This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request that Durova be added as a named party

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Given the proposed decision, it doesn't seem to make much sense; Durova is only mentioned inasmuch as Giano conduct came up there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Procedural. I was already at least tangentially involved from the beginning. During this proceeding some parties have defended Giano's conduct by saying he was responding to prodding by other editors. Since his first post to FT2's talk page in the thread that precipitated this case was in response to one of my posts, it stands to reason that my conduct should be open to scrutiny. Durova^Charge! 22:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. the case is about admin actions in the face of the giano effect (where otherwise safe and sane users make stupendously poor decisions). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the motivations behind the request, believe them to be reasonable, and commend the editor in question for proposing, in effect, that she made potentially the subject of a negative decision as well. I can't see any good reason to not at least consider the possibility. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've repeated this request via e-mail more than once and have received no firm answer beyond an acknowledgement of the request. Durova^Charge! 17:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Blocks of Giano prohibited

1) For the duration of this proceeding, Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not to be blocked, or unblocked, by any administrator, other than by consent of a member of this Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Added on Proposed Decision. I think this is a terrible idea as it pretty much removes the civility parole which is a major reminder to Giano II that while his article contributions are fantastic, he needs to keep a lid on the anger and drama. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Stifle's view. Terrible idea. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the slightly revised version that is being voted on. and also suport the old proposal to amend the irc to a include a special AE of giano clause (basically, only certain folks may apply the remedies to giano). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

A question to Geogre. You unblocked Giano "to change duration", but did not reblock him. Was this because you were scooped by Avraham? If so, what duration of block had you in mind? Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those "discretion" things. If I thought both parties were running amok, and I did, then to stop the escalating insult swapping, I would have gone with a block of one hour on both. I was considering and investigating. I knew that astronomical blocks of Giano with talk page protection was absurd, and so I reversed the block and began trying to get a feel for how deeply all the players were in their rhetorical war games. Note that I immediately pointed out, on Giano's page, that the rhetoric used by the blockers was so well suited to enraging someone that I doubt it could have been used accidentally. ("Don't say one more word, or I'll block you" guarantees that you will say another word, and it has been thus from the kindergarten playroom onward.) Again, I would have gone for an hour for both, just to say, essentially, "You guys are climbing a ladder and can't get down: I'll take the blame from both of you, and you can call me arbitrary, but it's just an hour to go do something else. Then you can come back and call for my head."

I should point out that blocks are always aimed at Wikipedia, and never a person. Wikipedia is words. It is words in articles and words between writers. To impose silence is a very grave matter, and people take it lightly. Freud said that the first person to hurl an insult instead of a stick founded civilization. I think people should hurl insults, sometimes, because it beats the hell out of running off to Wikipedia Review or HiveMind or some other thing, and it beats doing something like deleting wp:afd, the way that one person did (in a huff). What can't be done is use the existence of insult as a reason to force silence. That hurts Wikipedia immensely. Geogre (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, you intended to block both Giano and WMC for an hour? Avruch 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was saying he would have blocked you and Giano! Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was unclear? Step 1: Right the wrong. This should be before step 2. Step 2: Start trying to assess whether the insulting is swapping back and forth. Step 3: Try to see if there is a space between the parties where it is possible for both to save face and feel satisfied. If not, go to step 4. Step 4: Block all of the parties who are insulting and taunting, and that would includ WC, Avruch, Giano. The point is that this happens, for me (and I block very rarely), only if 1. Escalating, 2. Not going to take care of itself, 3. Someone is using the block button to "win" a fight. This is an intervention when it's admin vs. user, and it's licit because the admin should damn sure have worked for mediation, grown a thick skin, and just stopped reading rather than reaching for a block button. This is something that should happen only when an administrator is trying to use "power." Being an admin gives a user no power at all. We say that, and I mean it. Geogre (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for my vagueness, here, about exactly how much I would have doled out to this or that, I never got a chance. I saw the interventions, and I figured, "Well, that's special. This is going to be one of those fights, and I'm not going to play." It was precisely to avoid "wheel warring" that I just dropped the whole thing at that point and went off to do other things with my time. As soon as I see that it's going to go from beard pulling to slap fight, I get bored. The only time I've "warred" that way before was with delete/undelete, about two and a half years ago, and I was right then. I preach the center of indifference (in case that's not a link, it's from Sartor Resartus). Geogre (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Jehochman

Proposed principles

Avoid controversial use of tools

1) Administrators should avoid performing sysop actions that are likely to be controversial. Instead, they should discuss the proposed action and seek a consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A bit too general. I guess it means that admins should avoid summarily and unilaterally performing administrative actions in circumstances where there is reasonable time for discussion and obtaining a consensus, but when put like that it sounds like a banal truism. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

A bit hard. A controversial action is controversial only when it arises out of controversy (in which case there will be a lot of people involved) or when it causes controversy. I think the wording is meant to urge people away from the latter, but I don't know of any way to codify "You know when what you're about to do will provoke controversy, so don't": My feeling is that an administrator has the temperament to avoid doing things like that, or he or she doesn't. If what we're getting at, ultimately, is "Do not be so enraged that you don't care what other people think, you're going to block this person/delete this thing/ban this user," then, well, for me, that's tantamount to saying, "Be responsible. If you're not once, you'll be in trouble and unhappy. If you're not often, you may not need to be an admin." The desire behind the wording is good, but I fear that it delays saying what we really mean. Geogre (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A better replacement for our muddled wheel warring policy. Jehochman ^Talk 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see nothing better about this. "likely to be controversial" is a unholy mess of subjectiveness, and opens the door ever so slightly to "I wasn't wheel-ing since I didn't think it was controversial! Since the other guy was so obviously wrong, you know." - brenneman 04:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has the advantage of addressing the actual issue. It doesn't matter much whether a single example is controversial since in general people don't get sanctioned for isolated incidents anyway. Noting any ensuing controversy the administrator will know to be more careful in future and that will be the end of it. On the other hand if an administrator has a pattern of carrying out actions that prove to be controversial (lack / violate consensus) then there's a problem that needs to be addressed. 87.254.72.195 (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me, NO! I'm with Orson Welles/Harry Lime per Swiss neutrality, we need admins who - providing they are willing to take the consequences - are going to sometimes step outside of the "wait till consensus"/"do not question the order of things" mentality. WP:WHEEL has the language that allows a sysop to undo an action that it believed, in good faith, not to be according to the principles of Wikipedia - and never mind the policy. This proposal takes away this check against the staightjacket of enforced conformity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop tools are not six shooters

1.1) Administrators should avoid performing sysop actions that are likely to ~~antagonize other administrators~~ be reversed by other administrators, or needlessly antagonize members of the community. Instead, the proposed sysop action should be discussed with the goal of forming a consensus.

1.2)

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Currently WP:WHEEL says that the sysop who repeats an action is wrong. That's the third shot in a duel. The first and second shots are also problematic. Jehochman ^Talk 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've noticed pointing out that the first shot is problematic. I've seen many attempts to say the second shot was wrong and should be completely prohibited prior to discussion. I always have, and always will, oppose any such change in policy because it gives too much power to those with an itchy trigger finger. If we have to have a default position, and we do, it should favor the status quo ante, not an itchy trigger finger. Whether this is workable, I'm not sure, but at least it is accurate in apportioning responsibility. GRBerry 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There should not be a first mover advantage. Talking first preserves the status quo and provides hope of progress. If there is an intractable dispute amongst administrators, ArbCom is most happy to hear the case before wheel warring starts. Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though it should be noted that some bright-line rules ("electric fences"), such as 3RR do exist, and that BLP actions probably over-ride this as well. But only if you are absolutely certain and willing to defend your action (of course, one should always be willing to defend an action, but I think the point is still valid). I personally might discuss a 3RR block (talk to and warn the editors first, and persuade them to talk and self-revert) or BLP action first, or chose a less antagonistic response if such were possible. Sometimes avoiding the drama gets a result quicker in the long run. In borderline BLP cases (usually the ones where something is "reliably" sourced), moving stuff to talk pages and starting a discussion can bypass a lot of drama. In the case of 3RR, various definitions of vandalism and BLP come into play. If in doubt, ask first, is a good principle, changed to, if in doubt, remove and discuss, for BLPs (in cases where the "discuss" option is not possible, this doubt should not exist). Carcharoth (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An action that is clearly within policy is not likely to be reversed. What I am trying to get at here are the borderline uses of tools, and ill-advised uses of tools in situations where the administrator should know that their actions will be called into question. I usually get a little rush of adrenaline before doing something stupid. I've learned to identify that feeling and stop myself. Jehochman ^Talk 18:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judgement when blocking

2) Administrators are chosen for their good judgement, including the ability to discern when blocks can be helpful, and when they are likely to make a situation worse.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Blocks need to be about Wikipedia, because Wikipedia will be the worse for them. I.e. the goal cannot be "he is making me mad, and making me mad is bad," but "he is hurting Wikipedia." The moment anyone values the "personal" in "personal attack" or "civility," then that person is apt to block improperly. Additionally, blocks should be for as little time as is necessary, and never the maximum time that is permissible. Geogre (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This idea is likely to be written into WP:BLOCK soon. Jehochman ^Talk 02:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to the definition of "good judgment" within context... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Mistake 1 by William M. Connolley

1) WMC was mistaken to block Giano.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This would need to be tightened up; William blocked Giano three times, the initial 3 hours and then twice extending it. I presume this refers to the initial block only; to support it, it would need to be justified by reference to the incivility which directly prompted the block. User:Sam Blacketer, 09:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The reaction was disproportionate in this instance, and would obviously result in greater disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 02:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am not sure~~ the initial block was (edit to add "not":) not a mistake, but the extentions of the initial block may have been. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence to support this. There has not been consensus shown that the initial block was a mistake. - brenneman 03:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision you will see a temporary injunction that says nobody should block (or unblock) Giano without permission of an arbitrator. It should be obvious to everyone that blocking Giano for civility is likely to create high drama, therefore, it should not be done for minor perceived incivility, or at least there should be advance discussions. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So anyone who can create a stir when admonished for incivility has a free pass to be incivil? BAH. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is a very specific case. It cannot be generalized. Jehochman ^Talk 23:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it. Blocking Giano is the administrative equivalent of touching the third rail. Few admins survive unscathed, and there is inevitably drama. Therefore the decision to block Giano or any other high profile editor should take into consideration opportunities for alternate actions (e.g., deleting the offending edit, discussing at AN or AN/I, giving a warning), whether the benefits of blocking outweigh the drama that will result from the perspective of the community at large, and holding Giano to the same standards as other blocked longterm editors (not a higher or unrealistic one), who as a group have a propensity to spout off on their talk pages. In particular, the escalating blocks were poorly considered. Risker (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very troubled by this view that some men are above the law. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a view that some men are above the law. All of those options are open to any administrator reviewing any comment that they feel is uncivil. Specifically, blocking established editors (a group which includes Giano) should only be carried out in such a way that the highest standards of administrative action are met; such action includes examination of non-blocking options and the effects on the community of such blocks. That means being aware of arbitration decisions relating to the editor to be blocked, the block history, the context in which the block is being issued, ensuring that one is available for communication, responding to comments and questions about one's actions without getting flustered or uncivil, ensuring one has no real or perceived conflict of interest in the situation, etc. There is an Arbcom decision that says any admin can block under certain circumstances. It does not say any admin must block. Risker (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to that. Putting that link in was tantamount, for the literate, to calling Giano Stalin. This was done in the name of "civility," too. It beggars belief that someone wanting blocks for "incivility" would then compare the person to Stalin. In fact, as I have said, being a long time contributor means a track record of fitting in just fine, thank you. Yes, blocking long time contributors who disavow ever being administrators and intentionally remain "powerless," is worse than blocking new users who go around, say, comparing people to Stalin. Yes, some people are more equal, in that they're better known. There is no sock puppet, no evasion, no hidden cache of edits with Giano. He's been Giano all along. He's been working away, devoting time and treasure to improving Wikipedia. <shrug> Saying that this person is "incivil" and always has been should make the speaker think pretty hard about what they're saying. But people don't always do as they should. Geogre (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the basic premise that if you know many other people will object to an action, you should discuss before doing. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because we all know that some pigs are more equal than other pigs. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to get involved in this pig wrestling, but let's think for just a second, eh? Really. Let's think. Try to not emote, but think. What is a "long time contributor?" It's someone who has been successfully contributing to Wikipedia for years. In my case and Giano's, that's four years or more. Such a record, if the person edits regularly and isn't in a wiki-coma for a long time, demonstrates that the person knows and obeys policies. When such a person is suddenly accused of violating a new policy, it's more likely that the accuser fails to understand the policy or the policy is not fitting with contributors, than it is that such a person has suddenly turned into a vandal. Why are some people "more equal?" Because some people demonstrate, clearly, that they were the backbone of the content of the encyclopedia and that they do, in fact, work very well with others. That someone now wants to say that such a person is not polite enough or pleasant enough actually indicts the novices who have contributed little more than it does the old time contributor. Geogre (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre, you do realise WMC has been here since February 2003? I don't think the "I've been here a long time so I must know the policies better than you do" argument will work. You may have a clearer idea of how to handle incivility, and you may think you know the polices, but length of sevice isn't an argument here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Geogre was refuting the sarcasm of the "some pigs are more equal than other pigs" statement from Trout Ice Cream rather than suggesting that he knows policy better than WMC, and was making the point that people who have invested in the encyclopedia over a long period probably should be treated differently. There was nothing said about WMC either way. Risker (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to my original concern: are we going to formally acknowledge that policies are only going to be applied to a certain set of users and that other men are above the law? -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original question can be seen as being by others both a prejudicially phrased loaded question and not demonstrably relevant. A more accurate and neutral phrasing might be would we think that individuals who have demonstrated both an awareness of the guidelines, and a willingness to follow those same rules over time (which presumably holds for most admins), will be given perhaps a bit more of a chance to explain their reasoning than others, who have not demonstrated such a knowledge of guidelines. Personally, I myself tend to think, at the very least, we would benefit from knowing how it might be the case that phrasing of certain policies or guidelines leads to uncertainty in how to apply them, and that not allowing at least a bit of an opening for discussion would make that substantially harder. Someone who has not demonstrated such knowledge, or whose actions can be seen as unambiguously being violation of policy or guidelines, need not necessarily be given the same benefit. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is relevant, even under your more finely flowered phrasing. Has Gianno "demonstrated both an awareness of the guidelines, and a willingness to follow those same rules over time" - if so then we give him some slack, we all make occasional slip ups. (We give even more slack when he acknowledges slip ups and even more when he apologizes.) If not, well ... then what do we do? Apply the rules anyway? or determine that the rules don't apply to him?-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the primary people involved, as per the title of the page, do not include Giano. However, in this case I think it might be the case that there is already a clear disagreement regarding exactly how policy can reasonably be applied to this party, and that any attempts to block or ban will be met with resistance. In a case like that, I tend to think that the way to go might be to as it were demand only neutral admins should act regarding this individual, and that anyone with a possibly apparent lack of neutrality either recuse themselves from acting in regard to that party or face the possibility that any such action would be reverted and their conduct at least questioned. It isn't unusual to find that certain parties in the US at least are "more equal" than others, particularly if there is press in the area who seem to like defending that party, and the same sort of guidelines for application of stricter procedures before acting in such cases wouldn't be unreasonable here as well.

And then why would we not acknowledge openly that we apply the rules differently for different groups of people. Being straightforward and open about how and who the rules actually apply to would prevent messes such as this ArbCom case from taking people's valuable time. WMC would not have tried to enforce policy, Geogre would not have had a block to roll back, there would have been no request that that ArbCom would rush to accespt so that they would have an opportunity to correct a poorly concieved and worded IRC decision, because the IRC decision would be moot as well and we would not be here.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because any such statement could itself probably be fairly easily misconstrued or misinterpreted, consciously or uncounciously, as being a statement of a guideline or policy, which it would not be. It's probably better to not create such a potentially abusable statement and try to deal separately with the comparatively few extraordinary cases than to try to write a policy, guideline, or essay, which everyone and his brother could then use as an excuse in the much more frequent cases where the sort of serious disagreement regarding individual editors present here doesn't apply. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that rules are being applied differently for different groups of people in this finding. The premise is simple: this is a collaborative project. We try to follow consensus. With his knowledge of past similar situations, WMC had zero reasonable basis to believe there was consensus to support his block. The proper course of action in such a situation is to raise the issue for discussion. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WMC had zero reasonable basis to believe there was consensus to support his block. Other than the ANI discussion, you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the timing supports this view, as the ANI discussion came after multiple blocks, so far as I can tell. Nor do I think that this discussion was very reflective of a consensus on anything. It doesn't help that someone closed the discussion within a couple hours of its beginning. In my view it is irresponsible to behave in a way that more or less invites this sort of reckoning. The arbitration committee is partly to blame for crafting a remedy which encourages it, but I think individual administrators need to be responsible for looking a bit more deeply into this sort of situation before issuing blocks. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, wrong venue. Try [1] instead William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again the timing is wrong - the block came before the discussion began. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Unrelated to aforegoing discussion) The initial 3hour block is arguable, but cannot be considered a mistake. It was of a length comparable to other ArbCom Enforcement sanctions (see SirFozzies similar tariff previous in the block log) and appears in keeping with the civility/AE language. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've introduced evidence regarding the WP:AE discussion that concluded the 3 hour block was reasonable. I'll say also here that I was aware of that discussion before it closed, and chose not to comment therein. I disagree that the initial 3 hour block is a clear mistake. Failure to get some other opinions before issuing it was unwise, but not a clear mistake. GRBerry 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre's unblock

1) Geogre was mistaken to unblock his friend, Giano.
1.1) It would have been better for Geogre to explain the reasons in favor of unblocking his friend Giano, and then to allow a totally uninvolved admin to gauge the consensus before acting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Meh. It would have been better, in my view, if there hadn't been an orgy of activity in the block log just then. Perhaps four or five people were all simultaneously reviewing and deciding, and we all essentially edit conflicted. In my view, it was best to avoid a wheel war by not going back... either to clarify my rationale or to change the block time in any way... than to try to muscle through a complete rationale. In a perfect situation, I would have had a bit of a finger wagging declamation on several pages, but, well, things were too agitated for me. Because Giano is my friend, but also because dozens of regular users are friends of his, I never feel the desperate need to get in there and have my way. Because I know Giano well enough to know that, if he gets blocked, he's as likely to laugh and go to dinner as sit pounding his fists as the screen, I also knew that it wasn't worth trying to put on armor and mount the charger (or charge the mount). I tried. Everyone was going nuts. I backed off to avoid the latest sequel to Geogre Agonistes.

I was a little surprised to find that I had my first ArbCom case with my name on it for behaving in what I think was darn near the perfect way. (Oh, telling the page protector that it was "bullshit" could have been more euphemistic, but I rather think it did fit the contemporary philosophical definition.) Geogre (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It would have been better to explain the reasons in favor of unblocking, and then to allow a totally uninvolved admin to gauge the consensus before acting. Jehochman ^Talk 02:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better, sure, but not a mistake - stupid blocks should be removed, period. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 03:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then 1.1. Jehochman ^Talk 03:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(RE to WCC( Not without discussion, or at the VERY least a note to the blocking administrator. SirFozzie (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given Connolley's record, what would it have solved? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 11:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate the trend towards longer and more complex decisions being handed down. When we try to write every-man proposals, we end up mith mush. Stick with "Georgre stuffed up" and trust people to figure out the rest. - brenneman 03:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on this proposal, but I tend to think clearer proposals/findings of fact are better, even if they're longer. Ones that miss the original intent tend to get argued over as to which way they should be interpreted and provide a source of drama. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye,and the longer they are the more there is to try to read tea leaves and argue over endlessly. You cannot legislate a clue, and people who don't understand the spirit of "Geogre screwed the pooch" are not going to do any better understanding "Pursuant to section eleven of previous arbcom case 314d11A..." - brenneman 07:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with 1.1 - if something is really stupid, others are bound to notice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.1, because more precise, is more useful and better than 1.0. Reserve judgment on whether Geogre was involved; it is not clear to me that he is, despite some of the hyperbole surrounding this. Since 1.1 assumes that Geogre is involved, I thus also reserve judgment on it. GRBerry 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake 2 by William M. Connolley

1) WMC was mistaken to reblock Giano after Geogre unblocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would have to look minutely at the block log, but I think it wasn't just WMC, there, and, if I recall correctly, his reblock was actually after an adjusted time block by someone else. I.e. it wasn't him, me, him. If my recollection is correct, then this finding would need to be changed, because it's actually rather worse to be reversing several administrators than just little old me. If I am not correct, then his action shows the impulse behind a wheel war (a war would have taken place if I had answered, and I didn't) and inappropriate anger.

