Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:03, 4 September 2008

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	12 July 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	12 July 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Clarification request: Noleander	none	(orig. case)	11 July 2024
Amendment request: Durova	Motion	(orig. case)	4 July 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox	Motion	none	10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings	none	none	12 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

MZMcBride

Initiated by MBisanz ^talk at 17:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
WilyD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

MZMcBride - [1]
Jossi - [2]
Fritzpoll - [3]
Lucasbfr - [4]
Keeper76 - [5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin

Statement by MBisanz

I invoked BLP special sanctions on Sarah Palin as a result of continued BLP violations that blocking and content removal could not resolve. I reported such protection at the article talk page, the WP:BLPLOG, the WP:AN thread, and the MediaWiki edit notice for the page. Subsequently a discussion began at Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin that seemed to indicate a consensus for immediate full protection with further discussion as to the length. MZMcBride subsequently came onto IRC and announced his intention to "wheel war" with me over the protection. I informed him of the dicussion at AE and that it was done under the special sanctions. Other administrators indicated the same and that the consensus at AE was to leave protected for the time being. Other administrators agreed with MZMcBride to unprotect. After I listed those on AE who had agreed to with protection, he listed those on IRC who agreed with unprotection and subsequently unprotected the article.

I file this case as under the Footnoted Quotes ruling requiring a clear consensus at AE to overturn a special sanction and under the Durova ruling against private consensus being the basis for on-wiki actions.

Just a note that it appears MZMcBride has been blocked by WilyD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for wheel warring over page protection for three hours, so an immediate response from him may not be possible. MBisanz ^talk 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Newyorkbrad's instructions, I've notified all admins listed in the protection log from Sept 3 to present who have not yet commented here. MBisanz ^talk 18:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved D.M.N.

Please note than MZMcBride has been blocked for three hours, and therefore is unable to answer concerns raised here. Also, MZMcBride has appeared to revert a good faith edit here. D.M.N. (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Is this RFAR going to cover the entire Palin article or just MZMcBride? I just hope someone from the media doesn't notice the contant wheel-war. D.M.N. (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MastCell

I would strongly urge speedy acceptance of this case, as it involved a truly unseemly degree of wheel-warring on what is by far our highest-profile article. This log is a disgrace. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved krimpet✽

I feel MZMcBride's unprotection was appropriate, and that this is far too premature for MBisanz to bring to ArbCom. There is clearly a lack of consensus for protection at WP:AE, with several admins wanting to unprotect; MZMcBride, along with a significant plurality, felt that BLP full protection was inappropriate given that many eyes are already watching over the article reverting vandalism in seconds, and that locking all editors out stops the article for further evolving as a wiki should. MZMcBride also courteously tried to reach out to MBisanz to discuss his protection first. However, it seems inapproprate that MBisanz immediately escalated this to ArbCom. krimpet✽ 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Doc's statement below says things better than I can. I agree 100%. krimpet✽ 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Kyaa the Catlord

Note: Refactored to mark myself uninvolved in this dispute other than leaving a civil fyi note to MZM and making a note of the continued wheel warring on AN. If someone feels I am involved, so be it.

Despite the claim to the opposite, full protection has nearly unanimous support on the AE thread. MZMcBride's cavalier response to being blocked is also rather troubling. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Seicer

Full protection of the article has nearly unanimous support at AN and AE, despite claims from Jossi and MZMcBride on the contrary. This protection log is downright embarrassing, and shows just how vulnerable we are when it comes to high profile pages such as Sarah's. Administrators know better than to wheel war; administrators know better than to "Ignore All Rules" and engage in purposeful wheel-warring (per one of the rationales given for unprotection); administrators know better to read up on discussions first before coming to a false conclusion. There are administrators willing to block if this wheel warring continues, and quite frankly, it may get the point across because this is not only an embarrassment on the administrators who willfully engage in this careless tactic, but on administrators as a whole. seicer | talk | contribs 17:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Cdogsimmons

I noticed on my Watchlist that MZMcBride was blocked for 3 hours and I thought to myself: "that can't be right. What's going on?" What it looks like to me is that MZMcBride was blocked becuase he changed the protection of a hot button page after WilyD had thrown down a gauntlet that he would block any administrator who changed the protection on the page. I will note that no consensus was ever reached regarding the level of protection for this page, to my knowledge, despite the fact that certain discussions here and here were treated as if a consensus had been reached (A consensus has now been reached on Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin but no consensus existed at the time of MZMcBride's edits). In many respects I think MZMcBride was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He made a bold edit and was hit by the runaway train that was WilyD's frustration with the Sarah Palin article. The block was unnecessary in my opinion as no consensus had been reached and there was no violation of the 3RR. The suggestion that MZMcBride by desysopped for this is outrageous!

Actually, I was wrong. No consensus has been reached at Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin. My bad.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Moreschi

Wow, don't you just love wheel wars? They beat the hell out of the Superbowl, Wrestlemania, and the Olympic opening ceremony combined for sheer pyrotechnics. Awesome :)

Looking at the log, it appears as if this was MZM's second unprotection of the article in under a week...looks to me like wheel-warring, particularly with MB having logged his protection at WP:BLPLOG. We can't have admins going at each other like this...please accept. Moreschi (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't do wheel-warring blocks...Moreschi (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've undone the block of MZM. It is long-standing practice not to end wheel-wars with blocks - the correct thing to do is go to arbcom - and 3 hours is a punitive block length anyway: it would hardly stop him continuing to wheel war. Moreschi (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, unblocking seems premature. My take is that MZM still intends to lift protection against consensus. I think the block was preventative until we get such an undertaking. Ronnotel (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think he will - in any case, it's right that he be unblocked to participate in arbitration. Moreschi (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, may I suggest that you make this clear to him at his talk page. Ronnotel (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re to WilyD: the wording of WP:WHEEL is descriptive, not prescriptive - which is, I think, misleading. Moreschi (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved WilyD

It may behoove the committee to expand a bit to look at everyone involved in this fiasco (which yes, would include me). The issue is a bit broader. WilyD 17:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as the person blocking MZMBride, I'd have no objection to him being unblocked to participate here. Seems only sensible. WilyD 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's been suggested otherwise, WP:WHEEL explicitly says temporary blocks are a normal response to wheel warring. I don't think BLPLOG is necessary or particlarly relevent. I'm also not sure what my frustration is with Sarah Palin's article, beyond the inappropriate behaviour by so many admins. If someone is trying to imply I have a political stake in it, I'll happily provide a list of elections I've voted in and defy them to guess who I voted for. WilyD 18:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect to Flonight, I don't think that characterisation is accurate. Blocking each other for disagreements would be abusive. Blocking each other for wheel warring would be no different than blocking for regular edit warring. WilyD 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it seems likely I'll soon be keel-hauled, I would like it noted that Chillum has changed WP:WHEEL per Flonight's statement, and the wording when I took action was Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents.. WilyD 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cenarium

I would like to point out that several prior protections and unprotections including the protection of MBisanz was part of this wheel warring. Since consensus was more in favor of protecting, they may be more appropriate. This is however not an excuse for wheel warring, nor is the special BLP enforcement. Thus, I think arbitrators should consider and arbitrate the entire protection warring. Concerning MZMcBride specifically, this behavior was completely unacceptable. Cenarium ^Talk 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of the special BLP enforcement, I'd like to hear the view of arbitrators on this matter. I do not think it was an appropriate use, as it was done to revert to one's preferred version during a wheel war. The correct way to proceed was to reestablish a consensus at AN for protection. Concerning the block, it had been announced and not obviously inappropriate in the circumstances, but maybe was not the best option, particularly since the same admin has reprotected the page. Cenarium ^Talk 19:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a temporary injunction that no administrator is to protect or unprotect the article without clear community consensus. Cenarium ^Talk 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AuburnPilot

This isn't the first time MZMcBride has undone another admin's action without discussion. It's not even the first time he's done it on the Sarah Palin article.[6] Just take a look at his protection log and the numerous unprotections he's made with the comment "this is a wiki"; they were all made without discussion. It's time we had one less admin. - auburnpilot talk 18:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous? He's made two edits five days apart. Your accusation seems somewhat overblown. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see your point. That is a lot of unprotections. I still think that the focus of this discussion should be the edits he made to the Sarah Palin article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue at hand is the wheel-warring and his ignoring the community at large. Utan Vax (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not limited to the Sarah Palin article, as MZMcBride routinely undoes the actions of other admins, without so much as an "FYI" on the other admin's talk page. His action on the Sarah Palin article was merely the most visible and blatant abuse. - auburnpilot talk 21:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ronnotel

Yes, classic wheel-warring, and on one of the most visible pages, too. Consensus was fairly clear to anyone who bothered to read the various discussions, and the actions here were not in keeping with adminship. Unless we see a firm promise to desist in the use of admin tools against consensus I think this process should move forward. Ronnotel (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your statement "(c)onsensus was fairly clear to anyone who bothered to read the various discussions." No definite consensus has been reached regarding the level of protection that would be appropriate for this page to my knowledge. In fact, the discussion at Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin appears to show a lack of consensus. While I agree with the principle that an administrator should not use admin tools against consensus, I do not think it fits this situation. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc glasgow

(Feeling strongly enough about this to come out of retirement, and ignoring all the wonking, wheel warring and IRC allegation crap to get to the real issue)

There is no bigger BLP hawk that me. I am in favour of drastic measures to prevent BLP damage, and I utterly support the new rules arbcom developed for BLP enforcement.

But this protection is ridiculous.

The root of the “BLP problem” is that low-profile people get crap or bias written about them, and Wikipedia has no effective means to maintain their biographies. Such articles affect real people’s lives (they may be the only internet information available about them), and the low-notability means that there will be too few informed eyes to spot and revert the edits of a determined biased editor. Normal wiki checks and balances fail in these cases, and so special provision is needed.

This is not the case with Sarah Palin, Tony Blair etc. We can’t hurt these people (there’s plenty worse about them on the net) and bias and vandalism is spotted and reverted in a second by an informed sympathetic member. There is need for special measures in such cases – our wiki-ness does just fine.

Some will say “surely all living people should be treated the same?” Well yes, no-one should be damaged by a wikipedia article – but the risk of damage and the means to avoid it are different in different cases. The huge problem with applying the full rigour of BLP special protections to Sarah Palin is that it makes it quite impossible to get the community to tighten BLP protections aimed at the articles that cause real problems, because people say “ah but then any admin can delete/protect George Bush”, and what happened to “anyone can edit?”

We need some common sense here. We are a wiki. Normally that is enough – revert bias and move on. In special cases, where that simple mechanism causes problems for living people, we depart from normal wiki-rules and tighten things up – Sarah Palin is not such a case.

I think people are more motivated by the squeals of vandal fighters, and their interest in US politics, than balancing the imperatives of “anyone can edit” with “ and no one should get libelled.”

Comment by almost but not quite involved Barneca

I suggest an immediate desysopping of MZMcBride be requested by ArbCom at Meta, for wheel warring when he knew he was wheel warring (this is a classic, textbook case), and no indication he won't re-do it when his block ends. Then, acceptance of the case to determine the duration of the desysopping, and look at the behavior of other admins that have changed the protection today (most of whom I believe were enacting consensus, and one of whom I think was not, but wasn't as egregious as this). I almost made the full protection that Fritzpoll made, as I believe there was a very clear consensus for it at the time; he was just faster (there but for the Grace of God...).

I'll also mention that this case has really crystallized my opinion about IRC. I've always been slightly sympathetic to Giano's complaints about an IRC "cabal", but felt he was exaggerating and going too far. No longer. Decisions made based on IRC discussions should be overturned until there is onwiki discussion, and people taking actual admin actions based on "consensus" in IRC discussions should be desysopped. Quite a rapid swing in my perception of IRC, but this action has really opened my eyes. A real Road to Damascus moment. --barneca (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe

I think there is a case here for MZMcBride to be desysopped. In addition to the comments by MBisanz above, I note that MZMcBride also removed protection on the 29 August with the summary "this is a wiki", leading to large amounts of vandalism and the article having to be reprotected. This reckless attitude to a high profile biography of a living person is totally unacceptable.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident of poor judgment being shown by MZMcBride since he became administrator. Concerns have frequently been raised about the running of an unauthorised admin bot on his account. On the 3rd June, his lack of response to questions about his running of an automated script resulted in his having to be blocked [7]. In particular, I would draw attention to the following discussions:

His talkpage archives are littered with pleas from other editors to cease deleting pages - especially talkpages and redirects - which they find useful. MZMcBride is often dismissive of the concerns raised by other editors and is fairly single minded in deciding that actions he believes to be correct are correct, regardless of the weight of opposition he faces. WJBscribe (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by kmccoy

I've never commented on an arbcom thingy before, but this just disappoints me all around. There's way more focus here on how best to punish people and protect the egos of the admins doing the original action than on what is best for the article and the encyclopedia. Coming to arbcom so quickly, being so quick to block, etc. It's like a game, rather than a project. :/ kmccoy (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that actions on IRC shouldn't be used for or against anyone or in opposition or support of any actions on-wiki. There have been a couple of comments (most notably to me being Ryan Postlethwaite's) which are somewhat insidious, because they're worded in such a way that they paint a negative picture of how one person used the IRC admins' channel, but then suggest that it shouldn't be dealt with here. Well, if it shouldn't be dealt with here, we need to stop making any reference to the actions. Especially since the whole story isn't being told. kmccoy (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by rootology

I encourage the AC to take this case in regards to the validity of BLP special protection in general, but specifically because this is textbook wheel warring. Jossi (twice unprotected and vowed to continue doing so under IAR, see Palin article logs) and McBride both unprotected this article in firm opposition to the overwhelming consensus to protect this BLP from defamation and ongoing BLP violations, after many of us all but begged for protection and consensus supported it. Take it to investigate the behavior of all involved. Admin rights take a backseat to consensus, and always to BLP. Time to remind everyone of that. rootology (C)(T) 18:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CharlotteWebb

I am completely appalled both by the community's willingness to block administrators for reverting page protections not supported by policy, and its abject refusal to block the select few users who have made disruptive edits (amid a sea of pre-dominantly constructive updates). Unless it is willing to look beyond the surface, and investigate the improper use of footnoted special high-intensity "my wheel war is holier than yours" kung-fu quote sanctions as a bludgeoning tool (maybe in 2010 when Hell sends a bobsled team to Vancouver), I encourage the committee to dismiss this case with extreme prejudice. — CharlotteWebb 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today I can wish Doc_glasgow a warm "welcome back" and really mean it. Tomorrow I will play it by ear. Doc has explained the dynamics of this situation much more effectively than any of us could, the two key points being "It's a wiki, get over it" and that Sarah Palin is clearly not an appropriate test-case for footnote-quote <ref>"remedies"</ref>. — CharlotteWebb 19:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

The issues here are messy; this is the first time BLPSE has really been used, so that ArbComm pronouncement is being called into question. In as much as Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unprotected the article twice this morning, he should be a party also. Discussion of full protection prior to Jossi's actions was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Please help on Sarah Palin and [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)]]. On both pages there was strong support for full protection. Earlier relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sarah Palin and User talk:Kelly#Admin?. Despite whatever pious hopes we might have, we administrators collectively were not attending to the article or situation, and the regular editors were being overwhelmed and unable even to keep track of what was being done by who. GRBerry 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: notifying. I think I've either given notice to or seen a notice already on the talk page of every admin that has a protection log entry from Sept. 3 or 4 or who edited the page while fully protected (the latter through ~~Mr.Z-man's edit of 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC) PhilKnight's edit of 19:20~~ Rich Farmbrough's edit of 19:43 4 September 2008 (UTC). I did ~~17 19~~20 notices, a couple of which were redundant... but might have missed some. GRBerry 19:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Rjd0060

Simply reviewing the protection log indicates a major problem (even I have an entry there, but I know better than to undo another administrative action). The problems seem to really escalate on September 3. I encourage ArbCom to speedily accept this case, and to address the multiple issues and administrators who were a part of this. Of course, some type of injunction would also help things. — Rjd0060 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr.Z-man

Basically what Doc said. Jumping immediately into invoking the special BLP enforcement here was a mistake. The community was actively discussing the matter on AN and there was no reason to think there would not be a resolution. Invoking the special enforcement only served to derail that discussion and make things about a thousand times worse. Mr.Z-man 18:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And based on the number of recent comments to the AE thread, the filing of this RFAR seems to have all but killed that discussion. This is starting to look like an attempt to use non-community controlled processes to force a personal goal (for lack of better words). If this is accepted, the actions and motives of the initiator of this request definitely need to be looked at. Mr.Z-man 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chrislk02

I am here because it was brought to my attention that I edited the protected article. This was not my intent. I had been following a series of edits that had been made to the article regarding religious beliefs. I had been researching the cited references to ensure that the changed content matched up with the source (being the content was change but the source stayed the same). I made the initial undo here before protection. the content was re-added and I re-reviewed it and re-undid the new reivision here. I was unaware that MBsianz had protected the article as I had already opened it for editing before the protection was made. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (somewhat) involved lucasbfr

Since I was pinged about it... I saw the unprotection on my watchlist, and spotted Jossi's unilateral removal of the full protection (to his defense, there was no clear statement on why the article was protected in the first place). I immediately told him that he might have missed the relevant AN thread and asked him to revert his unprotection while the debate was still ongoing.

I decided not to overturn the protection, hoping that everyone would have the sense not to wheel-war on one of the most watched articles on Wikipedia, and merely restored the move protection which was uncontroversial. I hoped everyone would settle down for a couple hours, watching the article intensely and discussing which protection was the most appropriate (the consensus at that time was clearly in favor of a full protection but who knows what happens on WP in a day).

Apparently I held my fellow admins to too high a standard, and in the next 3 hours, 5 admins (including Jossi, again, invoking WP:IAR despite the clear debating that was going on) wheel-warred on that page. I hope the community will consider the actions of every admin involved in this shame. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Phlegm Rooster

I think that it should be taken into consideration that traffic to the article has been slowing in a decaying exponential, and the first period of full protection seems to have broken the fever, as it were. In the intervals today when lowly non-admins like me were allowed to edit, most edits were in good faith. There was less than one edit every few minutes. The infrequent attempts to introduce unsourced BLP material were reverted on sight. As for concerns that wheel warring might make Wikipedia look bad, the huge "disputes" template looked bad, especially considering it was not so much disputes but BLP concerns (the template has just been changed). Wikipedia's role in the Sarah Palin frenzy is receding, and so too should any sense of urgency in this RFAR. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kelly

First, in response to several comments above, there was no other way besides full protection to stop the fire hose spraying of filth on our most-highly trafficked article. I under that the article subject is a well known figure, but some of the edits were blatant libel, in a legal sense, directed not only toward her, but her family. In addition there was a very high volume of SPAs, POV-pushers, and revert warriors. The editing volume was so high that the warn/block system was simply impossible. There were dozens of edits per hour. Simply removing the BLP violations was impossible to keep up with, much less research through hundreds of revisions to see who was making the edits or revert-warring. At any given time there were generally only two or three responsible editors trying to hold back the tide, hardly any of us admins. I begged and begged for help at WP:ANI, WP:AN, and even at Jimbo's talk page. There was no help forthcoming. Finally an appeal last night at WP:AN got the initial full protection instated, and conversation began on the talk page. This was completely disrupted by the wheel-warring over protection. The system really failed here. Kelly ^hi! 19:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion should focus on whether it was appropriate to block MZMcBride for his edit, rather than whether the Sarah Palin page deserved a certain level of protection. It is my understanding that that discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand - I'm reiterating the point that MZMcBride (and Jossi, incidentally) overturned the only possible solution for that article at the time, against consensus and the previous actions of other administrators. It wasn't just the wheel-warring, it was the resulting consequences. Kelly ^hi! 20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page views

Just for perspective on how many people are seeing the BLP violations when they get into the article, here are the page view stats, courtesy of Henrik -

Date	Views
August 28	14.5k, pre-nomination
August 29	2.5M
August 30	1.1M
August 31	505.9k
September 1	571.2k
September 2	733.3k
September 3	524.5k
September 4 (4 hours missing)	625.5k so far, ~750k if extrapolated to whole day.

Kelly ^hi! 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the previous 4 days, hope you don't mind. Dragons flight (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by previously involved LessHeard vanU

Disclosure; I semi-protected Talk:Sarah Palin twice on 31st August - first for 15 minutes to allow a break in the vandal fighting to see if there was consensus for an extended sprotect, and then to carry out said consensus.
Prior to my sprotecting the talkpage was, following the sprotect on the article, being unundated by a batch of ip's (likely the same individual or group) attempting to "place" a rumour regarding who may have been the mother of Sarah Palin's last child. By my initial review it appeared that 80% of all edits were either vandalism or reverting same, and it was running at six or more edits per minute. During the first protection, and then during the second until I sprotected my userpages, I was targeted by the same vandals who had been hitting the talkpage, as were any editor who then reverted them. It was disappointing to later find that my actions had been reversed, without any prior consultation with me, on the basis that talkpages needed to be unprotected to allow anons/new accounts to raise queries when they were unable to edit the main page. From subsequent comment it was apparent the overturning admin was not aware of the level of disruption to the page, but was acting upon "principle", and had not noted the earlier consensus for the action.
I would like for ArbCom to accept this request so that they may clarify that once protection (either type) is executed that, unless the action was in clear violation of the consensus (that is, the consensus was to keep the page open rather than some few disputing that it be protected), a consensus to overturn the protection is required - and further that that consensus needs to be in place within WP space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to Doc glasgow: no, we can't truly hurt high profile individuals like Palin, but we can certainly hurt ourselves in allowing policy violating material to keep returning onto high traffic articles - ones that will be noticed for the same reasons why there will be those prepared to keep placing such material until they are blocked or the page locked; high visibility. By allowing edits to push the line on what is acceptable on bio's of major figures we are then potentially allowing the editors of less visible subjects to make judgements of what is acceptable against those standards. There are no differing rules for those who are experienced in being in the public eye, and those who are not. BLP is blind to fame and fortune. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Oh, and another thing, "Hi! Please stay!"[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Fritzpoll is a newbie admin. Go easy on him, please. I don't think he recognized that a wheel war was going on, and the noticeboard consensus (which counts infinitely more than IRC consensus) was in favor of protection, the action he took. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for protecting such an article is that Wikipedia looks bad if we publish rumor and speculation about a living person. The effect on her reputation is separate from the question of our reputation. In this case it's much easier for us to hurt ourselves than to hurt her. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jossi

I second Doc Glasgow comments. Protection of this article is utterly ridiculous and consensus for protection is non-existent. Granted, there are some people that thing that protection is needed, but that does not cut it. The default state of an article is "free to be edited" and if protection is required, there needs to be wide consensus for that measure --- in particular an article about a subject that is in the front pages of all newspapers around the world and about which new information is surfacing by the minute. If there are BLP violations, remove them on-sight. If there are vandals, block them, but let the editing continue unimpeded but what seems to be politically motivated POV pushing, pro or con. This is the first time in 4 years that I have invoked WP:IAR, and I stand by my action of unprotecting this article: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. and that is exactly what I have done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for this RFARB, I think it is unnecessary: Bring this back to WP:AN and get a wide number of editors to comment on the need or lack thereof for protecting this article. Dispute resolution has yet to be exhausted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there: Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ryan Postlethwaite

I think this has escalated far more than it should have done. Yes, we’ve had a wheel war and yes we’ve had BLP enforcement used, and undone, without a clear consensus, but the protection tool is the button that does the least damage, especially on a page like Sarah Palin. Unprotection in this case merely allowed the potential for BLP violations to occur, rather than reintroducing BLP content as an undelete would do. I’d hate to see admins lose their bit over something so minor, when it was clear that even if BLP violations and vandalism was introduced, the page was so heavily watched that it wouldn’t last long. I don’t agree with the unprotection one bit, and I think it was very poor form, but the best course of action in this case is trouts all round, rather than a long, drawn out arbitrion case that will most likely end in a ticking off for the participants. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the admins channel should not be used to create consensus, and it certainly shouldn't be used to taunt other admins with threats to wheel war. It's something I consider completely inappropriate from a channel member, let alone a channel operator. This is a seperate issue however, and hopefully can be sorted without the need for the committee to address this - Ideally MZMcBride would voluntarily give up his access to the channel. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to kmccoy, I am hopeing that the issues regarding the admins channel can be dealt with privately, but Jimbo and ArbCom have already stated that have overall control over the channel (and this seems correct given that James is our group contact). If this can't be sorted out privately (and there is a simple solution), then arbcom may wish to look over the logs (there were members of the committee in the channel at the time) and come to their own conclusions. I was maybe unfair to bring up MZMcBrides name individually, because there were a couple more problematic comments from others, but not nearly as bad as MZM's, and he's supposed to be a channel operator. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Professor Marginalia

There are two issues that need to be addressed, both of them recurrent sources of turmoil at WP. The first is that of admins resorting to anarchistic wheel warring to remedy disagreements with fellow admins, and the other is how IRC continues to be a forum for rallying allies in disputes and making decisions that clearly belong on-wiki. These problems recycle again and again. I don't see the problems going away by themselves.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Joshdboz

After the initial long-term block for 5 days, the discussion on WP:AN appeared to support temporary protection to solve the major causes of edit warring and to see if the amount of harmful editing would cool down. However, there were certainly voices (including my own) in support of a quicker downgrade to semi-protection. Over the last day several of the more contentious issues have been solved, and there appears to be general consensus on what would and would not be an appropriate addition to the article based on the variety of new politically charged information. With this in mind, a special BLP block for two weeks seems beyond overkill. Joshdboz (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by not-quite-sure-if-he-is-involved J.delanoy

I made one non-controversial edit to Sarah Palin while it was fully protected, wikilinking her date of birth in the opening sentence. I also copy/pasted the entire article to User:J.delanoy/Sarah Palin and cascade-protected the latter so that no one could vandalize Sarah Palin inconspicuously through template vandalism or by uploading a different image on top of ones included in the article. I do not know if this makes me an involved party or not, as I did not protect or unprotect the actual article. I was going to ask if people thought that I should undo my cascade protection earlier today when I saw the wheel-war beginning, but I had to go to work. Regardless, I believe that my actions were correct, as our article about Sarah Palin is receiving an enourmous amount of interest from the internet in general. Any template or image vandalism could go unnoticed for at least 10 or 15 minutes (as evidenced by the template vandalism on To Kill a Mockingbird that went unnoticed for nearly 20 minutes when that article was Today's Featured Article). Because of the high traffic Sarah Palin is receiving, any transcluded vandalism has the potential to be seen by several thousand people, and in my view, that is an unacceptable risk. However, if anyone feels differently, they may unprotect User:J.delanoy/Sarah Palin at any time, and I will not restore protection to it.

As far as the protection of Sarah Palin goes, I do not really have an opinion on whether it should be full-protected or not. I did not participate in the discussions surrounding the protection, and I have no intention of doing so in the future. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/1)

Accept to examine the conduct of all involved administrators. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good grief, blocking an admin to end a wheelwar! All admin stop using your tools to enforce your view of the proper decision. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The wording of WP:Wheelwar describes the sanctions made by Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee in past incidents of wheelwars, I believe. It is not an invitation for administrators who think that they are correct to raise the stake in the conflict even higher by blocking other admins that reverses another admins use of tools. Think about what a mess we would have if admins that disagreed with each other started blocking each other. Admins need to set a better example in conflicts by using more discussion to settle conflicts not rushing to use tools to settle them. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Every admin that used their tools thought that they were correct, right?. And used them believing that they were helping the situation. No admin was acting to hurt Wikipedia. We all can agree on that point, right? Please understand that my intent is to stop admin from wheelwaring, now. This includes admins invoking IAR to unprotect a page. And admin re-re-protecting claiming to have consensus on their side. As well, this includes an admin blocking an admin and then reversing that admin action because of disagreement with that admin action. I do not think we can have one admin judging another admin use of tools and applying blocks if they disagree with them. It is highly unlikely that the block will stick because the blocked admin will undo it or some other admin will. That makes the situation worse, not better. And whole mess will end up in front the Committee with more people involved. So blocking an admin for their use of admin tools is pointless, and will only cause more disagreement or drama. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward acceptance , but awaiting statements from MZMcBride and others involved before reaching a final conclusion. I am tempted in any event, however, to propose an injunction compelling Doc glasgow to stay unretired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide notice of the case to Jossi and to any other administrators who might be deemed involved in today's events. Still not opining on the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not asked in my capacity as an arbitrator, but without changing the status quo, is there any way we can live without the huge template at the top of Sarah Palin, particularly now while the article is on DYK? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert

Initiated by Moreschi (talk) at 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
arguably Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[8] [9] [10]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[11]

Statement by Moreschi

As you can see from the ANI thread, Georgewilliamherbert made an appalling, awful block of Giano for a comment that had I made, no one would blink an eyelid. Even from Giano, no one apart from George did blink an eyelid. All Giano said was "Stifle is trolling", which was arguably correct, and even if not so, hardly incivil. Massive community consensus to overturn the block, and what does George do? Puts some massive self-justifying screed on ANI (and Giano's talk) about how he's right while the rest of us humble peons are wrong.

Given that GWH has spotty history with the block button [12] [13] [14] and [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] I think this merits a couple of months off from the admin buttons. Think of it as relaxing vacation so he can re-evaluate his performance. He's not a bad guy, just seems to be a bit out of touch. Moreschi (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, RFC would be useless for temporary desysopping, arbcom being the only body that can do this, and I think it would be useless anyway, seeing as everyone's already told him he's wrong at ANI and he didn't listen. And he's still not listening. I see no need to open a full case: the evidence is not complex. A simple vote on this page should suffice. Moreschi (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for anything drastic. Just a couple months away from the tools to think about things, because he is making bad blocks while not making really very many blocks. Moreschi (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another particularly bad civility block seems to be the block of Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one comment, not directed at any one individual made in response to clear baiting at, [21]. Why that one was not overturned I don't know. All of these are comparatively recent, too. The ANI thread for this one is linked to above. Moreschi (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a further note: I'd be surprised if there's really a need for a Stifle RFAR, although I actually overturned (to which Stifle, to his credit, did not object) a very dodgy "personal attacks" block of Paul Barlow (talk · contribs) he made recently. There are two issues here, only one of which is for arbcom to resolve: "incivility blocks" and GWH's judgment. The latter is within your purview, guys - the former is more important, but that we will simply have to sort out ourselves. Essentially, WP:CIVIL needs to be rewritten, but that's the community's task. Moreschi (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've written up an alternative at User:Moreschi/Alternative Civility Policy. Share and enjoy. Moreschi (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

I believe that this is premature, as ANI and talk page discussion is still active and (in my opinion) fruitful for all parties, but will respond for the record.

My comment on ANI this morning was this one.

I stand by that statement . Before blocking, I reviewed Giano's complete contributions in that thread, other contributions recently, and the thread context on AN ( [22] ) regarding Stifle's block of Peter Damian.

This revolves around three issues:

Giano making uncivil edits.
Giano is under prior Arbcom sanction and warnings for incivility and personal attacks (IRC case, Geogre/Wm Connelly case, older cases).
Giano is a longstandinding but controverisal member of the community.

My review of the situation before blocking indicated that, in my opinion, Giano was being uncivil and making personal attacks in thread. I also believe that Giano was more uncivil in that thread than the other participants by a noticeable degree. A number of administrators have chimed in that he was not uncivil, or not particularly uncivil, or it was uncivil but the discussion was generally somewhat uncivil and it was not outstandingly so. I reviewed it this morning and I still believe that it was uncivil (and not merely strongly worded opinion), was particularly uncivil and was sustained over time, and was noticably worse than the other commenters.

There was some comment that I might be attempting to restrict Giano's contributions in the thread on Stifle's use of the administrator tools. For the record, I had not participated in the discussion or formed an opinion on the issues previously, and in the course of reviewing his contributions last night I formed an opinion. That opinion is that I agree with Giano's basic premise that there was a mistaken use of the tools on Stifle's part. I concluded that his contributions were uncivil despite agreeing with them in principle.

I was reluctant to do this block, because anything touching Giano has been consistently highly dramatic over time. However, I have a strong opinion that the level of incivility in some forums is highly unhelpful to the project, and I have been working to try and minimize that, using all the appropriate and available tools (polite requests, warnings, and some blocks). I reluctantly concluded that Giano has been adequately asked and warned, and that per his extensive prior history he tends to escalate uncivil behavior once it gets started in a particular thread. I blocked to prevent that, for a short period of time, and tried to engage him on his talk page in a discussion about the ongoing corrosive effects that his incivility has on the project.

Moreschi is correct that I have been critical of many other admins on the ANI thread, though I hope it's been civil. We all need to take incivility seriously. It's horrendously bad for the project - it drives nonconfrontational editors away from pages, away from policymaking, away from participation in the community at all. Giano is, unfortunately, both a longstanding extremely positive contributor to the project, and with about 1% of his edits the poster child for incivility on Wikipedia. I believe that politely but firmly confronting this is both appropriate and regrettably necessary.

I would urge that the ANI and talk page threads be allowed to run for a while before this case is taken up. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(addendum) I have reviewed Jehochman and MastCell's comments on ANI in thread, and Jehochman's below, that civility paroles and blocks may simply not work, and I am troubled by the possibility that they might be correct. I think that this is an important point to have discussed in detail (somewhere - ANI, wherever). If they don't work they should not be part of the standard administrator toolkit of responses... and if they don't work in specific cases with specific offenders, they should be taken off the table explicitly. I am not convinced, but concerned on the point... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(addendum 2) Responding to a couple of the comments below - regarding the particulars of what I did here"

I was not on IRC (and as a rule am not, my current workplace has a firewall which doesn't pass the traffic out) and not part of the group of people who are usually involved there, as far as I know. If there are lingering issues with the IRC / administrator interactions that's fine, but please keep that separate from what happened here.
I wasn't involved in (and hadn't previously read) the AN thread which I blocked over, and wasn't trying to goad or encourage followup sanctions, both because that's rude and abusive and because I read the most recent prior arbcom case decision and am aware that that sort of behavior is currently appropriately a focus of attention. I did civilly try to discuss the events with Giano (after the block) and had no intention of continuing to engage if it was just provoking things.

It's clear that this incident has inadvertently held up a mirror and a lot of things look uglier than we want them to. If there's a decision to examine those issues then that makes sense - I just don't want anyone under a misaprehension that this particular thing happened because of an IRC clique or because I was stalking Giano and trying to goad him or something crazy like that. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

This case is premature to say the least. Yup, GWH made a big mistake today, and has done on a couple of occasions when using the block button, but he's had no opportunity for real communal feedback into the use of his tools. I'd go as far to say that an RfC would even be premature at this point in time. George has had his feedback for the day in a large AN/I thread. Compared to some other admins, George's misconduct has been extremely minor, and the only reason why there's any aura about this is because the recipitent of the block was Giano. GWH has no hostory of blocks of Giano, and made a good faith mistake when blocking - if there's more evidence than Moreschi has already provided then perhaps an RfC would be the right way to go, but certainly they don't need escalating to this level at the minute - remember, arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, not the first. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jehochman

I respectfully request the Committee to review the use of Civility restriction type editing restrictions. In my experience these remedies do not create the desired result, but perhaps a scientific review of past cases may reflect otherwise. Perhaps a different approach would be more fruitful. The present case illustrates the problem that editors under civility restriction become second class citizens, and are subject to improper blocks which make their civility challenges worse, rather than better. The net result is harm to the encyclopedia. I am thinking about User:Giano II, User:ScienceApologist and User:DreamGuy as recent examples of productive contributors who have been turned into virtual punching bags.

Civility is subjective. With 1000+ admins, if an editor makes a critical statement, at least a few admins will see some sort of incivility. The fact that we have editors from around the world, many who do not speak English as their first language, many from different cultures that have different norms of civility, only makes the problem harder. If a statement has a purpose that is connected with improving the encyclopedia, we should assume good faith and read the statement in a favorable light, if possible. These civility restrictions appear to be a license for assuming bad faith. This situation needs to be reviewed, across the board.

The problem is not the civility policy; it may be that ArbCom has placed sanctions that severely alter the policy by making borderline incivility a blockable offense. Consider removing these sanctions, and letting the community deal with all users the same way. For incivility, except in egregious cases, blocking is normally the wrong response and is not tolerated by the community.

ArbCom would do well to inform administrators that it is not okay to block and then let the community decide if the block is acceptable. Users are real people with feelings who should not be experimented upon. Unless an administrator is confident that a block is proper and will withstand scrutiny, they should not do it. When in doubt, ask for comments first. Borderline incivility is less of a problem than trigger-happy sysops blocking good faith users. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Durova

Procedurally inadequate RFAR: no attempt at formal dispute resolution, not an emergency situation. Durova^Charge! 21:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Coren

First, a point of fact: Stifle did not block Peter Damian, I did.

Secondly, I don't think this is anywhere near the purview of the Committee; this is little but a stubbornness dispute that has not degenerated into wheel warring and does not require emergency intervention. — Coren ^(talk) 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John254

I would suggest that this case be accepted to examine Stifle's egregiously inappropriate and premature AFD nomination of Epistemic theory of miracles, which resulted in Peter Damian (talk · contribs) leaving the project in disgust, as described at [23], and precipitated this conflict. Despite the fact that serious concerns regarding the AFD were raised at WP:AN, Stifle has maintained the legitimacy of the nomination, refuses to promise to refrain from further nominations of this nature, and indeed blames Peter Damian for starting an article in the main namespace [24]! While there may be no prior formal dispute resolution with respect to this matter, how many valuable content contributors should Stifle be permitted to drive off the project before his behavior is examined by this committee? John254 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bishonen

Civility parole does not mean "not permitted to state opinions on ANI" as far as I know. Giano's comments were not uncivil, they were strongly worded, which was appropriate to the subject of Stifle's actions (which as John254 points out, actually were "horrendously bad for the project"). Dear me. Georgewilliamherbert insists that everybody must speak the same way—namely, as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouths—or else be blocked. That's an outlandish view of our interaction here. At the very, very least he should have taken it to WP:AE for discussion before pushing the button. Disband the civility police now! To the committee: this is to be expected when you institute a remedy that says any admin gets to block the supposed "poster child for incivility". Bishonen | talk 21:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment from JzG

It is time to summon the cabal. All those here who are interested in this case, we need to get together and come up with a civility guideline that actually works. Continually blocking Giano is becoming farcical - and also rather binary, since either the admin openly invites review (in which case it's speedily reversed) or they don't, in which case we have another drawn-out dramafest.

I have said this before. If we cannot write a guideline that Giano, whose commitment to the project is beyond question, can agree to and get behind then we should simply forget the whole concept as unworkable. There appears to be no proper attempt to mentor, no intervention with others who may not understand that Giano is not only not American but does not have English as a first language (which is remarkable given the quality of his writing but is an important consideration in the context of informal speech). All we have is an endless spectacle of people making fools of themselves and Bish running interference for Giano. We need a better way than the block-unblock-drama cycle. And to e clear I don't blame GWH here, it could have been any of several dozen others and I think it was a block made in good faith based on a poorly worded or poorly conceived policy.

So: a working party with the interested individuals here, and the Geogre, and anyone else who feels strongly about it, to propose something that might (unlike the current endless iterations of GAAAAAHHHHH!) work. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just to be clear here: when I say "running interference" I mean that in the sense of a fighter escort, heading off those who would prevent Giano from dropping his payload of encyclopaedic content on the heart of Wikipedia, striking another blow for free content. Or something. I am crap at metaphors, sorry. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Mr. IP

I would "respectfully request" that the Arbitration Committee summarily remove the civility restrictions on Giano and abandon the practice of fettering useful editors with vague and troublesome sanctions. These civility impositions have been nothing but a drama sink, and it's clear they do nothing but waste all our time. I refuse to believe that Giano's persistent low-level sauciness, always aimed at established users who should be able to handle it, is some kind of threat to the project. This whole affair has been by turns silly and sad. It is no wonder that the ArbCom so frequently finds itself a victim of his barbs — I mean, what's next, house arrest? We need to learn from this mistake and adopt better practices forthwith. "Civility restrictions" have been a joke in every instance. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Horologium

Hmmmm, once again we have a perceived civility issue with Giano on Wikipedia space pages. I'm unwilling to trawl through the rather impressive block log to check, but if I am not mistaken, Giano's blocks are all related to Wikipedia space, not article space (or templates, or userspace, or images). Obviously the civility restriction is not working, and I don't think anyone wants Giano to leave, but I'd like to make a suggestion that Giano consider reducing his involvement in project space, where his interaction with editors with whom he disagrees tends to be contentious. By now, I think just about everyone is aware that Giano does not like IRC or the Arbitration committee, but neither of those institutions are likely to go away, and if Giano directed his expenditures arguing against them to creating the featured content he has consistently demonstrated he is capable of creating, Wikipedia will be the better for it. Horologium (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved S. Dean Jameson

This is my last post before my wikibreak. I was concerned about Gwh's block of Giano even simply on its face. It was a patently bad block, based on evidence that couldn't even really be described as thready. After seeing Gwh's complete unwillingness to admit it was a terrible block, and discovering his track record of making quite awful blocks, I think this may well rise to the level of needing attention from the arbitration committee. We need less drama, not more, and Gwh is fostering drama with his bad blocks. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 01:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tom harrison

Come on, do we have to keep doing this? I urge arbcom to take the case and simply issue a finding that no one may block Giano. Maybe we can get the developers to write it into the software. Whatever, let's move on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I can think of at least 2 recent occasions where I've growled (or wanted to growl) at George for his admin actions. But instead of coming here as a first resort, it should've been looked into and then taken to RFC so he has a chance (he does appear to have acted in good faith - which can be infuriating - and was for myself). There's no case.

Civility parole can work so it shouldn't be abandoned as a remedy - it's just not going to work in certain cases like this one. But Horologium does have a point, and it is a strange irony that a lot of poor decisions are made (even by myself in the past) when it comes to Giano's conduct on Wikipedia space, or attempting to discuss Giano's conduct. (And until now, I could not think of any alternative to civility parole.)

It comes back to a thought the the Committee really need to consider & possibly work on themselves - so far proscriptive measures have been tried and failed. Per Guy, this is an occasion where the time should be taken to make something more prescriptive. This is also an occasion where NYB (and even FT2) could really help, and where I'd support that sort of writing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Chillum

I don't think enough effort in regards to dispute resolution has been taken to justify arbcom at this point. It was a judgment call, policy does not require that a personal attack reach a certain level of egregiousness before a block can be placed but rather focuses on prevention. It says "A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks", in this case I would say this was relevant. While people may have disagreed with the block after the fact, it was not contrary to policy and was within the realm of discretion. Policy makes a clear statement that ongoing personal attacks(rather than just egregious) can lead to a block because that is what the community wants. Chillum 03:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Giano

Seeing as Ryan, Chillum and the usual "uninvolveds" have already picked up their knitting and settled themselves into their front seats in the peanut gallery up above, I may as well make a statement too.

In February of this year a group of Arbs namely (FloNight, Deskana, UninvitedCompany, Kirill Lokshin,Sam Blacketer, Morven and Jpgordon) placed this sanction [25] upon me. This was not because I had been hurtling about referring to other editors as "Bastard bitches from hell" "Fucking bastards" etc and other choice expressions used by some of my peers, but because I had become widely known for pointing out the shortcomings of the project - and most worryingly to the Arbcom, I seemed to have quite a lot of editors who supported my views - and still do. The Arbcom knew at the time of passing the motion that certain admins would use the sanction to ensure Wikipedia censorship - in fact, there is no alternative explanation, but to believe this was the Arbcom's intention - it has undeniably been the result, and as a consequence , "civility" is now used as a weapon by those in authority for silencing dissent. This is a bad state of affairs, and those members of the Arbcom who passed the sanction upon me have to shoulder some responsibility for this deplorable state of affairs. I think those that chose to become Arbs have to expect some criticism and take it on the chin, and not exact personal vengeance.[26]

While as usual (when I am within a mile of a case) the Arbs are voting before half the statements have been made, I don't much care what happens to Georgewilliamherbert, to pursue one bad admin and ignore the hundred of others seems rather a waste of valuable time, which could be spent addressing the real issues here - namely the use of "civility" as a weapon and the Arbcom's role in creating this situation. Towards that subject, some Admins, I am particularly thinking of those such as Stifle would do well to remember that civility isn't just what you say, it's what you do.

I seldom use the word troll, for the reasons explained here [27] so when I do use it - it is with the correct form and meaning. That is not being uncivil - it is using it for the good of the project. Giano (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stifle

For the record:

On new page patrol, I prodded an article that I thought should be deleted
Peter Damian deprodded the article
I nominated it for AFD
Peter Damian repeatedly removed the AFD notice, which is not the correct procedure. I readded it, stopping before I breached 3RR
I left some warnings on Peter Daniel's page
Peter Damian became increasingly uncivil, an AN thread was opened, and I asked for an uninvolved administrator to review whether Peter Damian should be blocked for WP:NPA
Coren blocked Peter Damian for 31 hours, before reducing the block to time served after 8 hours arising from the AN discussion.

As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed.

I think that I remained civil at all times and I don't think I was trolling, and while I didn't think I was wrong to make the AFD nomination, it appears that the community feels otherwise, and I accept that decision and apologize that my actions led to this. I also don't care about being called a troll. Regarding the overall issue, someone blocked Giano (as many, including I, have done), someone unblocked him (as many have done), and we've been through the mill on this very recently. An RFAR here would really not improve anything and I hope the ArbCom declines the request. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read over the AN thread (which I thought had closed and was not following) and wish to strengthen the above. I apologize for my actions in this matter and will try to be less short-sighted in future. Hopefully we can move on. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, and mine offered also in return. Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will volunteer to work on the NPP discussion contemplated by Newyorkbrad below. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to FayssalF

As far as I am aware, none of the decisions relating to this matter were taken on IRC. I am confused as to why you are voting to accept because of that. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Physchim62

Come on everyone, summer's over, time to get back to work, let's not be silly here. I suggest trouts at dawn for WMH and Moreschi as an appropriate remedy for their respective actions. What right have administrators to expect other users to use dispute resolution if they are (both of them in this case) taking such knee-jerk reactions to bypass it? Physchim62 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Mayalld

This looks like drama for the sake of drama!

Was the block bad?

No, I don't believe that is was bad

Was it borderline?

Yes, I believe that it was borderline, but it was a good faith action, and doesn't show any serious lack of judgement, merely a "grey area" view.

GWH blocked, and invited overturning, which happened. He has explained his views, not to argue for the block to be re-instated, but to explain why he did what he did, and his response merely emphasises in my mind that this was a good faith action in a grey area. I urge that Arbcom reject it withour further ado. Mayalld (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thatcher

I note John254's statement about Stifle's attempt to delete Epistemic theory of miracles. This is a battle I fought several times back in the day when I used to participate at AfD. I had seen several potentially good articles tagged for CSD within minutes, sometimes seconds, of their creation. If the CSD was declined, the article was tagged for prod or AfD, often when it had been live less than an hour. I asked, if an article does not meet standards after the first edit, why couldn't we check articles after 24 hours to see if they had been expanded? I was told that would be too inconvenient for the recent change patrol. Or I was told that people should write articles in user space and only move them when they were perfect. When I objected that new editors would not know this, and that trying to delete good faith attempts to write an article would drive them away, I was told that the editors were only here to write one article and would not stay anyway. I have seen Peter Damian in this case be criticized for not creating the article in user space first, and for using {{in use}} when he should have used {{under construction}}. This kind of aggressive behavior is why I don't hang out at DRV any more.

I took a course in college on the philosophy of science. One of the arguments was that miracles were, by definition, outside the laws of nature and hence not subject to scientific investigation. The epistemic theory of miracles is an interesting counterpoint to that, which I do not remember from class (although I did have senioritis and got a D) but find quite interesting. Here is the version of Epistemic theory of miracles that existed just before it was prodded. To get from there to here required failures at multiple points. I'm not sure it's fixable by arbcom, and I suppose things aren't necessarily worse than 2 years ago, but they obviously aren't better. Thatcher 14:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One way to fix it would be the concept of trusted or 'established' editors or whatever, that RC patrol or whatever know not to bother. Any problems with the contribution of such editors would be addressed by different means. This method is already informally established here already (this is the first time I have been bothered by RC, but it is a growing menace). In a perfect world, I would abolish IP anon contributions. The principle of 'anyone can edit' has already long since been abandoned (in favour of 'no one can edit', it seems), so why not formally recognise that also. Then a large class of people working here can turn their skills to the real business of writing an encyclopedia. Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved Peter Damian

Stifle has apologised and I have apologised back, so that is the end of that particular incident. But the issue underlying it is not over. The community is tearing itself apart and we need to discuss and agree the reasons why that is happening, and think of practically addressing them. In summary, I would like a chance to think about this and comment here later. Is that possible? I am tied up with work for a few more days. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except to say, for now, it would be grossly punitive to take this out on User:Stifle, or any of the participants in this particular incident. Now, back to creating an encyclopedia. Peter Damian (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nsk92

I have no opinion on the Giano episode as I am not familiar with the prior history here. However, I think that the general issue of aggressive AfD tagging raised by John254 and by Thatcher is simply not suitable for arbitration. It is a matter needing a policy solution where no real consensus in the community appears to exist as yet (and where, in any case, it would not be appropriate for ArbCom to venture into the legislating arena). I'll comment on this issue, especially since Thatcher's statement was brought up by bainer as a reason to accept the case.

Personally, I share many of the frustrations expressed by John254 and Thatcher regarding NPP and a bit of a bloodsport atmosphere there where there seems to be a bit of a competition regarding who will CSD or AfD a new article first. I personally think that CSD criteria should be followed literally and conservatively and that an article should not be nominated for an AfD without doing a few quick google searches (googlebooks, googlescholar, googlenews) first to see if the subject is notable and if an article is salvageable. I have opposed people in RFAs for not doing that. Overly quick and aggressive CSD/AfD does drive away many new editors and does result in deletions of potentially valuable articles (especially if there is a tag on the article stating that it is undergoing a substantial revision). But, in all fairness, there is another side of the coin and ultimately more of the blame rests with somebody who creates an unreferenced WP:OR-filled article and leaves it in this form for others to clean up (which often means forever or for several years before an article is improved or deleted). We have thousands of articles like that and they do real harm to the project too. It is a perfectly sound advice not to use the WP mainspace as garage area and to develop a minimally passable (not perfect!) version of an article in one's user space first before posting it to mainspace. It is also true that the practical limitations of WP:NPP, with dozens of new WP articles being created every minute, are such that if an article is not tagged quickly, it will probably not be tagged for quite a long time even if the article does clearly deserve deletion. So we do have a difficult problem here that does not have easy solutions. There is real harm both in overly quick and aggressive AfD tagging and in allowing thousands of poorly written unreferenced articles slip past WP:NPP and then remain in a thoroughly unsatisfactory state for years; and it is not very clear which practice does more harm. At the moment neither practice is considered disruptive and both are tolerated by the de facto community consensus (although the latter, arguably, goes more against the existing policies than the former). Some kind of new ideas are needed here but it is not for ArbCom to do that. The community needs to get its act together and come up with some better solutions.

It could be that some small technological fixes can go a long way here. For example, when a new article is submitted, there is a warning displayed at the submit page which says that all the info must be verifiable and that otherwise it can be deleted or removed. Maybe one can make these warnings five times bigger and write them in huge flashing red letters so that even new editors would pay attention.

Maybe more draconian measures in terms of enforcing WP:V (which, at the moment, is interpreted and enforced rather liberally) are needed, such as, for example, creating a new CSD category for unreferenced articles or changing the deletion policy to list the absence of references a valid reason for an AfD nomination.

Or maybe, on the contrary, one could institute a rule that new articles are ineligible for an AfD listing for at least 24 hours from the time of their creation, unless they qualify for CSD tagging.

I don't know what is best here and I don't think there is any real consensus in the community for the moment on how to deal with this problem. It would not be appropriate for ArbCom to start punishing people in this regard or to try to find a policy solution of its own. Nsk92 (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Barneca

Suggest three courses of action:

Void Giano's civility parole (and that of anyone else subjected to something similar) as not working and only making things worse. Instead of saying you won't do it in the future, if it isn't working, nuke it.
Have Giano write a new WP:CIVIL. I'm dead serious. In addition to being extraordinarily excitable, he's also intellegent, a great writer, cares deeply about Wikipedia, and has been "exposed" to the current version of WP:CIVIL more than most. Have him come up with something that he would be happy to follow, and would be happy to have every other editor follow. Odds are that he'll find it harder than he thinks, but they're also fairly good that when he's done, it will be a good policy, and odds are really, really good that it will at least be better than the gameable thing we have now.
On a cursory glance, there appear to be some valid concerns over a number of GWH's blocks. I'm unclear if the pattern behind these blocks has been pointed out to GWH before or not. If it has not, suggest declining an RFAR as premature for now, encouraging an RFC instead. It would be sporting if GWH voluntarily offered to avoid blocking anyone until the RFC was over. If, at the end of an RFC, the same concerns occur over any future block, then someone can file an RFAR. If the pattern has already been discussed with him before, suggest accepting. --barneca (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Protonk (talk)

I have started an RFC regarding some of the main questions raised by the ArbComm. It is available at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Civility restriction RFC. Hopefully this will allow the community, rather than the committee, to answer the policy questions and leave the conduct questions for the ArbComm. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from MastCell

You know, I actually feel sorry for Georgewilliamherbert. He was sort of entrapped, if you think about it. The Committee enacted a "civility parole": Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. GWH judged that Giano had made such an edit and applied the Committee's favored remedy. It's easy enough to lay into GWH, because he did make a poor decision, but it may be more productive to move past the assignment of individual blame and look at the root-cause systemic issue here: civility parole.

For the record, I think:

Giano's comment was not especially uncivil and certainly not blockworthy;
GWH has made several poor "civility" blocks recently, most or all of which were overturned;
GWH specifically exercised poor judgement in this episode, in that this block was very predictably controversial yet he made it without prior discussion and immediately before logging off for the evening.

I also think:

GWH is a thoughtful and well-meaning person who is reflecting on the fallout from this incident and may credibly be expected to learn from it without the Committee's intervention.

Civility parole (or "civility patrol", as one editor Freudianly termed it) creates a situation where people are on high alert and actually seek out incivility to report. Every time Giano, or another sanctioned editor, says anything remotely controversial, people are immediately screening it in their minds: was this "uncivil"? Should I report it? Should I block him? These are not the optimal trains of thought. ScienceApologist is another editor under civility parole. It has made ScienceApologist mad, because of the unavoidably arbitrary and capricious nature of decisions on which comments are "blockable" and which are not. It's made the targets of SA's incivility mad, because they see him occasionally "getting away" with incivility despite the parole. It's lengthened SA's block log and led to several incipient wheel wars. What it hasn't done is make SA more civil, or improve the editing environment in any noticeable way. Personally, I am on strike from "enforcing" any civility-based remedies, as I consider them actively harmful based on available evidence. Other WP:AE regulars haven't joined me on the picket line explicitly, but I do sense that many of them share my reluctance to enforce these remedies.

A wise man once distilled the complex practice of internal medicine into four universal laws:

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 allow a surgeon to make patient-management decisions.

The first three, at least, are widely applicable. Civility parole does not work, and we should stop doing it. Giano's civility parole should be lifted, and we should do nothing else until we figure out a better approach, if any is indeed necessary. I suspect, though I don't know, that removing the bullseye of civility parole from Giano's neck will actually improve the situation all around, because it will mean one less source of drama on Wikipedia. Look at the outcome of this particular contretemps: the "offended party", Stifle, made peace with Giano and moved on. If there were no civility parole, we could have gotten to that desirable endpoint without this most unfortunate detour. This is clear evidence of an instance where civility parole actively hindered effective dispute resolution.

I think that GWH will learn from this, and no one wants another Giano-focused ArbCom case - so if the Committee takes this case, it should be only for the purpose of removing Giano's civility parole and considering the utility of civility paroles in general. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Recuse; peripherally involved. — Coren ^(talk) 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/3/0/3)

Comment: Haven't decided whether to accept this yet -- would rather it were unnecessary. But regarding civility restrictions, I agree; I'll not be supporting civility "paroles" any more, as I believe they do more harm than good. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a major failure of common sense. Giano should have written his comments in a way which did not raise any questions about civility. Georgewilliamherbert should have gone to Giano's talk page and pointed that out rather than blocking. WP:TROUTs all round. No arbitration case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm travelling over the holiday weekend and will not have an opportunity to carefully review and cast a vote until Wednesday. However, based on what I've seen so far, my tentative view is to decline in favor of the suggestion that an RfC be opened; I would ask those favoring a case now to explain why that course would be insufficient, if they haven't already addressed that question. I would also urge that blocks that will inherently be controversial, such as a block of an established contributor for a borderline civility infraction in a non-urgent situation, should be brought to a noticeboard for consensus attention before rather than after the block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my further comments below (posted at bottom for continuity). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. The community has dealt with the specific case and arbitration isn't needed. There's a slight tendency at times by some (not naming any names) to seek desysopping or arbitration committee action (rather than "remedies") for what are in fact, not egregious misuses of the tools or are reasonably construed as good faith mistakes or divergent plausible viewpoints. Not a helpful trend to the community. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on civility policy - The aim of the policy is to ensure a social contract that all can edit within, and in principle, it works and is a good one. Increasingly it's under strain in a number of high profile cases like this. The valid aims of civility policy are probably these:

We rely on volunteers, which requires creating a pleasant working space for them.
Users should be able to expect that other users will talk in a respectful manner to them if asked regardless of personal feelings. (Crossref political debates, where people are always referred to with an honorific even if one personally hates their guts.)
Users joining Wikipedia or exploring its community should see a standard of general conduct that reflects we are encyclopedists, not school-children having a squabble.
Whatever social baseline is chosen should involve mutuality and tend towards the conservative (less likely to offend more people), not just demanding "everyone must accept me however I act".
Experienced editors (whether admins or not) are broadly looked to for the crucial role of setting an example, and other editors are broadly expected to adopt it on-site.

Civility is an umbrella we use for these concepts. If the community can draft a successor to civility policy that can help achieve these things without such troublesome borderline cases, then please do. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accept to review the administrators whose blocks were overturned in this situation. ArbCom is the correct venue for sanctioning administrators for improper use of admin tools. The blocks that were overturned were not newbie admin mistakes that will be easily corrected by input from the Community in a AN thread or a RFC. I would not accept this case unless there is a good likelihood that I would vote for sanctions. If Finding of fact establish repeated poor judgment by these administrators then they need to have sanctions. From my initial review of the incidents, I think that sanctions may be needed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think that blocking these users was a serious misjudgment that should not be brushed aside. Over and over we see admin treating our editors as if they were vandals and blocking them instead of talking with them to hear their side of the situation. ArbCom needs to step in and make it clear that blocking is not an acceptable method of dispute resolution. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(If I may). This gets to the heart of the issue I am concerned with. But how are we going to deal with it? Peter Damian (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accept, to review the entire chain of events (beginning with the deletion tag edit warring) and those involved. Normally I would reject this for the lack of prior dispute resolution, but I agree with FloNight's observations, and per Moreschi's statement, there may be more to this than the single incident, and it bears further consideration (whatever the final result). Moreover, the attitudes that, at first glance, appear to underly the actions taken here are extremely troubling, and that also warrants broader consideration than would be provided by narrower forms of dispute resolution. --bainer (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just noticed Thatcher's statement, and I think it a good one. There are cultural issues underlying the actions here. --bainer (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided yet on whether to take this. I agree that there are cultural and systemic issues at stake here, even more so than the conduct of individuals. I increasingly agree that civility restrictions are not working in many cases and we need to find a different way of handling these issues. That way, IMO, cannot involve us throwing our civility standards under the bus. A reasonable level of decorum is expected on Wikipedia, especially from those who have been around long enough to know what's expected. Giano, I don't accept your argument that your incivility is OK because you're only attacking experienced users who should be able to brush it off. It damages the general tone of discourse here, and inexperienced users reading such things won't be able to make the distinction that it's OK for established users to insult other established users, but they can't do it. What I do agree with is that (a) enforcement of civility restrictions is biased, and incivility is often goaded with the aim of getting someone blocked, and (b) much rude behavior from admins and others is tolerated because it doesn't breach our artificial civility rules, but the user getting angry at being so treated is then blocked. I've also long agreed that our deletion procedures and the way we treat new content and new contributors are awful, assume bad faith, and are exceptionally and needlessly aggressive. The excuse of 'Well, we have this firehose of crap to deal with, so we have to be rude to do the job' doesn't, IMO, hold up. There's absolutely no reason why we can't give people, via bot or something, a feed of 24-hour-old or week-old articles, and weed out the crap THEN after people have had the chance to fix it. Or at least, look immediately for the insults and obvious spam and the like and worry about the non-speedy-able stuff a day or a week later. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Georgewilliamherbert's block of Giano II was problematic but we generally do not take a case to review a particular short-term block that was quickly overturned. Here, however, the block raises broader issues about the threshold of civility blocks, particularly of users under related remedies based on decisions of this committee. (The fact that I dissented in part from the governing decision does not change my analysis.) I am persuaded, though not overwhelmingly so, that we should say something about this block, but the key facts appear to be before us without the need to develop a further evidentiary record over a week or more, and I do not believe that the so-called "drama" that would be associated with another case concerning a "Giano block" would be helpful. Separately from the validity of the block, several of the comments above, including those of Thatcher and Morven, raise an important issue but one that probably is not susceptible to resolution by a decision of this committee, save for a precatory one. Under the circumstances, in lieu of voting to accept a full-fledged, arbitration case, I offer a motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline as unlikely to produce any useful outcome. (For the inordinately curious, further comments at some length can be found below.) Kirill ^(prof) 01:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. Some people are just being uncivil for no particular reason. It is not the case with Giano and Peter Damian. It seems clearly that their incivility issue is a result of some other more important issues. Civility can be nothing compared to those issues... IRC and some unwarranted admins' aggressive stance and style. This has probably nothing to do with Georgewilliamherbert who could have gone to Giano's talk page at least and see if he could fix the problem otherwise. Ok, now, Fuck both IRC and incivility (this is uncivil in my small village and I am just saying it here for the sake of argument)... Many troubles come from IRC. I personally do not recognize decisions being made there and consider that parasitism. In a nutshell, incivility is less a problem compared to some partisan decisions being made there or to some aggressive admin interventions. I suggest that the ArbCom keep the civility restrictions to counter unwarranted civility issues BUT rule out decisions made on IRC and address the admin way of intervening. Otherwise, the restrictions should be lifted. We cannot maintain civility paroles while closing our eyes when it comes to the roots of the problem. They serve for nothing but to worsen situations. Fortunately, the Peter Damian/Stifle incident has been solved in a very appropriate way but would that be enough? Not really. That is why I am accepting this case. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

In lieu of opening a formal case relating to this request, it is resolved as follows:

(A) The Arbitration Committee finds that the block of Giano II by User:Georgewilliamherbert on September 1, 2008 was not substantially justified, either by Wikipedia's policies calling for civility and the avoidance of personal attacks, or in enforcement of this committee's decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC. Georgewilliamherbert is strongly urged to refrain from taking administrator actions relating to Giano II in the future.

(B) Administrators are reminded that when considering a block that is likely to be controversial, in the absence of emergency situations and particularly when the decision whether to block could be considered a close or "borderline" one, it will often be best to raise the matter for discussion on ANI or the arbitration enforcement noticeboard for discussion and consensus rather than to act unilaterally.

(C) The Arbitration Committee notes with concern comments that the newpage-patrol process has too often resulted in the deletion, or prodding or nomination for deletion, of newly created articles where the creator may not have had a full opportunity to finish creating the contemplated article or to ensure that it satisfies our criteria for notability and inclusion. The work of newpage patrollers and others participating in the review and deletion processes is valued, but this work should be performed in a fashion that does not deter further contributions, either by experienced editors and particularly by new ones. The committee recommends that a centralized discussion be convened to address how our performance can be improved in this area, taking into accounts the comments made in connection with this request.

As there are currently 12 active arbitrators, a majority is 7.

Support:

Proposed. See general comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Due to Georgewilliamherbert's comments on this request, I oppose since I do not think a warning is enough to get his attention. Blocking should rarely be used against Wikipedia editors. When users have a sanction against them, it is going to be one of the few instance when I think a block should be considered on users. But it always needs to be a last resort to stop a serious problem during an active incident. That simply was not the case in this situation. I do not see more harm coming from Giano's comments then others in the discussion. And in this incident, I'm at a loss to see how blocking Giano was going to do anything to help the Project. FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(B) basically guts our traditional "any administrator" model of sanctions; I don't think that's a useful step to take until we have something else to use. Kirill ^(prof) 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can put the question separately on the three sub-parts if desired. It looks like this request is going to be rejected as a full case under the "net 4" rule, and I would like to get at least some result out of the discussion, which has touched on some important points. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Unless IRC issues are included and addressed. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Georgewilliamherbert has represented that IRC played no role in his block, and I certainly have no reason to disbelieve him, so I do not see how this case could become a productive vehicle for addressing those issues. In any event, what language would you suggest adding to the motion (or a separate motion) to address this topic? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is Giano's incivility or lack of civility as some people would say. I had said above that [this] has probably nothing to do with Georgewilliamherbert who could have gone to Giano's talk page at least and see if he could fix the problem otherwise. There is nothing new in this motion. In general terms, points A and B are a déja vu while point C addresses another point, already known to all admins (referring to point 3), with which I agree. For it to be more effective, the motion has to touch the main problematic point which has been left unresolved. It has been said thousands of times that there's no solution to Giano's conduct (something I disagree with) because he's one of the best editors over here. So whether a) we ban him for good, b) have a motion for every administrator (today is the turn for GWH) - who would block him rightly or not - or c) fix this problem from its roots. I, obviously, call for the latter. However, I am not good in drafting motions and decisions and apologize for the inconvenience. I won't care if that would require a separate motion. The important thing is to have a practical sustainable resolution as soon as possible because this is getting extremely boring and we have a lot of things to do. In parallel, I'd encourage the community to work together and review our civility policy (there are some guidelines which have more power than this broken policy). I am sure that most would-be contributors would leave editing and participating at talk pages once they witness established Wikipedians calling each other 'twats', 'cunts', 'idiots', etc... I, for one, can't discuss with someone under such circumstances. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	12 July 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	12 July 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Clarification request: Noleander	none	(orig. case)	11 July 2024
Amendment request: Durova	Motion	(orig. case)	4 July 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox	Motion	none	10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings	none	none	12 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

@@ Line 241: / Line 241: @@
 *Leaning toward acceptance , but awaiting statements from MZMcBride and others involved before reaching a final conclusion. I am tempted in any event, however, to propose an injunction compelling Doc glasgow to stay unretired. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 **Please provide notice of the case to Jossi and to any other administrators who might be deemed involved in today's events. Still not opining on the case. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
+**This is not asked in my capacity as an arbitrator, but without changing the status quo, is there any way we can live without the huge template at the top of [[Sarah Palin]], particularly now while the article is on DYK? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 ----