This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kirill Lokshin (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 6 July 2008 (→Template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

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

• 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)

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)

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 (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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Again the timing is wrong - the block came before the discussion began. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:56, 5 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)

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

Per WP:WHEEL. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:03, 5 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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, Misplaced Pages does not revolve around Giano. Rockpocket 17:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

(Removed statement by IP of indefblocked User:Dzonatas SirFozzie (talk) 21:20, 4 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

I accept the amendment, in so far as that's possible. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

2) The dispute originated when Giano II (talk · contribs) was blocked by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for block log for 3 hours for on the grounds that his edit was "blatantly uncivil" . 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

I guess point 2 is the bit about "an administrator undo 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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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

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)

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:

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

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

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)

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 01:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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:

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 01:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wiki-politics

6) As Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 02:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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" ()

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

• "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." ()

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

• Edit summary: "removing rantings of a disruptive troll" ()

• "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." ()

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

• "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" ()

• "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." ()

• "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." ()

• "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." ()

• "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." ()

• "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." ()

• "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." ()

• "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." ()

• "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!" ()

• "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." ()

• "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. Misplaced Pages 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!" ()

• "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." ()

Comment by Arbitrators:

The elephant in the room. Kirill 00:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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

Almost. It's a oblique way of writing "Hypocrisy". Neıl 龱 08:25, 4 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 record 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)

It's evident from his block log, and is not meant to be in isolation to Giano (III). Sceptre 18:59, 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)

It's not meant to be in isolation to Giano (II) or "Administrative 0RR". Sceptre 19:00, 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)

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 19:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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. Sceptre 13:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

Spot on. Sceptre 13:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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. Sceptre 13:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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 (if already imposed) 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. Wheel warring is an unacceptable practice and must be met by actions of a similar magnitude (i.e. revocation of administrative userrights)

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 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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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)

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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)

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)

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)

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 Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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)

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)

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)

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 Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Proposed findings of fact

No clear definition of wheel warring

Misplaced Pages has WP:WHEEL which describes itself as official policy. But this policy "sucks" and respected users recommend "Don't even cite it" . Extensive discussions as to what should replace it failed to reach a conclusion: see Misplaced Pages talk:Wheel war. Arbcomm has issued contradictory interpretations of what constitutes WW: compare Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Wheel warring which states that undoing an administrative action by another administrator is WW and . Elsewhere, arbcomm has specifically commended users for what, by its own definition, is WW: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#The_Land.27s actions. The IRC arbcomm failed to agree on WW Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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

(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)

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)

Arbcomm's backlog

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Absolutely. I would add the more crucial tasks:

• The ruling "Policy and procedure changes regarding Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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

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)

Geogre's unblock was clearly invalid

As shown on the proposed decision page , 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 . Combined, these made Geogre's unblock clearly invalid, and reversible without wheel-warring William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Giano only unblockable by a few

The problem with Giano is not the blocks, it is the unblocks. Rather than appointing a few to block him, appoint a few to unblock. Specifically: arbcomm to appoint five uninvolved admins, who alone have permission to unblock Giano, should in their view inappropriate blocks be applied.

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by MastCell

Proposed principles

The definition of insanity

1) The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed: Though other definitions exist... MastCell  22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedantry: it should therefore read "A definition ...". Neıl 龱 08:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Giano's block log

1) Giano's block log betokens an unmitigated failure of every prior mechanism employed, including civility parole and "any uninvolved administrator"-based remedies. The ongoing drama cycle is repetitive and entirely predictable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. MastCell  22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Impossibility

2) It is functionally impossible for the community of active Misplaced Pages administrators to achieve consensus on when, whether, and for how long Giano should be blocked for anything. Compounding the problem, otherwise sensible admins turn rogue when approaching this situation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Stating the obvious. MastCell  22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

agree, and also there are a few other editors to whom this situation applies. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:15, 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.

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  22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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  22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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:

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  22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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:

Comment by others:

Proposed. MastCell  22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - not a bad idea, but it might be more practical to allow the ArbCom to appoint a select group of other individuals to perform the task, as per my comment above. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Agree with John Carter - the last thing the ArbCom should do is extend its power into the Executive branch to become the sole enforcers as well as the interpretors (and recently the creators) of policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by SirFozzie

Proposed principles

Administrative Actions

1) Administrators should not unilaterally undo other administrators actions. Instead, they should seek discussion with the other administrator, or at least the consensus of the community before undoing another administrator's actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

First block of Giano had consensus

1) The first block of User:Giano II by User:William M. Connolley, for three hours time stamped (18:59, 1 Jul) had consensus that this was a violation of Giano's Civility Parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Hopefully this is obvious to everyone, that WMC had consensus for this block. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

First extension of block was supportable

2) User:William M. Connolley's extension of the block of User:Giano II from three to twenty four hours, timestamped (20:20, 1 Jul), was at least supportable due to extended incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed One could very much argue that this was also a violation of Giano's civility parole, but as others have suggested, perhaps this wasn't the best course of action, but his actions here are at least defendable. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Second extension of block was NOT supportable

3) User:William M. Connolley's extension of the block of User:Giano II from 24 to 48 hours, time stamped (20:27, 1 Jul) was not in concordance with Misplaced Pages policies as the incivility from User:Giano II was aimed at User:William M. Connolley himself. User:William M. Connolley should have brought the matter to the attention of the community, instead of taking unilateral action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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)

Comment by others:

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 Misplaced Pages policies. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

Comment by others:

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)

Comment by others:

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)

Comment by others:

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)

Comment by others:

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)

Comment by others:

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:

Analysis of evidence

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

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:

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:

Template

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)

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)

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)