< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Geogre-William M. Connolley

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Caulde (talk | contribs) at 15:12, 3 July 2008 (→Wheel wars: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:12, 3 July 2008 by Caulde (talk | contribs) (→Wheel wars: fix)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

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)

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

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:

Comment by others:

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

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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)

If you look at Misplaced Pages: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 13:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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:

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 02:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Okay, then 1.1. Jehochman 03:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Mistake 2 by William M. Connolley

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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 02:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Ever optimistic! Jehochman 02:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages's administration into disrepute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposed findings of fact

William M. Connolley

1) William M. Connolley has engaged in wheel warring with respect to the blocking of Giano II.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 02:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Geogre

2) Geogre contentiously removed a good-faith block placed upon the account of Giano II, who is the former's personal friend.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 03:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche. John254 04:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

Giano placed on modified probation

3) Remedy 2.2 of Misplaced Pages: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)

Oppose, we'd get nothing done. Sceptre 13:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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) Misplaced Pages:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages. The committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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)

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)

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)

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)

Administrators

2) Misplaced Pages administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow all of Misplaced Pages'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)

Arbitration rulings

3) Misplaced Pages 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)

Protection of user talk pages

4) The user talk page of a blocked user may be protected if the page is being used for continued inappropriate editing. This includes repeated abuse of the {{unblock}} template, or continued uncivil or offensive remarks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Relevant in connection with one of the suggested FOFs below. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Previous ArbCom case

1) In Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC, an editing restriction was placed on Giano II (talk · contribs) for one year, stating that if he made any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Recital. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sequence of events

2) The dispute originated when Giano II (talk · contribs) made some comments which were considered uncivil. He was then blocked by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) block log for 3 hours. For uncivil comments which Giano made on his talk page , William M. Connolley extended the block to 24 hours. After a further uncivil comment , William M. Connolley extended the block to 48 hours. Giano's continuation of the argument led to his talk page being protected by MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) . It was unprotected less than half an hour later by Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), with the comment "Utter horse flop: we don't DO that. Don't watch shows that you don't like." Geogre unblocked Giano II shortly afterwards with the comment "unblock to change duration", but omitted to reblock him. Avraham (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) restored the block five minutes after that for one hour, the balance of William M. Connolley's first three-hour block. William M. Connolley reblocked Giano II for 48 hours ten minutes later, with the comment "restoring valid civility block", and the next day commuted the block to 24 hours from the first block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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 , constitute wheel warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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

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 13:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Giano II's talk page

5) MZMcBride's action in protecting Giano II's talk page 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:

Comment by others:

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

Geogre's history

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Not relevant

7) While it has been suggested that William M. Connolley's 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)

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:

Comment by others:

Should have recused himself. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

Geogre's admin privileges

1) For wheel-warring and poor judgment, Geogre's administative privileges are suspended for 30 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bearing in mind recent history. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Geogre's admin privileges - Alternative

1.1) Geogre is placed on administrative 0RR for 3 months. During that time he may not revert or undo any other administrator's action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

William M. Connolley admonished

2) William M. Connolley is admonished to refrain from wheel-warring, to avoid provoking editors he blocks, and to avoid issuing or extending blocks to encourage editors to "cool down".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems proportionate in this case. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Parties excluded from enforcement

3) Geogre and William M. Connolley are excluded from enforcing the remedies in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC and from reverting or undoing any action taken in enforcement of those remedies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Needed in all the circumstances. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano counselled

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin

Proposed principles

Decorum

1) Misplaced Pages 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 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators

2) Per Stifle.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted. Kirill 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitration rulings

3) Per Stifle.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted. Kirill 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Sceptre

Proposed principles

Civility

1) All editors are expected to edit Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposed findings of fact

Giano (I)

1) Giano (talk · contribs) was placed on a civility parole in January 2008 (q.v. Misplaced Pages: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 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano (II)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)

Giano (III)

3) Giano has an extensive history of unblocks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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 14:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Giano commended

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Credit where it's due.

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:

Comment by others:

He can bring up points, but get rid of the sailor-mouth. At least on Misplaced Pages.

Proposals by Rudget

Proposed principles

Civility

1) Civility is a manner which should be adhered to by the whole community. It should be re-enforced when appropriate, and if consensus is determined by administrators, the block may be lengthened accordingly. Initial blocking administrators should not repeat their action and ask for a review of the circumstances if they feel it deserves community consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Rudget (logs) 15:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wheel wars

2) Wheel wars are actions which directly support each individuals view of a certain subject, resulting in confusion and bringing the administration of Misplaced Pages into disrepute. Actions which constitue wheel warring are those named at the relevant policy page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Partially from WP:WHEEL. Rudget (logs) 15:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators

3) Administrators are users selected by the community to perform tasks which are unable to be achieved by other users. They should perform those tasks to the best of their ability, supporting their successful nomination and fulfilling promises made at their respective RfA. Rare mistakes can constitue an opportunity of reflection for the administrator involved. Systematic errors demonstrated by the administrator involved should be the initialisation required for a review of actions performed (i.e. re-confirmation RfA).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

An evaluation made from lengthy observation. Rudget (logs) 15:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection of user talk pages

4) User talk pages should be protected when appropriately by uninvolved administrators. Appropriate circumstances include but are not limited to misuse of the {{unblock}} template or repeated incivility, for example. Protections should be made to a suitable length, and must reflect the length of block imposed on the editor blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {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.