In either case, the "mistake" is really the same one: it's being angry and losing perspective and therefore not having appropriate judgment. It's easy, when it's not you, to say, "Don't let it get to you." From the outside, this looks bad. I don't think WMC should be treated like a serial wheel warrior for a bad day.

Jumping on someone's head for getting too ticked off to see straight is not going to help. It would be better to ask if WMC has a bad habit of blocking too quickly (for my taste, yes, but all decide for themselves) than to treat the second half of a mistake as if it were the pattern itself. Geogre (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It would have been better to explain the reasons in favor of re-blocking, and then to allow a totally uninvolved admin to gauge the consensus before acting. Jehochman ^Talk 02:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook wheel warring. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 03:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WHEEL. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better reworded as "WMC was mistaken to reblock Giano II after he was unblocked"; WMC's error is independent of who unblocked Giano II. GRBerry 21:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Trouts

1) Assuming that the parties demonstrate an understanding of their errors, and undertake to do better, the remedy is trouts all around, and two weeks penance cleaning up some sort of nasty mess.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I've never been sure if it's live trouts, dead trouts, dead-and-rotting trouts, dead cooked trouts, or dead trout sashimi; and in any case, whether it's rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, golden trout, brown trout, or what. We need to be more specific in these cases. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image used at WP:TROUT is Image:Rainbow trout.png, but the pseudo -binomial is Oncorhynchus wikipediensis. Take your pick. GRBerry 21:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll step out into my back yard and catch (and release) one or two tomorrow. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

That's a large assumption, from what I'm getting from both sides. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say, I really don't see anything I did that would warrant a dead fish on my door step. I would be likely to fillet, if that were swung my way. If a guy trying to obey every law and be a Mellow Fellow is going to get the stink of fish for it, then this world's a sorry place. Geogre (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Please, let's not desysop anybody over this matter. There are plenty of useful things these folks can do. Jehochman ^Talk 02:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ever optimistic! Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, this is hardly new for Connolley, who's gotten a free pass for quite a long time. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 03:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Please make sure those incidents get listed on /Evidence. I am not aware of them yet. Jehochman ^Talk 03:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dimly recall him being put on parole back in 2005. Not exactly recent, tho. Naerii 03:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that desysoping of any involved parties is not necessarily called for in this instance. I get the impression it's up to the ArbCom members to specificy the kind of trout involved, although I have no clue as to what the relative order of severity might be, other than "huge trout" is probably among the worse. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would have clearly been the most effective solution to this issue. Too bad we rushed passed the opportunity when this would have been appropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:John254

Proposed principles

Wheel warring

1) Wheel warring is unacceptable, and may result in the suspension or revocation of administrative privileges.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking one's friends

2) As a corollary to the principle that administrators may not block users with whom they are engaged in content disputes, administrators must not contentiously remove good-faith blocks placed on the accounts of users who are their personal friends, as such activity creates an appearance of impropriety, thereby bringing Wikipedia's administration into disrepute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

On the edge of nonsense. How in the hell are you going to determine who is a friend? Is this Friendster now, where we have "likes" and "dislikes?" Do we "friend" (v) each other? If I agree with someone, is that a friend now? How many times must a disagree for me to be able to unblock? Where to I lodge these so as to prove my bona fides? This is ill conceived, if not blather. Geogre (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That many situations are indeterminable shades of gray makes it no less true that some are indisputably black and white. Many a trouble maker has argued that "disruption" can't be objectively measured, yet we manage to get a lot of reasonable things done with a prohibition on disruption. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every situation is indeterminate. There is no definition of "friend" that would work and there is no way to tell who is a friend. Only if two users say they are friends, and only if you can be sure that neither is lying, can you say that they should not unblock each other. This is not "disruption": this is trying to quantify, label, and regulate an affective state. It's weird to even think it, much less try to put it in practice.

Furthermore, it essentially says that all persons who have friends are entirely without integrity. Would you block a real world friend of yours? I would (and I have, and I was about to again in this case). Would you stand by and let a friend of yours endure a block? I would (see Bishonen's evidence; I have not unblocked Giano except twice, total). This "finding" is the most nasty personal attack I have ever seen on a Workshop, and that's going some distance. If it's not hooted down, and loudly, then it will be an indictment and confession by all who support it that they, themselves, are at Wikipedia for social networking, and not for the project.

It's as if people here haven't even looked at the Evidence page. The proposals by John254 seem to be born out of a grudge and may be trolling, but this one seemed so obviously incoherent and insulting that I had to point out what he was actually saying. I can't believe that you would defend it, Greg. I know that you have friends who have been blocked. According to this, you were unable to restrain yourself, and you could never have made a rational decision about a bad block. Geogre (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley desysopped for 48 hours

1) William M. Connolley's administrative privileges are suspended for a period of 48 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, consistent with the length of the initial inappropriate re-blocking. John254 02:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As below, this seems pretty pointless. I could maybe see if there was a long term problem that he could be desysopped for x amount of time, where x > a month, but taking away their buttons for two days will not accomplish anything. Naerii 03:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre desysopped for 48 hours

2) Geogre's administrative privileges are suspended for a period of 48 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, consistent with the length of the block which was inappropriately removed. John254 03:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit pointless, no? Naerii 03:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only to the extent that 48 hour blocks are pointless. However, the community often recognizes such short sanctions as valuable in conveying the unacceptability of the misconduct for which they are issued, as well as the prospect of more severe sanctions should the offense be repeated. John254 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yehbut, when we block someone for 48 hours it's usually when they're in the middle of a dispute. We don't come back a week or two later and block them for something they did. Which this essentially would be, considering the amount of time it will take for the case to be processed. Naerii 03:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a problem. Perhaps we could have these remedies quickly implemented by means of an injunction, well before the closure of this case. John254 04:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though it may be the case that any action by the Arbitration Committee would be unacceptably dilatory. We may wish to consider permitting stewards, acting on their own judgment, to temporarily suspend the privileges of administrators engaging in wheel-warring, even where the wheel-warring isn't so egregious as to merit emergency desysopping under our current criteria. John254 04:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is some precedent for the imposition of short sanctions as a result of arbitration cases. See, for example remedies 3 and 6 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche. John254 04:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. my only response to that is that a lot changes in four years :) Naerii 04:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to this and the one above for William. If they deserve to be desysoppoed then desysop them but doing it for 48 hours seems punitive and pretty useless. Given that both these admins regularly go for days, even weeks, at a time without even using their tools they probably wouldn't even notice not having the bit for 48 hours, making it all the more pointless and punitive to take it away for 48 hours. Sarah 05:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano placed on modified probation

3) Remedy 2.2 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC is vacated. Giano II (talk · contribs) is placed on modified probation. His account may be blocked by any arbitrator for any edit(s) deemed to constitute edit warring, incivility, or other disruption. Any such block carries the full force of a ban by the Arbitration Committee, and may not be reversed except as expressly authorized by the full Committee. As with any unblocking of a user banned by the Arbitration Committee, any administrator who reverses a block placed against Giano's account in this manner without appropriate authorization may be subject to emergency desysopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reintroducing this proposed remedy, which I initially offered in the IRC case workshop, as a means by which to avoid further wheel-warring over the blocking of Giano, which I correctly predicted would occur if his account were blocked by any ordinary administrator. John254 03:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, we'd get nothing done. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok idea, but puts to much work onto the committee. A special enforcement panel would be better (an idea that almost passed as an addendum to the irc case). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is passed, the Committee should make damn sure there is a mechanism by which the entire administrative community be made aware of it. Contrary to what some may believe, Wikipedia does not revolve around Giano. Rockpocket 17:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that doesn't imply that we can't modify the MediaWiki software to create a technical limitation as to which administrators may block or unblock Giano's account :) John254 18:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be preferential. Rockpocket 21:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an idea that never occured to me, is it possible? I'm have to think about the broader implications of such a thing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All things are possible. However, it would be preferable to simply add a notice "Only these Y people are allowed to do X, if you do X and are not Y you will be desysoped by the next passing steward". Admins who can't follow instructions shouldn't be. Adding the feature would add needless complexity to the software, adding the notice would resolve multiple problems with one solution. --Gmaxwell (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Dragons flight

Proposed principles

Wheel warring

1) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from the pedophilia userbox RFAr. I'm partial to this particular rendering of the wheel warring principle because it makes clear that in some cases even the first act of willful reversion can be considered an unacceptable case of wheel warring. Dragons flight (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Aaron Brenneman

Note: ...and anyone else who wants to use this section to conserve the world supply of "="s.

Proposed principles

Arbitration is the last step

1) Request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. The committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties

Amen. How on earth is this an arbitration case, when no one tried to resolve the matter? Seriously, especially with my name attached to it, I can't understand at all. I was minding my own, and I got a notice to appear before the Tribunal. Wow. My talk page has tumbleweeds and dust on it, as far as this "dispute" goes. No one came to ask me what I was doing, why I was doing it, etc. Of course ArbCom can jump right up if there's an actual wheel war, since the infamous "Carnildo Affair," there has been precedent and need, and WMC was certainly hyperactive in the block log, and I think he lost his cool and acted inappropriately, but I'm not sure it's one of those unrepentant, "Death before compromise" wheel wars that gets emergency treatment. Geogre (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Seems that the commitee needs reminding of this, per several comments made in the request for arbitration. - brenneman 06:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a note on RfArb on what the ArbCom will accept without prior DR: Unusually divisive disputes among administrators as well as Reviews of emergency actions to remove administrator privileges. I'd say wheel-warring is an Unusually divisive dispute, and it has to be amongst administrators, doesn't it? Trying to fight this after it's been formally accepted is a little POINTy... SirFozzie (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was this actually unusually divisive? Didn't look it to me. Trying to claim this is an emergancy? It is to laugh. And as to "fighting it" after it's opened, shall I just redirect to "clown" or make pointless proposals regarding TROUT? I cannot believe what complete numb-skulls everyone is being: This must be copied to that certain page, that must live in it's own little box before we can look at it, etc etc etc, - brenneman 07:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed statement by IP of indefblocked User:Dzonatas SirFozzie (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Stifle

Proposed principles

Wheel wars

1) Wheel wars are struggles between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions (i.e. blocks, protections, and deletions), and are considered harmful. Actions that may constitute wheel warring include, but are not limited to:

Repeating an administrative action that has been undone by another administrator
Undoing another admin's administrative action without consulting that other admin
Ignoring a discussion to implement the admin's own preferred action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From WP:WHEEL. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the version of WP:WHEEL you got that from? Although it's similar in parts to the current version, it doesn't actually seem to be 'from' there. 87.254.72.195 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current version, under "actions that may indicate wheel warring". Stifle (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must mean "Possible indications of wheel warring". It does not say that any of those actions "constitute" wheel warring, and if you consult the history you'll see that wording to that effect has always been rejected. It's possible that your changes would stick if you made them today, you can always try and consensus can always change but what you have stated above is not a quote from the wheel warring policy and is not the gist of it either. 87.254.72.195 (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said "may constitute wheel warring", which I think is a crucial difference. Feel free to open your own section with alternative proposals if you don't like mine. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

2) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this–administrators are not expected to be perfect–but consistently poor judgement may result in reapplication for adminship via the requests for adminship procedure or suspension or revocation of adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration rulings

3) Wikipedia users are expected to abide by rulings made by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed by Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as Bishonen noted in her evidence, I have long advocated giving blocked users room to vent on their own talk pages. Blocking is a jarring experience. There is a degree of commentary that would be strong enough that I too would extend a block (I see no need to feed the drama machine with hypotheticals) but these comments were not in that category as far as I am concerned. Thatcher 17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be in the evidence section. I note that no-one seems to have yet noted that the comment Giano got blocked for was reverted by WJBScribe 28 minutes after the block. See here. I'm puzzled as to why William didn't remember to revert Giano's comment, when William, in the block log, describes it as "Personal attacks or harassment of other users" (boilerplate text), and on Giano's talk page describes it as "blatantly uncivil". I think I'm going to have to do my own evidence section and timeline. The current ones are not up to scratch. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block placed by WMC is subsequent to the earlier events of incivility and lack of professionalism that started on FT2's talk page by many contributors (about the uproar of the RFC on ArbCom and OM case). It is one thing to compare the wheel-war, but to ignore the events that first provoked the discussion on FT2's page does this situation no good (especially if new principles are set forth). There is no doubt that Giano's defense would include events that started from FT2's page, but those are not being brought up here (as the many are not listed as participants). Of course, it probably would create more drama to bring them up here and get ALL involved, but you will find that Giano did not single-handily start the incivility on FT2's page, and it would be unfair to single out Giano under the narrower assumed pretenses. Subsequently, the discussion carried over to Giano's page when WMC got involved, and that has been the depth of this case. I want to make sure the sequence of events is correct for this case if such depth if needed to understand if Giano got trapped on his page, as such (career) taunts against Giano, and possibly others, have been evidently noted in other sections on this page. 75.45.17.210 (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The dispute that ultimately arrived here was the result the second and subsequent blocks by WMC. If there is evidence that anyone else was intending to vary the original block, regardless whether they agreed with it or not, I have missed it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley has wheel warred

3) The actions of William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), in reblocking Giano II in the face of opposition, constitute wheel warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre has wheel warred

4) The actions of Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), in unblocking Giano II without discussion and under the guise of amending the block duration, and in unprotecting Giano II's talk page without discussion and with an inflammatory message [10], constitute wheel warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not a "guise." Not with guile, either. It takes a lot of breath to inflate my single action into some kind of war. It was to avoid a war that I didn't follow up. It was to avoid conflict that I let it be. And now a single act is a war, while the walking away proves that I was deceptive? Golly, but that's a world of assumption, and logic would say otherwise, and, by the way, so would I, if someone asked me on my talk page! Sheesh. Geogre (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an important addendum: Did anyone discuss their blocks? Did William Connelly? Did the others? Did anyone post explanations and reasoning on Giano's talk page? Did anyone undoing my unblock post on my talk page? Did anyone have discussion on Wikipedia regarding all of the many, many block revisions that were taking place? Was any of it before hand? My complaint is, in fact, that no one discussed anything with me. It was, therefore, hard to discuss anything with them, as I would hardly even know who "they" were, since none were posting to AN/I, which is the usual requirement before such contentious blocks. Hey, I'll forgive them, but hell if I'll take the rap for being only twice as good as they. Geogre (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed by Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it does not constitute wheel warring. The repetition of something that's removed is the crime, not removing it. Especially in the context of the dumb block made by Connolley. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 12:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:WHEEL says. See point 2 there. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHEEL sucks. Don't even cite it. State how things should be, and then we will get WP:WHEEL changed. Controversial use of tools should be avoided. If you know another administrator will object, don't do it. Talk first, then (un)block, not the other way around. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess point 2 is the bit about "an administrator undo[ing] another administrator's actions without consultation" being a "possible indication" of wheel warring? Well, a possible indication of wheel warring is certainly a start; with a bit more work we might be able to identify some DEFINITE indications of wheel warring, then we'll be close to finding the wheel warring itself! 87.254.72.195 (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - WP:WHEEL says don't repeat an action. Just undoing another admin's action for the first time does not constitute wheel warring, Geogre's omission in this instance concerns his failure to discuss the unblock/change block first, rather than wheel warring. Gatoclass (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Giano II's talk page

5) MZMcBride's action in protecting Giano II's talk page [11] was appropriate and proportionate to stop or reduce disruption and incivility during his block, and was in accordance with the protection policy. It was not appropriate of Geogre to unprotect the page, nor to claim that "we don't DO that".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Absolutely not. It was neither defensible nor appropriate without a warning, without a determination of what was "incivil" in there, and without an attempt at de-escalating the situation. Using protection in lieu of discussion is the action of a bully, not a janitor. Using protection usually requires filling out a request, lodging a rationale, and then letting someone else do it. This is on purpose, because Wikipedia pages are not protected. We don't do it quickly, don't do it blithely, and especially don't do it to silence people. There is no justification for this action, and I feel passionately about this. This is the gravest sin in the whole banana boat of mistakes made by the people arguing with Giano. It is the one act that I think deserves official sanction by ArbCom. Geogre (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed by Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I agree that MZMcBride's action was defensible, his failure to clearly explain that he was protecting the talk page to prevent Giano making things worse for himself led to Geogre's unprotect. IMO it is correct to say that one does not normally protect the user page after a block, so given the lack of explanation on McBride's part, the unprotection was also within policy except that, as with the unblock, Geogre failed to discuss the matter with the other administrator first. Gatoclass (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, actually, as I did "discuss" it. I put a rationale on the very page. I did not seek the consent of another administrator, because the protection was extraordinarily clearly beyond the pale. It was without a doubt wrong. It was the only thing in the matter that I found shocking. (Someone says Giano is "incivil" is not going to surprise me. Someone blocks Giano for some irrational time period isn't going to surprise me. Someone decides to protect his talk page? What the hell? That's nuts.) I would need to see very, very precise rationale for protection, with exact policies listed (not by acronym), and then a full explanation of how this was going to help Wikipedia. The default status of all pages on Wikipedia is unprotected. We don't even protect the featured articles. Silence is death. Geogre (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand your rationale for doing so, I'm simply pointing out that one is supposed to discuss the matter with the other admin before taking action. Now whether or not people always do this in practice I don't know, although I have the strong impression that this is one of those rules that is honored more in the breach than the observance, but strictly speaking the policy says one should discuss it first. How seriously one regards such a breach is, on the other hand, a matter of opinion I guess. Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had the protection been done by regulation (putting in a request for protection, and then a 3rd party performs the action, with the briefest duration possible), then I would have. However, although two wrongs don't make a right, any administrator acting unilaterally, by dint of power alone, has no authority for his actions and is subject to reversion by the same method. This may sound like I'm scoring points, but it's actually true. I would be very unlikely to just lift protection on a page that had been discussed and agreed around, but if it's "your one opinion vs. my one opinion," I do not get caught short and leave the aggrieved party suffering in silence while I go to a cumbersome process to undo an illicit act. Geogre (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre's history

6) Geogre was previously cautioned for making a "provocative and disruptive" edit as well as edit warring in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Uhhh, when? And what would that have to do with this? Was that related, or does it just mean I'm a bad man, a very bad man, because I did a bad thing? I'm really not sure what this has to do with the price of tea. Geogre (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed by Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is meant to be evidence that Geogre and Giano are on some sort of joint campaign here. Thus I see relevance, but am not convinced. GRBerry 21:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant

Note: This proposal by Stifle was edited by William M. Connolley, post-addition; see edit. Daniel (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7) While William M. Connolley has stated that his blocks of Giano II were made without reference to, or knowledge of, the previous arbitration remedy, this is not considered relevant to the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

For completeness. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocking due to provocation

8) It was not appropriate of William M. Connolley to extend his block of Giano II from 24 hours to 48 hours in response to Giano II's personal attack on William M. Connolley.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4) Giano II is counselled to avoid reacting incivilly to blocks or other actions on Wikipedia and to instead use the appropriate mechanisms (e.g. the {{unblock}} template).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Put a hyphen in there, maybe. I actually think people would be better to be counseled by Giano than to try to counsel him. Giano seems to know what's what at least as well as the people who now wish to be his patrons (and that wouldn't make them patronizing, I'm sure). Giano gets lots of advice. I'm not sure that the people blocking do. Geogre (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

For what it's worth Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly. Being blocked unfairly is extremely offensive and humiliating. When this happens to a user, it is understandable that the user may blow up. Nobody's perfect and expecting that the users who write this encyclopedia would react calmly to the Wikipedia's professional mandarins who never write at all coming in and talking down to them in intimidating manner is unrealistic. When admin culture evolves into a more respectful and humble one, we will see a huge progress in drama reduction. --Irpen 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're presupposing that the blocks were all unfair. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not presupposing anything. When one sees oneself as blocked unfairly, it is a horribly humiliating and intimidating situation. To make a real life comparison, it is one thing to be treated unfairly by a dishonest seller (unpleasant) and it is another thing to be treated unfairly by a police officer or whoever has a real legally given power to restrict your rights. If an editor feels unfairly treated by career mandarins, it is only human to be mad (and besides, chances are that he is right too.) Admins are supposed to be prepared to handle the situation better than getting mad themselves and especially block for feeling "offended" or go to IRC to ask for a "uninvolved" block. --Irpen 07:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is expected to act civilly, and thinking that the circumstances are unfair does not give one license to toss civility out the window. I am not sure what this idea will accomplish, Giano has already been told by arbcom to be civil, saying it again will not change anything. Why should Giano start being civil? He can go for months being uncivil and no action against him will stick. He has no reason to follow such counseling because it has been demonstrated time and time again that he will get away with it if he does not. _{1 != 2} 15:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano can also go for months being civil. I know it is a broken record, but other editors are as uncivil as Giano, on just as regular a basis, but they don't get called to account for it like he does. Well, that's not strictly true, as I would have used JzG as an example, but I see that he hasn't contributed in months, and has announced a long wikibreak. I wonder what effect that will have on the C68-FM-SV case (which also includes JzG)? Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add to that a bit. I can be insulting, harsh, rude, and dismissive. I can be sweet as marzipan and helpful. If someone comes to my talk page to tell me that such and such is the case and that I had better comply, then they're going to correspond with Mr. Geogre, and if they come to ask me and to listen, they'll get Dr. Geogre (meant to be Jekyll/Hyde, but the joke doesn't work... sorry). In almost every instance of "Giano is incivil" that I've seen, it has been the same as anyone else: someone comes to push him and tell him and force him, and Giano responds with a push back. Myself, I go with multisyllabic circumlocutious invective that manages to carry two levels of meaning, but that's because it's fun for me to work along those lines. I confess that there have been occasions when someone might have been honestly asking Giano something but he was so embattled, so picked upon, that he was cagey, but I've never seen him be rude even in cases like that. (Giano picked up a troll on his page recently, and he just ignored the twit.) To be brief: every single "bad" exchange has had two parties to it, and most people got only what they were looking for. Geogre (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement

1) Should Geogre violate his administrative 0RR, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours. After a fifth breach or in any case if he unblocks himself, his administrative privileges shall be summarily removed. If Geogre inadvertently violates his administrative 0RR and self-reverts, that revert shall not be counted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard-ish Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin

Proposed principles

Decorum

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Quite inflated, in my view, and held disproportionately. Civil discourse requires the ability to express frustration and even anger. Denying these makes Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipedia Review, and others thrive. We must distinguish between the heated exchange and the destructive exchange and know the difference, and we must not invoke sanctions against a single party in a heated exchange nor sanctions at all unless we have put down our pipes and taken off our smoking jackets and set down our glasses of sherry and gone to try to make the site a better place by reasoning, ameliorating, and calming. All who fail to defuse a situation are guilty, and all who pull the pin on it are grievously so. Geogre (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yeah, the sun rises in the east. But how is it relevant to this case? --Irpen 22:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that will be apparent once the findings of fact are drafted (if it's not already). Kirill ^(prof) 00:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still gathering evidence. It is possible to hold off on findings of fact until a clearer idea emerges of what happened here? What I'm seeing so far is WMC probably seeing Giano's edit appear on his watchlist or seeing it while reading FT2's talk page, and blocking without looking into the matter further, plus varying standards on what to do in cases like this: for instance, WJBscribe reverted the edit (which WMC did not do, going AWOL for an hour instead). WJBscribe also left Giano a warning, and then removed it when he realised that things had moved on from that stage. I'm also seeing Avruch dropping in an unhelpful comment at the start of a period of editing, and then filing a laundry list of complaints at an AE thread, including diffs from the previous day in what looks like an attempt to bolster the case for action, instead of talking to Giano. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of rushing things here; I fully expect it'll take some time to work findings of fact into their eventual form. Kirill ^(prof) 01:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That ensures, well, decorum! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

2) Per Stifle.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted. Kirill ^(prof) 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitration rulings

3) Per Stifle.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted. Kirill ^(prof) 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Casting aspersions

4) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums, if at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From the Zeraeph case. Kirill ^(prof) 01:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Way wiggly. I don't care if it's from another case or not, it's written poorly for being slippery. Continually? In an attempt? Appropriate forum? Far too greasy a set of propositions to point to anything concrete. I doubt anyone has continually accused anyone of anything. Even Zola took time off. Knowing the intention of someone is to assume. It's bad to accuse the innocent of guilt, and to do so frequently compounds the sin. There are appropriate venues for accusing people of bad behavior? Are they also efficient venues? Are they effective? For them to be "appropriate" they must be fair, effective, and efficient. If they're broken in some way, they cease to be the appropriate venues. I don't want to be pedantic, but some precision with language is vital if the deliberations are going to mean anything. Geogre (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Does this principle about "casting aspersions" apply to arbitrators? Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly; but keep in mind that statements made in our official capacity within the context of an arbitration proceeding are covered by the "appropriate forums" clause. Outside of that, of course, any comments we make are subject to this. Kirill ^(prof) 13:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair criticism

5) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From the Durova case; perhaps this and (4) can be combined somehow. Kirill ^(prof) 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

It's begging the question, because it stipulates its own definition. A fair criticism is one that is fair. A fair criticism is one that is done in channels, and yet the question of whether those channels are appropriate is still open, the question of what makes language "dignified" is open, etc. For this to be an actual finding, it needs to say what it means and not merely point back to its author. Geogre (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm not comfortable with 4 5 or 6 still in this form - I'm looking for a way to combine these without being too long either. I expect to add my attempt within 72 hours. If it still sounds too long, then probably best to keep them separate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-politics

6) As Wikipedia and its editorial community continue to grow, it is inevitable that philosophical differences among the participants will result in disputes over project policy and governance. Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders.

Nevertheless, the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit unseemly behavior. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums. It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation, or to engage in vituperative rhetoric and public attacks in order to harass perceived adversaries.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Trying to collect (4) and (5) into a semi-coherent whole. I expect the text could use considerable refinement at this point. Kirill ^(prof) 02:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The title betrays the content. What you say is unobjectionable, Kirill, but calling "philosophical differences over policy" "Wiki-politics" is dismissive and rhetorical sleight of hand. It's a way of using a reductive and pejorative epithet and asking all to agree that what should never be reduced nor insulted can be called by that epithet. Furthermore, sneaking in "policy and governance" into the yoke together is a bit shabby. "Governance?" Wikipedia has governors? It has a hierarchy of grand poobahs and majestic poobahs and exalted grand high poobahs? Are you asking to lodge this as a finding of unobjectionable fact? It seems pretty false to me. You can say that I'm reading too closely and being quarrelsome, if you wish, but the rhetoric is important, since, as here, people will later say "per previous decision" and imply that there is precedent for all language to be fact. Geogre (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As I said on Kirill's talk page, this sounds like OrangeMarlin, not Giano (I'm using OrangeMarlin as a recent example of this kind of thing, not to focus on him in particular): "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation, or to engage in vituperative rhetoric and public attacks in order to harass perceived adversaries." I am seriously considering collating evidence along the lines of that which Kirill has done, but for other editors and arbitrators. I might also add that it would be more accurate to say the following: It is unacceptable for an editor (unless they are an arbitrator) to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior. Should arbitrators have to attempt to use dispute resolution, like any other editor, or can they attempt to get to what they see as the heart of the problem by saying "you are the problem, here is the evidence"? That is prosecution, not arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on whether we're talking about official or unofficial statements. If an arbitrator is not permitted to say, in the course of a case, that "X has done Y", then dispute resolution becomes impossible. Arbitrators have always been permitted to collect evidence; it's especially common in low-volume cases. I could have put together a list of comments like that; I'm quite tempted to submit a list of all the times Giano accused me of things I haven't done, plus all the personal attacks. I daresay there are dozens of editors who could do this. Accusing Kirill of a non-existent breach of policy and etiquette does not alter the situation here. Can you counter the evidence, or justify it? Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an analysis section below to look in more detail at Kirill's evidence. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop#The detail in the elephant. Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Giano's campaign

1) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, over an extended period of time, engaged in a concerted campaign of public attacks against fellow editors—chiefly administrators, participants in IRC, and members of the Committee—whom he considers to be his wiki-political adversaries. A selection of his comments to that effect over the past few months is given below:

"Just be a little darling and show some intersest in content (than none of these busy admins seem to have time for) and revert here" ([12])

"Right reasons? I suggest you shut your ill-informed mouth right now TenOfAllTrades, before you deliberatly cause further drama." ([13])

"Do you know? I really could not care less WTF you think. You are ill-informed and rather ignorant. It's a pity, but there is not a lot I can do about that. If you are hoping I am going to enter into debate with you, and thus create more drama you are mistaken. Now run along and find something productive to do outside in the nice fresh air." ([14])

Edit summary: "Rv 1=2 who is performing his usual attention seking trolling, in matters which have nothing to do with him" ([15])

Edit summary: "removing rantings of a disruptive troll" ([16])

"I think FT2 you have become rather fixated on me, your fixation is now bordering on obsession, and I'm wondering if it is healthy. I am begining to feel mentally threatened and attacked by your strange behaviour and posts." ([17])

Edit summary: "Ah my little gnome-like stalker how are you?" ([18])

"What on earth has IRC to do with this? Are there no limits to what you and IRC can come up with Ryan, in your ever increasing thirst for power, Ryan" ([19])

"Oh well he spends half his life on IRC chatting away, always popping up here, there and everywhere, being important - too hard to AGF with him." ([20])

"The block was bad, it was orchestrated on IRC, IRC must now be reformed or closed. I am compleytely resolved. Closed would be best. 1=2 and his sidekick need to be sent packing for a start. Many many editors now feel this, and that is whayt is going to happen, so all the whining form the IRV inhabitants on this page is not going to break my resolve to see that chatroom sorted. FT2 need to be dismissed as an Arb, for lying when he said there were no problems on the channel." ([21])

"Contrary to the lies and falsehood that FT2 tell us that there are no problems on IRC, there are huge problems. The whole place is an ungoverned rabble that is a liability to the project." ([22])

"It was not incompetence it was deliberate, they knew there would bve no aproval for it here, as there was not. That's why they need de-sysoping and banning from that scurrilous and filthy chatroom." ([23])

"OH no, those daft little admins have trolled for this, they want to see some trouble well now they bloody well can, they have made one bad block too many in that chatroom. The Arbs can either sanction them and that ridiculous chatroom, or have a revolt from the editors who are sick of that nasty little chatroom." ([24])

"My only wish is that the community see the true colours of its disreputable, lying and disgraceful Arbcom. What it chooses to do with them is up to the community. To me, they are people of no consequence, they are as ants on the pavement and about as much use." ([25])

"Oh here we go again - The Arbcom fucks up! So it must be Giano trolling or Giano is paranoid. Well done Thatcher - which one of them wrote that? The Arbcom are a bunch of failing cowards and liars - take your pick which is which." ([26])

"Complete rubbish! The liars on the arbcom accepted a case they had no business accepting, they intended it purely to try and "get me", and they failed. Their position is untenable, they are a walking disgrace to the project. Morally they are no better than Daniel Brandt! - at least one knows what side he is on! So take your block and stick it where the sun don't shine!God what a project! The lying bastards can't even do their own dirty work!" ([27])

"Carch, you are rather missing the point, the sanction is there to allow me to be blocked the second I ever start posting the truth - that is how it works and why the whole daft case was cooked up and accepted. The problem is everyone now knows that is how it works, so each time I am blocked the Arbcom appears more ridiculous than the last - everyone except the Arbcom can see that - which rather proves my point. If they weren't so devious one would pity them. Like some third world Junta. Probably planning to have me bumped off as we speak - buried in concrete or something." ([28])

"My enemies don't need an opening they need firing! Most intelligent editors now completely dismiss "the committee" - or at least the "Gang of 7." They are regarded as people not to be trusted or admired. In short, the 7 should be sent packing. It is not only that the decision was plain wrong, the case should never have been accepted in he first place, whether it was the "Gang of 7's" agenda to be rid of me, or just plain toadying to Fred Bauder I neither know nor care. However, most people accept it was one of the other. So if the committee are too cowardly to do anything about it, then others must - that is why I edited those pages. Why should we have to look at evidence of these incompetents spite and malevolence. So untrustworthy are they, I would not want to see them judging a singing canary. We see this so called arbitration committee making mistake after mistake and no one lifts a finger about it. They strut about receiving just about enough support from the few remaining fools and henchmen on IRC to remain in power - while most of the serious editors just ring their hands in despair or simply disappear. It is like watching the antics of a deluded self serving third world junta in the final days before an implosion. The "Gang of 7" wanted rid of me, and they may get their wish. Thanks to their efforts, I no longer see the point of editing, but I won't be going quietly. Wikipedia deserves and needs better than these sad, but vicious apologies for Arbs. How many more have to be driven off just to protect their cosy little nests and egos. They don't need me editing their decisions they need firing!" ([29])

"Oh please Carcharoth just ignore them - they are not worth it. There is little to choose between the lot of them. We shall have Florence of Arabia, her sidekick on the horse and that man with his his organ here soon, all full of wronged righteousness. The Arbcom is now surplus to requirements, ignore them - I do." ([30])

Comment by Arbitrators:

The elephant in the room. Kirill ^(prof) 00:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Not sure as to its placement here It's an elephant in A room, alright. But I'm not really sure that we should be entering that room during this ArbCom case. As I said before, when I brought this ArbCom case, that Giano was the fulcrum around the actions for which this ArbCom case revolved, but he did not take any of the disputed actions. SirFozzie (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

I am disturbed that you would be so naive, SirFozzie, that you thought that you could control the direction of this case in any way, or that those who wish to silence Giano would fail to take this opportunity. This is the Arbitration Committee that has just shown it will take a case about footnotes and then use it as a coatrack to place its own imprimatur on an unrelated but key policy by handing unprecedented powers to administrators without the community being involved in the discussion. This case was accepted because it involves Giano, and that is the only reason it was accepted; the administrator behaviour here, while certainly reviewable, is nowhere near egregious enough for an arbitration case. Risker (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with KL William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed a true prophet [31]. Am I the only person here who is not surprised by this development in the case? Giano (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I considered it a given. ArbCom's downward spiral will continue, unless Lokshin resigns from the committee. It was after he replaced Fred on these pages that ArbCom changed itself from a review body into an activist agent framing the cases as they please, presenting "evidence" they like, ignoring evidence they don't like, and generally answering only those questions which they ask themselves. In every single case, "Lokshin's campaign" has been a destructive force escalating alredy heated situations. Please resign. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That speaks to what I had just put my finger on as well. The increasing tendancy for some ArbCom members to be "activist". Taking a lead role, rather than serving the community. Sometimes works out, sometimes doesn't. The best leaders and arbitrators balance the two (not all arbitrators are leaders and many leaders are not arbitrators, and many others are not leaders at all, but can still be role models). I suppose a gathering of evidence of increased "activism" by ArbCom, and a request for comment on that, might not be out of the question. But it will take longer than this case will last. To be clearer: some "prosecutorial" elements will be desirable on ArbCom, but it needs to be done delicately. Previous cases have shown that the community reacts badly when ArbCom tries to "prosecute" without those filing a case taking the lead in asking ArbCom to go in such-and-such a direction. ArbCom trying to extend the scope of case should be done with care, and should be done in such a way as to allow adequate response times. Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utter irrelevancy to the present case, except that now it seems to validate what Giano was saying by showing an arbitrator trying to get revenge. The introduction of this evidence is so irrelevant to the case that it demonstrates clearly that Kirill should recuse. Geogre (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Recently, I expressed my disbelief (some examples [32] [33]) when some claimed that arbcom is not going to make this case about Giano. I also stated elsewhere that this case's being on topic that allows it to be spun as a Giano-is-a-nuisance matter is the reason of expedient acceptance of just another drama-case while the ArbCom has renegaded on its duties towards the community to address very crucial issues in its backlog ([34] [35] [36].) With bemusement I watched the direction in which Kirill Lokshin was steering this case at this workshop towards making it about Giano again, and now we are finally at the place where this was going. This was a general comment. Now, a specific comment on this finding. This finding is a huge pile of lying by omission. A set of best hits compiled so selectively can make anyone look like a menace. Giano was ransacked by the career mandarins and this arbcom beyond belief. I can't imagine a reasonable person staying calm taking such abuse. Logic says we deal with the abuse first. But ArbCom prefers to do what is more politically expedient, to deal with Giano. Again. And not unexpected. --Irpen 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This stuff being more fit for an evidence page rather than the workshop raises another red flag. If this is evidence collected by an arbitrator, it belongs to an evidence page, rather than the workshop. If an Arbitrator presents evidence, s/he cannot arbitrate, should recuse and stop discussing this matter with other arbitrators. Of course if there is any sense of ethics in this procedure. --Irpen 02:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is going to happen, someone needs to note the fact that, regardless of his tactics, he has yet to be wrong. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll tread the eggshells and venture a response. Giano was quite mistaken the other day in his conjecture that I had written the long statement FT2 had composed for review by other arbitrators. Any attempt would have failed anyway: FT2's prose style is inimitable. We never discussed such a thing. FT2 did touch bases with me while he was waiting and I suggested he make a brief "holding pattern" post so that other editors would see he had respect for their concerns. He asked me to post on his behalf and I complied, although I thought it would be best if he did so himself. It was not until the following day that I learned he had more pressing issues in real life. When I discovered there had been blocks and a wheel war I interrupted content work to address the matter immediately. So on a factual basis, Giano was mistaken when he asked me to take some interest in content: his tactics had interrupted my featured picture drive. In fairness he could not have known this because I had been reviewing Library of Congress archives and working in Photoshop; image restoration doesn't generate very many onsite edits even when it results in featured content. From the moment I found out about this I've done my best to work toward an amicable solution, and my offer remains open to Giano to conominate a featured picture and initiate a request for his removal from this case. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 04:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kirill. The evidence is overwhelming. The real problem seems to be Giano rather than anyone else. If something is missing, Irpen can add evidence about Giano at the evidence page.Biophys (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So Irpen has to use the evidence page, while Kirill can bypass this and come straight here? How does that not make a mockery of the Evidence/Workshop/Proposed Decision structure? Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the arbitration policy says on the matter is that "Evidence and brief arguments may be added to the case pages by disputants, interested third parties, and the Arbitrators themselves". Evidence has been introduced on workshop pages before, by various individuals; it's a somewhat risky proposition, since the workshop tends to be noisier and things might get missed there, but I'm not aware of any prohibition on doing so. Kirill ^(prof) 13:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing here is any evidence that Kirill, or others, have attempted to deal with the "wiki-political" matter previously, or warned Giano that he was breaching previous restrictions that the ArbCom had tried to impose - I believe the closest they got was a finding of fact regarding "campaigns", but no associated remedy (but then a remedy banning "wiki-political campaigning" would be absurd - half the wiki would grind to a halt). The impression I get here is that Kirill (and others) have sat on the sidelines carefully noting evidence over many months. Kirill, if you gathered this evidence over a day or so, please state this and I will apologise. If not, and if this is how things are done on Wikipedia, I think everyone should start collating evidence over many months in readiness to present at the appropriate time. But we shouldn't do that because it would turn the atmosphere toxic. Some may say the atmosphere is already toxic in places, but that would be due to the system, not a single editor. The question here is whether to spend weeks carefully assembling evidence that Giano actually has an effect with his words, or whether to subject others (including arbitrators) to the same analysis that Kirill has done here. There are many editors who are far more consummate "wiki-politicians", but who fly under ArbCom's radar (and those of others) because they are far more persuasive and civil in their manoeuvrings. Giano, to me, and I don't expect he will like me saying this, comes across with varying levels of naivity, bombast, overblown rhetoric, a streak of humour, stubbornness, and sometimes even paranoia. There is also, as some have observed, what appears to be long-standing resentment and dissatisfaction stemming from previous arbitration cases. But there is also often recognition of his honesty and forthrightness, sometimes going where angels fear to tread. I will stop there, because this is, I fear, turning into an analysis of Giano, rather than his comments. But to understand the comments you have to understand both the context and history of the comments, and you have to understand Giano the person. It is this that Kirill's presentation fails to do. Anyone who knows Giano will recognise that the comments are his, but they will also recognise that they paint a one-sided picture.

