Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Luk (talk | contribs) at 13:41, 15 July 2008 (→Diffs: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:41, 15 July 2008 by Luk (talk | contribs) (→Diffs: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Injunction

Goodness me, that injunction would be a mad idea, as it would give free uncivility reign to Giano II if none of the 15 Arbs were online. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, the committee of admins idea that got 3 votes could be adopted as a temporary injunction but no, I don't think it would give free reign to Giano. Periods when they are not online are short and it would go harder for Giano if he was warned not to repeat because "we were going to tell". ArbCom members could publicly delegate their authority as well. So I see this as a workable measure. ++Lar: t/c 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest to the committee that, in the interests of transparency, any such request for blocking be posted on WP:AE or another page designated by Arbcom, and that any such authorisation to block be posted on-wiki, and be specific with respect to exactly the reason for the block? Risker (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it has always been an unwritten rule that you should not block Giano, why not make it official? _{1 != 2} 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not recused?

I'm amazed to see FT2 is still acting as an active arbitrator on this case. While I have my doubts about the legitimacy of Arbcom as a whole at this hour, and the question whether FT2 should remain part of it is obviously unresolved, I would have thought it a no-brainer that he ought to at least recuse himself from this case. Come on guys, everybody can see that this case is a direct spin-off of the FT2/OrangeMarlin/Arbcom mess. Giano was blocked for negative remarks in a discussion of FT2, on FT2's talkpage. That's what triggered the whole thing. I mean, seriously, how more blatantly involved can you get? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This case isn't about Giano... Viridae 11:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are speaking in jest or not. Please tell me you are; my irony meter must be out of order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It might have resulted from events around Giano, but is in no way related to his behaviour. Instead (at least as far as the request went) was about the behaviour of those named in the case title. Viridae 11:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano's only need to even be in this case would be to vacate or modify the IRC ruling, which could be done there as well as here. So could the temporary injunction. ++Lar: t/c 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Though Giano was named as a party on the initial request for arbitration, this case really has little to do with Giano. At this point I don't envisage a decision making any findings with respect to Giano; the focus is on the administrative actions. --bainer (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nod, but see above. I hope ArbCom chooses to modify the restriction, either via the IRC case motion, or via a new one here. Other than that, absolutely agree. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This "case" without a finding and a remedy that would not include Giano would be a major surprise to me. Not that surprises are rare, but all surprises I have got from this arbcom were bad surprises despite I long since lost my pink glasses. --Irpen 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the comments above miss the point of my initial posting. My point wasn't about Giano; I don't care if he is part of this or not. My point was about FT2. The whole kerfuffle was triggered in the immediate context of the FT2/Arbcom mess, and it is reasonable to believe that everybody's conduct, including that of the wheelwarring admins, was also motivated by that context. Therefore FT2 should recuse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the connection personally. _{1 != 2} 12:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And was not I right to not expect surprised from ArbCom? ? --Irpen 08:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That Giano criticized FT2 is irrelevant - there is ample precedent for the view of "you cannot select arbitrators for recusal by making personal attacks against them and then declaring them biased." Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Avruch

Is it really fair to issue a remedy for Avruch? He made one sarcastic comment - of course, it didn't help the situation, but I'm not seeing any pattern of abuse that requires him to be officially admonished by the arbitration committee. If there was a long standing problem, I could totally understand, but one comment (that wasn't even that bad) doesn't strike me as grounds to be reprimanded. Just a thought anyway.... Ryan Postlethwaite 17:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall a situation, before Avruch caused it. Giano (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

But this isn't about the minor situation that led to your block - this is about the admins that wheel warred over it. Minor infringements by yourself and Avruch shouldn't be ruled upon here. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, how very touchingly naive you are Ryan. Well I shall be accepting zero of the findings of this show trial, just as I did on the last occasion. Others must do as they see fit. However, I am pleased the Arbcom has the time on their hands to discuss these "minor" matters, and feels there is nothing more demanding of their time. Giano (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you view an "admonishment" as the Arbcom equivalent of a trout-slapping, then I think it is fair to say that Avruch deserves it for causing this mess. If it hadn't elevated itself into wheel warring we wouldn't be here. But it did, and we are, and it is certainly fair for Arbcom to say that what Avruch said was inappropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, admonishment is the most severe "warning" that arbcom can give out. Maybe a reminder would be better in these circumstaces, given that he's got no previous history of causing problems. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, Avruch now realises that it is best not to be a stirrer, and if one does want to stir a pot, then beware of the fat hitting the fire. Giano (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I've never paid much attention to hypothetical distinctions between "warnings", "reminders", "admonishments", etc. Perhaps you can discuss it with the members if you think it is really important. Though with my above comment in mind, it would be equally fair for Arbcom to comment on the inappropriateness of Giano's comments with respect to triggering this matter. Dragons flight (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

::::"I think it is fair to say that Avruch deserves it for causing this mess." If he is being admonished for 'starting' this mess, then why is the action that he is being admonished for an edit that he made well after this mess was started? It appears otherwise - that the if the finding passes, some members of the ArbCom have zero sense of humor about the oft cited truism "There is no cabal.". And if such references are automically admonishable, the ArbCom better make a ruling to delete WP:CABAL-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have your timeline confused. Avruch said , Giano replied , and WMC cited Giano's reply as the reason for issuing the first block in this sequence. . Avruch's sarcastic comment directly precipitated the current dispute. Dragons flight (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's putting the cart before the horse to blame Avruch for Giano's reply and WMC's block. Giano had a choice about whether to reply; WMC had a choice whether to issue a block, but Avruch had no control over either of those actions. I think it's an incredible break with precedent for Arbcom to even mention an editor over a single comment. Meh, I suppose if Arbcom wants to keep randomly punishing people this is sensible. This shouldn't have come this far in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's putting it mildly. It is utterly unbelievable to see Avruch, an established user in good standing with no history of conduct issues, singled out for ArbCom-sanctioned criticism as the result of a single moderately sarcastic comment. The Committee can't really possibly believe that these unpredictable, seemingly random lightning strikes are a good idea, can they? Attaching blame to Avruch here is like saying that World War I was Franz Ferdinand's fault. MastCell 00:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to

