[rnu]

"many here have found the explanations to be unsatisfactory" it is worth pointing out that multiple other editors have found some or all of the explanations to be adequate. Harry's situation is the one I have paid most attention to and I do not see his involvement as even approaching the level at which he would need to recuse. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

So as long as a few people still have faith in arbcom everything is fine?

[Vigilant]

"many here have found the explanations to be unsatisfactory" it is worth pointing out that multiple other editors have found some or all of the explanations to be adequate. Harry's situation is the one I have paid most attention to and I do not see his involvement as even approaching the level at which he would need to recuse. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

So as long as a few people still have faith in arbcom everything is fine?

A few solid idiots.

[Vigilant]

Levivich asks what the fuck is wrong with ARBCOM

OK but your evidence is poor: two bad decisions in 5 years in which one had 9 arbs voting and the other had 6. That might be "evidence" but it's not conclusive and one might even say it's "cherry picked." Betcha I can find two bad decisions in the same time period with 10+ arbs. One would have to go through all the decisions in the last 5 years, rate them as good or bad, and then see if there is any correlation between the number of arbs voting and the quality of the outcome, to really come out with any conclusive or even convincing evidence. I highly doubt that such an analysis is going to find that there is something that happens when we go above or below 10 (or any other numerical threshold between 8 and 11).

Look at this series of recent events:
1. Arbcom didn't do or say anything (or didn't do or say enough, e.g. open a case, post a statement that it was investigating, etc.) when it received private evidence of undisclosed COI editing (and admin tool abuse? idk what exactly they rec'd via email), which AFAIK was no later than December 2023 -- this silence/inaction led directly, in my estimation, to off-wiki outing, which led to the community forcing arbcom's hand

2. Arbcom still didn't say anything official for two months despite repeated requests from multiple people (including from me in late Feb)

3. During that period, four of 12 active arbs (a full third of the active panel!) got directly involved in the underlying dispute, three of whom expressed "nbd" opinions, and two of whom used their admin tools (in one case, OS)

4. Only one of those four recused (the OS, good on him)

5. We are told that the recusal requests for the other three on the evidence page, and one recusal decline on this page, did not officially happen because they happened on the wrong page on this website

6. Once the recusal requests were put on the right pages, the remaining three all declined to recuse

7. We are told that one reason those three should not recuse is because arbcom will make a poorer decision if it has 8 arbs instead of 11

The above sequence is the kind of thing that would make people lose faith in arbcom. So this is one example of there being 11 arbs, and arbcom still coming to (multiple) bad decisions.

So is arbcom going to be voting on these recusals? I'm almost afraid to ask this next question: if arbcom does vote on these recusals, all three arbs who are being asked to recuse are going to abstain from all three votes, right? Levivich (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Fucking right.

[Vigilant]

Betting pool time!

@Levivich, @Hurricane Noah and others, we're currently discussing and voting on the recusals. The relevant Arbs are abstaining from the vote. Moneytrees(Talk) 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I predict they will find that everything is hunky dory and cement this ARBCOM as worse than the steaming pile of shit that did Fram dirty over Laura Hale.

[Vigilant]

I can think of a few reasons with 'corrupted self interest', 'disconnection with reality, and 'we're just better than you' all leading the pack

Is there any reason this discussion and vote isn’t being held publicly? I think transparency would be beneficial here. BilledMammal (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

Here come the peasants with pitchforks, ARBCOMmies

[Kraken]

This Committee is extremely inexperienced. Primefac is a veteran in this incarnation, and he walked right into being a Party to a Case. Maxim is a veteran, and he's been sharing an corner office with the main Party for a very long time, without ever spotting he had a peculiar blindspot in policy.

That's the level of inexperience this ArbCom would seem to have to an outsider. It's not normal. I don't think they even realize how lacking in trust they really are right now, because of it. Thus why people's bar for recusal might be radically different to times past.

I've been astounded by Harry's repeated insistence. He hasn't given an inch. It is extremely unsettling behavior in an Arb. In the same way it was extremely unsettling to see a Bureaucrat being evasive.

It's the ick factor. They're scaring the children. They want their real parents back. Not these irresponsible teens.

[Ryuichi]

I've been astounded by Harry's repeated insistence. He hasn't given an inch. It is extremely unsettling behavior in an Arb.

In contrast, I find myself completely unsurprised.

[Xiphoid Process]

I've been astounded by Harry's repeated insistence. He hasn't given an inch. It is extremely unsettling behavior in an Arb.

In contrast, I find myself completely unsurprised.

Yeah. He might reflect and apologize in an unrelated discussion like six months from now, but "HJ gets flustered after making an obvious mistake and digs his heels in" might as well have been the free square for 2024 Arbcom Bingo. I'm more surprised about some of the others.

[Wikiguy.DC]

To me, Harry's comments during the case show he's leaning toward coming down hard on Joe.

This one in particular struck me.

We (community, committee, functionaries) need to be slicker in dealing with these sorts of reports instead of leaving it to malcontents elsewhere on the Internet. Of course, it's disappointing that these sorts of investigations are necessary and we can't rely on editors, even admins, to be candid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

[tarantino]

We (community, committee, functionaries) need to be slicker in dealing with these sorts of reports instead of leaving it to malcontents elsewhere on the Internet. Of course, it's disappointing that these sorts of investigations are necessary and we can't rely on editors, even admins, to be candid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

malcontents.png

[Randy from Boise]

There is no chance — NONE — that Joe will come out of this with his Bureaucrat hat.

I would bet heavily against him keeping his Administrator buttons either.

Examples must be made at this point.


t

[Randy from Boise]

I reeeeeeeeally like Harry's little insult...

[Zoloft]

I reeeeeeeeally like Harry's little insult...

[greenday61892]

So does he like... genuinely not realize there's TONS of still active editors that post here?

[Xiphoid Process]

To me, Harry's comments during the case show he's leaning toward coming down hard on Joe.

This one in particular struck me.

We (community, committee, functionaries) need to be slicker in dealing with these sorts of reports instead of leaving it to malcontents elsewhere on the Internet. Of course, it's disappointing that these sorts of investigations are necessary and we can't rely on editors, even admins, to be candid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, Nihonjoe is totally screwed here. He's not coming through this with the tools. I think that was actually relatively clear from the get-go—it's a really bad sign for a vested contributor when nobody else from the clique shows up to urge leniency or invent extenuating circumstances.

The intransigence I'm expecting is more around Fram and recusal. I think recusal is unlikely because that would require the people in question to acknowledge that their kneejerk reactions were in fact a mistake, which they will not do. And I think a remedy against Fram is likely because "respect our authoritah" and because the alternative would be to admit that it's reasonable for the community to step in when Arbcom ignores requests to do its job, which I again doubt they will do. But we'll see.

[Randy from Boise]

Oh, yeah, Nihonjoe is totally screwed here. He's not coming through this with the tools. I think that was actually relatively clear from the get-go—it's a really bad sign for a vested contributor when nobody else from the clique shows up to urge leniency or invent extenuating circumstances.

The intransigence I'm expecting is more around Fram and recusal. I think recusal is unlikely because that would require the people in question to acknowledge that their kneejerk reactions were in fact a mistake, which they will not do. And I think a remedy against Fram is likely because "respect our authoritah" and because the alternative would be to admit that it's reasonable for the community to step in when Arbcom ignores requests to do its job, which I again doubt they will do. But we'll see.

Yeah, I was pretty sure from the get-go that they were going to find a sacrificial lamb to burn at the alter of Outing Policy. Fram pretty much walked into it. He's got a bit of a protective husk through from his not-too-distant role as cause celebre — so I expect he'll get a grave tsk-tsk rather than be the recipient of any controversial action.

t

[ArmasRebane]

Oh, yeah, Nihonjoe is totally screwed here. He's not coming through this with the tools. I think that was actually relatively clear from the get-go—it's a really bad sign for a vested contributor when nobody else from the clique shows up to urge leniency or invent extenuating circumstances.

The intransigence I'm expecting is more around Fram and recusal. I think recusal is unlikely because that would require the people in question to acknowledge that their kneejerk reactions were in fact a mistake, which they will not do. And I think a remedy against Fram is likely because "respect our authoritah" and because the alternative would be to admit that it's reasonable for the community to step in when Arbcom ignores requests to do its job, which I again doubt they will do. But we'll see.

Yeah, I was pretty sure from the get-go that they were going to find a sacrificial lamb to burn at the alter of Outing Policy. Fram pretty much walked into it. He's got a bit of a protective husk through from his not-too-distant role as cause celebre — so I expect he'll get a grave tsk-tsk rather than be the recipient of any controversial action.

t

Is the other user who started the noticeboard filing even a party? Arguably he should get blocked for violations of the OUTING policy before Fram.

[redbaron]

Oh, yeah, Nihonjoe is totally screwed here. He's not coming through this with the tools. I think that was actually relatively clear from the get-go—it's a really bad sign for a vested contributor when nobody else from the clique shows up to urge leniency or invent extenuating circumstances.

The intransigence I'm expecting is more around Fram and recusal. I think recusal is unlikely because that would require the people in question to acknowledge that their kneejerk reactions were in fact a mistake, which they will not do. And I think a remedy against Fram is likely because "respect our authoritah" and because the alternative would be to admit that it's reasonable for the community to step in when Arbcom ignores requests to do its job, which I again doubt they will do. But we'll see.

Yeah, I was pretty sure from the get-go that they were going to find a sacrificial lamb to burn at the alter of Outing Policy. Fram pretty much walked into it. He's got a bit of a protective husk through from his not-too-distant role as cause celebre — so I expect he'll get a grave tsk-tsk rather than be the recipient of any controversial action.

t

Is the other user who started the noticeboard filing even a party? Arguably he should get blocked for violations of the OUTING policy before Fram.

Kashmiri is a party, yes. I would argue that once his comment in the AFD was oversighted, he was careful not to repost it – unlike Fram, who doubled down. IMO at this point they both should get no more than a finger wagging.

[Randy from Boise]

Kashmiri is a party, yes. I would argue that once his comment in the AFD was oversighted, he was careful not to repost it – unlike Fram, who doubled down. IMO at this point they both should get no more than a finger wagging.

Fram swings from the heels when he throws a punch. That leaves him open... One of these days he's gonna eat a counterpunch and is gonna get knocked the fuck out.

t

[rnu]

I reeeeeeeeally like Harry's little insult...

Wait, that was supposed to be an insult? I can't speak for everyone else here, but I felt seen!

[ArmasRebane]

Kashmiri is a party, yes. I would argue that once his comment in the AFD was oversighted, he was careful not to repost it – unlike Fram, who doubled down. IMO at this point they both should get no more than a finger wagging.

Fram swings from the heels when he throws a punch. That leaves him open... One of these days he's gonna eat a counterpunch and is gonna get knocked the fuck out.

t

Almost everyone I experience on-wiki of the "you're not wrong, you're just an asshole" variety could probably get better results if they took a more genial approach (HEB discussed in the LDS thread being a prominent example.) Fram might be one of the few who actually does seem to generate more light than heat with his pugnacious attitude. Of course it helps that he's going after COI editors and the like rather than harping on punctuation or something.

[Vigilant]

I reeeeeeeeally like Harry's little insult...

Wait, that was supposed to be an insult? I can't speak for everyone else here, but I felt seen!

I felt he saw me too.

[Vigilant]

Workshop should be closed.

[rnu]

A non-power user has complained at AN that another user doxxed them on Wikipedia. Apparently it has to do with claims of COI. The discussion was closed with the comment:

Boomeranged, not sure there's much else to do here.

by
* checks notes *
Primefac.

AN thread
The thread where the "private information" was posted (the information has been redacted)

[redbaron]

A non-power user has complained at AN that another user doxxed them on Wikipedia. Apparently it has to do with claims of COI. The discussion was closed with the comment:

Boomeranged, not sure there's much else to do here.

by
* checks notes *
Primefac.

AN thread
The thread where the "private information" was posted (the information has been redacted)

To be fair, the complainant had already been blocked by Ingenuity (T-C-L); closing the thread was merely, um, bureaucratic.

[rnu]

Apparently ToBeFree is recused. So far I have been unable to find a statement to that effect by anyone .

[Dan of La Mancha]

Apparently ToBeFree is recused. So far I have been unable to find a statement to that effect by anyone .

diff

[rnu]

Apparently ToBeFree is recused. So far I have been unable to find a statement to that effect by anyone .

diff

Wow! An edit comment on a template. That's transparency arbcom style.

[Mojito]

Apparently ToBeFree is recused. So far I have been unable to find a statement to that effect by anyone .

diff

Sorry to get sidetracked, but I noticed something strange here. The part of the diff where "#{{user|ToBeFree}}" is moved from the Active section to the Recused section appears in the desktop version of the page, but it doesn't show up on the mobile version for me:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? ... diffonly=1

[rnu]

Apparently ToBeFree is recused. So far I have been unable to find a statement to that effect by anyone .

diff

Sorry to get sidetracked, but I noticed something strange here. The part of the diff where "#{{user|ToBeFree}}" is moved from the Active section to the Recused section appears in the desktop version of the page, but it doesn't show up on the mobile version for me:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? ... diffonly=1

Weirdly, if you switch from "Wikitext" to "Visual" it shows up.

[No Ledge]

I searched the site for "Primefac" and found his name came up all over this thread.

I know he was involved here, but have just peripherally noted that I think he was running interference to support Joe.

I'm just dropping by to note what I perceive to be similar behavior from him in his response to my objections about a Speedily-approved page-moving bot.

He knows damn well what I'm talking about, and his willful obfuscation is totally annoying me.

[Randy from Boise]

I searched the site for "Primefac" and found his name came up all over this thread.

I know he was involved here, but have just peripherally noted that I think he was running interference to support Joe.

That has been my impression as well.

t

[Vigilant]

Two days left before the PD section gets closed and there are no posts there or on the talk page.

Does this ARBCOM not understand what that section is for?

[greenday61892]

I thought the PD was due on the 3rd, not the final decision

[yasslay]

I thought the PD was due on the 3rd, not the final decision

It's not that, we expected Arbcom to be more transparent this time. Unfortunately, they have not. Posting the proposed decision would allow the community to come to a more conclusive consensus on what to do. I suppose it's a bit like consolidating Arbcom's opinions on the Workshop phase with community feedback and consensus. I would hope that this is how the proposed decision section of an Arbcom case is meant to function, anyway.

[greenday61892]

I thought the PD was due on the 3rd, not the final decision

It's not that, we expected Arbcom to be more transparent this time. Unfortunately, they have not. Posting the proposed decision would allow the community to come to a more conclusive consensus on what to do. I suppose it's a bit like consolidating Arbcom's opinions on the Workshop phase with community feedback and consensus. I would hope that this is how the proposed decision section of an Arbcom case is meant to function, anyway.

My point is, I'm pretty sure the proposed decision, the initial draft, the one we see arbs vote on in public view, is due the 3rd. There isn't some sort of opacity going on here to my understanding.

[Kelly Martin]

we expected Arbcom to be more transparent this time

why would you ever expect the arbcom to do the right thing? do you enjoy being disappointed?

[Emptyeye]

You're a fool if you ever expected the PD to be posted ahead of schedule.

Heck, after some improvement in the early 2020s, the 2023 iteration of ArbCom backslid into the "Even the 'Proposed Decision Posted' Due Date is really more like a guideline than an actual deadline per se" behavior that I and others had previously criticized them for.

I don't have much better expectations for this iteration.

Over/under April 10th for the actual decision to be posted. Which one you got?

[Moneytrees]

No, this one should be posted on time...

[rnu]

Votes on recusals

Under the policy for recusal of arbitrators Arbitration Committee voted on recusals from this case for members Firefly (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs). The arbitrators subject to the vote recused on it. The committee voted against recusal for both. A vote on ToBeFree (talk · contribs) was mooted after he recused himself from the case. Here are the vote counts:

Firefly:

Support:

Oppose: Aoidh, Barkeep49, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Guerillero, Maxim, Moneytrees, Sdrqaz, Z1720

HJ Mitchell:

Support: Aoidh, Guerillero, Moneytrees

Oppose: Barkeep49, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Maxim, Z1720

From the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees(Talk) 20:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

we expected Arbcom to be more transparent this time

why would you ever expect the arbcom to do the right thing? do you enjoy being disappointed?

I enjoy laughing at them and mocking them.

Please proceed, ARBCOM.

[Vigilant]

Votes on recusals

Under the policy for recusal of arbitrators Arbitration Committee voted on recusals from this case for members Firefly (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs). The arbitrators subject to the vote recused on it. The committee voted against recusal for both. A vote on ToBeFree (talk · contribs) was mooted after he recused himself from the case. Here are the vote counts:

Firefly:

Support:

Oppose: Aoidh, Barkeep49, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Guerillero, Maxim, Moneytrees, Sdrqaz, Z1720

HJ Mitchell:

Support: Aoidh, Guerillero, Moneytrees

Oppose: Barkeep49, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Maxim, Z1720

From the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees(Talk) 20:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Aaaaaand, they're into the finals for "Worst ARBCOM evar"!

The Fram ARBCOM breathes a profound sigh of relief at being overtaken by the latest group of nincompoops.

[Silent Editor]

Votes on recusals

Under the policy for recusal of arbitrators Arbitration Committee voted on recusals from this case for members Firefly (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs). The arbitrators subject to the vote recused on it. The committee voted against recusal for both. A vote on ToBeFree (talk · contribs) was mooted after he recused himself from the case. Here are the vote counts:

Firefly:

Support:

Oppose: Aoidh, Barkeep49, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Guerillero, Maxim, Moneytrees, Sdrqaz, Z1720

HJ Mitchell:

Support: Aoidh, Guerillero, Moneytrees

Oppose: Barkeep49, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Maxim, Z1720

From the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees(Talk) 20:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There is some great hubris involved in HJ Mitchell continuing to participate when a third of his colleagues don't think he should.

[Ryuichi]

There is some great hubris involved in HJ Mitchell continuing to participate when a third of his colleagues don't think he should.

To be fair, I don't think he should recuse.

He should resign.