A lot more could be written, but I will agree with Irpen that it is the direction of cases that is perplexing sometimes. I suspect that when arbitrators vote to accept a case, they have different things in mind. Some arbitrators may have voted in order to deal with Geogre and WMC quickly, others may have voted in order to tackled unfinished business with Giano. I know arbitrators reserve the right to direct the scope of a case during the case, but this is a powerful tool that they should use with caution. They should use it openly and state, when voting to accept, which direction they envisage the case going in, and then give clear signals if this changes mid-course. I noted Kirill's initial posting about "political" stuff, and queried it on his talk page. In effect, that was the "warning sign", but if I had known the extent of the evidence Kirill would be posting, I would have prepared evidence along those lines myself. But as I (and others) didn't know this, we haven't had the chance. This is precisely why cases should try and stick to the "evidence", "workshop", "proposed decision" stages. Myself, I'm still in the evidence phase. But now that new directions have come up, I will need to look for more evidence, and so the cycle repeats unless the scope is made clear and is demarcated at the start, or openly changed mid-case with more time allowed due to such changes. If this does not happen, arbitrators can (as happened here) bypass the evidence stage, post to the workshop, move to proposed decision after a few days, and then vote on that decision and close the case. This gives arbitrators too much power to over-ride or ignore what others are saying. I support Irpen's comments, and call for Kirill to post his evidence in the evidence pages (and then possibly recuse), and then to allow time for counter-balancing evidence to be gathered, before moving to later stages (workshop and proposed decision pages). Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth: I gathered this "evidence", such as it is, over the course of about 20 minutes (which is why it's quite disorganized and only goes back a little while). There has certainly not been any effort to prepare evidence regarding Giano in advance. Kirill ^(prof) 13:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as I said I would, I apologise unreservedly for saying that it looked like you had been gathering evidence for months. I'd also like to thank you for responding to what I said. The bit about it being disorganised leads me to make two points: would you agree that more time for you to better organise the evidence, and more time for people to prepare a defence, would be equitable? This, of course, goes back to my point about case scope. Do you agree that arbitrators, by being able to control and direct the scope of a case, and being able to do so far more than those presenting evidence (presentation of evidence and workshop proposals are routinely ignored by arbitrators in favour of the direction arbitrators think a case should take), should give more warning over changes of direction or the focus of a case? That would give people more chance to present evidence. I repeat - I wanted to focus on Geogre and WMC here, in presenting evidence, but the change in the focus of this case is distracting from that. I could throw together some evidence from 20-40 minutes of looking, but it would, like your evidence, be disorganised. One thing I would do to improve the organisation, is provide dates with each diff and arrange them chronologically (or at least say they are chronological). Alternatively, a more detailed look at the context and reaction (or lack of reaction) to the edits you point out, is another way to go - but where would I do that? Would I copy your evidence section back to the evidence page and annotate it, or what? Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have every intention of allowing adequate time for evidence presentation and discussion here. I would have thought this would be implicit in the fact that I posted this to the workshop; had I wanted to avoid feedback, I could have simply skipped that stage, and taken it straight to voting.

As far as the practical points of annotating and responding to this, I'd say that you're free to use the evidence page and/or the workshop page as you see fit. The workshop page lends itself a bit more to back-and-forth discussion, but that may or may not be a benefit here. Kirill ^(prof) 17:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you trying to suggest that Giano is somehow unaware that those are personal attacks and violate policy? Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't defend the way Giano expressed himself, no, but it is not as simple as you are making it out to be. Giano is expressing his opinion consistently over time. That doesn't mean it is a campaign, and if it is, it is a remarkably poor one. Getting back to what I said, there is more to what I said than what you have picked up on, but no need to apologise for that. Take the time to read the rest of it, and I'll be happy to respond here or on my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be satisfied if the finding were rephrased to "Giano II has, over an extended period of time, continually made public attacks against fellow editors—chiefly administrators, participants in IRC, and members of the Committee," thus removing the implication of a campaign? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better, but still not ideal. I would dispute "continually" for example. Kirill, or whoever, would need to actually provide a timeline for that. Carcharoth (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether in the rules or not, isn't it strikingly problematic that ArbCom members apparently can play the equivalent roles of prosecutor, jury and judge all at the same time? athinaios | Talk 13:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may also set new guidelines for the IRC channel. The last time it happened, a year ago, Snowspinner suddenly became somewhat more tonguey than he is now :) Perhaps it's time for a new change? --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume I am supposed to be insulted by that, but whatever you're trying to say is sufficiently far removed from reality that I don't actually have a clue what you mean. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You need to read a few dozen arbitration cases that don't involve Giano and his clique. Furthermore, wikipedia is not the US Justice system and does not have defined roles like prosecutor, defense, judge, and jury. Trying to force wikipedia's forms of dispute resolution onto that framework is a pointless exercise. Thatcher 15:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So can your clique come up with anything other than the current framework of alternating secret trials and show trials? My solution is to dissolve ArbCom. The example of other wikipedias shows that, as long as the arbitration process is easily gamed by a few individuals and their cliques, it's better to go without arbitration (which, as several arbs cynically admit below, has become another word for prosecution). --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a very bad idea. Arbcomm has problems, but getting rid of it is not the solution William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an analysis section below to look in more detail at Kirill's evidence. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop#The detail in the elephant. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is unseemly to seek to blame the Gianos when investigating a tangent incident. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tangent? I would say more of a hub that everything else revolves around. _{1 != 2} 15:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good metaphor, in that the described case before the ArbCom involves a wheel war. However, it appears there is a concerted (bespoke, even?) effort to direct the case to that which is directly connected to a (supposed) axle of evil. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano's compliance

2) Giano has repeatedly stated that he will refuse to comply with any sanction imposed on him by the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Obvious, but noted nevertheless. Kirill ^(prof) 00:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Giano has repeatedly had absurd sanctions proposed against him that never had a chance of passing, and, as these have been repeatedly occurring, he has repeatedly said that he would not comply with any of those. Inasmuch as none of those has passed (except one absurdity that, I hope, people are now trying to get rid of, this "civility patrol"), his statements are irrelevant. If Giano has indeed failed to abide by ArbCom rulings, then say so and demonstrate it. "Overheard in a bar room" is not germane. It's rather like saying, "The Bible says there is no God" ("There is no God, sayeth the fool in his heart"). Clip 'n conclude is not very high reason. Geogre (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes, but please provide diffs (on the evidence page). I'm sure you either know where they are, or came across them while compiling the above. I will provide you with one to start you off: [37]. That is one of the ones that is rather hard to find, because a clerk removed it over a month later with this edit. Carcharoth (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This needs some context; probably starting with the Eternal Equinox fiasco from years ago. A long time to be nursing a grudge, but when the committee takes 3 years to turn over membership and appears to be repeating the root causes in the mean time, not too surprising. GRBerry 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that the committee is taking this evidence seriously. _{1 != 2} 15:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the problems in enforcement substantially come from disagreements between administrators and administrator conduct issues arising, Giano's refusal to moderate his conduct in the interests of the encyclopedia and his subsequently expressed determination to defy any remedy aimed at enforcing such moderation is at the root of the ongoing problem. It must be made plain to Giano that his attempts to play administrators off against one another are correctly seen as highly disruptive conduct. --Jenny 15:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing this. No intention of further inflaming this situation. Post was ill-advised and I apologise to Giano and the Committee. --Jenny 18:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Jenny, Tony, Regenerate or whatever name it is you are currently posting under today. To use an analogy I used earlier today, you have spent far too long waiving your knitting and screaming like a demented banshee at the foot of the guillotine, were the Arbcom sensible you would have mounted that scaffold years ago, as your continued and persistent trolling on almost every Arbcom case is tedious and does little more than inflame incendiary situations. To address your points, and notice you, that is I assume what you are angling so keenly for me to do? - I'm rather afraid that you are grasping at straws like a drowning man in your attempts to save your beloved Arbcom's reputation. I see the Arbcom's inclusion of me in this case as little more than a declaration of war. A war that I have no great lust to fight, but if I have to defend myself I will, no matter what the cost. An Admin made a silly sarcastic remark to me, and I told him what I thought of his remark, end of story, but no! You see the Arbitration Committee were jubilant at the thought of getting me again, and a second opportunity of putting in the boot. This was the reason they accepted the case with such obscene haste. A case that should never have been accepted at all. It is the reason that on the "list of contents" of this very page, my name appears no less than 20 times, and the reason Kyril dragged up his old evidence on the Arbs behalf. You will note that until today, I have barely commented on these pages. However, it seems some will grasp any excuse to further blacken my name and to justify my inclusion, but where will this lead? You see when you have kicked someone as hard as I have been kicked on this page, one has a to give the kickers some reward - otherwise they may feel they have been used and manipulated into being hired thugs and bullies. In short to coin the phrase, and opinion, of the owner of IRC, and a leading Arb "You are all idiots." Or to mix my metaphors, It's a pity some can't see that they are only the hyenas and jackals in the arena, the true powers are sitting and directing operations from their nice, comfortable, safe box, high above the common crowd. So pick up your knitting Tony, I'm sure you will see some blood very soon. Giano (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed principles

Civility

1) All editors are expected to edit Wikipedia in a calm and civilised manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tu quoque

2) Perceived incivility by a user should not be used to justified an editor's own incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed; it's a bit sad that we have to point this out. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

An improper use of "tu quoque." This is not "but you're one, too." Instead, this is conversation, and it is, in fact, rhetorically appropriate for social registers and emotive content to be matching. "Tu quoque" refers to a logical fallacy, and it is improper to apply it, as so many Wikipedians do, to mere conversation. Geogre (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Should be an important point regarding blocking/unblocking Giano. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but does their incivility excuse you using latin to obscure your accusations of hypocrisy? 87.254.72.195 (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk, tsk. Latin again? May I point people at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee#IX. Communication? What does "tu quoque" mean, anyway? Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tu quoque, also wikilink added above. Dragons flight (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it is a civilised way of calling someone a hypocrite? Carcharoth (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. It's a oblique way of writing "Hypocrisy". Neıl 龱 08:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Wikipedia Review, "It is Latin for PotKettleBlack." WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Giano (I)

1) Giano (talk · contribs) was placed on a civility parole in January 2008 (q.v. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC) after a formal warning in December 2007.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Part of a three-fold finding of fact. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano (II)

2) Giano has an extensive record of incivility and disruption blocks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Part of a three-fold finding of fact. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would need evidence, either in this case or a previous case. This also begs the question of whether the blocks were justified. Merely saying that someone has been blocked for incivility doesn't mean that the blocks were justified, or that the incivility was there. You've also missed out a "history". Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's evident from his block log, and is not meant to be in isolation to Giano (III). Sceptre ^(talk) 18:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't clear enough, was I? Compare the following three statements:

Giano has an extensive record of incivility and disruption blocks.
Giano has an extensive record of justified incivility and disruption blocks.
Giano has an extensive record of unjustified incivility and disruption blocks.

Now do you see the need to look at the nature and history behind the blocks, rather than the bare existence of the blocks? Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano (III)

3) Giano has an extensive history of unblocks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ok, I have to be the language cop again. "Giano has a history of unblocks" means that Giano has a history of unblocking people. This phrasing is torturous and inappropriate. What I think Sceptre means is, "Giano has been unblocked frequently." Another way of saying that would be, "Administrators have rejected the blocks of Giano as inappropriate or improperly performed." Yet another way to say that is, "Administrators have improperly blocked Giano on several occasions." With that I would agree. Geogre (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Part of a three-fold finding of fact. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On its own, this bare fact tells us nothing. It is the interpretation of what this means that is critical. Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not meant to be in isolation to Giano (II) or "Administrative 0RR". Sceptre ^(talk) 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Administrative 0RR on Giano

1) Administrators are restricted from unilaterally reversing any other good faith administrator actions placed on Giano.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nonsense. Administrators should follow Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and that includes warning, blocking by a third party and not a disputant, attempts at mediation before blocking, and reporting likely controversial blocks on AN/I. Administrators are similarly to follow policy and procedure by reversing improper administrative action and reporting the issue on AN/I for further investigation (something I did not do, because I washed my hands after I saw that it had an ecstasy of fumbling already with every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a button wanting to press it). ArbCom has neither the need, the standing, nor the authority to change administrative policy because some members of it don't like the fact that many administrators disagree with their personal visions of the site. Geogre (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Conjunction with the FOFs. The block/drama/unblock cycle must stop. Instead, a consensus should be sought for action reversal. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - discussion is good. I don't think it's realistic to ask for much more from this (barring issues midway through the case a la Tango) - won't ask why it was accepted, though. —Giggy 13:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generalize this for all editors. Unilaterally reversing good faith administrator actions should not be done. If the the blocked user posts an unblock request (didn't happen here) that provides substantial information suggesting that the block is no longer needed (or was mistaken) an administrator can review the block and change it. Likewise, if a block is discussed in a central forum and the consensus is to change it, that is also fine. Jehochman ^Talk 14:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of principle, I object to a sanction that in essence restricts the entire admin community from taking certain actions in relation to only Giano. I wouldn't mind clarifying the wheel-war policy in general, if that's what's needed, but I don't believe we should generate community-wide restrictions that address only this special case. It is difficult enough to have people follow all of our policies and guidelines without creating special cases that everyone would need to know when dealing with certain people. Dragons flight (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current consensus of the community regarding wheel/edit-warring is that the third action constitutes the war, not the second. I'm adding this because the second action is often objected to but never actioned about. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea until the situation normalizes. Giano is far from being perfect and some of his blocks are deserved. But there are several admins (as well as non-admins) who are professional minders of Giano, so to speak, who make it their business to aggravate him, provoke him, call for his blocks and block him. This remedy gives them a free pass to continue. The situation about Giano needs to be normalized in a far more serious way before such ruling is even discussed. --Irpen 21:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The words unilateral and good faith are to propogate discussion. And besides, even if he is goaded, tu quoque is not justification. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should give some reasonable allowance for what is a normal human reaction. If one is poked repeatedly, it is not reasonable to expect one to be calm forever even though this would have been an ideal human behavior. "Good faith" is a matter of judgment. WP:AGF does not say "be a fool". --Irpen 07:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He should learn to walk away, not dive straight in. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea, I think, unless its made clear that administrators should not unilaterally make blocks that are likely to be controversial. The general principle ought to be that we block only where there is a consensus that it is warranted. These are not emergency cases and the root problem is when administrators, knowing full well that many others will object to their action, decide to shoot first and discuss later. That sort of behavior shouldn't be encouraged by protecting the initial, inappropriate decision. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under what circumstances would blocking someone on civility parole who called another user an idiot be controversial? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the user being blocked in Giano II, then any block is controversial without regard to how appropriate it is. It is my opinion that there are many who feel Giano II need not abide by any of the rules the rest of us are constrained by, and that ANY action of his can be excused because of some perceived injustice in the past. As one of the administrators who has blocked him, I can attest to the level of on and off-wiki harassment that comes with offending his followers. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, again with the harassment? Was it me? I wish admins who inform us in that very general way that they've "blocked Giano" would sometimes give a more detailed history of what happened when they did, it can be quite interesting. Chairboy has blocked Giano once. [38]. It was in December 2006, but apparently not to be forgotten for many a year. The block was undone by user:Jimbo Wales after an hour and a half, following on an impassioned en-admins IRC discussion where Chairboy insisted on, and got, a special request for civility put into the block log by Jimbo. [39] Was it Jimbo's unblock that felt like harassment ? Or something I said? I was on IRC at the time, and I remember your resentment of my discussion with Jimbo. Is that resentment really still green? Do feel free to post in public (if you have a log—I can give you one), if you perceive something I said as a "level of harassment", or as something coming from an offended "follower" Bishonen | talk 19:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, Bishonen, that was awesome! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This fails because of "good faith" — all it takes is for an admin to claim that the block was in bad faith, and you have another wheel war. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done, if this keeps going on as it is we will lose good admins and good editors before this is all over. _{1 != 2} 14:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What here is so bad that anyone would leave over it? If both "sides" leave, then yes, it would be bad. If one "side" leaves and the other "side" feels they have "won", then that is the worst possible outcome. What is needed is for both "sides" to work towards conciliation. Until 1==2, what have you done to try and achieve conciliation? Carcharoth (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conciliation? Well I attempted in the past to talk this out civilly and got blanked. I can only reconcile someone who wishes to reconcile. I don't see any sides here anyways, I see policy and I see behavior. Making this about sides is just turning a behavior issue into politics. I stand by my opinion that if things are left as they are that we will lose out on good editors in time. _{1 != 2} 12:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that there is a feeling here that some people want to change or bypass policy, by engaging in politics. As arbitrators are supposed to interpret and enforce policy, some policy discussion during arbitration cases is necessary, but ultimately if a policy is unclear or unworkable, the policy needs to be downgraded or at the very least discussion needs to restart on the policy talk page. The amount of politics in policy discussions is an interesting point to consider, as is whether it is possible to separate behaviour from policy when the policy (the civility policy) is about behaviour. Ultimately, controlling or guiding the behaviour of members of a society can become a political issue. OK, I'm getting very confused here: what is the difference and distinction between policy, politics and behaviour. I sense there is a clear difference, but I'm losing track here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Carcharoth, I will explain the whole thing, just don't forget to click on my links. Here goes: Until 1==2 is admonished to stop addressing productive contributors from a lofty height of self-bestowed neutrality, and to stop talking to and about adult editors as if they were naughty children. Such discourse has the opposite of a conciliatory effect. Until 1==2 is exhorted to desist from making uncivil attacks in civil language. To use examples to hand, even though some re Giano would be better here (but would take more digging than I can face), see for instance Until 1==2's storm of posts on my talkpage, back last year [40] [41]; or the time he told WP:ANI that I lie and falsify logs. These attacks were made in the most distant, bureacratic, "civil" language, like this: "I think you have intentionally taken me out of context, and mis represented my words... In the future do not quote my off-wiki comments as I do not have confidence you can do so accurately." [42] See what he did there, Carcharoth? Do you reckon he was questioning my actual ability to copypaste, by saying "I do not have confidence you can do so"? No; what he did was sinuously avoid the straightforward attack, and perform a dance around the accusation "Bishonen lied and faked". Giano's straightforwardness is recommended over such defamation-by-politeness. Until 1==2 is encouraged to get his bile out by saying "fuck" when he attacks editors, instead of his current practice of what he calls "talking it out civilly", because "fuck" is less truly incivil. Thank you, over and out. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I wonder quite how much longer this "tit-for-tat" is all going to go on for. I'm sure 1=2 has his uses, but at the moment the precise nature of them seems to escape me. I note at the moment the Arbs are favouring a quorum of 5 Admins being able to block me. Yippee, that's clever, and where will these worthy Admins decide this - on IRC with 1=2 and "Jenny"? Do they seriously imagine this is going to solve Wikipedia's ills? Of course it won't - the Arbs need to look at the problem in a mature and in-depth way - not once have they officially approached me to even show an interest in the many concerns which many editors like myself have, in short, those who feel unhappy with the current state of affairs, as many of us do, count for nothing. It is easier for the Arbs to listen to the braying mob, that seem to hang around the Arbitration pages, for every case, like badly educated, ham fisted tricoteuses. No doubt, when not imparting their wisdom, they are the ones writing the encyclopedia which is why the Arbcom values them so highly. The naivety, and short sightedness of those running this site seems to become more worrying on a daily basis. Giano (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano commended

2) Giano is commended for his work in article writing over the past four years.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't think Giano would take such commendation, and I'll say in advance that I wouldn't. I'll take compliments on any given article (I've done over 250 of them from start to finish). Oh, and my work (does no one even look at user:Geogre before they talk about me?) is all over British literature, Church of England figures, saints, and some mythology. I stay away from the Middle East, if I can -- too much trouble there. There are few wars being fought today about whether Robert Walpole was or was not a good Prime Minister. Geogre (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Credit where it's due. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without bearing on the truthfulness of this, it seems rather off-topic. Giano's article writing ability is, as far as I can tell, nowhere at issue in this case. We could just as easily compliment WMC's work on global warming, or George's ~~work on Middle Eastern affairs~~, but those things aren't relevant to the matter at hand. While, I don't see anything wrong with Arbcom complimenting people for good actions, I generally feel that those commendations should reflect positive behaviors associated with the case at hand. Dragons flight (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to George. I swear I looked at someone's edit history and saw lots of edits to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern topics before writing that. Unfortunately, it appears I must have been looking at the wrong person's contribs list. Not sure how I did that. Oops. Dragons flight (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you looked at George (/dʒɔɹdʒ/). This is Geogre (/ˌdʒiˈoʊɡər/). If you use Firefox, you can tell them apart because one of them will be flagged as a spelling error. — CharlotteWebb 21:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point there. Another way of saying it is that he has made productive edits, thus indicating that he is not a vandalism-only account or anything like that. It generally gets used with a "but, ..." provision following, indicating that the party involved has also at times acted inappropriately. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano strongly admonished

2) Giano is strongly admonished for his contributions to discussion areas and is firmy reminded to remain civil in disputes regardless of how frustrated he may be.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

? Passive voice has been found to have led many astray. As this is written, it looks like a finding of fact. Indeed, Giano is admonished to color between the lines. I am, too, sometimes. <shrug> If there are no "appropriate venues" (a mandatory precondition), and if the conversation gets uncivil via the use of threats or the use of implied power or by inappropriate condescension, then what we have is a classic case of angry people talking at each other. They should both "be admonished" to cut it out, but looking at one as some sort of Tasmanian devil of bad language is a bit weird. I would like to take this moment to "admonish" people to write clearly in these matters, not because I'm so clever, but because it's really, really important to shear away the dead phrasing that obscures what we mean. From misprision we get crime. Geogre (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

He can bring up points, but get rid of the sailor-mouth. At least on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

True but handles the problem from the wrong end. While his professional minders can get away with repeatedly poking him, admonishing Giano and doing nothing with the other side just sends the wrong message. --Irpen 07:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groundhog Day again? This will be about as effective as King Canute's strong admonishment to the tides. MastCell ^Talk 08:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(note; Canute was demonstrating his lack of power to his fawning courtiers - he had no expectation of nature heeding his calls himself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Dammit, I hate when my analogies don't come off correctly. MastCell ^Talk 05:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor-mouth? Are you referring to something like this? SashaNein (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm the sailor here. ;) One bad turn doesn't justify another: established Wikipedians should be setting the standard for others. Earlier today I was thinking of Wikipedia's most prolific contributor of featured pictures: he's polite, easy to work with, has over a hundred featured content credits, and is twelve years old. Those of us who are doing less to build an encyclopedia and demonstrating less civility should be shamed by his example--and that means darn near everybody who's had any involvement in this case. Durova^Charge! 05:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Rudget

Comment made after evaluation from recent events relevant to this case. Rudget (logs) 15:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "must reflect the length of block" really means "should not be longer than the block". Agree that it is better for admins other than the originally blocking admin to do the proection. GRBerry 22:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Rudget (logs) 15:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by John Carter

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Possible creation of "detention" block

1) If such is possible, and I have no way of knowing whether it is technically possible, it might make sense to see if we can create a different kind of block, which would function as, for lack of a better parallel, the equivalent of a detention by the police. The block could last for up to 24 hours on the party in question, and be placed by any admin. It could also be revoked by any admin, and if so revoked, not necessarily appear on the blockee's block log. Such an option might be particularly useful in potentially disputable AE blocks, as it would prevent the editor from engaging in any potentially disruptive behavior while his existing questioned behavior is being discussed. And, if it is found that no AE action is necessarily warranted by circumstances, this "detention" block would not even necessarily appear in the editor's block log. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

John, you and I were quite vicious with each other not long ago. Some suggested that you could be blocked for "incivility," just as you were threatening me with the same. I was true to my principles, there, and left all of it going. However, to explain what I meant by my colorfully worded "beard pulling," I can see a sort of interruptive block, if you will, under very precise circumstances. When you see people saying something and then going back to add more, and then more, even before the other person has responded, you can generally tell by that person's actions that he or she has lost composure and control.

If you see a person block, then block for longer, then less time, then more, etc., I would say that the same thing is happening. It's not that such a person is evil, but that person has gone to the next step beyond losing control: that's a person who has lost control and lost understanding of blocks. That's someone winning by default, by kicking the other person out, by silencing the other person.

If there are the rare occasions when both people have lost control, then, and only then, I can see going in to become the fall guy, to become the object of anger, by imposing a short block on all parties. This would be merely a way of interrupting the rage, a way of hoping that Horace was right ("ira furor brevis est"). It would be short and not a mar on anyone's record. I don't care how right one side is, if both get to the point where they're hitting over and over again in a frenzy, then they're in a frenzy, and the fit has to pass before they can see straight again. It's not a "cool down block," either. It's purely an interruption, and it has to go both ways, or else it's a judgment that one is right and the other wrong. Nobody is that wise. Geogre (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't think this is feasible without dev work, which they have already expressed a low level of willingness to do. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will improve our problems with wheel warring if two admins could block/unblock each other and no log entry be made. We need to keep logs. _{1 != 2} 15:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of group/body to discuss possible AE blocks

2) We have had more than one case brought before ArbCom recently dealing with whether admin blocks are in accord with standard practice, particularly when dealing with arbitration enforcement. It might make sense for the ArbCom, or the community as a whole, to in some way appoint or otherwise select individuals not on ArbCom who would be able to among themselves decide on what level of response, if any, is appropriate to a certain circumstance. Any final decision by this group might need to meet certain requirements, perhaps along the lines of the net 4 approval rule required for an RfA to be approved. The group might also be available as a place where the appropriateness of existing blocks might be expeditiously addressed. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't even understand this whole "AE" thing. Sure, there are some cases, and maybe most are like this, where a maniac is putting everything "on wheels," and there is just a routine and pro forma "here he is again" block, but whenever something as inherently vague and impossible to define as "civility" is concerned, there is no way that there should be an automatic block. This started, I think, with the Digwuren case, and that has become one of the most overused, licentious rulings ever. It has become an umbrella for blocking damn near anyone any time for any thing by anyone. For "civility," AN/I is the only legitimate venue for two reasons: "civility" is the standard of the civitas, the group, and the only "one" who can say what is and is not civil is the whole of us, and, second, AN/I gets more immediate attention. Additionally, AN/I is where controversial blocks get discussed (beforehand, I hope), and almost any block for "civility" is going to be controversial (not because there are contrarians like me, but because, as we should all know full well, it's not a word with a precise definition or practice). Geogre (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I've never understood why the arbitrators themselves can't do arbitration enforcement for individuals. Obviously the discretionary sanctions are for admins as a whole to enforce, but for individual sanctions, surely arbitrators could do as good a job as some admins in enforcing things? The whole thing lately about whether admins are "involved" in certain situations still applies to arbitrators as well, but if admins enforcing things are not seen as involved, then arbitrators are not either. And if arbitrators can't agree among themselves whether a civility parole has been breached or what to do, why are we asking admins to make these decisions? Carcharoth (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The noticeboard at WP:AE is a group attempting to discuss AE blocks. If you think that this does not work, it might be worthwhile to consider why. The thing that leaps to my mind is that in the current environment admins feel empowered to individually (rather than collectively) judge the appropriateness of applying AE actions, and this leads to many situations where the AE noticeboard is simply bypassed. I know it is cliche, but if we simply discussed these things, we would often save ourselves a lot of trouble after the fact. Dragons flight (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it might be possible for ArbCom or the community to specifically appoint a specified number of people, large enough to allow recusal of a few if need be, to have a bit of a "lower level" arbitrator status and be able to deal with such matters? Granted, that's creating bureaucracy, which isn't good, but it does help ensure that no admin with a quick or slow trigger finger is likely to do something others later regret. John Carter (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The regulars at WP:AE are a group attempting to manage arbitration enforcement sanctions, with discussion as needed. The number of admins that are regulars there is quite limited; very often one admin is doing the majority of the work for extended periods of time. Patrolling WP:AE is not a popular activity among admins, and often results in the patrolling AE catching flack from any and sometimes all of those sanctioned, those friends of the one sanctioned, those requesting stronger sanctions than were granted, those friends of the complainant, and random passersby. It does, however, also result in getting thanked more regularly than being a regular DRV closer does. More WP:AE regulars would be a good thing, but in a volunteer project it can't be compelled. GRBerry 22:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:William M. Connolley

Proposed principles

Non-ownership of user talk pages

1) Editors do not own their talk page. They have the limited priviledge of immunity to 3RR in removing material for whatever reason. But their priviledge does not extent to immunity from incivility policy for comments they make on their talk page.

Comment by parties:

Standard, I believe, but worth clarifying William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading in the extreme, and more slippery language. All pages are the property of WikiMedia Foundation or some such, and, in that sense no one owns any page, but a user's talk page is a very different sort of page from others, and that's why we have special pages describing them. Per desuetude and sense, a user's talk page is where a user speaks to conversants, and where the user gets to control to a far greater degree who is and is not allowed to converse. Since "civility" is only ever definable in a conversation, an uninvited, unwanted person may be appropriately given language that would, in a cordial conversation, be unpleasant. Geogre (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not a good idea as this would give a pass to a widely condemned practice used by some admins to taunt editors at their talk pages and then reign with increasing blocks. It is understandable that an aggrieved user who feels wronged and gagged by brute force may go off rails. Unless there is some truly bad stuff like racist hate speech or something, best is to ignore the rants of the blocked user. Unwatch it if you have a thin skin. --Irpen 21:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be standard that user talk pages are for the community as well as the individual editor, but talk pages have been deleted in the past on the request of the user. I strongly disagree with that practice, but it is done, nonetheless. I agree with your point about civility, but please remember that a blocked user can only edit their talk page. Letting them vent there is a standard tool in the arsenal of those who try to employ diplomacy, rather than strong-arm tactics. Carcharoth (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially, since the tone of the block notification by some of the blocking admins as well as the messages that follow from the supporters of the block among the career mandarins rather than editors (admins or not) is often clearly aimed at taunting the user. It is unpleasant to be intimidated by just a random guy but it is by far more unpleasant to be intimidated by a cop. When this happens, users have to be given some leeway, not of course the unlimited leeway. --Irpen 21:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcomm as court of last resort

1) Arbcomm is a last resort. It only accepts cases that the community cannot deal with, where all other routes to agreement have failed. This is both because it is desirable to allow the community to resolve problems, and because arbcomm lacks the time to handle all petty cases.

Comment by parties:

Standard William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC) [Also, duplicate of #Arbitration is the last step William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed. The drama has largely subsided by the time of the case submission. It was likely that the further discussion within the community would have cleared everything up. --Irpen 21:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politeness is preferred to rudeness

Contrary to the opinions of some editors [43], it is better to be polite than to say "fuck" when attempting to communicate.

Comment by parties:

I would have hoped this was uncontroversial, but apparently not William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if something is "obliging" me to believe that human conversation cannot be limited by Anthony Fremont telling us that we must not think bad thoughts? William may be fine with science, but his writing leaves much to be desired, below. Rudeness "is preferred" (geez, more passive voice -- can anyone avoid it? please try) in rude conversations, and politeness "is preferred" otherwise. It is far better to hurl a bad word than a block. Sticks and stones must not be thrown, for words are always better. Amend the finding to: "It is better to neither provoke nor grow angry without just cause" and you'll find that statement that no one disagrees with. Geogre (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This refers to my post here. I would have hoped William M. Connolley would be smart enough to understand the point I made, which really wasn't any too profound or enigmatic. William, I'm not going to call you stupid, because I actually think you are smart enough—I think you're simply trying to garner a cheap point by pretending not to get it. That makes me sad, as I've always admired your editing. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

It refers to your post, but any number of Giano's supporters seem to end up obliged to believe much the same. I think you and they are wrong to accept and condone rudeness. The UK parliament has a rule - no unparliamentary language. Its a good rule; it forces you to think and be creative if you really want to be impolite William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you are being deliberately obtuse in stating I condone rudeness. If it's not deliberate, then, well, all I can do is advise you to read more slowly. Try activating your irony filter. No, I don't condone rudeness. "Fuck" isn't necessarily rude.[44] Nor is it a word Giano uses on Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

No clear definition of wheel warring

Wikipedia has WP:WHEEL which describes itself as official policy. But this policy "sucks" and respected users recommend "Don't even cite it" [45] . Extensive discussions as to what should replace it failed to reach a conclusion: see Wikipedia talk:Wheel war. Arbcomm has issued contradictory interpretations of what constitutes WW: compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Wheel warring which states that undoing an administrative action by another administrator is WW and [46]. Elsewhere, arbcomm has specifically commended users for what, by its own definition, is WW: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#The_Land.27s actions. The IRC arbcomm failed to agree on WW Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision#Wheel warring, with one arb stating I oppose any attempt to utilize the term "Wheel warring" in any finding. Instead, the arbcomm passed a proposal concerning Warlike behavior, which is not applicable in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Don't let us pretend we know what WW is William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William is admonished that polite words are preferred. A wheel war takes more than one action, if only by the analogy to war itself. Here, I unblocked and began investigating. Despite assurances that I'm lying, it actually does take a body more than five minutes to backtrack through all the diffs and establish who the involved parties are and then actually compose something to the purpose. It is a matter of faith that my unblock was not only a "war" all by itself (I think it could be best described as administrator's discretion or a disagreement) and that I must by lying in my explanation. Well, to such assumptions there is no argument, but people who make such conniving assumptions only show that they expect lies, that they would themselves have lied. There was no wheel war. There was an inappropriate block, and it got reversed. That's now being used as a bleeding bed for people inflated with pride, and I find this noxious. Perhaps you want to war when you take an administrative action, but I don't. Leave me out of this debasement. Geogre (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Partly correct. The policy as well as past precedents and Jimbo's actions in his god-king capacity give conflicting signs as to whether a single undoing of the admin actions viewed in good faith as extremely wrong by an unblocking admin amounts to a wheel-war. However, there is no ambiguity as to reinstating an undone block without discussion. To paraphrase, there is a common interpretation that gives a significant sway to a second admin. It is not a universal intermretation, true enough. But there is absolutely no ambiguity about reinstating a reverted admin action. Doing it unilaterally amounts to a wheel war by any interpretation. --Irpen 21:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, as the quotes from the IRC case demonstrate William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Irpen! you are conflicting with me in each section! :-) ...) Presumably all parties and commentators on this case, and the arbitrators, will decamp to WT:WHEEL and help come up with an agreed policy? Rather than say "we don't know what a wheel war is", let's get sorted out what it is, and then move on from there. I quote from WT:WHEEL from October 2007: "Several months on and there is still confusion about whether this is the case or not. Considering that there are several ArbCom cases based on wheel wars we really should get this decided." Carcharoth (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: added to in the light of stuff trawled from IRC, which everyone else unaccountably missed William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcomm's backlog

Arbcomm has a backlog of cases that deserve, but are not getting, its attention: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Painfully obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Absolutely. I would add the more crucial tasks:

The ruling "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" is still in the waiting for half a year
The honest and forthcoming explanation to the community about what happened with the outrageous OM arbcom and what remedies Arbcom is undertaling to avoid this shame in the future is still lacking because arbs are "busy", "are intensely discussing" and "have real lives", while they start working on this clearly non-urgent task. --Irpen 21:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I don't think ArbCom are going to make a finding of fact about the existence or not of a backlog in their work. Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They probably won't be able to find the time :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look over there, not at my wrongdoing! Don't look here! Yeah, there are unsolved murders in plenty of cities, that doesn't mean the cops aren't still writing speeding tickets. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 21:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike the second one, it has closed now. The omnibus administrative conduct reform case needs more visible attention than it is getting. GRBerry 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre's unblock was clearly invalid

As shown on the proposed decision page [47], Geogre's unblock came with no attempt at consultation (and indeed without personal email contact, if anyone is wondering). Exactly like the last time, ironically enough, when he reversed T'bainers block. Furthermore, Geogre is Giano's friend [I don't know this from personal knowledge, but it seems to be generally assumed. If anyone cares to doubt this, I'm sure diffs can be found; see-also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision#Geogre or Involved groups in this dispute ({Phil Sandifer and Tony Sidaway}; {Bishonen, Geogre and Giano II})]. Combined, these made Geogre's unblock clearly invalid, and reversible without wheel-warring William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Removal of civility parole

1) Giano's civility parole from the prior Arbitration case is rescinded as ineffective and actively counterproductive to a smoothly functioning encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed: Civility parole doesn't work, but it really doesn't work in this case. We've done the experiment. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be entirely sensible but unprecedented. I have not seen the Arncom rescinding its past ruling even totally bad ones. In this respect, even the rigid US Supreme Court is more flexible and realistic about its fallibility. --Irpen 22:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even need to be a matter of "we made a mistake", but just a matter of "we tried something and it didn't work, so now we're going to try something else." After all, the Four Fundamental Laws of Internal Medicine are:

If what you're doing is working, keep doing it.
If what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it.
If you don't know what to do, don't do anything at all.
Never let a surgeon make patient-management decisions.

The first three, at least, are widely applicable. MastCell ^Talk 22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprecedented (arbcom lifts a revert parole), just exceedingly rare. Dragons flight (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano's civility parole has caused far more problems than it has averted. Neıl 龱 08:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well enforce it or get rid of it, but having it stand yet no admin being able to enforce it is really damaging to the project. _{1 != 2} 14:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this last time. What damage has been done to the project? In the last two years that this has been going on, what damage has been done to the project? If you look around, away from the froth of administrative actions, the encyclopedia is still there. Carcharoth (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The damage is in the amount of time and bad feeling generated, on the one side, when people legitimately expect the civility parole to be enforced and get angry when it's not. On the other side, having every moderately snippy comment reported to AN/I would make anyone jumpy, and certainly Giano is on the provokable side to begin with. Not to mention the inevitable incipient wheel-wars that erupt any time Giano is blocked, the resulting ill-feeling between administrators, and so forth. There's a good chance that two generally solid contributors, Geogre and WMC, will be sanctioned here, and there's even a proposal to "admonish" an innocent bystander who naively expected the civility parole to mean what it says. The encyclopedia still functions, yes - Wikipedia is remarkably self-sustaining - but all of us have better uses for our time. This sort of exercise in all-around animosity damages the project, whether or not the main page is still up and running. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related query - are there any ArbComm imposed editor specific civility paroles that are working? I know of at least one other that isn't working - but are any working? GRBerry 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an excellent question. I can likewise think of a few disastrous examples (probably the same as GRBerry has in mind), but maybe I'm missing cases where it's actually worked, or at least not been a complete disaster. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom's turn

2) In place of the previous civility parole, a group of one to three members of the Arbitration Committee will function as mentors and caretakers of Giano's project-space interactions. Should editors have an issue with Giano, he will not be blocked by an administrator from the community, but the situation will instead be referred to this group of Arbitrators for expedited handling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unsupported and outside of policy. The folks at AE worked out an appropriate short block. It was a person entirely outside of that process who went bonkers with an inflated and insupportable block and then had to back pedal. He's still angry about it, I think. "Three arbitrators" would be a bad idea, here. The more important you become to Wikipedia, the more criticism you should have to take before complaining about it. There is no power at Wikipedia, and there is no hierarchy. Despite what some current board members may think, ArbCom members are not superior to other admins; they simply have a job to do. They get more important without getting any power, and this is a vital fact, because it means that individually they cannot command, cannot demand, and should not bring themselves into the cases. As one becomes more important, one should expect to be called names, to be accused, etc. In the US, there is a law about public figures. If you write that I am a lying thief, I can sue you for defamation, but if you say that Donald Trump is a lying thief, he cannot, because, by being a public figure, he has lost much of his personal protection. (I.e. people can say Madonna is "a skank" because she is a public figure.) So it is with ArbCom, Jimbo, and the like: these people should expect more criticism. This particular constituency, however, seems grudge prone and block happy. It's too bad for Wikipedia that such is the case. Geogre (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed: The WP:AE regulars have suffered enough, and it's just not working. Nothing less will work. It may take awhile for the appointed Arb(s) to review each complaint, but no longer than it takes for one to wind through WP:AE, WP:AN/I, various user talk pages, and the inevitable wheel-war. One of the major problems with "civility parole" is inconsistent enforcement and luck of the draw at WP:AE. If the same person/people consistently enforce this remedy, then it will at least become a bit more consistent and the scale of the problem will become more apparent. I propose ArbCom members mostly because I don't think anything else will work. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Alternately, the ArbCom could delegate the authority to do this to a group of selected admins or others whom they believe will act in accord with policy and guidelines regarding this individual. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the current remedies a problem - on one occasion, I've seen sysops were more than willing to let his (GianoII's) problematic conduct slide, yet, I've also seen the other side of the spectrum where it went too far, which is presumably why we're here. There needs to be a sense of consistency, rather than preferential treatment for certain users, and I'm not talking about this case alone. I think we need to try something else this time, but not this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the WP:AE regulars have mostly been bystanders since the IRC case. Giano's block log since then is, with the exception of Sir Fozzie's action that was not reversed, conspicuously missing the names of those that I recognize as AE regulars. GRBerry 15:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement and appeal

1) The Arb(s) appointed to oversee Giano's interactions will take whatever remedial action they feel is appropriate. The route of appeal will be a request to the entire Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Per the principles established in the Tango ArbCom case SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree only in so far that the first extension had likewise required third party input before actioning, which it had not, and that a third unilateral action was wholly inappropriate - notwithstanding that it was also in response to what may have been comments directed at WMC. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of User Talk:Giano II by User:MZMcBride was warranted

4) The protection of User Talk:Giano II by User:MZMcBride was a valid action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed No one doubts this, right? SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Talk page protection is a last resort, not a first resort, and it is never, ever, ever for the convenience of a disputant. Without any definition of what was "incivil" nor any dispassionate, third party assessment, much less any policy standing for such protection, it was absolutely abusive. It was a hundred miles from appropriate. It may have been done in good faith -- I cannot speak to the person's intentions -- but it should not be done. It used to take moving heaven and earth to protect the talk page of even the banned vandals, and now people are flinging that about because they think the person is impolite? No. This is a very bad misunderstanding of policy, and I hope that MZMcBride sees that and does not repeat this level of error. Geogre (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Possibly excessive, possibly not. Not prima facie 'admin. abuse'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was done it good faith, and was therefore valid whatever the consequences. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geogre's actions were severely unhelpful

5) Geogre's actions in unblocking User:Giano II (time stamped 21:07, 1 Jul), and unprotecting his talk page (time stamped 21:02, 1 Jul) were without consensus or discussion, and were not in accordance with Wikipedia policies. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed While not technically wheel-warring under different definitions of WP:WHEEL, I think most would admit that Geogre's actions here did not help the situation at all.(talk) 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: To whom would they need to be helpful? They did not help William M. Connolley, nor you, but they helped Giano. If we're going to use these implied objects, then let's make sure that the object of the verb is "Wikipedia." Did my actions help Wikipedia? Yes. They reversed an inappropriate block and a truly unsupportable talk page protection, and they were intended to remind some new or inflamed admins that "civility" is not "politeness" and it surely isn't "deference," that getting angry with a person is a sign that you need to disengage, not block. Had they learned these lessons, it would have been extremely helpful. Geogre (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The text under the heading appears not to be in accordance with the title and comment by proposer, which I generally agree with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geogre has a history of such unilateral actions

6) User:Geogre has unblocked User:Giano II in the past for a block that he considered unsupportable, without consensus or discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed This has happened before. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When? I have a history of exercising administrative discretion and reversing the unilateral actions of people acting outside of policy. I am proud of that. You take for granted that what we're here to resolve -- whether or not these inflamamtory blocks were for good reason -- is solved and that my action was not within the realm of discretion? That's bad form. You assume that my disagreement must be some pattern of bad character, and yet you have neither evidence for this nor argument? That's something that should be examined by itself. Indeed, this entire allegation violates WP:NPA. Geogre (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Among others, myself included (I was at pains to explain myself to the blocking admin, and note my actions after the event when I did so). I would note that there was a very brief window of opportunity for Geogre to note/discuss the matter before events rendered it redundant. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say that Geogre has "a history" of such actions is a loaded way of putting it. David Fuchs describes this purported "history" even more slantedly and hostilely in his evidence section: "Geogre has shown time and time again he is willing to unblock Giano and pardon him for his "transgressions" [48] Please compare my own evidence, demonstrating that this "history," this "time and again," this meme of Geogre's notorious "willingness" to unblock his friend, actually stands for Geogre unblocking Giano once before.[49] In June 2007, it was. Please don't believe everything you read. Bishonen | talk 13:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
P. S. David has altered his evidence now, robbing my comment above of context and veracity. Strikeout is preferred. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

User:William M. Connolley's reblock of User:Giano II

7) User:William M. Connolley's reblock of User:Giano II (time stamped 21:21, 1 Jul), without discussion or consensus, constituted Wheel-warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, now, under any definition of wheel-warring out there on WP, THIS is wheel-warring, no? SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Per the current wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

User:Geogre's administrator rights revoked

1) Due to a history of inappropriate administrative actions, User:Geogre's administrator privileges are revoked. Geogre may regain them only by going through a new Request for adminship.

1.1) Due to a history of inappropriate administrative actions regarding User:Giano II, User:Geogre is barred from using his administrative abilities in any dispute that may involve User:Giano II.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed two options I prefer option 1), but proposed 1.1) as a lesser measure for those who believe this is not enough to warrant a full revocation of Geogre's administrator rights. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name or provide a diff for each of these "many" instances. I have unblocked Giano twice, total. In four years. In f o u r years, I have unblocked him t w i c e. (I want to do that slowly, so everyone can read it.) I do have a history of arguing against the people who block him. As above, I have made people look foolish, but I would like to think that they actually did that themselves. This is a hideous lie that you have uttered. Strikeout preferred. Geogre (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have endeavoured not to pass comment on these pages, with less then limited success. While I am sure it is amusing some people to have Geogre here, having to defend himself, what he says is quite correct. More importantly, anyone who does not realise that Geogre is his own man, one of Wikipedia's few great intellectuals has clearly not been on Wikipedia 5 minutes. I could no more rely on Geogre coming to my salvation, than I would ever dream of asking him. All the sanctions suggested here, are nothing more than insults designed by lesser minds who boost their egos by seeing the great laid low. Isn't though what this case is all about? Never mind, it's only an encyclopedia we are here to write, who needs the great, the intellectual and the merely intelligent, when we have the great minds who have opined on this case. Giano (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1.2)...User:Geogre is reminded not to use his administrative abilities in any dispute that may involve User:Giano II. Jehochman ^Talk 01:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive. What history? Where's the credit for being right? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 23:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.2) Per Jehochman. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with 1.1. Yes, Geogre has only unblocked Giano twice in four years, in the same sense that Germany was only involved in 2 world wars between 1914 and 1945 (does that violate Godwin's Law?) Another way of viewing the statistics would be that Geogre's last 2 unblocks - the only he has performed in the past year - involved Giano. He's performed only a handful of substantive unblocks in his time as an admin, and the 2 unblocks of Giano are a significant subset of these (log of blocks/unblocks). What's wrong with asking him not to unblock Giano in the future? If there's consensus for an unblock, someone else will happily do it. And if there isn't consensus, then Geogre should be among the last people to unilaterally unblock him. No? MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:William M. Connolley's administrator rights revoked

2) For gross misjudgements, User:William M. Connolley's administrator rights are revoked. He may reapply at any time via A new request for adminiship.

2.1) For gross misjudgements, User:William M. Connolley's administrator rights are suspended for 90 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed two options Again, proposed 2.1 as a middle measure. While he does not have the history that Geogre has, his actions in this case were the worst of the two. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: He has blocked and unblocked Giano more than I have. Surprised? Perhaps you should investigate before saying things like this. During his changing of blocks to get Giano blocked more, then less, then less, he had to perform more unblocks of Giano in one day than I have in four years. I actually think that William M. Connolley has a history of blocking too quickly and too severely. I do not know whether he should be demoted for it, because I can't decide whether it's an overwhelming sense of being beleaguered or a rash character at stake. Some people tell me it's one, some the other. It would be an appropriate object of an RFC that then might generate an RfAr. Only a fool concludes from a day's actions. Geogre (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2 should have happened ages ago. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 23:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even considering WMC's past misjudgments in inappropriate use of administrator tools ~~(of which I have not seen any evidence actually placed in this case~~), 90 days seems much too long, especially if based solely on this wheel war violation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2.2) User:William M. Connolley is reminded not to use his administrator rights in any matter in which he is currently or recently involved. Same as my preferred Geogre remedy, reflecting the more or less equal weight that past history versus current culpability has here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Irpen

Request for Kirill Lokshin to remove himself from this case

1) Per this post above (see also comments), Kirill Lokshin took it upon himself to collect and present evidence in this case disguised as a "workshop proposal". For acting as an active judicial agent thus comporting himself in a way incompatible with the role of a case arbitrator, Kirill Lokshin is requested to remove himself from the list of Arbitrators active in this case by recusing himself and disconnect from all private communication about this case with other arbitrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

On the contrary: arbitrators are explicitly expected to fully investigate the matters brought before them, even if the parties choose to omit certain aspects of them from their own presentations. This is noted in the arbitration policy, and I'm fairly certain this was pointed out explicitly in several older decisions. If people would prefer that arbitrators ignore what's in front of their faces simply because it has not been entered on Form 4021.4(b) and signed in triplicate, then work towards a policy change to that effect; until then, I will continue to carry out my responsibilities as I understand them. Kirill ^(prof) 13:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. Arbitrators have always been allowed to do as much of the heavy lifting as they want, including coming up with proposals and evidence to back those proposals. Independent investigation is part of the process. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These attempts to get arbitrators to recuse do strike me as being attempts to "play the man, not the ball" - in other words, if a party notices that an arbitrator appears to be unsympathetic, they attempt to have the arbitrator removed from the case. This is not what recusal is about. On any view, Giano has known full well for over a year that the Arbitration Committee – with the ability to issue binding restrictions to editors who are incivil – was looking at his edits. He chose to make insulting remarks in the full knowledge that the people he was targeting with them were the ones with the responsibility of deciding if he needs restricting. Having made his bed, he now has to lie in it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To agree with my brother Arbitrators, and also underline the point that Phil made in a slightly different context, but in the same concept, on the PD talk page - "you cannot select arbitrators for recusal by making personal attacks against them and then declaring them biased". James F. (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make things up. Lokshin's recusal is requested not because he was "attacked" (he was not) but for the conduct that casts doubt upon the reasonable observer that Lokshin is able to judge the case fairly. Inability to be fair is derived from incompatibility of the prosecutoral and judicial power being held by one person and a clear intent to hijack the case from the original subject and piggyback his agenda on the case. --Irpen 15:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

KL is to be commended for being active. Removal makes no sense William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom accepted this case with salivatingly obscene haste in order to discuss me (whatever their pretext was). This behaviour rather proves my points, all of them. Which is do not ever dissent, and never dare to criticise the Arbcom. I prohesied all of this before this case was even dreamt up [50], and as usual was told I was wrong. Yet, as usual I appear to be right. I think all those diffs prove is that I have no respect or admiration for this present Arbcom. With it appears some justification. I doubt anyone will recuse, in fact, I can even tell you the outcome of this show trial. Giano (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Irpen 07:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lokshin has been a major disappointment. It seems the community got a new Kelly Martin in his person. He should remove himself not only from this but from any case, that is, resign his position in the committee. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above: even though the rules may not explicitly forbid it, it appears highly problematic to me that ArbCom members can apparently act as (the equivalents of) prosecutor, witness, jury and judge all at the same time. If that really is the case, it should be noted that it goes against the very basic spirit of any sense of justice. If so, this is bound to deeply disturb and disillusion most users. Thus, it should be changed asap. athinaios | Talk 13:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is grounded in neither precedent nor policy, but I'm pleased to see that the smear campaign has moved on from FT2 to Kirill. I recommend appointing a new committee altogether--perhaps Irpen, Ghirla and Giano? I for one would vote for all three of them, without hesitation. For those who might take this as sarcasm, I'm dead serious. They have made this task almost impossible to undertake--let's see how they can manage. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You won't draw me into the discredited institution, Mackensen. Have I ever displayed a lust for power? I'm not sure who FT2 is, but Kirill has been a problem user ever since he introduced assessment scales and similar clutter to main space talk pages, thus making them pretty unuseable. I believe that is still his chief claim to fame. As a self-appointed prosecutor of superior editors he has been a disaster. His resignation would restore a modicum of credibility to ArbCom's proceedings. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen, please do not disgrace yourself with misapplied offensive sarcasm. Ghirla, I have no belief left in any sense of ethics in this committee and have little hope that Lokshin or even FT2 would recuse (let alone resign) from this case. But I found it necessary to state this objection to his actions on the case page to underline the impropriety of this conduct. --Irpen 15:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite extraordinary. In another ongoing arbitration case, User:Irpen proposes a motion criticising the Committee for not using the workshop [51]. In this arbitration case, the same editor demands that an arbitrator recuse from arbitration because he has used the workshop to gather and discuss evidence. Does this make any sense at all? --Jenny 15:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Arbitrators compiling and analyzing evidence is routine, whether there is an evidence section, a workshop proposal, or whether it goes straight to the proposed decision page. Try reviewing a few of the hundreds of closed cases that don't involve your particular clique. Thatcher 15:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point a few of the hundred of closed cases that don't involve your particular clique (Tony, Phil, Kelly, David Gerard, James F, etc.)? It's precisely because the arbs have routinely involved themselves in prosecuting the selected parties, that the credibility of ArbCom has hit a new low. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I don't think I've ever talked to Thatcher, there's no shortage of hostility on both sides between me and Kelly, and I've not talked to Tony since... the spoilers issue, I think. Though he did say hi on IRC the other day. I did exchange a few words briefly with James yesterday - nothing of substance, and I think my last meaningful conversation with him was months ago. I talked to David at some length last week about notability of fictional articles, and prior to that about music criticism and the future of humanities scholarship. I bring all of this up not because I think the details of my social interactions are terribly interesting, but because I think it is worth pointing out the difference between perception and reality. No clique exists where you are pointing to one. I am similarly sure that you, Giano, Geogre, Irpen, and whoever the hell else is supposed to be part of your "clique" do not remain in some constant social contact masterminding schemes to overthrow the arbcom. "Clique," it seems, is the new cabal. Thankfully, the same acronym works for both. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said by others, it is normal for the arbcom to look at the situation rather than just the evidence page. The importing of language suggesting that the arbcom is a judicial system is misleading, and has led to a proposal with no support in policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other member of the community has to apply to the ArbCom to re-open a case, or request clarification on one, or start a new one when the specifics of the decisions made on an old case are proving unworkable. The exception, or most importantly the appearance of the exception, is ArbCom members themselves widening the scope of any case brought before them - and especially, it appears, when it involves Giano - under a consideration of evaluating background. For a process that is deemed to be the ultimate recourse in the resolution of disputes, this practice is one that has lead and is likely to lead to considerably more drama. I would suggest that, since it is unlikely that any investigation is going to do more than find further examples of behaviour by Giano that has already been considered in previous ArbComs and resolved upon, Kirill Lokshin use the results of any investigation in a recused appeal/request for clarification of a previous ArbCom and concentrate only upon the case brought here regarding William M. Connolley and Geogre. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If he needs, which he doesn't, any punishment, it should be to require him to unrecuse in the 2008 administrative conduct omnibus case and start drafting a decision there. GRBerry 22:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Ncmvocalist

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Modified Kirill's finding. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley

3) Per Thebainer - finding on proposed decision page

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre

4) Per Thebainer - finding on proposed decision page at 17:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noted; I do wonder whether we should add that this is not the first time he has reversed page protection - see Fof6 of the IRC case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

tbd) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Giano banned

1) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

1.1) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of three months.

1.2) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 30 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; thought of Catalonia in terms of 1.2 - second choice, but I doubt that one will do much good here. After all, there was going to be an unsympathetic view if it continued (IRC case). So, I am in favour of 1 - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so quick to ban. Jehochman ^Talk 01:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your first version made your point better. Since I agree with the point you made, I will repeat it: keeping Giano would be a net gain for the project. Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I genuinely wouldn't like to see Giano II banned (and if banned, for such a long duration), but on the other hand, when is it going to stop? How many more times do we need to go through this same cycle? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the funny things about "enforcement". It doesn't actually tackle the root causes. To avoid going through this cycle, get the wider community (and maybe Giano specifically) much more involved in discussing and talking about civility and what standards are acceptable - educate the individual and the community. Going back to the specifics, a ban on Giano won't prevent incivility - it will only prevent incivility by him, and a lot of good future content may be lost. Going general again, incivility is a social problem that arises from group interactions. To elevate civility above content creation, and to ignore the interpersonal history that brought us here over the past few years (though as far as I can see, none of that interpersonal history was involved in the incident - the interpersonal history arises when you look at the names of some of the editors who have turned up to comment on the case), is to cut off Wikipedia's nose to spite its face. What is really needed here is for some people to become more skilled at online interactions. Giano should have realised that Avruch might take offence at what he said. Avruch should have realised that by jumping in with his comment he was partly to blame for what followed, and the admins who were around should have de-escalated things, rather than being distracted by the blocking possibility and the blocking discussion at AE and ANI. As I've pointed out in my evidence, WJBScribe tried to do just that (revert and warning), but others (Avruch and WMC) chose to take a more aggrievevd or hardline approach, which I think was unfortunate. I would like to ask Avruch whether, if he had known his AE post might have led to this case, he would still have posted it? (Though to be fair, as WMC said he was not aware of the AE thread, then the AE thread did not contribute to the situation). I would also like to ask WMC again how he became aware of Giano's comment. I asked WMC directly, and he point-blank refused to answer the question. My fear is that he was only passing by FT2's page, and (maybe unwittingly) ended up inserting himself into the situation without fully looking into the details, or stopping to think if other approaches would better handle the situation. It is indeed possible that WMC did not know the history, and that is unfortunate because Giano has, as Risker said, become a bit of a "third rail". The other evidence presented about WMC I have much less sympathy for. Carcharoth (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a more practical level, one thing that might segregate, if not stop, the problems, is if Giano (who has said he enjoys both content creation and participating in the Wikipedia project namespace debates - by which I mean the non-FAC stuff), were asked to separate his contributions into two accounts - one to write content with, and one to continue to pursue matters like "IRC" and other things like that. This would have the effect of him leaving the protection of his "content reputation" behind him when he comments on such matters (hopefully instilling more civility), but would also (hopefully) be met by others treating him with more respect for actually taking this step (a rather unprecedented one). It might seem like this solution could apply to lots of people, but I would only advocate it being used in the most intractable of cases (and there are other intractable cases around) - and the option should always be there for Giano to appeal and (after showing good behaviour on both accounts) to combine his "roles" again. Carcharoth (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I agreed to such an idea, which I won't. It would fail because I am not schizophrenic, and secondly my attempts, to use socks and alternative accounts always end in me carelessly outing myself. The solution is for the arbcom to take on board that many editors are unhappy that the Arbcom refuses to assume any responsibility for the behaviour of #Admins. They agreed to look at this following the IRC case, and then renegaded, thus making it clear that the whole IRC case was just another attempt, to silence me. That is the reason I took such offence at Avruch's less than clever comment - perhaps though Avruch was not being sarcastic - there is an irony there that most can see. Whatever, it is totally ridiculous that Wikipedia is policed from a place over which it claims it has no responsibility. The simple solution is to lift all sanctions against me, so that this can be discussed on an equal footing, in that spirit of "loving friendship" so often advocated by Jimbo. At the moment all we have is a situation which is: "Agree with what we say and shut up, or we will ban you!" That situation is not impressing anyone, save for those keen to preserve the sanctity of, of what amounts to the secret police headquarters that is, #Admins. Giano (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You make good points, especially the schizophrenia (or multiple personality syndrome or whatever the correct term is). If someone doesn't want to operate two accounts, no-one should be able to force them to do so. And speaking about the case as a whole, I have only a little time left to add stuff before a long wikibreak, so If I don't get the chance, what I've submitted so far will have to do, especially the bit above about how I feel things could have been better handled, though I forgot to mention the obvious point that you could, sometimes, restrain yourself or apologise if you do get angry and say something you think others might object to. That would also help a lot. It would also help if you do more of what you have sometimes done: say that you are angry, what and who you are angry about (unless saying that makes you more angry), and you are taking a short break to avoid saying things in anger. That way, people who claim you don't restrain yourself will be able to see that in fact you can restrain yourself, if you see what I mean. The only way to repair a reputation for incivility is to demonstrate restraint and show civility. Carcharoth (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have made many valid, succinct and valuable points throughout this case, and have been, one of those who have shed clear light on a confused situation. However, I think you are rather losing sight of the goal, were I not abrupt and to the point with people we would not even be having this debate. The Arbcom would have swept their indifference and refusal to solve the IRC problem well and truly under their already filthy carpet. You forget in this case someone made a sarcastic ill-informed comment and I merely told them what I thought of their foolish comment. This case should not even be taking place, even the man that launched it claims he did not want me involved (although I have a problem AGFing there). This case, seems to be just another attempt to besmirch me and hopefully shut me up. Somewhere during this case someone said I was useful and valuable during The Troubles RFA, (I was playing a role similar to yours here) but that did not stop nonsense like this being said [52] [53] (interestingly, I had already informed the Arbcom they were dealing there with an army of socks and a banned user, but they still alowed those comments to remain there - I've always thought that very odd.) I think I may even start a new crusade to prohibit the many Tricoteuses who seem to inhabit the Arbitration pages cluttering the place up with their silly comments. I have never read such rubbish and verbiage as many of the comments here. I only ever comment on Arb cases when I am involved, but I can see others do not. I am beginning to think this is almost as much of a problem as IRC. The public gallery need to be kept in their place. they remind me of those women one sees talking over a garden fences with their arms folded: "Well I think..." "It's not right...!" and "Well, if you ask me..." It needs to be pointed out that no one is asking them.

My point is that Wikipedia's Arbitration pages are now too long and confused, and it gives room for mischief makers to alter agendas and perceptions. Have a nice holiday, and look forward to returning to a new and happier Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you are saying here, even if I did lose the thread earlier. The tricoteuses point is a good one. Others have called it the peanut gallery, and I'm sure there are other descriptions as well. One of the arbitrators, FT2 I think, has also commented that the noise around public arbitration cases is unhelpful. I don't think he meant as in the OrangeMarlin sense (though it might look like that now), but there is a point that too much noise from the sidelines and people rolling up to have their say can be unhelpful. It needs to be a balance between saying your bit in the time allocated and carefully and succintly making your point, and constant haranguing or defense throughout a case - at which point I should probably step back a bit myself! What might help is if the Arbitrators and clerks were more pro-active in case-management. Evidence to be in by a certain time - make arguments - allow time for arbitrators to read and ask questions - a bit more argument and questions and discussion (but a shorter time period than before) - and then for arbitrators to vote (and not drag their feet) - and for everyone to move on more quickly. This is all OK if the sanctions are minor, but when draconian and year-long bans are mentioned as "needs to be on the table" or whatever, that just stokes tensions up all round. At which point I really do need to go. Hope all works out OK for everyone in this case. Carcharoth (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre & William M. Connolley

2) Per Thebainer - remedy 3

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noted. Need to see more evidence for a finding/remedy on Avruch at this stage. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre suspended

3) Per Thebainer

3.1) Per Thebainer, except for three months.

3.2) Per Thebainer, except for six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Prefer 2.2 - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley suspended

4) for 1 month

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

The detail in the elephant

(I have added further context at the 14:10, April 15, entry, below.) Bishonen | talk 07:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

This section is intended to be a joint analysis of the evidence presented at 00:35, 6 July 2008 by User:Kirill Lokshin, acting in his role as arbitrator, who presented the evidence under the header "Giano's campaign" with the following introductory comment:

"Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, over an extended period of time, engaged in a concerted campaign of public attacks against fellow editors—chiefly administrators, participants in IRC, and members of the Committee—whom he considers to be his wiki-political adversaries. A selection of his comments to that effect over the past few months is given below"

and the following post-presentation comment:

"The elephant in the room."

The evidence was presented out of chronological order and without context, as can be seen here. I have added explicit annotations of page locations and times to the diffs, rearranged the diffs chronologically, and attempted to give some of the context behind each incident where possible, and noted the relationship with various blocks of Giano. This analysis is intended to provide the proper context in which to view each comment that Giano made. Please add general comments in the sections following the analysis, or add your interpretations of each incident in the "context" sections below. Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

22:20, 14 April 2008 User talk:FT2
Evidence: Edit summary: "Ah my little gnome-like stalker how are you?" ([54])

Block log context: This resulted in the block and unblock listed below.
23:01, 14 April 2008 Kwsn blocked "Giano II" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Violating Arbcom civility parole, editwarring, gaming the system, and disruption.)

23:47, 14 April 2008 Alex Bakharev unblocked "Giano II" ‎ (Seems to be a consensuns on User_talk:Giano_II)

Further context:

In response to this comment by User:Until(1 == 2).

I haven't found what Until did that could qualify him as a "stalker" before this comment, but some instances later on include a block discussion at AN/I where Until commented [55], Until's statement about Giano's civility restriction on this clarification request, his comments on a topic ban proposal here.
This should serve some assistance in giving context to this and the next several comments, and is a quote from my post on Giano's talk page on 19 April 2008.[56] (Someone else can do the secure server thing if so motivated.)

"At 19.14, we see Giano asking a discrete, perfectly civil question of FT2[57] about a very odd edit that FT2 makes to the checkuser policy[58], which FT2 blanks from his page, saying he will respond by email. Nothing happens for 2.5 hours; Giano does not go ballistic, he doesn't edit war, he behaves perfectly civilly. Giano only starts "edit warring" after he has received the email and pointed out that the information it contains should actually be on-wiki. And, rather than agreeing that reasons for changes to policy should at minimum be explained on-wiki, FT2 and Until(1==2) play hide-the-perfectly-legitimate-message. When Until(1==2) shows up, Giano writes those now-infamous words[59]. Now...as it turns out, after a few hours I remembered why 1==2 might find a very common on-wiki and on-IRC term to be so offensive, but Giano had absolutely no knowledge of that term being personally sensitive for 1==2. Why would he? Probably 99% of WP editors have no knowledge of it, even now. Finally, Giano de-escalates the edit war on FT2's talk page by posting his request at Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser. At 22.38, Until(1==2) tells him that is a good move[60], Giano acknowledges and says he's going to edit normal pages, and that should be the end of it. Unfortunately, as we all know, a few minutes later 1==2 goes to IRC and talks about the remark he found personally offensive. Coren pops up at 22.52 and issues a warning to Giano for the behaviour that has already stopped, and Giano acknowledges the warning and says he is going to bed. Eight minutes after the warning with no intervening edits, Kwsn blocks Giano."

13:42, 15 April 2008 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Evidence: "The block was bad, it was orchestrated on IRC, IRC must now be reformed or closed. I am compleytely resolved. Closed would be best. 1=2 and his sidekick need to be sent packing for a start. Many many editors now feel this, and that is whayt is going to happen, so all the whining form the IRV inhabitants on this page is not going to break my resolve to see that chatroom sorted. FT2 need to be dismissed as an Arb, for lying when he said there were no problems on the channel." ([61])

Block log context: No following block, comment in response to prior block.

Further context: Comments at AN/I in the discussion of the block above.

Block and associated discussion found here.
See also comments above relating to 22:20, 14 April 2008

14:10, 15 April 2008 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Evidence: "Contrary to the lies and falsehood that FT2 tell us that there are no problems on IRC, there are huge problems. The whole place is an ungoverned rabble that is a liability to the project." ([62])

Block log context: No following block, comment in response to prior block.

Further context: This, again, was in the thread on AN/I discussing Giano's block of the previous day, which Bishonen described as: "This is an IRC block of the purest water—an IRC fixup. I thought we were supposed to have gone past that." Further context is, of course, found at the IRC arbitration case where much discussion was held over the issue of block discussions on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins.
(Addition of my own context, July 15, 2008.) Please note that I described the incident as "an IRC fixup" not as a mere opinion piece, but from my knowledge. I was on IRC at the time, took part in the discussion, and attempted—unsuccessfully—to nip another disgraceful en-admins block cook-up in the bud. Here, on ANI, is my narration of what transpired. Bishonen | talk 07:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

See also comments above relating to 22:20, 14 April 2008

14:19, 15 April 2008 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Evidence: "It was not incompetence it was deliberate, they knew there would bve no aproval for it here, as there was not. That's why they need de-sysoping and banning from that scurrilous and filthy chatroom." ([63])

Block log context: No following block, comment in response to prior block.

Further context: Same thread as above, same issue.

See also comments above relating to 22:20, 14 April 2008

14:27, 15 April 2008 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Evidence: "OH no, those daft little admins have trolled for this, they want to see some trouble well now they bloody well can, they have made one bad block too many in that chatroom. The Arbs can either sanction them and that ridiculous chatroom, or have a revolt from the editors who are sick of that nasty little chatroom." ([64])

Block log context: Again, a comment in response to the April 14th block.

Further context: Same thread as above.

See also comments above relating to 22:20, 14 April 2008

18:20, 19 April 2008 User talk:FT2
Evidence: "I think FT2 you have become rather fixated on me, your fixation is now bordering on obsession, and I'm wondering if it is healthy. I am begining to feel mentally threatened and attacked by your strange behaviour and posts." ([65])

Block log context: None or not yet provided.

Further context: At the time, FT2 and Carcharoth had exchanged long comments discussing Giano on FT2's talkpage. Arbitrator FloNight wrote: "I would like to remind both of you that when you speak of Giano that you are talking about a real person. I feel uncomfortable with the manner that you both are analyzing him. Debating about him outside of our normal dispute resolution process is not helpful to the situation, I think. My 2 cents." Giano wrote this prior to the linked diff: "As this is a sub-section a paragraph concerning me, I feel an urge to comment - I will ignore your amateurish, insulting and attacking amateur psychology - rest assured FT2 in the unlikely event I ever need a shrink, you will be my very last port of call." Giano also made this edit in the same area, prior to the diff provided as evidence.

15:44, 23 April 2008 User talk:FT2
Evidence: Edit summary: "removing rantings of a disruptive troll" ([66])

Block log context: None or not yet provided.

Further context: I can confirm that that edit summary directly relates to a privacy issue involving personal and private information of a Wikipedia editor who is not a party to this matter. I will submit further information of this directly to an arbitrator active in this case, with permission for the information to be shared amongst the non-recused arbitrators. Risker (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Thats hard to understand. The edit removes comments by FT2 about Giano that do not appear to contain personal or private information, and the edit isn't oversighted or even deleted. FT2 restored them in this edit, reported to WP:AE by me in this edit (and noted to FT2 here). This is the page with the report once it was archived, and no mention is made of any private information. Avruch 11:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information will be submitted to the arbitrators, and I do not feel I am in a position to provide even hints of the way that this related to the private information of a Wikipedian. Any further information has the potential of further affecting the individual involved. Sorry, Avruch. Once the information is in the hands of the committee, they will have the responsibility of determining whether or not it needs to be shared with other parties to this action. Risker (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This information was sent to Paul August via the "Email user" function at 11:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC), for distribution amongst the arbitrators active in this case, as he sees fit. Risker (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Avruch 13:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18:45, 26 May 2008 User talk:Giano II
Evidence: "My enemies don't need an opening they need firing! Most intelligent editors now completely dismiss "the committee" - or at least the "Gang of 7." They are regarded as people not to be trusted or admired. In short, the 7 should be sent packing. It is not only that the decision was plain wrong, the case should never have been accepted in he first place, whether it was the "Gang of 7's" agenda to be rid of me, or just plain toadying to Fred Bauder I neither know nor care. However, most people accept it was one of the other. So if the committee are too cowardly to do anything about it, then others must - that is why I edited those pages. Why should we have to look at evidence of these incompetents spite and malevolence. So untrustworthy are they, I would not want to see them judging a singing canary. We see this so called arbitration committee making mistake after mistake and no one lifts a finger about it. They strut about receiving just about enough support from the few remaining fools and henchmen on IRC to remain in power - while most of the serious editors just ring their hands in despair or simply disappear. It is like watching the antics of a deluded self serving third world junta in the final days before an implosion. The "Gang of 7" wanted rid of me, and they may get their wish. Thanks to their efforts, I no longer see the point of editing, but I won't be going quietly. Wikipedia deserves and needs better than these sad, but vicious apologies for Arbs. How many more have to be driven off just to protect their cosy little nests and egos. They don't need me editing their decisions they need firing!" ([67])

Block log context: None or not yet provided.

Further context: Describe context here, including links to threads and the background to the incident, such as relative location and who was participating in a particular thread, and diffs and quotes of any direct comment that provoked the reaction from Giano, and whether people arrived where Giano was talking to others, or whether Giano arrived where other people were engaged in discussion.

20:12, 26 May 2008 User talk:Giano II
Evidence: "Oh please Carcharoth just ignore them - they are not worth it. There is little to choose between the lot of them. We shall have Florence of Arabia, her sidekick on the horse and that man with his his organ here soon, all full of wronged righteousness. The Arbcom is now surplus to requirements, ignore them - I do." ([68])

Block log context: None or not yet provided.

Further context: Subject: reform of IRC. FloNight had said, at the conclusion of the "IRC case," that an expert panel would "reform" IRC. Giano asked, repeatedly, on Flo's talk, what happened. She avoided the question, but, surprisingly, FT2 and UC came to threaten to block Giano for asking. Then, on his own talk, someone was telling Giano that things were outrageous, and he dismissed the lot of his accusers in such a manner and composed a reductio ad absurdum of what the result would be. In fact, what appeared later, after much questioning, was that this "reform" amounted to FT2 going to admins.irc and asking if people there at the time thought the channel needed to be reformed. The eight or so people said they didn't much think so, and then FT2 told, by report, FloNight that there was consensus among administrators not to change the channel. Giano's characterization implies triviality among the persons "reforming" the channel, and he was right in that, and but he implies malice. It would have been far easier for any of the people so characterized to have ended the matter quickly and efficiently by speaking honestly about what they had done and why. Instead, they chose to invoke the language of blocks.

22:23, 26 May 2008 Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard
Evidence: "What on earth has IRC to do with this? Are there no limits to what you and IRC can come up with Ryan, in your ever increasing thirst for power, Ryan" ([69])

Block log context: None or not yet provided.

Further context: Describe context here, including links to threads and the background to the incident, such as relative location and who was participating in a particular thread, and diffs and quotes of any direct comment that provoked the reaction from Giano, and whether people arrived where Giano was talking to others, or whether Giano arrived where other people were engaged in discussion.

22:28, 26 May 2008 Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard
Evidence: "Oh well he spends half his life on IRC chatting away, always popping up here, there and everywhere, being important - too hard to AGF with him." ([70])

Block log context: None or not yet provided.

Further context: Describe context here, including links to threads and the background to the incident, such as relative location and who was participating in a particular thread, and diffs and quotes of any direct comment that provoked the reaction from Giano, and whether people arrived where Giano was talking to others, or whether Giano arrived where other people were engaged in discussion.

16:29, 27 May 2008 User talk:Giano II
Evidence: "Complete rubbish! The liars on the arbcom accepted a case they had no business accepting, they intended it purely to try and "get me", and they failed. Their position is untenable, they are a walking disgrace to the project. Morally they are no better than Daniel Brandt! - at least one knows what side he is on! So take your block and stick it where the sun don't shine!God what a project! The lying bastards can't even do their own dirty work!" ([71])

Block log context: This was a reaction to the block listed below.
15:58, 27 May 2008 Stifle blocked "Giano II" with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement: Violation of civility parole at User talk:Bishonen)

Further context: Describe context here, including links to threads and the background to the incident, such as relative location and who was participating in a particular thread, and diffs and quotes of any direct comment that provoked the reaction from Giano, and whether people arrived where Giano was talking to others, or whether Giano arrived where other people were engaged in discussion.

17:15, 27 May 2008 User talk:Giano II
Evidence: "Carch, you are rather missing the point, the sanction is there to allow me to be blocked the second I ever start posting the truth - that is how it works and why the whole daft case was cooked up and accepted. The problem is everyone now knows that is how it works, so each time I am blocked the Arbcom appears more ridiculous than the last - everyone except the Arbcom can see that - which rather proves my point. If they weren't so devious one would pity them. Like some third world Junta. Probably planning to have me bumped off as we speak - buried in concrete or something." ([72])

Block log context: None or not yet provided.

Further context: Describe context here, including links to threads and the background to the incident, such as relative location and who was participating in a particular thread, and diffs and quotes of any direct comment that provoked the reaction from Giano, and whether people arrived where Giano was talking to others, or whether Giano arrived where other people were engaged in discussion.

22:05, 27 May 2008 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Evidence: "Oh here we go again - The Arbcom fucks up! So it must be Giano trolling or Giano is paranoid. Well done Thatcher - which one of them wrote that? The Arbcom are a bunch of failing cowards and liars - take your pick which is which." ([73])

Block log context: None or not yet provided.

Further context: Describe context here, including links to threads and the background to the incident, such as relative location and who was participating in a particular thread, and diffs and quotes of any direct comment that provoked the reaction from Giano, and whether people arrived where Giano was talking to others, or whether Giano arrived where other people were engaged in discussion.

22:26, 27 May 2008 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Evidence: "My only wish is that the community see the true colours of its disreputable, lying and disgraceful Arbcom. What it chooses to do with them is up to the community. To me, they are people of no consequence, they are as ants on the pavement and about as much use." ([74])

Block log context: None or not yet provided.

Further context: Describe context here, including links to threads and the background to the incident, such as relative location and who was participating in a particular thread, and diffs and quotes of any direct comment that provoked the reaction from Giano, and whether people arrived where Giano was talking to others, or whether Giano arrived where other people were engaged in discussion.

19:59, 25 June 2008 User talk:Counter-revolutionary
Evidence: Edit summary: "Rv 1=2 who is performing his usual attention seking trolling, in matters which have nothing to do with him" ([75])

Block log context: This resulted in the block listed below.
21:40, 25 June 2008 SirFozzie blocked "Giano II" with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing: Disruptive editing on User Talk:Counter-revolutionary)

Further context: Describe context here, including links to threads and the background to the incident, such as relative location and who was participating in a particular thread, and diffs and quotes of any direct comment that provoked the reaction from Giano, and whether people arrived where Giano was talking to others, or whether Giano arrived where other people were engaged in discussion.

15:33, 30 June 2008 User talk:Rockpocket
Evidence: "Right reasons? I suggest you shut your ill-informed mouth right now TenOfAllTrades, before you deliberatly cause further drama." ([76])

Block log context: None or not yet provided.

Further context: I can confirm that this edit relates to a privacy violation involving both a Wikipedia editor and a non-Wikipedian. I will submit further information of this directly to an arbitrator active in this case, with permission for the information to be shared amongst the non-recused arbitrators. Please note that several edits related to this have been deleted, oversighted or otherwise altered.

This information was sent to Paul August via the "Email user" function at 11:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC), for distribution amongst the arbitrators active in this case, as he sees fit. Risker (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18:37, 30 June 2008 User talk:Giano II
Evidence: "Do you know? I really could not care less WTF you think. You are ill-informed and rather ignorant. It's a pity, but there is not a lot I can do about that. If you are hoping I am going to enter into debate with you, and thus create more drama you are mistaken. Now run along and find something productive to do outside in the nice fresh air." ([77])

Block log context: None or not yet provided.

Further context: I can confirm that this edit relates to a privacy violation involving both a Wikipedia editor and a non-Wikipedian. I will submit further information of this directly to an arbitrator active in this case, with permission for the information to be shared amongst the non-recused arbitrators. Please note that several edits related to this have been deleted, oversighted or otherwise altered.

This information was sent to Paul August via the "Email user" function at 11:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC), for distribution amongst the arbitrators active in this case, as he sees fit. Risker (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21:58, 1 July 2008 User talk:Giano II
Evidence: "Just be a little darling and show some intersest in content (than none of these busy admins seem to have time for) and revert here" ([78])

Block log context: None.

Further context: Describe context here, including links to threads and the background to the incident, such as relative location and who was participating in a particular thread, and diffs and quotes of any direct comment that provoked the reaction from Giano, and whether people arrived where Giano was talking to others, or whether Giano arrived where other people were engaged in discussion.

Comments

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis initiated by User:Carcharoth and (hopefully) added to by others later (it turns out I don't have time to do this by myself). It is probably best to add your interpretation of events separately to that of others, and to sign your additions, as I suspect interpretation of the events surrounding some of these comments may differ. Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat concerned by this approach, simply because it seems to me to some extent an effort to read deeply into something that has a great deal of significance on the surface. Looking at the details of Giano's conflicts and figuring out if there are other problems beyond him is surely a worthwhile endeavor. On the other hand, the evidence presented shows clearly at least a dozen blatant personal attacks in a two and a half month period. Whatever further analysis might dredge up, we should acknowledge the basic fact - there is a frighteningly long record of personal attacks on Giano's part. Our policy does not have a "vox populi" exception for personal attacks. Whatever the validity of his points may be or the baiting that may have occurred, those diffs clearly demonstrate repeated policy violations. Any analysis should, I think, be clearly acknowledged as in addition to that fact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What other approach is feasible? How much of the above was presented as Evidence, with the possibility of counter-evidence being presented? Do you suggest we should read at the surface and make quick judgements? That would certainly simplify Arbcases, whosever superficial presentation looks best, wins! Detailed accusations permit detailed analyses, would you ask for less were you to be hoist? All this, too, in a case about admin misconduct. Franamax (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to figure out what evidence could possibly undo the conclusion here that Giano frequently makes personal attacks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, I idly clicked on your contribs log and scanned down the list. I noticed your edit summary here: "How the bloody hell is this crossover fiction? Jesus you people make it hard to defend fiction episode articles with this crap." That was the first page. Should I keep looking? What conclusion should I draw from your use of such language? Carcharoth (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to continue, and draw whatever conclusion you want. If you think sanction is appropriate, feel free to bring it up in an appropriate venue. Meanwhile, please answer the question - what evidence do you imagine might lead to a conclusion other than that Giano frequently makes personal attacks? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that you will continue to use incivil edit summaries, Phil? If you saw someone using incivil edit summaries, which venue would you bring it up in? Would you take the comments out of context, or would you explain the context in which the comments were made? As for your question, it is a valid one, and I will take my time to consider my answer, pending further analysis of the context of Giano's comments. Franamax's comments below make a start at answering your question. Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I leave the matter of what to do entirely in your hands. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you are waiting, you could re-read the questions I asked you. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'll decline to get drawn into that one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Nice one Carch! Get a few more, maybe draw a graph (remember, the fewer data points you put in, the easier it is to draw an upward curve).

More seriously Phil, looking at one set of evidence and asking what other evidence could possibly countermand it, without having even seen that evidence, makes you a seriously bad judge. In fact, it goes against pretty much every principle of judge-ship, and we did choose the arbs for their judgement, right? For one thing, as we go through this list (which I will try to help in), we may see that many of those "incivilities" were provoked by baiting or continued prodding. This doesn't excuse them, but it certainly renders them null for the purpose, unless the counterparties are equally liable to sanction. If twenty people start poking the dog with a stick to see if it is indeed vicious, how vicious is the dog, how vicious the twenty people? In a particular and germane case above, Giano was responding to FT2's extended analysis of his character and motivations carried out on FT2's own talk page and IMO had some reason to feel uncomfortable. Surely that should be presented in context? Franamax (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if there are other issues to be considered by all means present them. But the situation seems to me additive, not subtractive - other findings may well be in order beyond the finding that Giano repeatedly makes personal attacks, but that is a separate matter from whether the finding regarding Giano is less warranted than the evidence clearly suggests. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And context? You seem to be saying that context is not needed, but have not said why context is not needed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the more pertinent question would be what the context is going to change about personal attacks at a rate exceeding once a week. Did we add a "he deserved it" exception to NPA while I wasn't looking? Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that it is trivially easy to find examples of "blatant incivility" in the contributions list of editors contributing to this arbitration case. Arbitration clerks and former arbitrators are not immune to this. Thatcher was moved to say, quite forcefully, "Bullshit", which prompted another editor to request that he rephrase that. Raul654, in a recent DRV, said: "Since you have trouble comprehending perfectly good written english, perhaps I should write it out with a few more spaces this time so you can read it a bit better: i t i s n a v e l g a z i n g a n d n o n - n o t a b l e." Incivility is, I am afraid, rampant throughout Wikipedia. Moving on from incivility to attacks, numerous attacks have been made on arbitrators in the past and up to the present, especially in the last few weeks. I would be quite happy to compile a list and see if it is possible to distinguish between campaigns and civil unrest. This would place Giano's comments in the wider context of the atmosphere in certain parts of Wikipedia. Giano's comments don't exist in a vacuum. Carcharoth (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as I have said repeatedly, whatever ether they may exist in, feel free to plumb its depths. Meanwhile, the personal attacks are what they are - personal attacks. Context will not change that fact, which is in and of itself sufficient for a finding regarding personal attacks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but 'tis not for us to plumb those depths. ArbCom chooses to accept the case to examine the actions of all parties - those parties seemingly defined by ArbCom, and now apparently with not-evidence presented by ArbCom members, and involving close interactions with other ArbCom members. You suggest resorting to separate enforcement actions (for instance with regard to your own rampant incivility, since I have only the one data point, I suggest it's out of control ;), but this is not realistic in the case at hand. This case is about admin misbehaviour, who has made the selective decision to draw in Giano alone? (Though I do note the proposed finding about Avruch baiting Giano, which was my point in the very very first place) The point I think Carcharoth is making is that many editors can be called to account for incivility, and my point is that Giano seems to be set up here as a sacrificial goat [That's right Giano, I called you a GOAT!!]. Carch's comment about civil unrest should also be heeded, since I am not here to say Giano is always right, but I am here to express the civil unrest. If we need to litigate every point of Kirill's workshop-idence, then so be it. Franamax (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not making sense. Please try again. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not making sense, and you're not able to point to any particular spots where I don't make sense and ask for clarification on those, then I suppose there is a general communication breakdown. In that case, I believe that trying to restate will be unproductive, so consider this mini-thread closed. Franamax (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to begin. It was a lengthy, somewhat rambling comment. Perhaps we should focus on the matter at hand. There is, at present, a substantial record of personal attacks from Giano. You suggest that there are other pieces to the puzzle. Very well. Who else has comparable records of personal attacks in this matter? (Not mere incivility - open attacks. They are, after all, what's at issue here). How many? How frequent? What past warning exists? None of this can excuse Giano's behavior, but if there are others acting similarly in this situation the net should surely be widened. So show, don't tell, as they say. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've successfully painted Giano as the primary villain here, let's close on that note. Franamax (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An important piece of context that is implied above but perhaps not obvious to all is that all of the diffs linked above date to after the committee found a history of incivility and imposed the civility remedy in the IRC case. Not sure where that ought to go, but surely its relevant to providing general context to this evidence. Avruch 04:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Inclusionist

Proposed principles

Administrators are accountable

1) Administrators are accountable to their actions involving administrative tools.Source

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comments by Parties:

Comment by others:

No administrative tools in content dispute

1) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.Source [79]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comments by Parties:

Comment by others:

No evidence has been presented which suggests that any of this case has anything to do with a 'content dispute'. While this principle is true, it's also irrelevant to the matter at hand. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin for blocks

2) Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves.Source

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comments by Parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Connolley misused administrative tools

1) William M. Connolley has habitually misused his administrative tools in content disputes. This contravenes blocking policy which prohibits blocks against parties in dispute with the blocking admin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comments by Parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

William M. Connolley is desysopped

1) William M. Connolley is desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comments by Parties:

Comment by others:

This proposed remedy is supported by at least 7 other administrative cases, were admins were desysopped for doing much less than Connolley has Source. Inclusionist (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that your summary of the other ArbCom cases involving desysopping is incomplete. I have made a copy of your page, and added commentary here. In none of the examples that you have cited, Inclusionist, did the other desysopped admins do 'less' than WMC has done here. All involved inappropriate use of tools (blocking and/or (un)protection) to prosecute edit wars or further content disputes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, don't worry, my evidence is being ignored.

In arbitrations, users past behavior can be used to illustrate a pattern of abuse. I have seen it again and again in arbitrations, would you like several examples?

One personal example, I was right in the middle of the MONGO arbitration, the evidence I compiled had nothing to do with the dispute between MONGO and Seabhcan, except to show a clear historical pattern of administrative abuse. MONGO's administrative abuses were minor compared to Connolley's.

During this arbcom, William is blocking another user he is involved with in an edit war, yet again.[80]

I was expecting this argument that Connolley's past behavior should be ignored, it was the same argument used in the MONGO case. Inclusionist (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by Proabivouac

Proposed principle

Freedom of criticism

1) In order to prevent the misuse of the civility and personal attacks policies to silence criticism of Wikipedia’s leadership, and to assure the community that the consensus from which it derives its legitimacy is authentic, and not manufactured by threats, blocks and bans, the Arbitration Committee and its members shall neither circumscribe nor punish criticism of their own actions in or qualifications for office.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Certainly. On the other hand, the fact that someone is making such criticism does not mean they are themselves immune from censure for being disruptive and/or uncivil when making such criticism. I don't recall any ArbCom decisions centering on the wiki-political content of otherwise obnoxious actions. Policies regarding civility and disruption exist to protect all the volunteers on the project, including the arbitrators. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can sum up your answer as "Yes, but no."

It's not rightly up to you to decide which criticism is valid and which is not. It's only natural, isn't it, that you should be inclined to find criticism of yourself as "uncivil", "disruptive" and worthy of sanction, which is exactly why you should not be making this decision.

Isn’t the greatest hypocrisy of this case that you’re taking William M. Connolley to task for the very same thing?Proabivouac (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

With the exception of Kirill's input there's not as much arb-love as I'd like to see on this page, onsidering how quickly it was accepted. I'd like to poll the jury as it were. If members of the committee can give some indication before we waste 50,000 words here on the workshop page:

What they belevee the scope of this arbitration to be, and
How they see this page assisting them, if at all.

We'd probably all be happier, and we'd certainly be more productive.

brenneman 06:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such guidance would be appropriate in ALL ArbCom cases: carefully defined scope of what the ArbCom is going to review and rule on would prevent them from having to wade through tons of irrelevant material for each case and make their workload easier. It would also give the community forwarning that a case about Footnotes will end up with a wide ranging ruling about biographic articles.207.69.139.147 (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read all of the proposals here to date. As is typical with most workshops, many proposals here are fairly standard ones, or are variations on a theme, or both, though of course these can still be useful in fine tuning ideas. --bainer (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the above was written before Kirill went off on his "Giano's campaign" tangent. I was intending, today, to finish up my evidence on the actual events that precipitated this case, but now I'm torn on whether to do that, to find evidence to counter the conclusions Kirill is trying to draw, or to just throw my hands up in disgust and walk away from the case. Carcharoth (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're all idiots

When those tempting syllables GEE-AH-NO enter the atmosphere, collective insanity repeatedly takes place. I remember the time when I unblocked Giano. He'd been blocked for incivility that wasn't which related to a dispute in which he was in the right. By a normally sane administrator. Ditto here. After an initial probably-sane block, WMC unblocked and reblocked Giano for incivility directed at himself. You can maybe do that if you're me and the poor sod getting blocked is some troll from the Balkans somewhere. You can't do it if it's Giano, and it's ethically dubious anyway. Again, Geogre unblocked Giano randomly - duh, you can't use your admin bit on behalf of your mate like that! Geogre, you're a very smart chap. You know this. Why? Collective insanity. And then ArbCom take this case that wasn't...more collective insanity.

But since we're here, what can be usefully done? Geogre and WMC can be admonished not to be such fools. They really should be both desysopped, but there's no benefit to anyone in that. IAR, don't intentionally fuck up the encyclopedia just for the sake of the rules...yada yada yada. What else? Ah, Giano. Look, mate, I'm on your side here, but despite the fact that you've suffered a very long history of very stupid blocks for incivility, at the moment you are pushing the envelope. Civility is POLICY and as a Wikipedian you have to respect that. It is retarded policy, and shittily written policy, but the basic idea that you don't insult people for no good reason is a good one. ArbCom are the GodKings and you sort of have to respect that as well. The alternative, much as I hate to say it, is getting banned. Yes, I know your English isn't perfect and your dyslexia probably doesn't help, but from your recent behaviour I can only conclude you are waging a civil disobedience campaign to make the ArbCom look like weaklings if they ignore you, or cretins if they ban you. That's a zero-sum-game. Yes, many of the people you insult are less intelligent than you, but that doesn't mean you HAVE to insult them. If you have to, do it really subtly. Just watch WP:SARCASM. If you, Giano, give us your word you will stop this campaign, we can all pack up this silly little case and go home. If not? The alternative does not bear thinking about it. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in answer to the obvious question - if Giano really is trying to take down the ArbCom single-handedly, surely this a good thing, and we should help and applaud? Well, no, because the ArbCom, even despite all their fuck-ups, are all we have between order and anarchy. I think. I say this now, though if FT2gate is not resolved properly, I may be singing to a different hymnsheet. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to Avruch: don't wind Giano up. That's another stupid idea. Even little babies in Tanzania have probably worked out by now that he doesn't react well. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The collective insanity grows. We've now rushed to proposed decision for no very good reason; this is NOT an emergency. Cla68\SlimVirgin is actually a good deal more urgent. This could have waited. This proposed decision says nothing anyway. It does nothing. It does not get to the root of the problem. If you do not deal with the root of the problem we will all be back here next month. I have already stated what the root problem is: Giano's campaign. Meanwhile, Durova is requesting Thatcher recuse himself a as a clerk because he might have hurt someone's feelings. This is ridiculous. Thatcher is not an arbitrator. Since when did the activities of clerks influence the outcome of cases? FFS...clerks fiddle around with wee little templates, they don't vote. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, I promptly struck through that mistake with apologies. You can remove that from your list of grievances. Yes, this case is dreadful, but little errors quickly remedied should never be a problem. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 02:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the title reminded me of something. Wasn't there an arbitration case where an arbitrator got admonished for saying in some ANI thread "you are all idiots"? Or was it something else? Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're quite right: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Kirill ^(prof) 03:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Snicker* Risker (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss a joke? Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, Kirill. The direct link is here. Hopefully that won't bring back too many bad memories for any of those watching. It is interesting to compare the attitudes then and now. Some similarities, some changes. Some quotes:

"As I said before, I think just about everyone who has used their block or unblock button in this matter and everything leading up to it has made things worse. We need to step back and decide when such things are worth it and beneficial to the encyclopedia, and when they just make us feel better (and make others not feel better). I think it's time to recognize this whole affair has been an exercise in the latter. I hope I am stressing "everyone" here clearly enough." - Dmcdevit - 22:49, 17 September 2006

There are more quotes from that thread that could apply here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable lessons from elsewhere

I noticed the following at User talk:JzG, and while I know the circumstances are different, the lessons seem to be the same: "Above all, please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along." The question becomes, where does the line get crossed between saying this in good faith (some people are more prone to anger than others), and claiming this in order to game the system and justify incivility? Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing project into disrepute

Weighted Companion Cube put in evidence a CBS News/National Review Online article by Lawrence Solomon, noting that WMC's actions as admin have brought the project into public disrepute. Well, yeah. Just last week I was in a group, where as far as I know I was the only Wikipedia editor present, and WMCs activity (though not his username - just "a Wikipedia admin") was explicitly described as a reason not to trust any of our content. The committee has taken a hardline with some (e.g. pro-paedophile) editors who can bring the project into dispute, but not with others who also can bring it into disrepute. I confirm that his actions are in fact bringing the project into disrepute among our readers, but I don't know what to do about this. GRBerry 15:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that a partisan op-ed columnist criticizes our content or administrative behavior is actually a very poor reason to take action. The actual malfeasance alleged in the National Review op-ed is pretty vague - WMC felt that Benny Peiser's rejected letter-to-the-editor-of-Science was being given undue weight? It was. He "smeared" Fred Singer as a "hack" who works for the oil industry? Maybe he was following the sources, like Newsweek, which described Singer's group as part of a "denial machine" funded by the oil industry to spread FUD. I mean, if he wheel-warred or violated some other site policy, then discipline him for that. But if the National Review tells us to jump because they don't like our coverage of global warming, we don't need to ask how high. That way lies even greater disrepute for the project. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bother to read that link in detail, because it was published after the conversation I reference, making the specifcs therein a minor point. In the long run, the success of Wikipedia relies on the credibility of our content. The prohibition on using admin tools where you have a dog in the fight is contrary to all of our relevant policies because it has so many different negative effects - from the effect on the specific content or the effect on the editor the tools are used on, to the functioning of the editorial community in general, to the wider reception of Wikipedia. WMC's actions have already proven problematic in all of these areas; this specifically is merely an aggravating factor in my mind, and one that I consider worth noting but lack a recommendation for the committee as to how to address it. GRBerry 16:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bit vague on the incident that convinced you that Mr Connolley's activities were bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. You mentioned "a group". Is this a particularly representative group, or a highly influential one? What is the group's name? --Jenny 17:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just a sample of 20-40 year olds in my city of residence, whose common interest and reason for meeting has nothing to do with the topics on which WMC has behaved problematically or anything technology related. It should be seen as a reasonable sample of likely readers who are neither particularly concerned about the underlying topical issue nor especially interested in Wikipedia - i.e. that the problems with his activity are becoming common knowledge among the reader community, rather than being confined to specialized fora and our editorial community. GRBerry 17:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disrepute? Only among the disgruntled fringe activists, who so far have been dissatisfied with their ability to slant content. On the other hand, articles such as Global Warming have been objectively evaluated by people who know their stuff, and this has been reported in the mainstream media (link to article). From the The Denver Post (Apr. 2007):

The Denver Post asked five Colorado scholars to review the Wikipedia entries on Islam, Bill Clinton, global warming, China and evolution. . .The results? Four out of five agreed their relevant Wikipedia entries are accurate, informative, comprehensive and a great resource for students or the merely curious. . .

. . .On the much-debated topic of global warming, Colorado State University's Scott Denning called the Wikipedia entry "a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia. Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen," said Denning, the Monfort Professor of Atmospheric Science.

Denning said he was pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy." Students who want to study up on the controversy, however, find plenty of links if they want them.

Judging by content (this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right?) it looks like the editors over there, including WMC, are doing a bang up job. R. Baley (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving my point. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What point? You linked an op-ed piece without commentary. For all I know, your point was that it's lame when journalists come here, don't bother to understand how the place works, and then use their bully pulpit to complain that their particular agenda is underrepresented. My bad... you titled the section to indicate that you believe the NR piece indicates that WMC is bringing the project into disrepute. I agree with GRBerry that misuse of admin powers reflects poorly on the project; I'm just not sure that this op-ed is relevant to the issues at hand. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is this: Connolley has been a problem for a while. His attitude toward the project and the primacy of his beliefs over all else are ultimately what brought this about. It doesn't matter if it's global warming or whether Giano's being a jerk, Connolley will get his way. It's relevant in the sense that this is a greater problem than just Giano. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I stopped reading your evidence when you described the National Post as "left-wing". You seem to feel very strongly and familiarly about WMC's editing of global warming, which is a bit suprising given that you've never edited or attempted to edit there. Maybe it wouldn't be as bad as you think. You can't believe everything you read in the media, you know. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In another life, I gave up on editing in areas where Connolley was involved due to this exact issue. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So may we take that to mean your evidence is specifically motivated by your content dispute with William Connolley? Durova^Charge! 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. But of the conflicts I did get involved with, none of my opponents got media coverage bringing the project into disrepute, and none of them were such blatant POV pushes that made the entire project look bad. But I know that it's time to discredit the messenger now, so do your best. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 01:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that we're trying to, but if we were, we wouldn't have to.. you're doing a great job of discrediting your message on your own. SirFozzie (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you only knew... Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing. WE DON'T KNOW. Because you're not telling anyone anything, and this really looks like an attempt to refight past battles that you (under whatever account) lost. SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weighted Companion Cube is a reincarnation of User:SEWilco? Count Iblis (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom ruling:

Per the consensus of myself, Ambi, and Extreme Unction, SEWilco is blocked from commenting, either directly or indirectly, on the actions of William M. Connolley. This is to be interpreted liberally. This restriction is to last for one year, or until we believe that SEWilco can distinguish what actions are appropriate in respects to other users. Ral315 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Count Iblis (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming, which as far as I know is at this point just speculation, that WCC is SEWilco, the relevant provision said "Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, SEWilco's Probation shall automatically end.". The log for the case shows no restriction after 11 January 2006, so that restriction is of no force any longer, and thus irrelevant. The user is, relatively obviously, one with a history with WMC. It is safe to assume that we don't know all the editors with a history involving WMC, pointless to speculate in the absence of evidence, and doubly pointless to bring up restrictions that lapsed a year and a half ago even if the speculative identity is correct. GRBerry 01:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myth-making and double jeopardy

A few further thoughts. I've gone on the record before as saying that, in my view, Giano has acquired an inflated reputation for incivility. He is incivil at times, no doubt about that, but what I think has happened is that people have become far more sensitive to this from Giano, and this has led to a myth being built up that he is continually incivil. To counterbalance that, it would be nice to show the civil, humourous and polite moments that those who only look for the incivility may not see. But I don't have time to do that and it shouldn't really be necessary to do that.

The other point I wanted to raise was that of a situation akin to double jeopardy in legal terms. I know Wikipedia is not a justice or legal system, but please hear me out. The point here is that people shouldn't have to suffer repeated assertions and cases on the same point - it feels too much like the situations you get with an article having 14 AfDs and then finally getting deleted. We've seen over the last few cases involving Giano that the same people appear time and time again to try and make things stick this time round. The same goes for those defending Giano, but while that could just be loyalty or standing up for someone, to have the same people prosecuting each time round feels wrong, feels like sustained attacking, and lloks like people are returning for a "second bite at the cherry". I think the atmosphere around such "repeat" cases would improve if ArbCom laid down much clearer limits: only present new evidence; don't bring up old grudges; if you've been involved before, consider voluntarily limiting yourself to presenting evidence on the new stuff and not getting involved in the same old arguments on the talk pages and workshop pages. Carcharoth (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the ArbCom needs to be much more clear about what the scope of the "Dispute" that they are attempting to review and resolve. Two things:

SirFozzie brought this matter as a way to reiveiw potential wheel war activity by administrators and included Giano only as the locus of the wheel war dispute. (he stated so somewhere in the mess that this has become, i cant find the diff right now - but notice the name of the case "Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley" - no Giano). One can assume that that is the reason the ArbCom accepted this matter in the first place - despite the fact that no prior dispute resolution methods had been attempted. The ArbCom had the opportunity to limit their dispute resolution to the administrators actions, but they did not take that opportunity, and in fact some member(s) quickly took this case as an opportunity to propose and vote on corrections to previous Giano related ArbCom sanctions.

While individual incidents may not technically be warrent action based on WP:CIVIL; repeated patterns of behavior are (or should be) part of what the ArbCom uses in deciding if particular users should have action taken against them, therefore 'old' incidents (within the past few months) are generally perfectly valid evidence to support claims of a pattern of behavior. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by former sysop Ed Poor

I might have made the same mistake myself; in fact, I think I got desysopped for it, part of the the Wikipedia:drama which resulted in the person I blocked (improperly) getting banned for 6 months - for the very same reason I blocked him! See the User:FuelWagon episode if you can still find it.

Here's what I think we should do. Tell Dr. Connolley that we appreciate his good faith effort to sort things out, but kindly request him to refrain from adding energy to a potential spiral in future. And make a formal policy (sans any grandfather clause that punishes dear old William), which says just what we ought to do in the future in cases like this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]