(). Avruch 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

Regrettable. Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that FT2 is the only one who does not understand the common sense norm behind principle 4? "What is at issue here is that the "Block-uncivil-extend block-uncivil again" cycle is predictable, and to an extent, needs allowing for." Excuse me? Then in 4.1 he goes to say "this should ideally not be done" but if it is, oh well??
It's really very simple - whether it was the reasoning behind the initial block, or you're unblocking and then issuing a new block (such as an extension of the initial block) because of incivility directed at yourself, it's completely unacceptable, period. It's a fundamental principle, and I'm concerned that this is the second time he's having trouble getting this.
I was going to reserve this for my analysis of ArbCom, but this is one thing that I'm going to point out here first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My own interpretation here, but I think he's finding the current wording of Principle 4 too vague. And looking around AN and AN/I, I've seen admins challenging this: drawing a finer distinction between simply blocking someone who attacks you, and blocking someone who you've been involved in a conflict with (the logical absurdity is a vandal who insults every single active admin by name, so that none of them can block them).

Further, I think he's abstaining because he'd like to see a better defined principle, and he seems to suggest one focusing more on the block-attack-extend cycle, rather than rehashing the principle as listed here. I don't take this to suggest he actually disagrees with this principle, simply that there's a better way to phrase it in regards to this case. --InkSplotch (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well in the case where someone aggressively tries to game the system by being incivil to every admin so that they can't block, they'd certainly be up for a ban by the community. We do have other measures to deal with them. That aside, I don't think 4.1 is very well written like a principle - seems more like something you'd write on a guideline page. It doesn't seem to fit with the other principles. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point that even if someone is incivil to Admin A, that admin can still block for incivility to Admin B. Ideally, a totally uninvolved admin will do this instead, but I take "DefendEachOther" to mean take action if you see others being mistreated, but similar to rely on others to defend you and not to try and defend yourself. You just need to make clear that the block is specifically for a different act of incivility, not for the act of incivility against you yourself. Say that in the block log and on the talk page, and stick to that line, and you should be backed up all the way. Saying that you are explicitly ignoring the act of incivility against you is optional. Vague acts of incivility or attacks such as "all admins are fascists" should be ignored as venting. Carcharoth (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

True...I did miss that in my above response. I just think, depending on the situation, incivility against sysops should be ignored as venting in the same way as the vague acts of incivility. I think it's rare for editors to be incivil out of the blue @ certain sysops. But there is a situation where (and why) such incivility occurs in the first place - when a sysop has given a final warning to an editor, or used admin tools on the editor, or on someone or something relating to the editor (but sifting the incivility aside, there might be some merit in whatever it is the editor is saying, and that bit shouldn't be ignored). Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But you can't legislate against people taking affront. What I would say is that if person A was incivil to person B, and person B took affront, and then person A apologised and person B continued to take affront and called for a block of person A, then I would (usually) tell person B to calm down and for both to just walk away from each other for a few hours. Not everyone has the temperament to either ignore incivility, or to restrain themselves from being incivil, and that needs to be taken into account. It is also important to sometimes back up another admin, even if you think their actions were harsh. I would have asked Giano, for instance, to just walk away after the first block, and then I would have talked to WMC and Avruch and tried to get them to handle things differently if this happened again (ie. not insert yourself into a dispute , to be more careful when being sarcastic , to not go running to WP:AE , to be more aware of other discussions , to be more aware of the background , to revert the incivility , and so on). I did leave a note on Avruch's talk page, but most of this had gone down before I was aware of it. I also wouldn't have handled things the way MZMcBride or Geogre did, but this might just be different styles of handling such things. Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

True.... Overall, principle 4 does seem more appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So

After less than twenty four hours we have a proposed decision all written up and ready to be voted on, and yet after almost two months (!) we have nothing here? What's so urgent about this case? Naerii 19:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because there are things that arbitrators are eager to have done and this case gives them an opportunity. That other case is much more difficult to solve to their plasure as well as to finally "address the problems of IRC to be done at a later point", or come clean from FT2 mess that they can't do for so long because they are still "busy intensely discussing". So busy they are discussing what to do re OM fall back that they took this case with a rare expediency, discussed it to a degree that they are ready with a decision to vote. --Irpen 19:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they posted a final report about such issues already, Irpen, on the OM ArbCom page. SirFozzie (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that "report" and since it happens to be the same bunch of a carefully crafted bunch of evasive talk as we have seen before it cannot be persuasive. And before anyone would go along the "you will never be satisfied until you like the result" line, please take time to read this "report" yourself and find there anything but meaningless generalities. --Irpen 07:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not take thebainer's writing of proposals as evidence that the committee is near closing this case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WMC/Wheel-warring

I just happened to notice that while there are findings of fact aimed at WMC's inappropriate extension of a block aimed at Giano, and then inappropriately reapplying the extended block (hmm.. sounds like reinstating the block after an unblock without discussion or consensus, no matter how dubious the unblock, constituted wheel warring, under ANY definition), the only proposed remedy is that he is not to have any further administrative action against Giano. Do you really think after touching Misplaced Pages's third rail (thanks, Risker for the reference, it fits!) and with the proposed remedies modifying the sanction against Giano, he'd WANT to have any further contact with him? So what we have here is the one person who EVERYONE can agree wheel-warred on this, again, that one line that should never be crossed by an administrator, and we're going to do... nothing? Maybe I'm jumping the gun here and there's more remedies coming, but there's a glaring hole here as it stands. SirFozzie (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for time

Per my pledge to stand up on behalf of fair process for any and all Wikipedians, I respectfully request that the arbitrators refrain from voting on this case until all of the parties have had adequate time to present evidence. That is, at least one week from the opening date or if all of the named parties agree that they are ready for voting to commence sooner. Named parties who are ready to see this case voted upon may sign below. Durova 22:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signatures:

SirFozzie (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Geogre (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I guess. I mean, I haven't paid any attention, as no one has tried to mediate anything with me. In fact, other than notifications of tribunal meetings, I haven't been asked anything, spoken to by a non-automated process, or anything, and I actually do things to celebrate holidays other than look obsessively at the teapot of storms. Geogre (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano's response is here. Durova 08:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What additional evidence can there really be to provide? The facts of the case are pretty clear. Unless you mean "evidence" as "giving an opinion", which seems to be what the evidence page is mostly used for these days. Naerii 23:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Pointless obstruction. The relevant facts are in logs for all to see. Friday (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from negative assumptions. After my own case, which went to voting in under 24 hours with five arbitrators going on record before I could assemble half my evidence, I decided to speak up and request adequate time on behalf of other Wikipedians. Prior to this case, I did the same in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62 although I did not know Vanished User, and Physchim62 had been openly hostile toward me before the case opened. At Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33 I supported Giovanni's request for additional time, even though I had previously blocked him indefinitely. This is absolutely not pointless obstruction; it is principle. See below.

From Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Case handling:

Cases are sometimes allowed to take considerable time, even if (apparently) obvious. This is because often over time, if allowed to stand, new material will be added that otherwise would not have come to light. For this reason an arbitration case will often be allowed to stand open for a number of weeks, to ensure maximal opportunity for new information to be added.

Durova 00:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree..so long as more time doesn't mean that everyone with an axe to grind from previous matters shows up here to get some sort of "revenge". Cases open to long sometimes become festering dungheaps of "diffs" that are cherry picked to ensure that punitive actions are taken. But this is moving really fast....--MONGO 00:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the key is if we leave this open long enough someone will lose their cool, do something stupid, and thereby extend the case in new and fascinating directions. I understand Durova's concern here, but I think it's misplaced; long cases prolong the suffering for all involved. Arb cases are like mosquito bites; people can't help but scratch them. Mackensen (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If the named parties want voting to proceed this quickly they can say so with their signatures here. Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. Durova 00:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a complicated case factually; indeed, it's fairly straightforward, and even the parties agree on the substance of what happened. The question here is rather the characterisation of those facts: what do they constitute? In that kind of case, I don't see a problem in getting something out there that people can work from. I've posted what's a fairly minimalist proposed decision, and I fully expect that other arbitrators will offer their own proposals, and that people will continue making proposals on the workshop page. Having a proposed decision posted in no way means that minds are closed. --bainer (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding with that thoughtful comment. What I ask, basically, is that the Committee consider the situation you faced last weekend and extend the same understanding patience you asked of the community. If I've been informed correctly, at least some of the arbitrators had prior engagements and weren't very available on a moment's notice. I trust you all proceeded as quickly as you reasonably could; the named parties here are all dedicated volunteers and we can trust them to do the same. Durova 03:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Voting too soon simply gives the impression that due process is not being followed, and serves to prejudice the case. Rushing to voting has put the arbcom in disrepute multiple times. My case, the MatthewHoffman case is still discussed, given that the rush to vote and desysop me, before I had put up a word of evidence other than to say I would need some time due to illness and upcoming exams. The Orangemarlin controversy just this month centred around not allowing the user to provide evidence. Give the user at least a week to provide and polish his defense, or there is a strong risk putting arbcom in disrepute. Indeed, I'd say that a week minimum should be enshrined as an arbcom standard. I would therefore ask that Bainer deletes all proposals, or at least moves them to the Workshop, which would be an appropriate place for early thoughts on the case. - User:Vanished user 03:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That case dragged on for months; few cases were less of a rush to judgment, IMO. We left things open for a long time in an attempt to allow you to provide more evidence. I feel that you are holding on tightly to the belief that you were hard done by rather than accepting that you used admin tools inappropriately.

That proposals are posted does not mean that our minds are closed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, that case was suspended for the conduct RFC that ought to have preceded it. Despite being conducted on highly prejudicial terms, with an open arbitration case and several arbitrators already on record in favor of desysopping, the community's response was solidly in Vanished User's favor. It was clear that he would have no trouble passing RFA a second time--and how many administrators who actually use the tools could achieve that? The only effect this had on the Committee's decision was that when it proceeded with desysopping it attempted to keep him under the Committee's supervision, yet the decision itself was so poorly written that it did not actually prevent him from seeking the bit again by normal means. From start to finish it was a textbook example of how not to operate an arbitration case. In the Navy they study spectacular disasters for the purpose of "lessons learned". Rather than excusing that one, the Committee would do well to follow the Navy's example. Durova 09:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

After the committee had piled on to vote to desysop me before I had provided any evidence, had ignored dozens of emails I sent, refused to give me time to do exams - which cost me at least a couple grade levels - and after the Finding of Fact #9 incident, where half-a-dozen people were shouting that the diffs Kirril provided did not back the conclusions, to self-righteously declare that my failure to then use Christmas to provide evidence is a sign that this is all my fault is ridiculous. I will also note that I made every effort to learn from the experience up until the Finding of Fact #9 incident. I encourage anyone interested to read the case. User:Vanished user 13:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page the clerk placed Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. I did rather assume from that the the arbs would wait for the evidence before voting, that being a kind of due process thing, and I had hoped that they had learnt from the OM case that due process was a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Even though I agree mostly with what has been posted as the proposed decision, I still have some points to follow up. I was intending to do so this weekend. I agree with the calls here to allow at least a week for evidence submission. One of the points I want to make is that blocks of the sort WMC carried out rarely work if there has been little or no interaction previously. I am not aware that Giano and WMC have ever edited in the same areas, or "talked" to each other on-wiki. The point being that if you don't know an editor, it is best to start a more general discussion, or open dialogue with the editor, rather than reaching straight for the block button. I would like to be able to contrast the different approaches taken by WMC, Avruch and WJBscribe on seeing Giano's edit (there are presumably other people who saw the edits and did nothing at all on-wiki): WMC blocked; Avruch prepared an arbitration enforcement post, and WJBscribe reverted the edit and left a warning. Does no-one see a problem here in the way three different editors and admins can chose three such widely varying reactions? Admin actions can't always be consistent, but this is a very wide disparity. Admins need to try and ensure reactions to types of incidents are broadly similar, or at least demonstrate awareness of the alternatives (something I'm not sure WMC has demonstrated). Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We now have Having a proposed decision posted in no way means that minds are closed and That proposals are posted does not mean that our minds are closed. This is excuse making, and deliberate obfustication, rather reminiscent of the arbcomm non-statements in the ongoing FT2 affair. We're complaining about you *voting* before the evidence is posted. No one is going to have any confidence in your respect for process, or of your having learnt anything from the FT2 mess, if you're prepared to vote before the evidence is submitted. The votes made need to be struck out. Or is this going to be another FT2 "we didn't need to hear the evidence"? If thats really so, can we all stop pretending, and just let you get on with it? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please

