The Arbcom opinions posted to date deserve to be reposted here for "posterity",
because this is Arbcom at its most pathetic:
QUOTE
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/2/3/0)
* Recuse SirFozzie (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
* Recuse But may participate in a non arb role with evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
* Decline Shoemaker's Holiday, you are stating here and above that "the worst of the harassment happened over Skype. All such evidence is censored." I am deeply concerned that such a thing could be censored. But then, why have it on-wiki if it happened on skype?! Censorship or —whatever one would call it— doesn't change anything. A friendly note to all parties involved: You used to be very good friends and worked together to enhance the encyclopedia. That was your objective back then (I was invited once to Not the Wikipedia Weekly which was hosted by Durova and yourself on Skype itself). What changed? Focus on that objective and forget about your personal ones. We appreciate both your works but I believe the best approach is to handle it wisely between you two. This cannot be arranged by an ArbCom decision at the time being. Try formal or informal mediation first. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
@JulianColton:
Proposal A) User:Durova/Shoemaker's Holiday or User:Shoemaker's Holiday/Durova for mediation purposes. For better results I'd suggest that mediation discussions remain limited to Durova and SH (nobody else).
Proposal B) both users know how to contact each other off-wiki and settle their dispute.
Proposal C) file a request for mediation.
I'd personally prefer A or B if the users decide to keep it private. C is too formal for this case. But it is up to the parties.
Let me be blunt here, Julian. Do you believe that ArbCom should spend its time on a simple (yes, this is simple as most other similar cases get rejected and directed towards mediation to say the least) user/user dispute which most of it happened off-wiki? Yes, such disputes surely harm the project somehow but only and mainly because the parties insist on pushing them forward and I believe that accepting these kind of cases would be much more harmful. In theory, very experienced users —who used to be friends for a couple of years; cooperating, collaborating on articles and pictures together, presenting ArbCom cases together, proposing mediation for others, etc...— are able to fix their disputes. If these experienced and old friends users can't make an effort to mediate then who would do it?!
Now, I got a simple solution D. If I were Durova I'd just apologize to SH. And then, SH would just say "fine, let's go work on a picture or article". So who is not wanting any of the above 4 proposals?! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
* Recuse - But may comment in my role as the oversighter who completed the majority of the suppressions to which this matter refers, to provide a description of the relevant actions and discussions without revealing the contents of the suppressed edits. Risker (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
* Decline. No on-site dispute resolution needed. I agree with FayssalF in full. Cool Hand Luke 02:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
* Accept This is clearly spilling over in multiple areas and since its ongoing, that seems to be an indication that perhaps the community doesn't see a way out of this. There have been comments from others that both editors involved may have been problematic elsewhere; diffs would be appropriate. Shell babelfish 08:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
* Accept: broadly per Shell. Roger Davies talk 09:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
* Decline - I see nothing sanctionable here; unpleasant interactions over Skype are regrettable, but as I understand it they can be blocked easily enough. While I appreciate the parties' desire for sunlight here, I don't see how a case will accomplish anything but increase the unpleasantness. Finally, I note that allegations of abuse of oversight should be brought to WP:AUSC. Steve Smith (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Admit it, you Arb-wankers:
you haven't got the balls to deal with this squabble.
Cowards!!This post has been edited by EricBarbour: