Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334

Edit this section for new requests

Edit Warring at Ulster Special Constabulary

User:BigDunc is edit warring at Ulster Special Constabulary by continually removing an image which he claims has a "copyvio". The non-free use rationale is correct for the article and he has been warned not to delete it. He is also ignoring the 1RR on this article and the fact that it is a contentious subject. The article history is here. As the image is a central, integral and valuable part of this article I feel he could easily have sorted out any issues with the image itself rather than edit-warring for its removal. Thunderer (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remove a copyvio from the article and so did User:David Underdown we both explained that it was a violation yet Thunderer continued to insert the image and then went to the image page in an attempt to give a fair use rational as he knew he was in the wrong. BigDunc^Talk 15:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The removal is correct. The image serves no indespensable purpose helping to understand the article. For understanding the role of that person in the formation of the Constabulary, it is not important to see what he looked like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the image is for educational and non-profit purposes. It is not a copyright violation. Thunderer (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: NPA block for cross-wiki abuse

This is a notification that I've gone a bit beyond our normal principle of sanctioning only on-site behaviour, by handing out a long NPA block for racist personal attacks made on a different wikipedia. This is about Raso mk (talk · contribs), who was repeatedly sanctioned for abuse under WP:ARBMAC earlier. The most recent attacks were made on his home mk-wiki here, they are directed against a named en-wiki contributor, in a thread titled "en-wiki", and they contain racist nationalist abuse coupled with personal insults about the victim's looks. I've had the text translated, it's pretty bad. Since this is a cross-wiki conflict situation where the same people have consistently been acting out the same set of disputes under the same identities across several projects, and the attack is clearly of a kind designed to make good-faith collaboration with the targeted person impossible on this wiki too, I don't see any sense in treating the different wikis as different worlds here in such a way that mk-wiki could act as a safe haven for this sort of unacceptable behaviour. I've blocked the main culprit, User:Raso mk, for six months, given the history of earlier en-wiki infractions, and the second guy, MacedonianBoy (talk · contribs) for two weeks (for allowing this to happen on his talk page, applauding Raso's abuse, and edging him on.)

In case somebody asks, yes, the cross-wiki identity of the editors across the different wikis is known beyond any doubt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grandmaster

Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Grandmaster is placed under supervision under AA2, the amended remedies gives the administrators the right to impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Grandmaster was involved both in AA1 and AA2 and was already topic banned. Grandmaster has a history of distorting sources. He just did it again by totally ignoring thousands of words of discussion. Here 32 works have been provided to support that the accurate term was Tatar or Tartar. He reverted and claimed on the summary: Please do not distort the source while he was the one who distort the source.

The source Grandmaster added and even quoted it doesn't supports his edit. The initial version was between the Armenians and Caucasian Tartars (modern Azerbaijanis) throughout the Caucasus in 1905—1907. Not only does the initial version which was tempered by both Dacy69 and Grandmaster accurate, but it even clarified Tatars relation with modern Azerbaijanis and devoid of any different interpretation. Whats even more insulting is that the source he added basically says the same thing. Grandmasters edit amounts to replacing Dutch to German and then on parenthesis claiming they were refereed to as Dutch. I don't have the energy to fight on such minor things which should not cause any trouble for any reasonable editor, so what I expect is that an administrator explain Grandmaster once and for all why Romans are not called Italians, Dutch are not called Germans etc. It's so obvious that I can not suppose anymore that he does not know what he is doing. Several other users and I have attempted to explain this to him for months, in return we were always ignored. VartanM (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology and related articles

I have been informed that this is the proper area for this, so I am moving it from WP:AN/I to here. Please bear with me, as I have copied the current discussion there verbatim, to provide full context. --GoodDamon 18:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shutterbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term single-purpose account that edits solely at articles concerning Scientology, previously under the name User:COFS, which is an acronym for Church of Scientology. Shutterbug openly admits to one conflict-of-interest, to his/her benefit, as a Scientologist.

However, after a long period of inactivity, Shutterbug has begun editing in the Scientology article again, as well as several sub-articles. In the discussions that have followed, an old ArbCom case involving Shutterbug has been brought up. The ArbCom case ended with some minor temporary topic bans and blocks, but little else. Part of the reasoning that lead to this result was that Shutterbug (or COFS, at the time) claimed a particular Church of Scientology-owned IP address he/she had edited from, 205.227.165.244, including this accidental edit, was a proxy used by various hotels and such. Shutterbug recently reiterated the claim here. During the ArbCom, this claim was apparently given the benefit of the doubt, as a checkuser revealed that several similar single-purpose accounts had all edited from the same address and other Church-related address ranges. The users in question were:

COFS
CSI LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Grrrilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Makoshack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I haven't been able to figure out why this proxy claim was given credence, as I can't see any particular evidence one way or the other in the ArbCom, and the single-purpose editing definitely lends itself to an appearance of conflicts-of-interest, if not sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. But until recently, I was happy to let the decision stand; I wasn't even involved in the ArbCom, and was inclined to defer to the administrators in that case.

I now think the decision was a mistake. This user, these accounts, and every IP address previously confirmed by checkuser as being associated with these accounts has been used overwhelmingly in Scientology-related edits and minimally in anything else. Were these IP addresses those of hotel proxies and the like, one would expect a host of non-Scientology related edits, but per these Wikiscanner results, there are few if any to be found.

Lacking any evidence to the contrary aside from Shutterbug's word, the bulk of the user's edits come from official Church of Scientology-owned machines, and the claim of an IP proxy used by "hundreds if not thousands" is implausible. Had these accounts and these IP addresses not edited so single-mindedly in Scientology-related articles, it would perhaps be more plausible, but as is, the evidence is pretty compelling that Shutterbug -- as well as the other accounts -- have conflicts-of interest affecting their abilities to edit neutrally, or at the very least the appearance thereof.

There is also an issue of incivility. In this edit, I decried the sudden battling over the article after months of calm, and accurately described a particular inappropriate edit performed by a different user. In response, Shutterbug said "Let's talk and no personal attacks, please." As I had not made one, and I didn't appreciate the accusation, I asked Shutterbug to retract it, and asked again on the user's talk page. The response speaks for itself.

My thoughts at this point, unless I've missed something that completely negates my COI concerns, is that Church of Scientology IP addresses simply shouldn't be used to edit Scientology-related articles, and accounts associated with those IP addresses should be topic-banned as probable WP:ROLE accounts. --GoodDamon 09:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a short-term topicban would illustrate whether or not this is an SPA. Ask the user to stay away from any content related to COS for a month, and see what they do. If they do it and contribute elsewhere, excellent. If not, obviously we are dealing with someone inserting biased info, and should be dealt with accordingly. Thoughts? //roux 09:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem with that is that if the user reads what you have just said, they have a clear way to 'prove' their innocence and continue however after. — neuro^(talk) 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point.. so... how about an indef topicban from COS articles until a couple of admins (to be named) agree that this isn't an SPA, topic ban to be at least a month? //roux 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the ArbCom results I mentioned. This has already been tried. Shutterbug was topic-banned October 2nd, 2007 for one month. During that month, Shutterbug did not contribute to a single article. Shutterbug did, however, contribute to a few incident reports and checkusers associated with other users who edit in the same area of interest. So he/she was actively involved in the encyclopedia for that month, but not in any content capacity. --GoodDamon 15:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Justanother (Justallofthem)

As a party to the original arbitration, I think that is is appropriate that I comment here. As much as I respect GoodDamon, he seems to be trying to reopen an arbitration in the improper forum for such an effort. The arbitrators were well aware of Shutterbug's POV and history of editing from a CofS-owned proxy server and made no remedy that restricted her editing. If GoodDamon thinks that they did not make the correct decision then he should present his evidence to the arbitrators and ask that they reopen the case, not make his case here. The other point GoodDamon brings up in incivility. Incivility is a much-disputed issue but if Shutterbug was uncivil then perhaps she deserves a warning though I see little in the way of objectionable incivility in the diffs provided. However, I cannot stress enough that GoodDamon should move his doubts about the arb outcome to the arb page. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC) This is not relevant here as the main thrust of my comment was that GoodDamon bring his issue to this forum. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the ArbCom is actually the correct forum anymore. When there is ample evidence of a serious WP:COI, and the only credible counter-argument -- upon which the ArbCom result was largely based -- turns out to be rather incredible, it ceases to be a content dispute, and content dispute resolution mechanisms are no longer the appropriate venue for dealing with it. Believe me, I thought long and hard about this, and coming to the decision to file this as an incident report was not easy. But this is the proper venue for it. Shutterbug and several older accounts edit from Church-owned IP addresses, and those addresses produce, almost without exception, content in Church-related articles. The proxy argument does not hold up, so we can only conclude that what we see with our eyes is in fact what's there, a conflict of interest.

Note I do not propose banning the accounts in question outright. But I seriously doubt they will choose to edit in other areas. They are well-established as single-purpose accounts. A single-purpose account editing with a conflict of interest is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --GoodDamon 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a party to the original arbitration, I think that is is appropriate that I comment here. I see little activity on the part of Shutterbug that is deserving of the attention of AE. I like and respect GoodDamon but the entire thrust of this thread is his IDONTLIKEIT evaluation of the findings and recommendations of the arbitration. He is not asking for enforcement, he is asking that the arbitration be redone. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you like. However, part of the original ArbCom was this statement of principle: "Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles."

I think it is now firmly established that the proxy argument is implausible and unlikely. I do not say this lightly: It is probably a lie. If the editor or editors behind the accounts and IP addresses in question are in fact "working" on behalf of the Church of Scientology, then it is a violation of this principle. And considering the ratio of edits to Scientology-related articles versus non-Scientology-related articles, this appears to be the case. Look... I understand how you feel, I really do. But once it came out how unlikely the proxy argument was to be true, this stopped being a content issue and started being an issue of Wikipedia abuse. --GoodDamon 20:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no flaw in the "proxy argument" and nothing new has been "discovered". The consensus of the arb was, IMO, that those editors that had access to the proxy likely were connected in some way to the church and because of this the lot of them may be treated as one editor for the purpose of consensus building or 3RR issues, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision#Multiple editors with a single voice and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision#Use of Church of Scientology-owned IPs. The solution of the arbitrators was to place the Scientology articles under article probation, not to impose sanctions against Shutterbug (COFS) or any of the others. You have not uncovered any new news GoodDamon, you simply seem to disagree with the findings and recommendations of the arb. That is your right but it is not an enforcement issue. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said concerning the proxy argument. The IP addresses in question simply have too few edits in areas unrelated to Scientology to plausibly be proxies associated with hundreds or thousands of users. The many-editors-one-voice decision does not preclude someone later taking a look and realizing the proxy argument is bogus. --GoodDamon 20:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your point. The "proxy argument" was simply in support of the claim that these editors were not sockpuppets or even meatpuppets; that they were simply different Scientologists in, often, different parts of the world that likely only knew one another through Wikipedia and were not part of some organized cabal of Scientologists. Obviously that cannot be proven one way or the other but the edit history and behavior is certainly consistent. Scientology critics do a much better job of coordinating editing here than Scientologists do, probably because only the critics are trying. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDamon

At this point, I would like to take a step back and ask that previously uninvolved administrators look at the ArbCom and determine if continued involvement by these editors constitutes violation of the ArbCom ruling in light of what I perceive as the likelihood of Church of Scientology involvement. I would characterize the editor or editors as:

Confirmed single-purpose accounts
Confirmed biased accounts that edit from a particular POV
Confirmed sockpuppets, based on the checkuser results during the ArbCom
Most likely WP:ROLE accounts inappropriately working on behalf of the Church of Scientology

If these characterizations do not bear out, or if this is not the proper venue for this discussion, I will gladly accept that. --GoodDamon 20:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jayen466

As per the arbcom decision, the Scientology article is on probation. [1]

Looking at the edit war that led to article being protected I count the following reverts:

Reverts by GoodDamon: [2] [3] [4] [5] 4RR

Reverts by Shutterbug: [6] [7] [8] [9] 4RR

Spidern and Cirt had two reverts each.

I believe GoodDamon and Shutterbug should be trout-slapped and told not to do it again. Since Shutterbug has done this sort of thing before, s/he should perhaps be restricted to just posting to the talk page for a week or so.

IMO, the whole edit war was a very silly and entirely unnecessary episode, largely caused by Shutterbug making sweeping changes without prior discussion on the talk page. All the more regrettable since at least some of the changes – chronological fixes etc. – would seem to have made sense and might well have gotten support on the talk page. Jayen466 22:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In each of those cases, well-sourced material was removed or altered without prior discussion. If you feel restoring those edits violated the ArbCom ruling, I encourage you to open a case here for that as well. But I stand by those reverts; for some context, in this edit I restored citations to Time Magazine and a Salon news article that had been removed in this edit with an edit summary of "rm non-notable/opinion". If it is a violation of the ArbCom case to undo egregiously poor edits such as that, I will be very much surprised and will seek changes to the case itself, as frankly... that's just plain silly. --GoodDamon 22:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear and obvious vandalism is exempt from 3RR; "edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt". It's usually better to wait and let someone else revert it – which will demonstrate consensus – or raise it on the talk page and/or AN/I than revert someone 4 times in a row yourself. Jayen466 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, I don't think those edits qualify as 4RR.

The first edit occurred at the beginning of the brief edit war. I reverted the re-addition of several primary sources. To Shutterbug's credit, he/she didn't choose to reinsert the primary sources, and instead went with just a secondary source. I did not contest it.
The second and third edits were unrelated to the first and involved a section of the lead. I did reach 2RR here, and perhaps should have waited for someone else to revert, but felt it would be a good point to remind Shutterbug of WP:BRD.
The fourth edit was unrelated to any of the others, and you already know about that one.