I am very sympathetic to Giano in general, but may I say that an ArbCom resolution deploring sarcasm would be ~~bloody stupid~~ an absolutely brilliant idea. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to clarify whether this is sarcasm or not... I think a better principle would be that sarcasm can be unhelpful and should only be used with care. Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SARCASM? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, come on everyone? Sweep the whole mess under a rug & pretent none of it happened. Agree to disagree & go your seperate ways. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility is important, but I think that findings which further restrict the already narrow range of acceptable expression on Misplaced Pages are counterproductive. If someone can't handle an occasional mildly sarcastic comment, then they need a thicker skin - or at least the empathy not to consistently dish them out. MastCell 18:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Question to Thebainer/arbs - decorum principle

Didn't we take "trolling" out of the list on more recent cases (eg; footnoted quotes)? There was some concern with the use of that term. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, "we"?

Anyway, it was taken out of that specific case because it wasn't applicable; in general, however, it's still appropriate.

James F. (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm...yeah right. I really shouldn't need to regurgitate the fact that principles are intended as absolute, and that it hasn't been applicable in some cases it has been used in. Nor the inappropriate way the term has been used by parties in this case. My bad, huh? (Please think again.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy 1 (any five administrators version)

Even if you don't think it would happen in any other case, you must know that five administrators are going to all agree to block Giano, in the midst of a massive discussion in which significantly more than five disagree thus starting the biggest wheel war in history with one side screaming "it only needs five of us" and the other screaming "but consensus!". Seriously, if you mean five administrators beats everything else then say so very clearly and if you don't then say that very clearly instead. It's going to happen. There is a small chance that none of the five will mention having agreed it on IRC. 87.254.72.195 (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I do disagree with the above comment, as I know that I am an administrator and I tend to oppose blocking/banning wherever reasonable, I also think that it might be better if the phrasing were adjusted in such a way that non-administrators of the Committee's choice might be considered as well. We have at least a few former admins who have either voluntarily given up that status or lost it on the basis of matters which might be unrelated to those of this case, and I think it might be a good idea to at least potentially include them, as well as any senior, trusted editors who have never sought adminship, in the potential pool as well. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to specify which version I meant but I still confused the issue. I meant 1 (currently the bainer's first choice). Not 1.1. 1 is the "any five administrators" version not the "designated administrators" version. 87.254.72.195 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the IP above. Given that blocks of Giano regularly invite the comments of 15-20 admins and senior editors each time, it's entirely conceivable that consensus would be to not block but five admins of the group would favour blocking and...well... In fact, I have no doubt I could find five administrators right this minute who would block Giano indefinitely, without any further activity on his part and without a moment's hesitation, as long as they knew they'd all hang together. If a remedy along this line is going to pass, I am afraid it would need to be designated administrators and/or Arbcom members. Risker (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"the biggest wheel war in history with one side screaming "it only needs five of us" and the other screaming "but consensus!" - this would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Well, OK, it is still funny, but if it ever happened it would also be a very sad day. Carcharoth (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You raise a very good point 87; my intention was that consensus be the operative requirement, consensus in a discussion involving at least five administrators. A discussion at arbitration enforcement is the kind of thing I envisage. I've altered the wording; does this resolve the ambiguity? --bainer (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks 87.254.72.195 (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thought though, suppose some variant of 1 passes (1, 1.1 or 1.2) and then the next day an administrator unaware of any of this sees a comment by Giano that he regards as uncivil, and blocks him. Someone then points out this arbitration. What is the correct next step by the administrator - unblock and follow the special procedure, leave blocked while trying to get agreement through the special procedure, or say "I wasn't acting under the Arbcom restrictions, it's just like any other block"? Should the proper response be evident from the remedies or is it better to rely on sound administrator judgment? 87.254.72.195 (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Kirill Lokshin to remove himself from this case

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop#Request for Kirill Lokshin to remove himself from this case. --Irpen 08:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. Since you only involve yourself in a certain class of arbitration case, you may not be aware that in a great many cases, the only sensible, coherent evidence is that offered by the arbitrators. Often in cases which have likely fallen under your particular radar, the evidence presented by the parties is so tendentious, so steeped in the original dispute, or simply so incoherent, that the only decent evidence and summaries are those offered by the arbitrators on the workshop or proposed decision page. It is simply routine. Thatcher 15:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thatcher, respectfully request a refactor to something more genteel. Durova 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Hmm. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    - Ah, my error. I should have said, "You truly are a very stupid ignorant person Irpen!" Thatcher 21:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      Oohh, nice, Thatcher! First you describe Irpen's edit as bullshit—that possibly wasn't "genteel", but not particularly incivil, either. And then you "refactor" it into an egregious comment on Irpen the person. This is an excellent illustration of what Irpen was saying earlier—I forget where—about incivility residing in the kind of claim made, and not in the use of ungenteel words. Outstanding, really. You have enlightened us. I hope Irpen will enjoy the pedagogy rather than resent the insult. If he cries Personal Attack, you can expect Bishzilla to come warn you. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC).
      
      Thatcher, I earnestly request that you reconsider. One of the findings in this case has to do with decorum. It does not bode well for the case clerk to be setting this example. Please refactor, or else I must request your recusal. Durova 21:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      Bish, I agree with your sentiment (although not exactly with the expression of it). Thatcher, please respond. This isn't heading in a good direction. Durova 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      Alas, my remark seems to have gone over the heads of its intended audience. I apologize for any offense I have caused. Thatcher 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      No, no, Thatcher. It was the fucking refactoring, not the remark. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC).
      Irony is dead. Thatcher 23:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      
      (sigh) ~~Okay Thatcher, I'm going to submit a formal request for your recusal and replacement.~~ Bishonen, please refactor. I asked it of him so I have to ask it of you too. Please set the example you wish others to follow. Durova 22:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      Thatcher isn't even the clerk here, it's User:Daniel - Thatcher is commenting as any other editor. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      Right you are; I apologize for the misapprehension. Durova 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      In fact, I have resigned entirely as an Arbitration clerk. Thatcher 23:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I only intended to indicate that the Arbitrators have never been constrained to only respond to evidence presented by others. Kirill is perfectly entitled to analyze and propose anything he wants, including but not limited to item relating to Giano rather than WMC or Geogre. It might be useful, for example, to create a case record that explains the background, so that the case stands on its own without requiring links to other cases for context. Or perhaps, recognizing the difficulty of blocking Giano for cause, he is laying the groundwork either for special enforcement or for a ban, either of which would solve the problem of wheel warring over future disputed blocks. Whatever the case, he is entitled to make proposals even if they do not flow from the evidence currently presented on the evidence page, and suggestions to the contrary are not informed with respect to longstanding arbcom practice and procedure. Thatcher 23:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Not too far above here, we have a request for FT2 to recuse. This is met with by Thebainer saying "At this point I don't envisage a decision making any findings with respect to Giano; the focus is on the administrative actions". Now Kirill is making findings with respect to Giano. What's wrong with this picture? Franamax (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Man, arbcom really is damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they make decisions on the mailing list it's a secret trial. If they hash it out on wiki they're blasted for inconsistency. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a case of being objective and not cherry-picking the evidence and ignoring the wider picture and context. I haven't yet examined Kirill's list in detail, but the "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" comment, for one, really has to be seen in its proper context to be understood. There are also some points here where private evidence submission to ArbCom will be needed, though I'd rather not go into details here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to step on Carch's point, with which I wholeheartedly agree, yes inconsistency is an issue here, and no, mailing list discussions are not excluded. This case was entered into as a simple case of examining the surrounding admin actions, and the assurances were that it would be simple and quick, the logs and a limited set of diff's were open for all to see, no need for unholy delays of all of one whole week. Now we're seeing a whole new picture, the only significant sanction in the Proposed Decision so far is against Geogre, in the face of WMC's evident wheel-warring, and Kirill has now proposed a finding of fact on the Workshop page that bypasses Evidence and is novel theory introduced by a supposedly impartial arbitrator. At the very least, if Kirill's work goes forward, then FT2 should recuse. Further, if Kirill is presenting their own interpretations, they should not also be judging those interpretations. Anything less calls into question the propriety of this proceeding. Right now, it looks an awful lot like an attempt to solve the Giano problem, not the admin-conflict problem. Franamax (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
If, in fact, there is a Giano problem, there is surely no time like the present to solve it. The procedural issues you are trying to raise here seem utterly vacuous. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This is looking like a tactic now Phil, just tell me I make no sense and leave it there, answer no substantive issues - bing! point scored I suppose. Leaving that aside, you are completely right - if there is a perceived Giano-problem and the opportunity arises, lets get the bugger solved. Niceties such as solving the actual subject of the case, the admin misconduct (remember that?), be damned - to hell with COI, recusals, prior statements of restraint or anything else, squash that bug. Would it also be vacuous of me to point out that the eyes of a large portion of the community are on ArbCom members right now, waiting for some sign that the community can still hold faith? Franamax (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As I have said, being the target of personal attacks does not mandate a recusal. The arguments for recusals have been specious. Similarly, your inflammatory rhetoric seems unhelpful - I see no evidence that admin misconduct and other issues are being dropped. Decisions frequently get written in dribs and drabs. There is no reason to suspect otherwise that I see. If you have concrete evidence that FT2, Kirill, or anyone else has a COI regarding this matter, please present it. Otherwise, you are raising objections with no substance in lieu of the real arguments - did Giano make personal attacks? Does he repeatedly do so? Has he been warned about this? Is there other visible misconduct? How rampant, and how serious? Have those parties been warned? Those are real questions that have genuine weight. The rest is bread and circuses, and contributes to the problem, not the solution. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, inflammatory? That was my mild rhetoric, so thank I guess :) Decisions do get written in dribs, but if you wish I can point you to an Arb Q&A where they speak of a main drafter of the case - so it seems the initial poster to Proposed Decision may be the one selected as the lead. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that those points will be salient ones, especially when some time goes by without alternate proposals forthcoming. That speaks more to confusion around transparency of ArbCom deliberations though, and the Q&A is quite illuminating on that subject - maillist vs. Arbwiki vs. Workshop vs. Decision.

As far as concrete evidence goes, right off the bat I would point to: FT2 - this, looking at 18:20, 19 Apr08. From this you would have to work back through the links at the extensive attempt that FT2 made to "deal with" Giano, what appears to me to be an attempt to analyze Giano's motivations and posit ways to counter them. This was in-depth involvement going beyond target-of-an-attack; as to Kirill, the whole of this workshop section comes into play. This is novel theory, advanced by a judge of the case - "engaged in a concerted campaign" - a theory of mind is being formed, that's prosecution, not adjudication. Seems like a conflict to me.

I do like the way you rope in Giano, even though the case is titled "Geogre-William_M._Connolley". Any old excuse will do I guess. Franamax (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Giano's conduct, and the issues arising from attempts to implement a restriction intended to influence him in the direction of using restraint, is the greater part of the subject of this arbitration case. Since the current restriction isn't working, the question of what to do about that arises. One option would be to lift the restriction. In considering whether to do so, it is necessary to examine his conduct in the context of the restriction. There are some administrative and user conduct issues also, but they are relatively routine. --Jenny 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Past attempts to deal with something within the arbcom's remit are not grounds for recusal. On first glance I see nothing in the link that suggests anything other than FT2 working within what has historically been broadly construed as the arbcom's remit. To suggest that Kirill recuse himself on the evidence of his workshop proposals is simply absurd. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
So you think it is OK for an arbitrator to cast aspersions outside of the normal arbitration process? You have one arbitrator (Kirill) confirming that : "statements made in our official capacity within the context of an arbitration proceeding are covered by the "appropriate forums" clause. Outside of that, of course, any comments we make are subject to this ". What Franamax is saying is that FT2, in a laudable attempt to resolve some of this, wrote large amounts on his talk page about Giano's character and motivations (I contributed to this, actually), as opposed to his actions, and FloNight (another arbitrator) expressed unease at this. I acknowledged this and backed off. I can't remember what FT2 did. The point is that FT2's talk page monologue (sometimes a dialogue with me) could be seen to fall squarely under the "casting aspersions" principle: "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" - the point here is that FT2 probably has not done this continually. But it is possible that a group of editors has, over several years, made concerted efforts to besmirch Giano's reputation. Giano should have some recourse to counter that, other than lashing out. Carcharoth (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, FT2 was commenting on conduct traits already established by the arbitration committee, and certainly a widely known problem for the encyclopedia. I hope it will never be regarded as necessarily improper to discuss the established conduct problems of an editor (as always whether such a discussion is an attack depends on the context--as bringing it up out of context would be). If it should be regarded as improper, then we had better rethink our policies fast, because such a principle would make it all but impossible to discuss conduct issues relating to otherwise respected editors. --Jenny 06:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Brief discussions on talk pages, maybe, but formal or lengthy discussions should take place in a more public venue - ANI if it is an emergency, AN/RfC for more considered discussion, and finally arbitration if the conduct does not change. But not a steady besmirching of a reputation over years and building someone up to be some sort of "problem". There are problems on Misplaced Pages, but Giano is not one of them, or if he is it is much smaller than people make it out to be - too much time is being spent on it with too little return when other matters are more pressing. There should be a long-term strategy to deal with incidents like this - damp down the fires, and get productive editors back to writing the encyclopedia, while still dealing with genuine concerns raised. If you say that "dealing with Giano's incivility" is the most pressing problem facing this encyclopedia, and needs to be dealt with harshly, then I don't think further discussion will be helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into Wikipedian-relativism. Arbcom has identified his conduct as a problem for Misplaced Pages (and yes he is one among many). To suggest that FT2 was in any way motivated by a wish to besmirch Giano's reputation, or that his comments had that effect, seems far-fetched. Whilst I feel that the conduct of high value editors has become an obsession for some editors, it has become a blind-spot for others. Both are damaging to Misplaced Pages. --Jenny 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

~~sign~~
~~On of the arbs did not sign near the bottom. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)~~
~~Fixed :) NonvocalScream (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)~~

~~FT2 vs. Geogre~~
In re Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision#Geogre, yes FT2, I will make representation that you are incorrect in your interpretation. Try this: click on your own contributions and add up when you have ever done two separate things within five minutes! I mean that in a humourous sense but with serious meaning. Grave matters cannot be easily dispensed with in just a few minutes, each editor must choose their own method to explicate and move forward. Even taking the time to pull up (say) three important diffs for your next post can take a while, especially if the servers suddenly decide to cease cooperating. It's fine for you to outline the "natural" next step, but natural is defined by the nature of the person, not the reviewer.
As a humble peon, I can definitely say that it takes me many many minutes to do even the simplest things (I'm at about 2030 mins on this post alone :). I think that on reflection you might agree that a five-minute standard is unrealistic in the absence of evidence - did Geogre edit an article about flowers or frogs in that time? Make a cup of tea? Here's another test - time how long it takes you to respond to just this post.
Respectfully. Franamax (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, FT2's not the only one who has at least a potential problem with it. When you do an unblock, the very next screen you see after you undo the block has a button marked "re-block". You literally have to go off that screen to edit further. No, he didn't edit an article about flowers or frogs, but he did respond to Friday's post on Giano's page. So he did take actions in between unblocking Giano and Avraham reapplying the block. SirFozzie (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I blocked myself from my own localhost:wiki (it was a cool-down block, F-max is a real jerk doncha'kno :) and I don't recall that. Probably I was doing a different experiment and I certainly defer to actual experience.

However - how many windows do you have open right now? Which one are you planning to click to next? Which one will you use to gather your supporting information, in order to post to the current focus? Did you just check your watchlist?

I really don't mean this as any type of xx-lawyering - but come on, five minutes? I can't even tie my shoes that fast :) SirF, after making one major action, how long does it take you to take stock of the action you just made, think about its impacts, question yourself, look for a bit more evidence that you might be wrong. So yes, that screen may have been staring Geogre in the face - but setting the standard that the next screen must be completed within five minutes seems to be just a little steep. Twenty minutes, I'm with ya, two hours, no doubt at all. But five minutes - I hate using those TLA's, but that's within the realm of AGF, don't you think? Franamax (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Usually, before I unblock to change duration, I already know what duration I'm going to put back in, and I certainly don't change windows and resume editing/arguing till I do the reblock. That's just me, though. SirFozzie (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Surely one ought to "take stock of the action... think about its impacts, question yourself, look for a bit more evidence that you might be wrong" before one takes the action? --bainer (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course and absolutely one ought to do this beforehand, whether admin, arb or editor. There remains the possibility of a somewhat insufficiently considered action where one must pause to consider the next step(s). Geogre (in my interpretation) has already described their intention to first, reverse the initial wrong; second, assess the potential for further damage; third, decide on the new course of action. Nothing in the timeline of events contradicts that explanation, and it would seem to be the simplest one. The main point here is that within all of five minutes, Geogre's intentions were rendered moot - whether good or ill, they were overtaken by events; and from Geogre's own description, they decided to walk away from the escalation. I still have to question FT2 (and others) interpretation of that five minutes on the grassy knoll ;) Franamax (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that whatever degree of eggshell-walking is appropriate apply equally to both sides, not only regarding Geogre's and William M. Connolley's and FT2's actions but generally? I've never been a fan of Meatball Wiki and this conflict exposes the flaws in their defend each other page. Durova 08:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's be honest. I've sat at the block screen and adjusted block durations. You don't unblock then run off to make a cup of tea. You reapply the block as soon as possible. If you don't you're probably not fit to drive those buttons. --Jenny 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Tony, I really hate to say this, but it must be said. You are not an administrator, having relinquished your access under controversial circumstances some time ago. To suggest that an administrator is "not fit to drive those buttons" because they do not emulate the methods you employed whilst an administrator is probably not quite the point you want to be making here. Risker (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
That may or may not be true in a general sense, but Tony's specific point here is a valid one which shouldn't be dismissed with reference to his personal circumstances. I've changed the duration of plenty of blocks, and the unblock is always followed immediately by the reblock. These are not really two separate actions requiring separate consideration, but a single action (changing block duration) which is technically split into two parts. I think Tony (and others in this thread) are describing a common-sense best practice, and I suspect most admins would agree. Geogre's talk-page comment certainly indicates that his intent was to unblock Giano, not to alter the block duration. in that context, FT2's comment seems reasonable. MastCell 18:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem really doesn't fly well in arbitration cases. My point wil prevail: Geogre is a big boy, and I'm sure he won't try to hide behind the argument that he was caught napping. Having said that, I wouldn't push for more than a warning in this case. Please, Geogre, don't dabble with the button just because you think it might be fun. This case shows that it does have damaging effects. --Jenny 21:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd not consider that a an hominem, to be frank. The basis of your statement was your level of "skill" at driving the buttons, Risker called it into question. If you hadn't introduced the evidence, so to speak, by presenting opinion as fact and she'd said "you're not an admin, go away" it would be a different story. But I digress...

Five minutes is not a terrific amount of time, and we cannot read another person's mind. If we're going to introduce probabilistic findings of "most people unblock/reblock within X time period" than let's have some science behind it. I think the first unblock was a terrible idea, but do not have enough facts to support an opinion on the timing. I'll try to get some if anyone actually wants any analysis.

brenneman 01:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on the matter, but Tony does have something of a point about ad hominem. It isn't very polite to raise an editor's former-admin status in rebuttal regarding use of the tools for decisions unrelated to the reasons that person relinquished the tools. That said, I wouldn't exactly agree with Tony's assertion either. What may be a more fruitful line of discussion is to first agree upon a general degree of strictness that's appropriate for this situation and apply it evenly: somewhere from nobody was quite at their best in this stressful situation and we'll try to work this out with a handshake and cautions to administrators are selected for their ability to keep calm in a crisis and dubious uses of the tools require remedies. One factor that inclines me toward the former is our community's tendency to wait until actual cases such as this one to define what a wheel war actually is; a factor that points the other way is both Geogre's and William M. Connolley's unwillingness thus far to step back and say maybe what I did looked dubious from your perspective, so I'll make these changes in future to be sure we don't have another incident like this one. Durova 04:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

~~FT2's clarification of remedy 1~~
Does anyone understand FT2's clarification of remedy 1? He seems to be saying that instead of the administrators being involved in the discussions, that their opinions need to be involved in the discussions. I don't get it. 87.254.72.195 (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
~~Easy, it's a loophole fix. Here's the loophole.~~
The aim of the proposed remedy as it was drafted, is obviously, to ensure there is good quality consensus, and not some rush by 2 or 3 people on one or the other side who then get to agree there's a consensus favoring whatever they feel like. A good quality consensus is intended to consider all views, not just the first few to get there if all holding the same viewpoiint (whichever view that may be). This has happened in the past. The aim here is to enforece that a reasonable number of admins are in the discussion, to procure reasonably wide input, before a "consensus" is called on it.
The loophole in the wording is that it the decision of a consensus will be accepted if it is the result of "a discussion involving at least five administrators". Without accusing any side of anything, I will admit to an eye for gaming loopholes -- in fact I wrote WP:GAME. I see this scenario:
Admin 1 blocks and explains their block

Admin 2 objects

Two users join admin 2 in objecting

Three further admins comment to say "keep it calm" or other general comment

Someone claims this is now a "discussion involving at least five administrators" at which admin 1 blocked and 3 users (admin 2 and two others) objected, and the block is overturned 5 minutes after enacting, well before any balanced and wider consensus can be considered. Something like this has happened before in some disputes. (Indeed this is exactly why this remedy is proposed by my colleague in the first place.)
The point is, the aim of the proposed remedy is not that 5 admins have just turned up, posted something ("keep it calm", "this was the diff", or whatever). It was intended to ensure good quality discussion existed before consensus is called (by anyone). For this purpose, the "five admins" need to have done more than just "posted something" or "been involved" -- they need to be actually discussing the issue and giving an opinion. At that point, if at least 5 admins have given an opinion, then one might say it is likely the discussion overall (whoever is in it) has had enough contribution to say the consensus is plausible. But just requiring "5 admins involved", that could mean anything from fixing typos upwards.
By itself therefore the original wording would do nothing to protect either side from bad consensus calls, gaming, or abuse concerns. So often it's the minor points that end up as the cause of bitter future debate. It's best to prevent that happening (given how bitterly "was this a breach of a sanction" can be argued), by closing the potential for a loophole up front and on sight, when it's a predictably heated matter, just for the sake of reducing the potential for more future conflict. FT2 18:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Predictably stupid remedy 1-choices - losing the value of having them in the first place. The moment we have two admins who can't control themselves with this user, we have (a) certain member/s of the Committee throwing both hands in the air and not just missing the entire cause (without any findings), but also failing to acknowledge how sick the community is of having to deal with it over and over, again and again, whether as individuals, or as a small group. There should've been no reason or cause for blocks to be considered in the first place for this same problem behaviour - its pattern is glaringly obvious, yet, nothing has been done to fix it in the long term. Please wake up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
~~I haven't formed a view on remedy 1 yet, myself, as I don't have much net access back yet after the last week; the edit fixes a loophole in the event it might pass. FT2 20:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)~~

~~Arbitrators please consider new evidence and proposed remedies~~
~~Arbitrators, please consider the new evidence and proposed remedies. Thank you. Inclusionist (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)~~
During this very arbcom, William is blocking User:Bardcom in an edit war, abusing his administrative powers yet again User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Polite_notice Perma-link: . There is a terrible pattern of abuse here, which no one seems to care about. Inclusionist (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

~~Credit where it's due~~
I note that there is a proposed FoF about WMC's extension of Giano's incivility block.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to also have a finding that WMC took steps to correct his error in getting sucked into the incivility → block – incivility → block extension – incivility → block extension → etc. spiral. It was, after all, WMC who shortened Giano's block from 48 hours to 24 hours, undoing his own (second) extension (full block log). While no participant in this case has covered himself in glory, I think it would be fair to acknowledge that WMC accepted that he erred and took a reasonable corrective step. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

~~Context and community~~
~~Some points in response to what Kirill has recently posted.~~
Giano in arbitration - Kirill describes this as "context". I find it to be limited context. A broader picture would be obtained if a finding of fact were passed concerning "Giano in article space". I said in all the previous cases that if there is a problem with Giano's overall behaviour, it should be brought up as its own case, and the scope made clear from the beginning, not tacked on to an existing case.

Giano's comments - Kirill describes this as "more context". When he initially raised this on the workshop, I pointed out that what he has posted was poorly presented and lacked context. He admitted that the evidence had been gathered in "about 20 minutes (which is why it's quite disorganized and only goes back a little while )". Kirill then said "I have every intention of allowing adequate time for evidence presentation and discussion here". I then rearranged the evidence and presented in a form where context could be added. See here. I notified Kirill of this, and presumed that he would participate in the discussion. It seems that he had no intention of doing so, and has just pasted his initial "20 minutes" of evidence gathering straight across to the proposed decision page, still describing it as "context", when I would describe it as taking comments out of context. Some note has been taken of the discussion and analysis, but there is no effort at analysis or adding of context, or participation in the analysis, as most people submitting evidence would do, that is, if they were not themselves voting on said evidence. If arbitrators are going to present evidence like this, then I would hope they would do so in a more professional manner, like the timeline presented in one case by the bainer, and not in this poorly presented manner (no dates, no indication of the issues involved, no indication of what had happened before or after, no indication of the location, not arranged in any order). At the very least, I feel, Kirill could have provided a link to the analysis and the attempt to provide better context.

As far as Existing remedy vacated and Question remanded go, I'm not yet certain whether this is releasing Giano to well-deserved freedom, while saving face for the committee, or whether it is throwing Giano to the wolves. If there are future problems, I hope the committee will remember the effect their actions have had, and may continue to have, on the reputation of an editor (and I don't just mean Giano here). See Myth-making and double jeopardy for more on this effect.
~~I think that covers my responses so far. Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)~~
In regard to your second point, I should point out that the evidence for presented for voting here is not the "initial '20 minutes' of evidence gathering straight across to the proposed decision page"; a number of points have been omitted from the original version based on the analysis you refer to, and the quotes are presented here in the same (chronological) order as they were in said analysis. Kirill 11:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You are completely missing the point Kirill, if you and your colleagues addressed the IRC problem, then there would not be a Giano problem, and please don't repeat the rubbish you posted on my page about not being able to do so because you can. Jimbo, himself, said so quite clearly (with a proviso for me to take special note). I am sure the Arbcom has its reasons for failing even to carry out the motions it passed at the end of the IRC case, but "not having power over #Admins", is not one of the one. As long as Misplaced Pages is policed from a place over which it says it has no control, then you will always have problems and they will not just be one's of my making. Tacking me onto the bottom of this case because you could not "get" me any other way, was cheap, nasty and pretty low by amnyone's standards, people wonder why I don't trust the Arbcom, one minute I read this , the next moment is you posting evidence on the workshop page about. I don't think you lot know your right hands from your left.Giano (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Vacating the only sanction imposed on you and explicitly taking the matter out of our hands seems like a rather peculiar way of trying to "get" you, no? Kirill 12:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
He has a point. If you are happy with that, Giano, just wait and see how the voting goes. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
No I am happy with anything Kirill does now. He and his colleagues have tried to damage me for their own ends, posting this and that, and trying to involve me in this case. He then posted further lies on my page, in direct contrast to what Jimbo has said, and thinks he can now wash his hands, by suggesting a free-for-all after having posted his "evidence" with the intention of... (well we can all work that out for ourselves. He should resign for stooping so low. Giano (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's actually worse. By omitting the initial "gnome-like stalker" comment that triggered the block that led to all the subsequent stuff, you have managed to reduce the context (and no, I'm not asking for it to be put back in, more work than that would be needed, I'm pointing out that you are failing to understand what I mean by context). Thank-you, though, for removing the comments surrounding FT2's talk page thread, and the ones that Risker e-mailed Paul August about. I apologise for not looking closely at the differences - at first glance it looked the same. I've struck through above and rephrased myself. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

~~Diffs~~
Some diffs of the case point to the secure server, which is not used by a majority of readers (secure.wikimedia...), could a clerk (or an arb) refactor them using {{fullurl}} (eg: ) to make these links more accessible? Thanks! I'd do it myself but I'm sure I'd get a slap on the fingers for that :) -- lucasbfr 13:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)