In any event, I've voluntarily extracted myself from the article until all this is resolved. --GoodDamon 05:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[10] Jayen466 11:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I had forgotten about that particular clause. I'll be more mindful of it in the future, and appreciate you pointing it out to me. --GoodDamon 15:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shutterbug

Why did I not just get rid of my user name and started editing with another one, if it am such a red flag? That's rather stupid, isn't it? I did not because the truth is that the 205.227.165.244 IP is/was a proxy used by hundreds if not thousands of people. As I said before and there is no evidence saying otherwise: I occasionally used it when being in a Church of Scientology facility, waiting for someone etc. Further, the diversity of the subjects being edited from that IP between 2004 and 2006 underlines that there have been more than one editors on this IP (wikiscanner). I was not prepared for the amount of hostility I am being subjected with now and I wasn't a year ago when I got surprised with an avalanche of accusations that had nothing to do with real life. Ok, the Arbcom determined there have been several other people editing under the same IP. I think that was a true finding with no significance especially as I even volunteered this information as much as I could. As an additional note: Cirt is a known and longterm anti-scientology editor who went by the user names of Smeelgova, Smee and WilhelmvonSavage. Per her edit history she works 8-11 hours per day on Wikiprojects, almost exclusively working on anti-religious subjects and its peripheral subjects (like the names of Scientology members, anti-religious books and the like). Though I welcome the work and information she provides I don't think she should be included in this "neutral" discussion. Lastly it is an old trick on Wikipedia to attack the editor with administrative rules instead of concentrating on making better articles. I have been subject to this abuse of Wikipedia policy before and seems to happen again. Result: dozens of text pages filled with discussions, zero articles improved. Maybe there is some kind of protection against "using Wikipedia policy to shut up opposing editors"? Shutterbug (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some truth to what Shutterbug is saying. No one complained about the edit war, which was the work of several editors, the complaint was about who Shutterbug is. I'd be just as happy packing this up and getting back to doing something useful, like discussing how we can improve the article. Jayen466 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it turns out I'm a complete goober for opening this, and I get that trout-slapping you mentioned, I would rather see this come to its natural conclusion than close it prematurely. If I'm wrong, I want to know I'm wrong. At the moment, I am voluntarily recusing myself from editing or commenting in any Scientology-related article until administrators have finished reviewing this and make some sort of pronouncement. I really don't think much in the way of article improvement will happen until then. --GoodDamon 23:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking into the edit history of the celebrity centre, I would like to ask Cirt to consider that edit summaries like this one and this one may come across as dehumanising or baiting, and at any rate may not be conducive towards establishing a more collaborative atmosphere. Shutterbug's deletion in Celebrity Centre had some justification under WP:NOT#NEWS; at the very least, it is an issue that editors could in good faith disagree on, and it would have been kinder to reflect that in the edit summary. Jayen466 23:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Sadly, this is basically what I expected. There is no evidence that this IP address is or was a proxy shared by "hundreds if not thousands of people." That's more or less what this report is about. Due to the nature of its edits, and the edits of logged in users on that address, the chances that "hundreds if not thousands of people" would edit Wikipedia solely to add pro-Scientology material to it is vanishingly small. --GoodDamon 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDamon, I think you have a misunderstanding. The IP address belongs to the proxy server that a large number of Scientology organizations worldwide use to access the internet. The ""hundreds if not thousands of people" are using that proxy server to do the myriad of things that people do on the internet. Only a few are editing Wikipedia. I have a totally analogous situation in my life. Occasionally I edit from work. There are prolly well over 9,000 people that access the internet through my work proxy. Yet only a few edit Wikipedia at all as far as I can tell from the edits coming from that IP address. So if I say that thousands of people use the IP address does the fact that only a few edit here prove me a liar? Does that clear things up? You should really AGF a bit more and lighten up on Shutterbug. She does not deny having a POV. Let me tell you, these articles are pretty galling to anyone that has any knowledge of Scientology beyond spoon-fed criticism. Galling in that they are just plain wrong in many instances. All the bad is blown out of proportion, all the good is minimized and distorted. Critics race to include the latest bit of negative material but don't bother to include the positive. How many are racing to include recent statements by Germany's minister of security that he found no evidence that any of the objectionable material in Hubbard's writing is practiced in Scientology? Yet our critics love to fill articles with their original research based on primary materials. They scream when the primary material explains Scientology as a philosophy in manner that can be understood yet support out-of-context primary materials that cast Scientology in a bad light. You can see that disparity in these two articles that I just put up for AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and Scientology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology and sex (2nd nomination). Shutterbug's perspective is welcome here. Feel free to haul her back if she crosses a line. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few words here. Justallofthem's assertions about proxies are unsupported by the Committee's findings. Several parts of the decision reject his claims:

For months I counseled Justanother in good faith that the 'proxy' argument he was attempting to advance did not serve the best interests of his faith. No evidence was forthcoming from the organization's IT staff to bolster the claim. Then while the arbitration case was underway the Wikiscanner came out and the weakness of the 'proxy' argument got demonstrated empirically in the form of real world news coverage about Scientology-based IP edits to Wikipedia. That news reflected more poorly for that religion than whatever PR problem they were trying to correct. And also, people who actively disliked that religion made the most of the negative press.

It was my hope when that case concluded that Justanother, Shutterbug, and other editors would learn from their mistakes and turn over a new leaf. Only one really did: he now edits as Cirt. Cirt has contributed 11 featured articles, 13 featured portals, 31 good articles, and 47 DYK entries. He has become an administrator on three WMF projects including this one, has become an OTRS volunteer, and was elected a member of the Arbitration Committee on Wikinews. It is my earnest wish that editors from both sides of the dispute would make a similar turnaround. (Heck, I'd love to see that turnaround in any dispute). If any Scientologist adjusts to WMF standards that well it would give me pride to nominate them for adminship.

So in the holiday spirit (since it's reasonable to guess most of the editors associated with this thread are American?) let's give thanks for the progress that's happened so far and put this discussion on hold through the holiday weekend. Requesting as a courtesy: please suspend discussion. I'll be around off and on (working on a ragtime composer biography--something much more to my taste than this subject). Best wishes all and happy Thanksgiving. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I think you are confused. I am not one of the editors affected by the IP issue. I would be interested to know exactly what you find unconvincing in the explanation and personal analogy I give above of why Shutterbug's "proxy argument" makes sense because you are being kinda vague. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all confused; I knew from the start that you weren't covered directly by that particular IP issue. Yet you advanced the proxy rationale then and you continue to now. That you do so is more than a little surprising since it generates such a substantial PR exposure to your religion. This site has many uninvolved volunteers who would be glad to address POV attacks against any religion. Perhaps because yours comes under attack more than most, it may have been hard to accept that feedback. Neither Wikipedia nor Scientology benefitted from the press that the Wikiscanner brought, yet you have to agree that my cautions were absolutely on target a year and a half ago. Now I'm counseling you that you're running a similar risk again. We were lucky the COFS arbitration case didn't get noticed then. The case is old news, but your actions and Shutterbug's could make it relevant again. Suppose for a moment that this advice is clueful and sincere: it's been right before, and it's been right in ways that would have helped you if you had listened. Durova^Charge! 00:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do not think I am advancing the argument you believe I am. Please reread my explanations and comments to GoodDamon. I personally have no exposure here, I just don't want to see Shutterbug railroaded by out-of-process actions or misreadings of the results of the previous action. If the arbitrators want to reopen the COFS case that is fine with me but I see little need to. Enjoy your turkey-day, Durova.--Justallofthem (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you still suppose I'm addressing any personal exposure on your part in relation to the IP server issue, then you've missed the point. Best wishes and happy holidays. Durova^Charge! 02:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I take it that you are warning that abuse by Church-connected editors will reflect badly on the Church. First off, that is no concern of mine. Meaning that it not my business what the Church does or does not do and how it reflects on them. I hope and expect that the Church acts honorably and if not then that is on them. I just do the best I can for my part and as an individual Scientologist. Secondly and more germane, Shutterbug has stated that she has no official PR capacity in the Church and that her edits are her own. She edits from her POV but so what. So does just about everyone else that edits in the Scientology articles. Anyway, there is little point in going back and forth further on this. Take care. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, Durova: Did the Arbcom try to find out from the Church of Scientology what this IP address is? Did you or anyone involved that time care to ask this question to anyone? I can't remember that. Instead assumptions and outright lies are being repeated over and over again. This is really frustrating. Shutterbug (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal

Support. The topic ban proposal as suggested by Roux (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, as an anti-Scientologist with a long history of highly POV edits under your current and previous accounts, don't you think that you would be doing yourself as an admin and the project a service by recusing yourself here instead of leading the charge? (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt for material relevant to my point)--Justallofthem (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Assuming it is an indef, and applies to the other similar accounts. This is basically the standard response when evidence of an unresolvable COI exists. --GoodDamon 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this has already been addressed at a higher forum than this one. If GoodDamon does not like the arbitrators' work then he needs to take that up with them, not here. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As ye wish, so shall ye receive. I've moved this here, per Durova's statement on the matter. --GoodDamon 19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I don't see any evidence of incivility on the talk page and in principle support this user's right to edit Scientology topics, just as Jewish Wikipedians are entitled to edit the article on Israel, muslims are entitled to edit the article on 9/11, etc. However, I would support a warning that the user should refrain from edit wars and seek consensus through the talk page. Jayen466 17:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misunderstand, I fully agree with you in principle. Denying Christians the right to edit at articles like Christianity would be absurd. But those aren't good analogies. A better analogy would be if computers owned by the Vatican were used solely to produce edits favorable to Catholicism in Wikipedia. That would be inappropriate. --GoodDamon 19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But her edits feel like the actions of an individual to me. I would have no problem with someone in the Vatican administration making an occasional Wikipedia edit from their desk in Rome. The Wikiscanner evidence that Cirt posted on Talk:Scientology showed 122 edits from that IP, made across 15 wiki projects during the period 2004–2007. Even if all of those were attributable to Shutterbug (talk · contribs), that is less than one edit per week, and on the face of it, a storm in a teacup. Jayen466 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the ArbCom ruling. Those were by no means the only edits from that IP address that Shutterbug performed. They were simply the ones he/she performed while logged out. And you'll note that the logged out edits almost all pertain to Scientology. --GoodDamon 20:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the logged-in edits, Shutterbug has made around 1750 edits to various Scientology-related articles over a period of about 2 years then, the vast majority of them prior to the September 2007 arbcom. That's really not frenetic activity since the arbcom, comparatively speaking. These are the remedies from the arbcom case. Apart from edit-warring, which you were guilty of as well, which one has Shutterbug violated? Jayen466 22:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I personaly have no problem with Scientologists I however am upset with Shutterbug's Deletion of my material under Celebrity Centre, The suggestion that my material was "not Notable" as in Shutterbug's words is absurd (on the google search of Scientology it came up on top). I also dislike him of her deleting things regaurding Scientology's Xenu story which is backed up by many sources including the freezone. I doubt this ban will keep the Proxyer of Shutterbug from editing however I suggest Shutterbug edit his or her other interests, I harbour no ill will to Scientologists but I will not stand Idle as the "truth" is rewritten. --Zaharous (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to the talk page because at the time it was a news item still in progress (it still is and clearly not covered by WP:NOT. You are taking revenge here - thanks for being open about it - while Cirt is reverting edits solely on the grounds of "COI" (which is not even a Wikipedia policy), not on the grounds of content. Interesting. Shutterbug (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:COI is a behavioral guideline. --GoodDamon 23:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to Wikipedia policy WP:LOP. Shutterbug (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call it revenge you have just done some deleting on Scientology topics in general, You are probably a good person I just don't like your deletions I just like a whole Wikipedia not a half one. Although your edits are in good nature, I think. --Zaharous (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you came here not to act in revenge for an edit dispute. So you think my edits are in good faith but you support to kick me out of Wikipedia? I don't get it, please explain. Shutterbug (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: No one has proposed you "kick [you] out of Wikipedia." What has been proposed is a topic ban for editors who appear to edit on behalf of the Church of Scientology. If that equates to being kicked out of Wikipedia for you, then that is frankly rather indicative of the problem. --GoodDamon 15:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the section explaining I had originally brought this up in the wrong place. Leaving it for posterity, but closing it to avoid distraction.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hold on a minute

You're in the wrong forum, guys. The topic of Scientology is on article probation. From Wikipedia:General sanctions:

Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. See Category:Articles on probation.

So I'm marking this thread resolved and referring it to WP:AE. Durova^Charge! 18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I opened this as an incident report, because the evidence indicates a very large WP:COI issue with probable WP:SOCK and WP:ROLE problems as well, not because of a content dispute. However, I will abide by your wishes in this matter and move this report there. May I have your permission to copy it verbatim, including responses, to avoid extra work for all parties involved? --GoodDamon 18:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to misunderstand the quoted definition. Nowhere does it restrict itself to content policies only. Nor do you need my permission to quote what I post. See gnu free documentation license. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guhh... Sorry, I apparently overdosed on stupid this morning. Proceeding... --GoodDamon 18:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong

The Falun Gong articles were put on probation some time ago. At the moment there is what I understand to be violation of BLP policies on the Li Hongzhi page. user:Zahd seeks to add material that he considers "very damaging," "strange, interestingly outlandish", etc., and which he believes makes the subject "look foolish" -- these also appear to be the reasons for advocating inclusion of the disputed material. He has also made disparaging remarks about the subject of the article, though I'm unsure of how severe such remarks need to be before they are relevant. The dispute is about this line from BLP: "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." -- I mentioned to Zahd that the reasons he states for inclusion of the material are not ones supported by wikipedia, and that notability needs to be established for inclusion. He responded in contradiction of this policy, saying "The issue isn't that we must deal exclusively with what concepts make him famous or notable..." -- Zahd has made no response to repeated citations of BLP, and made no attempt to deal with the policy issue of the material. Instead he has merely accused me of censorship, of having an agenda, etc., and reverted repeatedly. I remembered the pages are on probation, so I'm leaving a note here. Full discussion: Talk:Li_Hongzhi#TIME_Asia_quotes. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 23:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the {{quotefarm}} was pointless, but then so was a really long and totally pointless quote from Li himself that I've just removed. The article does have genuine hagiographic tendencies: these need to be addressed, particularly in the "academic perspectives" section. I'm quite sure this is not the whole story. Bottom line, though - nothing actionable here yet. Moreschi (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put this on WP:FTN. Moreschi (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano II

Arbitration case:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

Relevant remedy: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Civility:Giano (See also [11])

Original enforcement notification from FT2 and discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Giano, you have yet again violated your requirement to interact with other editors in a civil manner without excessive bad faith.

The restriction you are under is very simple:

"Giano II is subject to an editing restriction for one year. 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."

Violation:

You have violated this restriction several times in the last few days, the most recent an hour ago. Edits by both your Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account and the another account you operate, Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs), contain posts that breach this requirement. Despite warnings by multiple users, you have continued.

As just a few examples:

You called user:Will Beback a "troll", [12] [13],
Implied to a female user that she should be "ashamed of her sex" and told her "men don't like a woman with an opinion" [14].
You blanked your talkpage and tried to get back to high quality content work, but shortly after, you were back to incivility, writing "Just in case any of you were stupid enough..." [15],
Posted uncivil comments related to your "upset of the day" [16][17][18].
Your other account had similar posts, couched in "Olde English" as may be [19].
You were told to drop it in that post, and then formally told on your main talk page that this wasn't acceptable by two administrators -- Elonka, and GeorgeWilliamHerbert [20][21]. Your response was broadly to blank and/or ignore those warnings.

Giano, these are not even close to being acceptable styles of speech to other users, and you well know it. Acceptable norms do not include name calling, offensive comments to female editors about their sex, and egregious bad faith. These would be egregious even for a user who did not have a lengthy history of disruption, and offensive rudeness outside communal norms. For you, there is no excuse. You know exactly what you are doing in each of these actions, and cannot complain at the results you know it brings.

It's clear this isn't because of the situation, since you do this repeatedly. It's apparently the choice you make, that any user you feel like speaking that way to, you do so. Plenty of people get upset at situations. Most do not choose to act as you have chosen.

Block:

Your last block for this was 31 hours. It didn't deter the behavior, and you continue to act in a manner you know is not acceptable. I have therefore blocked your account access for 55 hours -- a little more than 48 -- due to the egregious repetition and wilful ignoring of warnings, which suggests a slightly more serious wakeup call is needed than usual. This is in the hope that this will prevent others being attacked or spoken to offensively or with bad faith, and to make clear that I am serious - changing in future is not merely optional.

Use this time to take a break from Wikipedia. When you return, go on with what you're really good at, which is writing articles. Avoid the other areas you are good at (pushing envelopes and insulting people) - it's a skill but not a welcomed one. And if you want to criticize Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures and administrators, or myself, then you are welcome to do so, so long as you do so within the same conduct norms that other content writers and editors are held to, and you stay outside the problem area of WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND.

Other administrators should note as stated on the page header:

"ArbCom has already decided that certain types of behavior are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur. The question here is whether that prohibition was breached."

This page is not to open any question of past rulings, but purely to consider whether the Arbitration restriction is breached:

"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"

The majority, and probably all, of the above diffs appear to me to be uncivil, personal attacks, or bad faith made by Giano II. This thread is in case any administrator feels that the above posts are not uncivil, do not show bad faith, or that Giano was not warned and previously aware. That is the sole question for this page.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not an admin, I guess I'm not welcome here, but what is this block supposed to prevent? It strikes me as punitive. --NE2 02:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The intent is to force a cooling-off, reflective period for Giano (especially in the light of Fred's timely note, and the more severe sanctions that may come about in future). I agree with FT2's reading of the case and of the particular situation; the diffs he gives should be troubling, and the fact that they're merely unsurprising is a sign that we have failed in our duty to the project to prevent such poor behaviour from disrupting it, I fear.

James F. (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. We don't do "cooling off blocks", so it isn't that. It is to prevent the continuing flow of incivility, bad faith, and other name calling which three admins had seen fit independently to warn him for; and it is because he is in violation of his restriction. The aim of the block is prevention, and deterrence, precisely as blocks are intended to be used. The hope of all blocks is that the blocked user will reflect on the matter, or at the least will be prevented from continuing their active behavior for that time. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So it's a cool-down block? He's already been blocked and speedily unblocked for these actions, which is what started the whole ArbCom request. --NE2 02:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Read my comment above. (Noted that the above is an edit conflict, written before I had commented.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call it what you will, it's a punitive block for old events. --NE2 02:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is deterring future misconduct, enforcing a requirement to desist from this kind of conduct, and follows (and backs up) warnings requesting Giano cease this conduct. The diffs cited, far from being "old events", have persisted until almost his most recent edits, barely an hour ~~ago~~ before the above post (and 2 hours ago now)... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, excuse me for not checking all the diffs... maybe you shouldn't include irrelevant ones. It still strikes me as punitive, especially because you guys made this civility restriction that you are now applying. --NE2 02:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment, while in poor taste, can be reasonably read as satire and comedy, however poorly executed. This block shouldn't be, and I'm sure isn't, a "cooling off period," but a preventative block, aimed at enforcing an arbitration remedy. As we've stated in our blocking policy, blocks are preventative, and one of the way they prevent is by deterrence. --Tznkai (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is he being punished only now, and not when he made the comments? David Gerard's block was already overturned, and this is just an attempt to get another block to stick. --NE2 02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) He isn't being "punished". Read the block notice and my comment following James' above, they should provide you with enough information. And no, it isn't "another" anything. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's another block on him for operating CdB. --NE2 02:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. The posts cited relate to conduct, not the identity of the account used for that conduct. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NE2, this is heated enough without you poisoning the well. Please assume good faith, instead of simply disparaging motives without evidence.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it should not be, and I think is not, a cool off block, but a deterrence block.--Tznkai (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already had one of those, and it was overturned. --NE2 02:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this Civility Patrol reach a new level of desperation when it solemnly objects (above) this edit, in which the contributing persona also comments on her own cosmetic dental work? Somebody says above The hope of all blocks is that the blocked user will reflect on the matter, and I'm very sure that Giano (II) has done just that; my own reflection is that the arbitrators involved should turn off their computers and run along and enjoy the autumnal foliage (the seasonal variety of "get a life"), and thereafter, refreshed, return to reconsider the daft year-long "civility" restriction. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user is more than welcome to engage in self deprecation. I have done so too. They are not entitled - especially when under a civility requirement - to engage in offensive comments along the lines of implying that a female user should be "ashamed of her sex" and telling her "men don't like a woman with an opinion". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pursing this line of inquiry will take us off the beaten track and divert us through the Albuquerque sewers. These comments are not the crux of the matter.--Tznkai (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This solemnity is absurd. Only a ninny would be likely to be upset about that remark in its context; if anyone else genuinely seemed to be offended (and by "anyone else" I don't mean civility patrols searching for offensiveness), it's very likely that somebody would give an amicable tip-off to this person that "CdeB" was in jest; perhaps also that Pride and Prejudice is that rarity, an older and respected novel that's fun to read (for those who actually read books) but that actually got a spirited and enjoyable (if not all that faithful) work-over at Hollywood, and therefore that an adequate appreciation of the hilariously ghastly C de B(o)urgh merely requires that you sling some dirt-cheap disc in your DVD player. Now, FT2, I'm sure I've seen your username attached to sensible writing in the past; please don't get carried away here. Enjoy the autumn; or of course spring. -- Hoary (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To address FT2's points: The diffs listed above include recent incivility and bad faith. Giano has been warned repeatedly about his behavior and has been blocked by nine different admins since the February ArbCom case. This block appears to be the only way to prevent Giano from engaging in further incivility and bad faith for the next 55 hours because requests and warnings have failed. Let's hope it deters any repetition. Giano's contributions are welcome and appreciated, but civility and assuming good faith are still requirements for participating in this project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano cannot claim that he doesn't realize that his behavior in the above diffs would be considered as disruptive. It isn't like he hasn't been reminded of this again and again. Giano does go through periods when he does wonderful work for the project, however his interpersonal skills create a hostile atmosphere for all editors who aren't him. Such a hostile atmosphere drives away other good editors, and as such should not be tolerated. All instances of disagreement with him are evidence of a grand conspiracy which is bringing Wikipedia down; all attempts to ask him to behave in a civil manner are personal insults to him, and all people who hold any opinion which might run counter to his own are met with streams of never ending vitriol. Blocks in this case are preventative; for the 31 or 55 or however many hours the block is in place, we are spared from this highly disruptive behavior. At this point, we need to see if he returns to this behavior before deciding if the blocks are having the intended effect; however we should also be thinking about what the next step should be if these blocks do not encourage him to avoid creating this hostile atmosphere. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the "Just a few examples list"? That's ludicrous. If anything the list shows that Giano has been relatively constrained in his reactions, given the circumstances. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to: [22]

You should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until you have no powers to abuse at all. You should never have the opportunity to do this to anyone else again. You are a disgrace as an Admin and a disgrace a checkuser.

Can the blocking admin please describe how such an opinion may be phrased so as not to be lacking in civility? Is it uncivil because it is spoken directly to the user on his talk page? Would it be acceptable to state that opinion on one's own talk page or the talk page of a third party as:

He should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until he has no powers to abuse at all. He should never have the opportunity to do this to anyone else again. He is a disgrace as an Admin and a disgrace a checkuser.

Or, is it uncivil due to the word disgrace? Would it be acceptable to state:

You should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until you have no powers to abuse at all. You should never have the opportunity to do this to anyone else again. You are doing a not very good job as an Admin and are below average as a checkuser.

It must be acceptable to be able to explain to a user that you find their behavior unacceptable.

An administrator is able to block in order to prevent an editor from continuing their active behavior for a time - but an editor with no such powers is not allowed to ever find such behavior disgraceful?Uncle uncle uncle 07:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of a punitive privacy violation is of course not allowed to question it. This is made very clear by the fact that we have two instances of "recourse" (Arbcom and Ombudsmen), both of which are not prepared to even look at such matters. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unblock notice from SlimVirgin and discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've unblocked in part because this is more of the humourless self-importance that caused the previous block, and in part because these IRC blocks of Giano have to stop. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 09:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"IRC blocks"? What!? --Deskana (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC or not. This is the next most stupid thing after the absurd OrangeMarlin case that made me quit Wikipedia for almost 2 months in protest at a time when I was very furious about OrangeMarlin. So far, in the spirit of AGF I assumed that there was something at the time that for some reason just didn't get public. But after this new example of outrageous stupidity I am no longer willing to do that. There are obvious conclusions to be drawn about FT2's social intelligence. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, you're forgetting WP:ASSUME JAMAIS VU, the special version of WP:AGF that applies to the most powerful editors. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, stop

more discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

No more insults of anyone else please. We already are too deep in a situation that does not bode well for a good portion of the en-WP Community. There is a situation here that needs resolving. I'm not sure if we can, to be quite honest. But gratuitous insults and precipitous actions like those already taken in and around these threads needs to stop. Wikipedia's built on the wisdom of crowds.. Let's not turn it into Wikipedia relying on the anger of two sets of lynch mobs.

DISCUSS, not insult.

GET CONSENSUS, not act precipitously.

LIGHT, not heat.

It may seem like platitudes to some of you reading this, I'm just trying to remind everyone of our basic principles here. Let's not let the divide between groups open up any further here. SirFozzie (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is basic enforcement of a long-standing Arbitration remedy. I'm confused by the unblock's reasoning; if SV thinks the remedy should never be applied, she should ask for an amendment on Giano's behalf on the RfArb page. Certainly, I don't think it's helpful to just unblock without any discussion.

James F. (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So helping one of our best content contributors to become Wikipedia's most prominent Michael Kohlhaas case is OK so long as one can cite an Arbcom case? --Hans Adler (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was SlimVirgin's unblock appropriate?

more discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was somewhat surprised to see that SlimVirgin had unilaterally unblocked. This unblock is particularly bad and ill-considered. In this case the block is the result of an arbcom decision, not the result of normal discussion via WP:BLOCK; so only arbcom should lift it. We don't need to see every admin second-guessing arbcom enforcement. It looks like the block should be reinstated and SlimVirgin should be counseled (particularly in light of her recent arbcom cases).

Just to re-state the obvious: arbitration enforcement is not a consensus-forming page. The consensus was already formed during the arbitration case. The only issue relevant to this page is whether Giano violated the sanction decided there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify one thing, which is that this was not an "ArbCom block" (nor did FT2 suggest that it was). It was an "enforcement of a prior ArbCom decision and of policy by an administrator who saw what he believed to be a violation" block. That administrator, of course, happens to be an arbitrator, and I don't expect that people can completely ignore that fact when he or any other arbitrator does something, but the committee did not vote on the block or adopt it as a committee-decided block (and again, FT2 did not suggest that it did). (Not commenting now on the merits of the block or unblock, although I still feel guilty that my being AFK on Tuesday night precipitated this whole maelstrom.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that the block had been voted on. It's the sanction that was voted on by arbcom. So at this point, that ship has sailed, and the only question at hand is whether an admin reasonably feels Giano has violated the sanction. I'm hoping SlimVirgin will explain why she thinks that no reasonable admin could feel Giano has violated the sanction, in this case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I defer to Newyorkbrad's explanation regarding the circumstances of the block. However, regarding the unblock, I'm not sure that CBM is correct about only ArbCom should be able to lift it. I can't see anything to that effect on the case page. Normally, enforcement blocks can be overturned by a consensus of uninvolved admins. As it happens, I heartily endorse the unblock. I agree with Hans Adler's remarks on Giano's user talk page that an editor shouldn't be blocked for an amusing in-character remark by an obvious over-the-top humorous sock puppet. Also, expressing frustration with David Gerard's recent behaviour certainly shouldn't have been a block reason either. PhilKnight (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the ArbCom clerks, I apologize for not having properly leashed Newyorkbrad to his computer, which allowed him to roam free in MeatSpace for a while. The error has been corrected.--Tznkai (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how no reasonable admin could feel Giano has violated his civility sanction? That's the elephant in the room during the unblock discussion.

If we were hoping for a consensus to form on this page, it would be much more reasonable to wait for a clerk to close the thread, rather than unilaterally unblocking without waiting for consensus to form. This sort of consensus-avoiding unilateral unblock has become too common these days. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding - and I could be wrong - was the last time this happened the discussion on AN/I legitimately overturned the block. Accordingly, it's considered acceptable to look at this not just from a quasi-legal perspective, but also in terms of what course of action is in the best interests of Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points, and these are important ones I think. First, is the stated, (and with the assumption of good faith), actual reason for blocking Giano was the incivility. That is, not what he said, but how he said it. Compare "Your actions are out of line" to "You're a troll." The second adds insult to the thrust of the first, and insults are by their nature personal, inflammatory, and malicious. Second, the relevant remedy states, in part "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..." (emphasis added) This conforms to the now established pattern of Arbitration remedies that grants wide discretion to administrators when dealing with a particular type of behavior from a particular user. Lower tolerance for that kind of behavior from the restricted user, (Giano in this case) is the entire point.

The community has never overturned an Arbitration remedy before. It is unclear how it would do so, if it could, without simultaneously withdrawing its support for the Arbitration Committee as a whole. I am willing to say while there is obviously a loud and vocal portion of the community that is unhappy with the system of Arbitration and the current Committee, there is not by any means, a community consensus, which would most certainly have to be established across the wiki over several days at the village pump, AN, RfAr and other boards. All of that comes down this: the validity of the restriction is not at issue here, whether the blocking admin (FT2) acted within the confines of the arbitration remedy is.--Tznkai (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom already made these considerations when deciding the original case. The reason for applying a semi-legalistic standard to arbitration enforcement is that the only reason we are here is that the involved editors have refused over a long period of time to engage in any effective dispute resolution. Thus arbcom enforcement is not dispute resolution any more, simply the enforcement of the outcome of the arbcom case. The problem with the ANI thread you linked to is that it should not have been at ANI (which is for the ordinary, dispute-resolution). — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Don't agree - this isn't any different from the previous unblock - the community hasn't overturned the remedy, merely 2 instances of application. PhilKnight (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, David Gerard's block was under socking policy and was subsequently overturned with fairly raucous community approval, but with some dissenters. This block overturn was done unilaterally by a single administrator, and that overturn has not attained community approval. Based on the comments above, it seems this may have in fact gone counter-consensus.--Tznkai (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I mean the last ArbCom enforcement block. PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight - the question here is not "should Giano be blocked", it is "could FT2 reasonably believe that Giano violated the sanction." Could you explain in more detail why you think FT2 could not reasonably believe that? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained this. The last ArbCom enforcement block was, in my understanding, legitimately overturned by consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you have actually answered my question; I apologize if I missed it. Could you give a diff to help me out? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, my understanding, and I could be wrong, was on the previous occasion this happened, the discussion on AN/I legitimately overturned the ArbCom enforcement block. Accordingly, it's considered acceptable to look at this not just from a quasi-legal perspective, but also in terms of what course of action is in the best interests of Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you accept that FT2 reasonably could believe that Giano violated his civility sanction, then you have to accept the block under AE is valid. This is different than a block posted at ANI, which is subject to admin consensus as normal. The consensus system for AE blocks is very different - the only question is whether the arbcom sanction has been violated, not whether anyone agrees that the block is helpful or whether they would personally have blocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with SlimVirgin's characterization of this as yet another in an endless series of "IRC blocks", and I support her actions, albeit with a healthy dose of WP:IAR in the mix. At some point you have to stop looking for opportunities to score points and start looking towards the will of the community. Nandesuka (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom has already made a decision in this case, because the community was unable to handle the situation. The underlying motivation is that if people decline to resolve disputes for long enough, eventually you have to give up on normal dispute resolution. That's the point of arbcom decisions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. What is the point of ArbCom decisions if they are never enforced? Should Giano never be blocked no matter what he does, and all blocks be overturned because it has become a tradition? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it differently: What is the point of ArbCom if they make so many bad decisions, that it actually gets disruptive? Imagine the Berlin Zoo has a problem with naughty children who are getting into the enclosure of Knut and teasing him. Will they start to lock him up in a place where visitors can't see him after the fifth scallywag has been hospitalised? --Hans Adler (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Tznkai (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an "IRC block", it certainly wasn't cooked up in #wikipedia-en-admins. Black Kite 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To concur with BlackKite I frequently leave my account logged into many channels for days at a time, since I joined in April 2008, I have not seen David in -en-admins or any other IRC channel for that matter. MBisanz ^talk 16:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was "IRC" in the sense that it follows the remedy from the IRC arbitration case. Avruch^T 16:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. It might've been better for her to have made that explicit, then. We're not psychic. Black Kite 16:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Community Consensus

more discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think it should be apparent by now that there is not a clear community will on this at all. I'd wager most of the community is sick of our collective shenanigans. This whole Giano episode is destroying the cohesion and credibility of everyone involved, no matter which side they're on. We have got to get our collective act together, not use tools, admin noticeboards, empty rhetoric and Giano to fight a proxy battle over philosophical and political issues. There is nothing more damaging in these melodramas than our inability to discuss with the mutual assumption of good faith, except perhaps the near wheel wars that break out. Everyone should stop claiming that the "community" is on their side, cause I'd bet all my privileges and all the money in my pockets that they just want us to collectively figure it out.--Tznkai (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those who keep blocking Giano lack of clue. Such blocks never help, and usually lead to massive disruption. We're so sick and tired of this pettiness and personal feuding. Go work on an article. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the short blocks don't work, then what is to be done? This arbcom ruling isn't being enforced- quite the opposite. Individual admins just keep being banned from blocking Giano. How many will be stopped from blocking him, so effectively no-one can, and when will it be admitted that numerous people think he's acting wrong, that's why he keeps being blocked, not through individual prejudice? This is why FT2 blocked this time- but even he is now being accused of persecution. Even members of arbcom now can't enforce the rulings. I can only think it would need Jimbo to act, not that he would as it would make him unpopular with some people- we need to wait until consensus comes, but perhaps gradually each person will see the line and think Giano has overstepped it far enough. Sticky Parkin 16:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what to do about Giano's aggressiveness then, if blocks don't help? I posted a note about it on his talk page now. We will see where it leads. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to do is to tone down our rhetoric. The Giano block problem is not that a block is good, or a block is bad, or whatever, but the weary accusations, counter accusations, and general escalation. Likewise, ignoring the situation only allows it to fester. We can't just "go work on an article" the suspicion and accusations create an incredibly hostile editing environment. If we talk sensibly, do our best to control our well intentioned desires to "tell it how it is" or "call a duck a duck" or "end things once and for all" that would be an excellent first step. If we do that, then Giano and those blocking him should do it as well, and if they don't, they will look properly ridiculous in the face of it.--Tznkai (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Newyorkbrad is correct and the block wasn't an strictly Arbcom block but a block by an admin who happens to be an Arbcom member, and if that's a useful distinction, then the enforcement should be adjusted that only Arbcom members acting in the name of the full committee be allowed to carry out sanction in this case. That would stop this block/unblock cycle. RxS (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, perhaps we can write that into WP:GIANO where we can spell out the special treatment and rights of this exceptional user.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we be practical about this? Arbcom can shape enforcement however it wants. The current enforcement is clearly not working, why not adjust it? Why let this go on and on just in the name of principle? RxS (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this so hard to understand? The problem is not blocking Giano, the problem is blocking Giano stupidly. Bad blocks of Giano happen more often because so many wait for an opportunity to block him. Bad blocks of Giano lead to more drama than those of other users because they will be reversed. Bad blocks of Giano serve no preventative purpose because Giano obviously won't learn anything from a reversed block. If an admin doesn't have sufficient judgement and neutrality to see on their own whether a block of Giano is good or bad, they must not enact it. Blatantly obvious. What they can do instead is try to get a substantial consensus that Giano be blocked.

Another issue in this case is that if a block is supposed to have any educational effect, then the official explanation must not contain ridiculous justifications. (Such as: Your obvious Jane Austen joke account behaved in character.) That's another thing that can be corrected by a discussion before the block.

My guess is that many of these bad blocks happen because the blocking admins want them so much that they don't want to discuss, lest the resulting consensus deprives them of the satisfaction. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was bad about FT2's block? --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that not everyone agrees that a particular block was bad or stupid...there are people on both sides. There are Arbcom enforcement principles in place, and if they are not working they need to be fixed. RxS (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be living on different planets. FT2's block of Giano was reversed, and there is no chance of a consensus to reinstate it. The only thing it did was produce drama. So it was bad. FT2's block came complete with a stupid justification that has no chance of being taken seriously by Giano. That could have been rectified before the block, but it wasn't. So it was bad for a second, independent reason. Why do admins often block without discussing first? Because it's often easier and reduces drama. Why must they never do it in case of Giano? Because it makes everything more complicated and produces drama.

The Arbcom ruling says Giano can be blocked in certain cases. It does not say the blocking admin must do it without first consulting other admins. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't say they need to discuss first. And once the block is done, there needs to be consensus to reverse it. A non-consensual unblock is worse (and more disruptive) than a block that's perfectly in line with the enforcement process in place. Your use of terms like stupid and drama don't really add to anything here. Again, there is no requirement for discussion in order to carry out an (this) Arbcom enforcement. From there, normal discussion needs to take place when considering reversing the block, something that was not done here. RxS (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to get into the details, but there are reasons why there will be no consensus to reinstate the block. An admin who is too clueless or too biased to see such things on his own must discuss first. The Arbcom enforcement rules allow blocks to achieve a certain purpose. It follows from general wiki principles that you can't use it to justify blocks that don't have a snowball's chance of achieving that purpose. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Jechochman, is that a portion of useful work at Wikipedia actually involves interfacing with the arbitration committee. Two days ago I opened an unban request at AN for an editor named Bus stop--someone who doesn't have an entourage of loyal editors advocating on his behalf. Over a year ago I had been the banning admin on his case. When his user talk got blocked he was referred to the Committee. The other day it came to light that for seven months now, he actually has been making polite appeals exactly as instructed. He hasn't been socking, pledges not to repeat his old problems, and has displayed remarkable patience as each review began with encouraging signs and ultimately disappeared into a black hole. In October Bus stop approached me with a polite apology. I accepted and wrote my support to the Committee, followed up per request with more information, and ultimately that fell into the same black hole. So this week I took Bus stop's appeal directly to the community. Fortunately Bus stop's account got unblocked last night, yet I wonder how many other people like him have been neglected. It's time to do something about that. Large drama fests over a handful of high profile editors might just have something to do with why a series of well meaning people got so utterly distracted that Bus stop kept falling through the cracks. I've outlined a set of other reasons and a set of solutions. Now I want to set up a better ban review system to make sure that sort of thing doesn't happen again. What does that have to do with this AE thread? Well the solution needs attention and time from the Committee and the community in order to get off the ground. Inviting reformers who are serious about ArbCom reform to join that effort. To Giano and supporters: if you truly want a better arbitration committee and a more equitable Wikipedia, please reconsider your choices. What you are doing is not helping. Every one of us is wrong sometime. The difference is who recognizes their own mistakes and sets about becoming part of the solution. Durova^Charge! 17:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, could you explain who is part of the 'entourage'? I don't remember commenting on any previous Giano blocks, nor do I remember speaking to him on or off-wiki. I don't remember Hans Adler being someone who commented on previous blocks either. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly doubt that the way forward in this is to lecture one side in their wrong-doing. That frankly isn't any more of a clever move forward than these blocks. And what exactly are Giano and his supporters doing other than responding to pointless impotent drama-inducing blocks from on high?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, should we close this discussion? PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2's block of Giano II (talk · contribs) was appropriate, per the ArbCom civility restriction on Giano which says, "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". This diff alone, among several others, is a blatant violation.[23] A 55-hour block was therefore reasonable (and indeed a bit lenient, considering the previous block history for that user). The unblock by admin SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) was inappropriate, and a violation of administrator policy. I saw no attempt by SlimVirgin to contact the blocking admin, FT2 (talk · contribs), nor do I see a clear case from her that the blocking admin's judgement was faulty. Instead she just said that the blocks of Giano under the IRC ArbCom case "have to stop".[24] But this is SlimVirgin placing her judgment above that of the Arbitration Committee, and I do not support this action. If she believes that the ArbCom restriction is faulty, then she should address it via appropriate dispute resolution and consensus, and not by overturning blocks by admins who are trying to enforce it. --El on ka 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'FT2's block of Giano II (talk · contribs) was appropriate' - I don't think so.
'This diff alone, among several others, is a blatant violation.[25]' - nope - certainly not in context.
'nor do I see a clear case from her that the blocking admin's judgement was faulty' - fair cop in some ways, but there had been pretty extensive community discussion on this which would seem to support Slim's position that blocking was a bad idea.
'SlimVirgin placing her judgment above that of the Arbitration Committee' - that's just plain wrong (as in you're incorrect, Elonka). Sorry!
Does WP:IAR help you understand why this was a good thing at all, E? Privatemusings (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin was wrong to do a speedy unblock without even an attempt at discussion with the blocking admin. I denounce that action and hope the committee will prevent that happening again.
As I have stated publicly, I oppose all blocks for minor incivility--whether applied to Giano or anybody else. With Giano, the cost of such blocks is highest of all. When incivility rises to the level of egregious personal attacks or harassment, that's when a block should be applied. User:Catherine de Burgh was being saucy, but she was not harassing anyone. The block on Giano appears to have been motivated by politics. I denounce that action also.
Durova hits the nail on the head. Why is ArbCom wasting its time spoiling jokes by a humor sock instead of dealing with important matters? Many of our articles are being diddled by tendentious, single-purpose, advocacy accounts. This is an encyclopedia, not a social club. It's about the articles. Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right: this is an encyclopedia, not a social club. That's why so-called joke accounts are out of place. Especially joke accounts that make inappropriate edits and disrupt the project. However, this block of Giano was not due to the sock, it was due to Giano's unremitting incivility and bad faith. While we don't commonly block for minor incivility, Giano has engaged in major incivility so many times that he's on civility probation. That probation calls for any single administrator to block him for violations. It does not require a consensus. As it happens, nine different admins have blocked Giano since the February IRC ruling. That shows that the belief he is violating his probation isn't limited to just a single admin. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)If these discussions are limited to Administrators? then please remove this post. Excuse my naivety, folks. But, why is there always 'high drama' when Giano is blocked? Why can't Administrators make up their minds about this editor? Either block him or don't. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsideration of block and unblock

After negotiation with SlimVirgin she has agreed to not reverse any block that I might make. I will over the next few days carefully evaluate the edits cited by FT2 and possibly others made by Giano and determine whether a block is justified under the civility parole in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC. Discussion of this matter should be directed here. Fred Talk 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at issue

You called user:Will Beback a "troll", [26]

:::You are nothing but a troll. I know this and so does everyone reading the tripe you are trolling here. Go away, and I will say no more about you. Shoo..... Giano (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[27],

:::Just you watch me! I have no idea who you are, but to me you are little more than a troll! - and we all know how to deal with such as those. Giano (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Implied to a female user that she should be "ashamed of her sex" and told her "men don't like a woman with an opinion" [28], (On Talk:Anti-Flirt Club).
==Query==

Just out of curiosity, how much of the information in this article is actually true? --El on ka 21:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::What a silly question, are you ashamed of your sex? Well I am ashamed of you, for thinking such a thing. What a charmig study Mr Hochman has just uploaded of Miss Reighly, it reminds me of myself, just after my cosmetic dental surgery. - As for you Ms Elonka, I would change that attitude if I were you, men don't like a woman with an opinion you don't want to stay on the shelf for ever do you? Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The article Anti-Flirt Club, which some suspect of being a spoof, had been created to this point by Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Giano's alter ego. Looking at Talk:Anti-Flirt Club it is obvious that there were several attempts at humor by Catherine de Burgh.

You blanked your talkpage and tried to get back to high quality content work, but shortly after, you were back to incivility, writing "Just in case any of you were stupid enough..." [29]
==Interesting diffs==

Just in case any of you were stupid enough to think that the Ombudsmen was there to protect your privacy

With this comment:

(Just in case any of you were stupid enough to think that the Ombudsmen was there to protect your privacy, he's not he's just anither IRC Admin)

Posted uncivil comments related to your "upset of the day" [30]
::You should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until you have no powers to abuse at all. You should never have the opportunity to do this to anyone else again. You are a disgrace as an Admin and a disgrace a checkuser. Giano (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[31]

::No you didn't, you did nothing at all, just created a situation where Gerard will do it again. With luck, next time, the victim will be weaker than me and no-one will notice. So you can keep him blocked and all go off for a congratulatory backslapping drink with Gerard. You must all be very proud of yourselves. Giano (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[32].

Your other account had similar posts, couched in "Olde English" as may be [33].
You were told to drop it in that post, and then formally told on your main talk page that this wasn't acceptable by two administrators -- Elonka, and GeorgeWilliamHerbert [34][35]. Your response was broadly to blank and/or ignore those warnings.
[36]
::I have never read such stupid claptrap in all my life, you must be the most uninformed Arb in history, and that is saying something - "I also now have evidence (that I didn't have before, due to people the many people making a fuss" Fozzie told you that in his statement, or do the Arbs nt bother to read them - don't bother replying we can work the answer out for ourselves! People making a fuss, if people were not making a fuss you lot would have swept it under the carpet. Giano (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
[37]
:::"As I understand it, David Gerard was unaware of who owned it too, and he has stated as such." Thank you Deskana for showing your complete ignorance of this case - probably best if you don't tire yoursekd further lookingat it. Giano (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
[38]
::You should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until you have no powers to abuse at all. You should never have the opportunity to do this to anyone else again. You are a disgrace as an Admin and a disgrace a checkuser. Giano (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
[39]
::You should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until you have no powers to abuse at all. Giano (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
[40]
::No you didn't, you did nothing at all, just created a situation where Gerard will do it again. With luck, next time, the victim will be weaker than me and no-one will notice. So you can keep him blocked and all go off for a congratulatory backslapping drink with Gerard. You must all be very proud of yourselves. Giano (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
[41]
:*::Thank you Fozzie. If I don't yell the Arbcom puts this under its already filthy carpet. There can be no closure at all on this while Gerard is still allowed to violate editor privacy by abusing his checkuser rights. I am not alone in thinking this, but I do feel alone in vocally wanting this problem properly sorted. The Arbcom have wanted the matter silenced and swept under the carpet from the first moment they knew. What their motives were for this, one can only speculate; what the hold is that Gerard exerts over Jimbo and the Arbcom one can only speculate too. The ARbcom has done nothing to solve this problem. One or two of them send me "soothing" emails saying they understand, but in public they have the balls to do nothing. It has been suggested to me that I should run for Arbcom, having first announced that while it would be impossible to be accepted and appointed by Jimbo, a vote for me is a vote for those to register their disappointment at the way the project is currently being run. If one ran a business like this, one would be bankrupt. To me at the moment Wikipedia seems morally bankrupt. Perhaps I should run, I don't know. If I don't run - I hope those that agree with me will vote instead for those unafraid to say what changes they will try to implement for the better. A vote for the likes of Matthews and Forrester is to maintain the status quo. Forrester, is even now denying he owns IRC (Remember: "I...er..own the channel" said so smugly) , but refusing to deny that he would accept an appointment against the majority vote[42]. Are we a buch of automatons or fools to put up with this? Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue. We do the work - we have a right to a say and to be treated fairly and properly. Giano (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
[43]
::The reason I am blocked is because they knew I was about to put my name forward and run against them for Arbcom. Simple as that. Happy editing to you all. Giano (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

The diffs cited show a number of violations of the civility parole Giano was under:

Civility: Giano

2.2) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. 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.

passed 7-3 at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The enforcement ruling:

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Log of blocks and bans.

passed 7-0 at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

He was patiently asked twice to conduct himself in a more civil manner:

[44]

:::Nobody has asked you to be silent. What we asked you to do is to pursue this discussion within the confines of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF.
What keeps getting you in trouble is that you perceive affronts and problems to be excuses to violate those policies.

As a point of fact, those policies are never more important than within the middle of a crisis, because they allow everyone to openly and honestly discuss and discover what has happened, what the implications are, and come to a community consensus in which everyone understands what the issues are.

When you respond by counterattacking, you form a different level of discussion, one that necessarily polarizes and acts to destroy the community.

This is a vicious circle. If this were one administrator who kept ganging up on you, it could be fixed from either side - either you realizing what you're doing that perpetuates it, or the admin realizing or being sanctioned. But it's not just one administrator. You've been blocked more than anyone else who is still considered a valuable contributor, almost never by the same admin twice.

There is nothing that the community can do to avoid your confrontationalism being seen to be a policy violation by the next admin whose luck will come up a month or two or three down the line. There are two things that can change the cycle - one, you realize what you're doing that provokes and expands these incidents and you work to change that, or two, the community finally concludes that your good contributions are not outweighed by the drama, and a community ban forms and sticks.

The sort of polarization and divisiveness that a community ban would show indicate are a symptom of the failure of the community consensus on your case.

Lots of people, including myself, value what you bring to the project when you're focused on articles and conducting yourself in a civil and constructive manner in policy space. What you do in the bad times demeans all the good that you do. Your behavior is driving a stake into the heart of the community, one small incident at a time.

Changing that does not mean not speaking out on issues you care about, it doesn't mean not advocating for policy changes or community changes you feel are important. It means making those statements in a constructive manner, respecting other people's opinions, assuming their good faith even when you're butting heads with them. When you do that, people respect you, and listen to you better, and you are a more effective advocate for the ideas you hold.

Please - look at what you're doing. See how what you're doing is part of the cycle that's causing these problems. Change what you're doing. The alternative is disaster, particularly for you and undoubtedly the community as a whole. Don't go there. All it takes is treating people you are in disputes with in a civil and respectful manner even if you feel very strongly that they're wrong.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

With the comment:

"(civility doesn't mean not saying what you think, it means saying it and respecting those who don't or don't yet agree with you. the opposite is corrosive to the community.)"

[45]

==Re-focusing== Giano, I'm not usually involved in the maelstrom that surrounds you (for example, I didn't know that you were Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs) until I actually saw the block message), but even I am noticing this particular incident. I am also getting increasingly uncomfortable with the namecalling. For example, Will Beback may be many things, but I don't believe that "troll" is one of them.[46] So could you please try to ratchet things back a notch? Also, as I look at your contribs, Giano II (talk · contribs), though you're clearly spending a lot of time on Wikipedia, it appears to have been days since the last time you worked on an actual article. So do you think it would be possible to try and re-focus your efforts on the main purpose of the project here? Or, aside from having Gerard's head delivered to you via Fedex (I can envision all the little biohazard symbols already), what exactly do you think is needed to de-escalate things? --El on ka 02:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano has been blocked 7 times to date for violations of his civility parole, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC#Log_of_blocks_and_bans and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AGiano_II When the enforcement ruling is applied to the number of recent violations of his civility parole Giano is potentially subject to a number of one month blocks. However, a block of one month is imposed beginning after the conclusion of the arbitration committee elections which he has expressed interest in. if he runs, otherwise commencing at the end of nominations. If he runs for arbitrator the block will commence on the date of the appointment of new arbitrators (the bulk of them) and will be commuted if Jimmy Wales appoints Giano II arbitrator. Fred Talk 17:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on proposed reblock

Endorse (re)block. This is a reasonable enforcement of ArbCom civility restrictions, on a user who appears to have ignored all other cautions. Sometimes the rules must be enforced with coercion. --Elonka 18:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (addendum) After reviewing the other comments here, where some good points have been made, I find myself agreeing that a new one-month block seems excessive. An ArbCom enforcement block is still appropriate, but it might be better to simply reinstate the original 55-hour block, rather than extending the duration. However, this could potentially be further lessened if Giano II were to be willing to make a statement acknowledging the community's concerns. And if Giano were willing to give his word that he would abide by WP:CIVIL from this point forward, it might even be reasonable to consider waiving the block entirely. I have posted this suggestion on Giano II's talkpage. --El on ka 01:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. An user who has not edited since his original block of 55 hours is having his block lengthened to one month because an admin undid the block. Instead of addressing the admin poor use of tools, you are making a lengthy block on the user. That makes no sense to me at all. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that would be blocks that lasted 38 minutes, 10 minutes, 111 minutes, 46 minutes, 3 hours... I don't think anyone's really defending SV's unblock, but I have to say I'm really sorry to have missed Christmas, because it's clearly April 1st. Talk about missing the point and making WP a laughing stock. Again. Black Kite 19:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, you're kerb-crawling in crazytown if 1. This can be described as 'analysis'. 2. You can portray yourself as an uninvolved, unbiased user. 3. You think anyone's going to believe this is nothing other than some kind of misplaced vengeance - silly hyperbole bordering on trolling, presumably orchestrated to take the heat of Gerrard and onto Giano (again) and this weeks scapegoat SV. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin did wrong, so let's punish Giano II. Brilliant! Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the most laughably absurd proposals I've seen in awhile--and that's saying something. This is simplyu ludicrous on its face, and should be tossed into the dustbin of wrongheaded, anti-Giano nonsense where it belongs. Giano has his problems and issues. This solves none of it, and would only serve to further escalate drama and tension. You know, this mess is making think that perhaps little ol' me should run for Arbcom, sans sysop, on a platform of "I'll only get involved when absolutely necessary." Why, why, WHY do we propose these type of things? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Naw, it's not even Fred's most laughably absurd proposal... doesn't anybody here remember his infamous "Clown Redirect Proposal" back in the Attack Sites ArbCom case last year? *Dan T.* (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't use the language other people have used (there seems to be a contest on for whose comments can be the most virulent and condemnatory), I don't think a reblock for 1 month (however appropriate or not it might have been initially) is sensible given the circumstances. Avruch^T 19:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider calling a laughably absurd proposal "laughably absurd" in any way "virulent." I attacked the proposal, not Fred.^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to your comment specifically (as I didn't use your name, or indent beneath your comment). On the other hand, this is not the only forum where you have been making your very strong opinions known. Avruch^T 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have very strong opinions on this, but I've remained completely civil/polite at all points when dealing with the issue. Strong opinions (and the expression of them) aren't the problem here, in my view. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every time somebody does anything against Giano, several people will jump at that person very quickly and with very little actual arguments. Please, read the analysis and make comments relevant to it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming I (and others) haven't read the "analysis" is an astounding assumption of bad faith. Please stop. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not assuming bad faith. I think you and others have entirely noble though misguided reasons to support Giano no matter the circumstances. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with Giano on several occasions, and have looked into the "history" of the dispute. Your calling me "misguided" has more than a hint of irony. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 20:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found FT2's original block not entirely unreasonable, but this proposal of Fred's is so far outside policy and reason I'm seriously considering blocking Fred for disruption, merely for proposing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate your understanding of policy? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how would that be less disruptive?--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FT2

I won't wheel war and overturn another administrator's decision, especially in this kind of complex forum. Nor do I think it's needed. I ask Fred to strongly reconsider, and explain why.

What Fred is proposing is roughly the following logic:

That's as best I understand it, a good faith explanation of the proposal.

The problem is that we don't go back through history looking for missed blocks or blocks-that-should-have-been and counting up time "lost". We just don't. As a norm, we broadly let stale matters drop, a lot of the time, which is wise because we can always act on any current repetition or need for deterrence. When I blocked Giano it was only in respect of current disruption that needed preventing then, to obtain prevention of continuation, and to deliver strong encouragement to think twice about repetition (deterrence). It was based on multiple events in the prior 48 hours (only), continuing right up to the then-present. That's utterly standard grounds for blocking to protect/deter. We might look back at old matters and decide the problem hasn't gone away (SV), but we wouldn't block for them, in and of themselves.

Fred, we agree this conduct of Giano's is totally inappropriate. But I can't agree this block. It doesn't match any norm I'm used to here, nor basic wiki philosophy, nor does it seem a situation requiring IAR as a drastic draconian act to curtail the habitual conduct problem.

Rather than further escalation, would you consider reducing it to 55 hours (ie the original block) less time served. It just can't be left as you suggest. I would not object if others see fit, to replacing the reduction instead by

a strong communal (or personal) warning to Giano about future incidents and handling, and
a strong communal (or personal) endorsement that any future blatantly unreasonable unblocks at AE or other admin disruption of Arbitration Enforcement norms (not just Giano, but all matters equally where this kind of thing has gone on) might be forwarded direct to the Arbitration Committee by any administrator, if they are undermining the intended protection/deterrence of an Aritration sanction.

I hope that will be a better remedy all around, that will better meet the issue.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

further comment by LessHeard vanU

I very much concur with FT2, in that the length of the sanction is inappropriately arrived at, but I have another concern with it - it will not stick. ArbCom enforcement is no different than any other sanction involving suspension of editing privileges except the circumstances that generate it; it is as open to amendment and variation as is any other admins block. Should a month block be entered there will very likely be a debate on a (or both) admins board in short order and it is almost certain that an unblock will be performed as soon as there is a consensus (and likely before there is a consensus that there is a consensus) that Giano has served sufficient time. With FT2's input, the basis of arguing the sanction length is excessive is much advanced. For a block to stick it needs to be under circumstances that the majority of uninvolved parties accept as being appropriate and for a length commiserate with whichever violation Giano has committed - and it needs to be executed by someone without a known history of dispute with Giano.
I am on record as saying that FT2's block was not excessive, and I would state here that I think Giano is capable of expressing himself in terms that are not nearly as provocative (as regards drama) as he has and that in view of the civility parole he properly blocked. I would further state here that I would be willing to enact the remainder of that block, in that I have no history of dispute with Giano (quite the opposite, I think he is on the side of truth and transparency), and am sanguine over whatever opinion Giano may have regarding my efforts and abilities as an admin, editor or person, or if they should change in the light of this post. I would also ask if other sysops, broadly regarded as being neutral or pro-Giano, would also declare themselves as being supportive of enacting properly reasoned and appropiately lengthed blocks. This would, I trust, sufficiently diminish the drama surrounding any sanction of Giano in that parties who have perceived to have a history of disagreement with him would be excluded from performing the blocks, and that those doing so will be acting in accordance with policy and consensus only. It is the only way I can see of trying to square the circle that is how Giano should be dealt with under policy. I invite further comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the facts of the situation, I do not think that any block of Giano was appropriate so no block should be re-instated. When discussed internally, most of the arbitrators commenting (not all commented) internally said that a civility block was unwise. Usually the Committee's views reflect the broad thinking of the Community (acknowledge that is is not always obvious since we do not always make our thoughts known in public). So if some of us do not think that a block was warranted, then it was bound to be controversial in the Community. In general admins should not use their tools in a controversial way. A 55 hour block that will cause more than 55 hours of drama makes no sense at all. The precipitating event for the block was a back and forth discussion between an arb and Giano on Giano's talk page where both made uncivil comments. Instead of blocking one of them, someone needed to de-escalate the situation. I can understand why the block fueled Giano's view that the Committee is out to get him. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A 55 hour block that will cause more than 55 hours of drama makes no sense at all." In this case, maybe so. Stepping back a bit it looks like seeking short term utility over simple fairness is what got us to this point, one arbitration at a time. What's fair in this case? At this point I'm not sure. But yet more short-term thinking will leave the project worse off in six months, just like it has in the past. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ArbComs attempts to kill the immediate drama rather than establishing workable principles is the reason why this happens over and over. Compared to years or conflict, one week of drama is insignificant. This is kind of like trying to keep the peace at home by giving a candy every time a child is screaming. With child, I am not only referring to Giano here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will once again propose Jehochman's rule: "Do not block for incivility unless it rises to the level of egregious personal attacks, harassment or disruption. Lesser incivility can be dealt with by social pressure, or by ignoring those who misbehave to get attention." If people would follow this rule, there would be many fewer problems. Jehochman ^Talk 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano's attacks on Gerard could count as harassment. You do have a point, and the community's failure to apply social pressure and support those who become Giano's targets is likely the main problem here. People with special powers in Wikipedia should be watched and criticised when there is a reason to, but letting completely unfounded bullying go on will not give us better or more fair officials. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given Giano and the Community's general concern about the Committee's lack of timely follow up about issues, I think that some agitating type comments by Giano are not unwarranted. Some people not understanding the full dynamics of the situation may see it as being bullying. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between criticising ArbCom for being slow (everyone does that) and comments like "You are the worst Arbitrator/Checkuser/Administrator ever! Your block/comment/opinion is horrible! I will fight until I get your head on a platter." Even if true, such comments don't provide any actual information and certainly don't help the community. I am afraid that some people support Giano because his harassment drives their wiki-political enemies away from the project. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in seeing your evidence regarding the number of people Giano has driven away from the project. Else perhaps a retraction of that inflammatory claim. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 17:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be quite impossible to prove if someone was driven away by Giano or just got tired on Wikipedia in general. Also, I said drives away, not have driven away. I would think it is quite obvious that harassment makes people more likely to leave Wikipedia. What I mean is: I see many people saying that they like Giano because he says important things about ArbCom, admins and others. Yet I don't see any impartial constructive criticism from him. I see him harassing valuable community members and biting random newbies who happened to be wrong (in his opinion) about something trivial. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny, Apoc2400: "the community's failure to apply social pressure". By now every admin knows that Giano is not going to change. So why do they block him? Here is the obvious answer:

mobbing is typically found in work environments that have poorly organized production and/or working methods and incapable or inattentive management and that mobbing victims are usually "exceptional individuals who demonstrated intelligence, competence, creativity, integrity, accomplishment and dedication"

In other words, since there has never been a consensus to ban him – not for want of trying, of course – they try to use the fact "that harassment makes people more likely to leave Wikipedia". In retrospect, it's clear ArbCom even made it easier with the civility probation. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With social pressure pressure I meant primarily to support the victims actually. Also, mobbing victims typically don't have an army of people who support them in every situation. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few "exceptional individuals who [demonstrate] intelligence, competence, creativity, integrity, accomplishment and dedication" here, and they recognise each others' value. They are not all supporting Giano of course – not everyone can stand a choleric, and not everyone shares his sense of humour. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I hope you didn't mean what you wrote: "Supporting" victims of harassment by "social pressure". Sounds like "supporting" the victims of traffic accidents by attacking the responsible drivers (rather than by calling an ambulance). --Hans Adler (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano is perfectly capable of expressing himself calmly when he wants to. By supporting, I mean to protest harassment when you see it. I believe you mean to do just the same when you protest blocks against Giano.

If you (that's plural) think Giano's criticism of Wikipedia is good, why don't you express it yourselves? Why do I never see such threads at the Village Pump? Why don't any of you run for ArbCom if the currents arbs are so corrupt? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(To Apoc) So because "it would be quite impossible" to actually support your accusation with evidence, perhaps you should retract it and apologize. I've observed Giano now for a short while, and I've never seen him harrass someone off the project. I have noticed that there have been several attempts throughout WikiHistory to forcibly remove him from editing the project, which I'll gladly prove with diffs. I don't make such accusations lightly, and I know that there is plenty of evidence out there of such efforts. Giano has his problems, but hounding normal editors from the project isn't one of them. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(resp to FloNight) If it is that there is no consensus to block, then of course I would not do so - and this is why I offer my services; I would only block where there is such a consensus among a majority of parties, I would not do so on the demand of certain interests, and particularly only if I concur that Giano has exceeded the civility parole (if I disagreed then I would be part of the argument against a block). Too much of the drama that surrounds efforts to restrain Giano's language is that most of those who warn Giano and certainly almost all who attempt to sanction him are those with whom Giano has already clashed, or is seen as being too close to those with whom Giano has clashed, or is otherwise perceived to be part of a faction that wishes Giano's opinions to be restrained. I am none of these, but I do see value in Giano using more temperate and considered phrasing in his statements (for one thing, they are then less able to be disregarded in the furore over the choice of words used) and it is possible that a neutral admin administering a sanction that has community consensus may prove salutatory to Giano (he believes, I am sure, that he does what he does for the encyclopedia community - so having his peers say "this time you have gone too far" may give him pause to think and consider).

There has to be an end of the cycle of a certain element of Wikipedias more long established editors/admins acting in a manner with regard to Giano that provokes far more drama than that which they say they are attempting to resolve. My offer may form part of that, because I wouldn't be so stupid as to invite the disregard of an editor I admire and whose aims regarding honesty and transparency I fully support by sticking my hand up and saying, "Yeah, I fancy swinging the banhammer in Giano's direction" if I didn't think it might be a way of advancing the encyclopedia. I like to think that that is something that all three of us, and very many other people here, stand together in wanting (although it is unlikely to be shoulder to shoulder, under the circumstances...) My offer stands. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments prior to reblock

further discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Except that, of course, in a couple of days, any block you might then re-impose will have become purely punitive. Shouldn't you maybe better redirect your attention to clowns? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not automatically punitive to use of the few tools that are available to enforce a remedy. For those who believe Giano's behavior has been a problem, it's been an ongoing problem. What else would you suggest trying? Friday (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find giving the task of determining the appropriateness of Giano's actions to an ex-arbitrator who failed at his re-election bid, and who has been controversial throughout his time on arbcom to be one that increases the legitimacy of the decision. While I applaud Fred's willingness to take the bullet here, and have little doubt personally that he would come to a fair and just decision, I don't see this approach as productive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should Fred Bauder enact the block, or any subsequent block, on Giano then it should be vacated on the basis of bias shown here - this editor has a history with regard to Giano that does not inspire confidence in a truly neutral conclusion being drawn. The results of Fred Bauders review need to be in turn considered by a community and a consensus reached over any proposed action based on them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that a credible case can be made that Fred's bias expressed in the course of an arbitration that he was serving as an arbitrator on can be taken as valid grounds for his bias. By that logic the entire arbcom is unfit to pass any judgment on Giano because they have done so before. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The language used and the viewpoint expressed were quite opposed by the majority of the ArbCom in that case. It may have been Freds last case and he may have felt free of the limitations of expression still required by other members, but the strength of feeling and the opinions expressed generally (not in respect of the case itself) indicate a level of personal animosity toward Giano. Also, the ArbCom is elected to do the difficult things the community has not been able to do and it has to be acknowledge they may need to be involved in situations or people where they have previously been; it comes with the job. Fred is no longer on that Committee, and therefore has no specific remit to revisit people and situations in which he had previously been involved and upon which he had expressed views (including those not always deemed appropriate within that role). Therefore I am not persuaded by your comment, as it is comparing apples and oranges. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I just don't find that any past expression that a user's conduct has been unacceptable plausibly precludes future enforcement. That seems to excessively prune out those who, well, are of the opinion that Giano has a history of problematic conduct. It is not, to my mind, a useful recusal criterion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with Fred taking any one of the roles of judge, jury and executioner or even two if the jury comprises of more than one, but he cannot be all three where there is evidence that there is a bias present, there needs to be a method of review independently. I can take one of those roles, as could many others, but will my evident sympathy toward Giano and antipathy toward various mind sets preclude from being asked? Why? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote myself from above: The Arbcom enforcement rules allow blocks in order to achieve a certain purpose. It follows from general wiki principles that you can't use the enforcement rules to justify blocks that don't have a snowball's chance of achieving that purpose.

Was I wrong? Metaphorically speaking: Is beating your children only allowed in an emergency, to prevent serious accidents? Or do some of the little brats need to be spanked routinely, for educational reasons? Even supposed there is an educational effect in some cases, is violence acceptable in those cases where it obviously doesn't help? Should a father beat his son if he knows that he will afterwards run to his mother – who will console him and reassure him that the beating had nothing to do with him and only happened because the father is a violent drunkard?

If the metaphor doesn't apply – why? Isn't this the philosophy behind "preventative, not punitive"? --Hans Adler (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one can't Enforce the rules? What's the point of having rules? What's the point of calling this Arbitration enforcement, if ya can't enforce? GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is where you're mistaken, Hans. The word you're looking for is "judgement". What you're asking is "whats the point of having glass windows when anyone can throw a rock through them". The answer is, most people don't, and there are (in principle) effective options for those that do. You (I, nobody) don't get to push the envelope, breach the norms, act out of the envelope, then say "well that proves the rules can't work!" Administrators are given their escalated access because of the view that they will try to act well, and understand the norms and intentions of the norms enough to not act greatly outside them, even if there is serious disagreement. What you're arguing is an administratove version of "well I can vandalize any article if I want so that proves Wikipedia can't work". I happen to feel that's poor logic. It's likely to be uphill convincing others here of it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the word "judgement" in an ambiguous way, and you are saying that there are rules that should not be broken. I will resist the baiting. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's put it differently. Arbcom enforcement -- read the page yourself and its historic revisions a long way back -- is not dispute resolution. That means, we aren't assessing if conduct was "reasonable" or "justified" or any of those things. We are assessing if it violated an applicable arbcom ruling. There seems no dispute that in the period concerned, Giano made edits a reasonable administrator might judge to be bad faith, or uncivil. That is the end of the matter, unless there are good grounds to believe that he did not do so.

If you would feel there is a good case that calling someone a "troll" or offensive and belittling comments to a female user (whichever account from) could not reasonably be considered uncivil, or that none of the edits above could reasonably be read as showing incivility, bad faith, or the like, then do so. But that is basically, the remit of an Arbitration Enforcement discussion. Dispute resolution's long done. This is much more about measuring current conduct against that decision, exactly as the page says. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be assuming certain answers to the two questions I asked at your Arbcom motion: 1. Does Arbcom punish? 2. Does Arbcom have the power to enforce its rulings by force if/when there is no chance of doing it by consensus? I believe that in the past editors disagreed about the answers to these questions, but didn't notice because it didn't matter. Due to Arbcom's loss of natural authority, which seems in part due to your carelessness, these questions have unfortunately become very relevant now. Your answers seem to be "yes" in both cases. My answers are "no" in both cases. I read some of the text at the top of this page as confirmation that I am right, but the community is probably divided. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I may be misunderstanding you. Are you comparing being blocked for incivility to child abuse? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of such a question, there are two interpretations for "comparing to". If you mean "drawing an analogy with", the answer is (obviously) yes. If you mean "implying that they are similarly bad", the answer is (obviously) no. The main point was that blocking is the wiki equivalent of using physical force, and that this case isn't too different from this absurdity. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that since blocks of Giano always cause controversy, they must be discussed first. Discussion always takes time. If time passes before the block, then it is punitive and therefor wrong. Is that the line of thinking? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Like a social worker who tries to educate parents that they must not beat their children, I cannot offer a silver bullet for problematic cases. But I can point out that violence actually creates behavioral problems, rather than solving them. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying issue

To my mind, the issue here is that it does not appear to me that there is community consensus for the underlying remedy. No block for Giano under this remedy is ever going to garner community consensus, because a sufficient portion of the community opposes blocking Giano under this remedy period.

There are, essentially, four options for the arbcom here that I see.

Punt. That is, do nothing and allow the situation to be resolved by the community.
Drop the restriction on Giano.
Replace the restriction on Giano with something that is less nuanced in its enforcement.
Step in when blocks on Giano that the arbcom views as reasonable and what was intended under the remedy are overturned.

All have advantages and disadvantages. Fort he most part, the arbcom has been sticking to #1 thus far. But, drama aside, that is basically the situation - as it stands, the remedy is not enforced or enforceable.

The more fundamental issue underlying this is the question whether and to what degree the arbcom can impose a remedy that is not supported by the community. There have been instances of jury nullification in the past that worked - I remember a case some years ago when an admin was desysopped by throwing them back to an immediate RFA. The community widely refused to vote on the RFA, declaring it a bad decision, and the arbcom was forced to reconsider.

On the other hand, the reason we have the arbcom is because sometimes community decision making fails to come to an adequate resolution. Thus there is clearly a degree to which the arbcom can overrule the community.

This is not something that a hard and fast principle should be offered on, but it seems to me an important debate to have as opposed to and in addition to the basic debate on Giano and SV's conduct. Regardless of whether one agrees with the civility parole, FT2's block, or SV's unblock in principle, to what extent is the situation contentious enough that the basic remedy needs to be reconsidered? Does the arbcom have legitimate authority here? And if so, what implications does that have for how the remedy ought to be enforced regardless of one's support for it? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing a "sufficient portion of the community" with a small, noisy, self important minority. An overwhelming majority of the community do not give a shit about Giano, or ArbCom, or IRC or the multitude of other political machinations that underpin these power games. Its about time everyone took a step back and asked as simple question: if any one of the rest of the community - that everyone seems so keen to cite as being on their side - was in Giano's position today, what would happen to them; Block or no block? Rockpocket 22:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with you on the matter of principle, but regardless - there is sufficient objection that all enforcement is contentious. This requires some thought about the nature of enforcement. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a community consensus against the ArbCom remedy or the block either. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True - it is, I think, accurately described as "contentious." Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question Rock. To be honest, If I were in Giano shoes, I believe I would've been blocked for quite a while (concerning incivility). Mind ya, Wikipedia wouldn't miss me. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket makes a good point. If the statements that we are talking about had been made by any other user who was under an ArbCom civility restriction, such user would likely have been blocked by now, as the comments were clear breaches of civility. In fact, if a new user had said those kinds of things, the user probably would have been blocked on sight, with no ArbCom remedy required. --El on ka 23:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Have you seen the comments that are regualarly made on Arbitration case pages? The involved parties, and uninvolved users regularly make heated comments that veer into the range of personal attacks and bullying. Sometimes Arbitrators even join in. :-( FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the overwhelming majority "do not give a shit about Giano, or ArbCom, or IRC or the multitude of other political machinations" does not make it ok for every little decision regarding those things to be left to an even smaller number of people, nor does it make it recommendable that the actions of those people are left ignored and unquestioned. WP:Civility is clearly just a distraction, and if it wasn't originally intended as such, it has become little more than a formality of excuse through its use here. The ArbCom have reaped the fruits of their creative chaos, the ridiculous decision to draw a target on the head of such a prominent editor with so many admin enemies. Moving on, the reality of wikipedia is Giano does matter. He matters for a whole host of reasons, some of which are conspicuously important to large groups of wikipedia editors. And why would it suddenly be a problem that personality and social connections matter? These are the things that propelled Giano's "enemies" to their current positions. Those are even the prime forces behind ArbCom elections. Everything on wiki is social. It's preposterous and random to single out individual instances of this ... and I'm sure Giano would rather wikipedia ran on merit and natural justice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no prob with Giano personally. But somethings gotta give, between him & the Arbitrators. No offense to anyone (particularly Giano); but I don't buy the He/she is too important to Wikipedia argument. Nobody is inexpendable, nobody. PS- I sure hope this grudge match ends soon. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me 1 Giano-like content creator over 10 process-obsessed politicos any day. That may sound harsh, but we are about writing an encyclopedia, right? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I haven't taken any sides. But somethings gotta give. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being unclear. My last was meant to address that point. If "something has to give", let it be the process-oriented politicos. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wowsers, that would mean simultaineous multiple blocks. I ain't no betting type, but I can't see this happening. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Giano is not a politico, then why does create so much political drama? Why does he have a joke sockpuppet and run it for ArbCom? Why does he aggressively demand that anyone who disagrees with him resigns? Write at Wikipedia Review? Insult an ordinary user who nominated his silly and unreferenced article to AfD? Like the other Giano supporters, I invite you to my talk page to come and help me understand you opinion. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think apoc raises a good point. If Giano were to simply stop trying to bring down every single admin and arbitrator and only wrote in the article space, we wouldn't be here now. The big issue for me is the pervasive desire that his own opinion of how Wikipedia should work is the only valid one; and that anyone who disagrees with it is an enemy that must be brought down. He refuses to accept that reasonable people may disagree, and is not above using bullying tactics to encourage his perceived enemies to go away. I fail to see how his article edits have somehow "cancelled out" the drama he creates every few months. His definition of a bad admin is "any admin that has ever expressed disagreement with him over any issue" and his beef with ArbCom is solely that they have sanctioned him. He takes any attempt to curb his rudeness as prima facia evidence that those who are unhappy with his incivil comments are somehow wrong for Wikipedia, often with no evidence to support such a belief. Its like the equation in his head is "disagrees with Giano = must be driven out of Wikipedia". If he cannot voluntarily restrict himself to places in Wikipedia where he doesn't explode with vitriol and hate, what should we do next? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The big question: Is Giano a Diva, Egomaniac, a potential usurper of Jimbo Wales? Or, is he a whipping boy, for corruptive Administrators? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, considering this is right under my comment, I take objection to "corruptive Administrators" following my comment. Merely being weary of the entire mess doesn't make one "corruptive". The dichotomy you present is a false one. I find that Giano does generally awesome work in the article space. I have never accused him of being a Diva, Egomaniac, or Usurper. I have commented exactly 4 times in my career on Giano's situation, all within the past 3 days and three times in this thread. I am just going weary of reading page after page of diffs where Giano attempts to harass and bully others into accepting his version of how things should run. Any aspect of wikipedia he doesn't like must be shut down or driven away, like IRC, the ArbCom, every single administrator. Any administrator who tries to stop this is caught in a catch-22. Giano's situation can only be judged by "neutral" admins, and any admin who finds that Giano has behaved in an unseemly manner is by definition "non-neutral". I can't believe I can be considered "corruptive" because I have grown weary of this situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatcha sore about. The Questions are mine. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that; however I am not sure if reducing this to an "us vs. them" dispute, or turning what is a complex issue into a binary one is helpful. It isn't just "people who hate Giano" vs. "Giano's crew" or anything like that. There's quite a lot of people in the "people who have nothing personal against Giano but recognize that there are behavioral issues which are detrimental to the Project and want to see this resolved in a manner that allows Giano to continue do good work but minimizes the hostility and drama he tends to initiate" group. I know its not a great simple name, but I dare say that many belong in this camp, and would like to see a resolution to this issue that does not involve "picking sides" between the "Giano is an egomaniac" camp and the "All admins are corrupt" camp (neither of which most people belong to!!!) --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't want Giano or the Administrators/Arbitrators getting banned either. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Apoc2400 has hit the nail on the head. Giano and his little group of eager supporters are no different, to the average editor, than the so-called admin cabals that he so persistently denounces. The only difference is that his political launchpad was from from his outstanding article contributions, while admins' "power" comes from their extra tools. Both wish to shape Wikipedia in the way they - not the community - they, wish it to be run. Both groups have enough of a powerbase to get away with behavior that our average editor would not. From the perspective of the nobody who has been blocked for minor incivility, and no one jumps to his defense, then an admin protects his talk page to silence him, our remarkable indulgence of Giano's behavior is no different to the "one rule for admins and another for everyone else" that we all know exists. But, of course, the silent majority has no voice, instead we deem consensus among the noisy minority who have a vested interest (and I include myself in that). So the idea that Giano is some sort of champion of the community taking on a corrupt ArbCom is laughable. The community might be unhappy with ArbCom, but I would bet my bottom dollar it does not support Giano's brand of demagogy. What they support is consistency and fairness for everyone in good standing. For as long as Giano, or any of the powerful admins he is in perpetual conflict with, are given special treatment, neither have any right to claim community consensus. Rockpocket 21:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the community held an RFC on Arbcom, these were Giano's only two posts to it.[47][48] Durova^Charge! 21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do people think admins get their powers and pass RfA? They usually have to have done at least some solid work on the encyclopedia, nowadays usually some featured or good articles, and usually continue to do it. Most of Giano's contributions must have been more than 6 months or a year ago, for the last 3-6 months he's just spent his time tinkering with a few articles and spending literally hundreds of edits in a row having a go at people and so on. Sticky Parkin 17:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They typically have to do some solid article work, certainly, but few if any admins can claim the quantity and quality of content Giano provides. There is no argument there. It is almost inevitable that our best, or most active, of administrators tend to have a reduction in content provision. I am far from being our best or most active administrator, yet my content provision has decreased significantly since I've had the tools. This observation is often made as criticism, but I think that misses the point. Wikipedia is a broad church, and we need all sorts of contributors. The creative writers who work on a single article up to FA status are to be valued, but so are the wikignomes, the referencers, the template makers, the photographers, and so are the admins that do all the janitorial work, and so are those that help defuse disputes, and the Arbs who do their best to keep things on an even keel. Suggesting those who collect FA stars are more important to the project is no different that suggesting admins are more important. They are not. Everyone who contributes according to our policies (including WP:CIVIL) is important, and everyone should be treated accordingly. Likewise, irrespective of the number of FA stars you have, or the length of time you have the tools, if you can't work within the policies that the rest of us can, then we can do without you. Rockpocket 20:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(To Rockpocket) Giano and I aren't especially close. I'm just a normal editor who happens to find what he does (writing) of extremely high value. I don't approve of the tone of many of his posts, but I find his tone far less offensive than the tactics of those who oppose him. If that makes me his minion or something, I guess I have to say, so be it. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano and I aren't especially distant. I'm just a normal editor who happens to find what he does (chronic incivility) to be extremely disruptive. I disapprove of the tone of many of his posts, and find that far more offensive than the tactics of those who oppose him. If that makes me his enemy or something, I guess I have to say, so be it. (the point I'm trying to make is that in good faith or bad, there are those who occasionally agree or disagree, and there are those that ubiquitously disagree or agree with whatever Giano does. I'm not suggesting all those who voice an opinion are paid up members of a campaign, but lets not kid ourselves, there are plenty who are.) Rockpocket 23:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(To Sticky Parkin) I've kept out of this, but I must respond to Sticky Parkin's astonishing argument a couple of posts above. SP, you speak at random about RFA and about Giano's article work; you put forward wild guesses, and they're in error. That's the kind interpretation of your post. Lots of wikignomes get adminned, and the notion that they "nowadays usually" need to have produced "some featured or good articles" is quite.. [strenuously removing word originally used here] ..quite divorced from reality. Look at this recent RFA for instance—see how the opposes don't ask for anything approaching good or featured articles, indeed, but simply for any writing—see the bureaucrat stepping in and closing it as successful anyway, on the argument that we need wikignome admins too? As for Giano's lack of article creation over the last 3—6 months, that is hilariously wrong. Take a look at a little thing called Winter Palace, huh? And this little lot are mostly recent, too. Not to mention.. but what's the point. As anybody knows who is interested in Giano's articles (you don't appear to be), he's been working as hard as ever over the past 3—6 months. You need to apologize. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I'm entitled to my opinion and think it has some validity in recent months. Check out giano's last several hundred contribs to see how 'hilariously wrong' my opinion is.:) We will just have to agree to disagree. Yes he's worked on a few of his own articles in his user space, then launched them, and spent 1000s of edits in recent months outside article space saying various things about conspiracies, having a go at people etc. Not saying my- by any means lol, or admin's contribs are perfect, just saying I don't see where Giano's being a content contributor in particular has been in recent months/6 months, which people are saying he is. They need to actually take a look at hundreds of his recent edits.Sticky Parkin 22:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your idiocy, but not to promulgate it onwiki. Giano writes his articles in user space before moving them to mainspace, does he? So, is that like not really writing them? Bishonen | talk 22:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

A Fresh Start

The Wikipedia Civility page wp:civil offers a solution not yet discussed. So far the solutions have been block, block, block, and when that doesn't work block some more. Now more of the same is being dicussed, as if blocking is the only solution.

Disputes and misunderstandings can lead to situations where one party feels injured by the other. That is what I see happening here, hurt feelings. For some people, it may be crucial to receive an apology from those who have offended them. Offering an apology may be the key to resolving this conflict. It provides the opportunity for a fresh start, and can clear the air when one person's perceived incivility has offended another.

So instead of discussing whether to block, how long to block, who can block, etc. why not try to make a clean start? I understand that demanding an apology is almost never helpful and often inflames the situation further, so I am simply suggesting that one be made. I have no idea if Giano will accept such an apology after all that has occurred, but i think it is worth the attempt. Uncle uncle uncle 21:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano accepting an apology? I'm guessing there's editors out there who are waiting for apologies from him. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coverup?

At User talk:Giano II I have just learned that there may have been an incident involving some of the same folks during WP:ACE2007 where some inconvenient edits were Oversighted, not for valid policy reasons, but for political reasons.(Comments by: Thatcher , Avruch , Fred Bauder ) This whole blocking of Giano II looks like it could be retaliation against a whistle blower, or other political games. If Giano II has been making valid accusations of wrongdoing, the targets of those accusations should definitely not be the ones checkusering or blocking Giano II. Now, I am ready to listen to reason. Who can provide an explanation of who did what? Please continue discussion at User talk:Giano II, not here. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 21:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Giano was blocked for incivility. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was, and I was totally unaware of the matter he is bringing up now. Fred Talk 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was poor form to bring this tangent to the AE page. Isn't it enough of a circus already? Avruch^T 21:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Jehochman, in other words, because some tangentally related incedent happened some time ago, which may or may not have been appropriate, Giano is hereby excused from any and all incivility that he may have ever expressed, both before this incident and afterwards? Or is there someother reason why this Red Herring has been introduced into this discussion? Does bad behavior by others instantly excuse bad behavior by Giano? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a logical fallacy. I would not excuse Giano's incivility at all, but if you read the comments at User talk:Giano II you will see that Giano is alleging election fraud and then a campaign of harassment against him to discourage him from investigating and uncovering the fraud. I am equally concerned that Giano might be telling the truth, or that he might be laboring under a grave misunderstanding. Either way, we need to get to the bottom of it. Jehochman ^Talk 22:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't read the details of Giano's talk page. His accusations are serious and I am trying to get my head around them now. This discussion there is quite serious. The discussion at his talk page certainly trumps all; it is my opinion that one way or another, someone may have some explaining to do. If the comments Giano left at his talk page are true, then action needs to be taken. If they are NOT true, then action needs to be taken for that as well. I agree, these new comments change everything... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before any sanctions are applied to a user, it is necessary for administrators to fully investigate the matter. That is why I have brought this up. Whether Giano's allegations are true or false, they are relevant to making a proper decision here. Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. Giano had information he had not shared with us. Now he has shared it. However, this discussion is about his compliance with the civility parole he is under. He has violated that parole and appropriate enforcement should be applied. Fred Talk 00:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something I'd like to know is whether FT2 was aware of the information that Giano had on the oversighted edits - I think that could well be an important point. If he did, well there's concerns about the neutrality of the block, if he didn't then the block was legitimate. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you suggest we get at that information Ryan? If we just ask FT2 "did you know?" should we accept his answer? Reluctant to even recuse himself in the recent Rfar and like Fred above, unable to see obvious conflicts of interest, doesn't exactly inspire trust - which would be necessary to accept a no answer on trust. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits have been available on WR for a long while, and I suppose everybody (perhaps except Giano) knew of that. I don't know what makes Giano think there's now a big revelation that only he has to make. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think Giano didn't know that? Who or where do you think he's likely to have got the info from or those who gave it to him were likely to have got it from, directly or indirectly?:) Sticky Parkin 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It's all a conspiracy!:) Giano is alleging a conspiracy against him being the reason why people are unhappy with him, when in fact another user was blocked at the time of the previous arbcom elections over these issues (rightly or wrongly.) Giano got in trouble at the time of the previous elections over the User:!! debacle and his revealing private/off-wiki correspondence. He had nothing to do with these particular issues at the time nor is there any reason to think anyone had it in for him before now over their beliefs about 'what he knows' about this particular issue, except in as much as he knows a lot of things because it's politically expedient for some people to make sure he knows about it for the reason that him knowing is the best way to ensure it gets out. If Giano can prove he personally has always been at the centre of this oversight malarkey and hasn't invoked people's ire for other reasons or due to his ongoing behaviour I would be Slain in the Spirit. There are plenty of other reasons why he's annoyed people or got in trouble. He has no direct personal involvement in this particular thing except in as much as someone has passed the info to him, due to him being a wiki-dissident. This is a Hail Mary pass IMHO and Giano has no reason to resort to it as it's all going his way anyway, and I didn't think he would be blocked again for the moment. Instead he's lashing out against those who've tried to block him this time, there's no need. Sticky Parkin 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meowy

WP:AE is not your battleground

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Meowy (talk · contribs) was placed on 1rv per week parole according to the ruling of the arbcom case AA2: [49]. Within the last 2 days he violated his parole twice, and he was perfectly aware of consequences, since he was blocked for the similar violations of his parole 3 times before: [50] Here he reinserted the map, which was removed from the article per discussion at WP:RSN: [51], failing to reach any consensus for its inclusion on talk of the article, and here he did it again: [52]. Grandmaster (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, Wikipedia's serial complainant, is at it again. The matter concerns a map which, some months ago, had been extensively and heatedly discussed in the article's talk page, with the result being no consensus to remove it and with no credible reasons given to remove it. However, some time after the discussion had ended it was removed silently (without any explanation, without even an edit summary) by Baku87 at the end of last month. When I noticed it was gone, on the 19th November I returned the map to the article. I gave a proper edit summary for my action, and also mentioned in the talk page my reason for returning it. Almost within the same hour my edit was reverted by Grandmaster, who gave a false reason in the edit summary, saying that there was "no consensus for its inclusion". After another editor reverted Grandmaster's edit to restore the map. That edit was also reverted, this time by Atabəy, an editor who often works hand-in-glove with Grandmaster, giving what was basically an "I don't like it" explanation in the edit summary. I reverted Atabəy's edit, giving an edit summary as well as an explanation in the talk page. That was my first and my only revert of that article within a one week period (and also only my second edit made on that article in a year, though I've made contributions to its talk page). Meowy 21:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since Moewy was placed under editing restrictions on October 18th, 2007 then they have expired. Everyone else had it for one year only, I don't see why it should be any different for Meowy. In this case only discretionary sanctions can be applied to Meowy, like anyone else and he has done nothing to warrant any discretionary sactions.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me where the sanctions are limited to a year? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to be sure that's set in writing. I would suggest he's still under the 1RR/week limit, as I see no expiry on that, except such time of the logical expiration of edit warring on the subject. I know arbcom generally only blocks for a year, but I didn't know mass edit paroles such as this one were under the same limit. Or was Meowy under a more specific parole? --Golbez (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any time limit actually and that is the mistake of the admin who placed him under the restrictions but since the MAXIMUM anyone has ever been sanctioned under either of the AA's has been one year than we must assume it is one year since not only there is no precedent for editing restrictions lasting for more than a year in this case, there is also no justification whatsoever.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here [53] and here: [54] Grandmaster (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many times should Grandmaster deliberately fabricate evidence to have his foes blocked before any action is taken against his disruptive reports? It's literally impossible that Grandmaster did not know that Meowy did not break anything. It's more than obvious from the history of edits here. In what parallel world is this breaking anything (besides, it has been over a year since Meowy was subject to the sanction)? - Fedayee (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meowy's parole has no time limit. Time limit was only for the parties to the first arbcom case, but even those people are to voluntarily stick to 1RR limitation, which is what hey do. As for the evidence being fabricated by me, I would prefer the admins to make their judgment. From what I see, Meowy deliberately violated his parole, as he knew that everyone else, myself included, voluntarily observes it. So why does he have to make 2 rvs within 2 days, especially considering that there was no consensus for inclusion of this map, and the third party opinion at WP:RSN, where Meowy also participated in discussion, was that the map is not acceptable? I see that the group of editors tries to divert attention from this blatant violation, but I'm sure that the admins will see, who's right and who's wrong here. Grandmaster (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were appointed an arbitrator and set the "no time limit". This is a superfulous and an unnecessary report like most of your reports.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request extension of the topic ban imposed against Atabek

Also, if anything, Atabek actually broke indirectly his topic ban by this revert whose purpose and subject of contention was the Armenian principalities of Khachen (Artsakh) noted as Karabakh on the map. Atabek was indefinitely banned from its main article. What's the use of the topic ban, when several articles cover the same principality and that he can still remove any reference to it from those other articles? Exactly like he did by removing the map, and also recently removed the reference to Khachen from another article by claiming that Anderson is not a valid source when Britannica and several sources consider (as shown to him in prior discussions) it as common knowledge.

I strongly believe that the topic ban imposed to Atabek to be worthwhile should be extended to the history of Karabakh in general since he is gaming his topic ban, thank you. - Fedayee (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing but an attempt to divert attention from real violation. Andersen is not a reliable source, and this was confirmed a number of times by admins (such as Mikka) and at the WP:RSN board. Yet there's a group of people who keep inserting references to this website, and one can only guess why they keep on doing it. Grandmaster (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Meowy is violating 1RR parole [55],[56], and ignoring the results of ongoing discussion at [Reliable sources noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Andrew_Andersen_Maps] and the prior conclusion by 3rd party: "if the maps come from a blog, and they deal with contested borders, then they are not reliable". And now Atabek, who actually initiated the discussion at Reliable Source Noticeboard instead of engaging in edit wars like Meowy, should be topic banned :). Brilliant! Atabəy (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on my talk page, I disagree the first one is a revert. It was an edit to put back content that had been removed a month earlier; we usually take 'reverting' to mean 'putting back stuff recently removed'. There has to be a logical barrier between what is a revert and what is an edit; I think a week is enough. Considering the length of the 1RR/week parole, then, a few weeks is sufficient. --Golbez (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring to the article hotly disputed map, despite the results of discussion at WP:RSN and knowing that other editors will not agree with that is disruptive. Plus, I don't think revert is counted by the time elapsed since the last time the same revert was made. WP:3RR says nothing about the time between the 2 reverts. In that case, anyone can restore previously contested info twice and that would not be violation of 1RR. Grandmaster (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the time limit? If I put something back into an article that was removed six months ago, does that count as a revert? 12 months? --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that amazing, that in the past 1 year, any time "AA" conflicts come up in WP:AE, only contributors from one of the "A"s are accused and placed under probation, while the other "A"s are groomed and their reverts are considered to be not quite reverts, their paroles are lifted. Additionally, the groomed side gets bold enough to propose topic banning the individual contributors for no reasons, just to further push their POV without resistance, or in past, accusing others of meatpuppetry and getting them banned, proven wrong through ArbCom, while walking away absolutely unpunished for their waste of Wikipedia board space, etc. And they get encouragement from admins and arbitrators patting them on the back, just notice Golbez above posting not in section pertaining to Meowy but in subsection opened by retaliating POV pushers on me while I haven't done anything, not even open AE thread. The pattern of side-taking is becoming already alarming... I have a suggestion, why not make Meowy, Eupator and even Fedayee :) - admins, spare yourself this comedy show of "neutrality". Atabəy (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. We're all in the tank for Armenia. You caught us. Good job. --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement

This is a place for arbitration related enforcement, not a place for you to bicker. The distinct lack of admin interaction with the lot of you suggests that they, like me, are upset, irritated, and exhausted of your collective nonsense. After my comment you may file your complaints, but I expect them to be short, concise, and without personal attacks. Cite the case, the relevant restriction, and the edits in question. Defenses are similarly to be short and to the point, without personal attacks. Polemics are unacceptable. Bickering is unacceptable. If anyone attempts to justify their bad conduct with "he started it" I will immediately take that as an acceptance of responsibility for a breach and block you for 3 weeks.--Tznkai (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note, since there seems to have been some confusion, that the supervised editing remedies under AA2 were not time limited, so those placed under such restrictions are under them indefinitely. That doesn't mean forever, the sanctions may be appealed to the admin who applied the sanctions or ArbCom, and either one of those may be willing to lift sanctions after a long period of good behavior. What I'm seeing here, though, is the direct opposite of good behavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your points are valid and understandable but unfortunately, it is not the first time this was done by Grandmaser, see here... and I am digging up more recent ones. Under his own definition of what is a revert, Atabek would be blocked several time because of his reintroduction of his same reverts of months ago and this, several times.

On the comment made by Seraphimblade: The AA2 claimed that the restrictions on AA1 remains and they made a decision to add others when it fits. It fails logic to have indefinite restriction for the new users under AA2 restrictions, particularly against Meowy and VartanM who are not as involved as all the users who don't have any restrictions anymore.

On Atabek, is it possible to have Request extension of the topic ban imposed against Atabek here addressed? Moreschi writes: Atabəy (talk · contribs)'s editing at Talk:Principality of Khachen and Talk:Sahl Smbatean is classic tendentious editing. He comes back many months after the last dispute ended pushing the same rejected arguments as he did previously. [57], the rejected argument is against what Moreschi says which is: While this may seem a long way off from the Nagorno-Karabakh War, the location of the historical Khachen is also that of modern-day Nagorno-Karabakh, so from an Azeri point of view, if we can prove that Khachen cannot validly be called Armenian (the other candidate is Albanian), then Armenia's claims to NK could be considered less valid. The row at Sahl Smbatean is along similar lines. Essentially this is WP:BATTLEGROUND again.[58]. Atabek’s edits described here were specifically to remove Khachen principalities references from two articles just recently. He was topic banned from its main page and he is gaming the system by removing any reference of it from other pages.

Thank you for reading. - Fedayee (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not reading that. "I expect them to be short, concise, and without personal attacks. Cite the case, the relevant restriction, and the edits in question.--Tznkai (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is short, concise, and without personal attacks. First paragraph relates to the fact that Grandmaster's report was superfluous (the paragraph was two lines long).

Second paragraph relates to the fact that Meowy can not be kept in restriction for more than one year when the Arbcom restriction for the parties to the case was one year (the paragraph was two line long).

The third paragraph contained mostly quotes from Moreschi about the rational of the indefinite topic ban against Atabek and the fact that Atabek gamed his topic ban by removing the reference to the Khachen principality from two articles (it’s also about two lines, the rest are quotations from Moreschi's rationale for the topic ban).

All necessary diffs were provided to the relevant cases. Thanks again.- Fedayee (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing the time with you either. I'm telling you what decision ArbCom made. It's right here. There are no time limits, that was the decision. As to those in the original case, if they were still editing disruptively in the affected areas, they could easily enough be put under the AA2 remedies by an uninvolved admin just like anyone. Regardless, though, that decision was not mine and I would have no power to change it. You could appeal it to ArbCom if you believe it unfair, I wouldn't bet on it being changed, but that's the venue for appeal if you feel the need to make one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it makes no sense, as you can see the list of users placed under List of users placed under supervision includes all the users from the prior case too. We were left to believe that it was for one year. I have no problem with that as long as it is fair for everyone. I would still like to see a reply about Atabek gaming his topic ban too. - Fedayee (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the issue about the time limit has been clarified, I'm reposting my original report and would like the admins to comment and take actions. Thanks.

Meowy (talk · contribs) was placed on 1rv per week parole according to the ruling of the arbcom case AA2: [59]. Within the last 2 days he violated his parole twice. Here he reinserted the map, which was removed from the article per discussion at WP:RSN, failing to reach any consensus for its inclusion on talk of the article, and here he did it again: [60]. Thus, 2 rvs in 2 days. Grandmaster (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above again highlights Grandmaster's repeated abuse, over several years, of Wikipedia procedures, resulting it the wasting of everyone's time and energy. Even if the doubtful and discredited AA2 sanctions are still in place, there is no question of me having broken its "parole" in the above edits. I have already given a full rebutal of his accusation in the section now contained in "WP:AE is not your battleground" - so I won't type it in again. Does Grandmaster believe that if he repeats an obviously false statement often enough, its falsity becomes less apparent? Would it possible for an editor to be banned for a period from making any reports, appeals, checkuser requests and similar such things? The threat of such a sanction could serve to moderate Grandmaster's behaviour in the future and give us all a break from his serial complaining. Meowy 16:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meowy, I gave an example above where an Admin refused to block a user when Grandmaster did similar digging. As for the worthless reports by Grandmaster, the result of them all was to distract the attention from real disruptions. In this particular case, Atabek gaming his topic ban. Grandmaster's superfluous reports come all with a good timing. - Fedayee (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For prior Wikipedia board space, admin time as well as reputation waste due to battleground mentality of Fedayee and Eupator, check out the whole ArbCom case. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for Golbez's inability to be neutral in mediating A-A related topics, I suggest checking out this report on Wikipedia ANI about a year ago: [61], including the conclusions by admins [62], [63], [64]. So no surprise, on justifying Meowy despite clear-as-a-day parole violation. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, please put a stop to this pointless thread. You can. You said at the start "if anyone attempts to justify their bad conduct with "he started it" I will immediately take that as an acceptance of responsibility for a breach and block you for 3 weeks". Look at Atabəy's above two "he started it" posts. Meowy 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what "bad conduct" is involved here on my behalf. There is a violation of ArbCom parole by Meowy, making 2 reverts within 2 days. I didn't even file a report at AE, I initiated the discussion at WP:RSN to resolve the issue with unreliable maps. So why is discussion shifted on to me again? Atabəy (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asgardian

Arbcomm case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae

Diffs showing violating behaviour:

Reverting without discussion on the talk page, in violation of the Remedies.
Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks and incivility- on my talk page, in violation of the Principles.

After 7 blockable violations of the Arbcom decision, I trust that a diff showing prior warnings is not necessary. 98.210.221.64 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we wanted to apply the strictest letter of the law, then *maybe* he should be blocked however, he's correct that your changes introduced error into the article and needed to be removed. I think this is so marginal that a block might be over the top, however, in future he should note that clearly in the edit summary about what he's doing - I'd take that as fulfilling the "discuss" clause (obviously he'd then need to discuss any further reverting. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user with the IP address seem to be a good editor, but is in error. An examination of the comment here: [65] shows that it is incorrect. As indicated, the user removed a legitimate link and restored text in the wrong tense and grammar. Despite this, I was accused me of writing a false summary. In effect, lying. This is not true. Given this, the edit is by literal definition, "ignorant", as given the user's impressive Edit History I'm surprised the comment was written. There, was however, no venom in the comment. Finally, my curiosity is piqued as to why there was such a strong reaction to what was a very minor and beneficial edit. Cordially, Asgardian (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. So this editor, who's repeatedly had a problem with civility, is just given a pass for calling another editor ignorant? I would think this demonstrates that not only does he have problems with the letter of the law, he's still unclear on the spirit of it. 98.210.221.64 (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I apologise. You, however, have yet to address the original point for which you are in error. It could also be argued that your own Edit Summary was uncivil. Asgardian (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asgardian is subject to an editing restriction: "He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism)." Unfortunately, he reverted 98.210.221.64 twice in one week. [66] [67] While these were good faith edits removing redundant information from the article, it might be smarter to sit back and let other editors handle it after the first revert. I don't agree that he tried to hide it, though. He did say "and again, Film info belongs in Film" in his edit summary (although I think he meant television, not film). --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the incivility. It's really disappointing that nobody has spoken out about the rude manner in which I was addressed. 98.210.221.64 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to GentlemanGhost's point, there actually aren't two blind reverts as there were different changes. There was, as stated, also commentary in the Edit Summary. What concerns me is that User talk:98.210.221.64 has yet to address my points:

1. The original Edit Summary which states I was in effect lying, which is in itself uncivil and began this matter.

2. Why the user removed legitimate information, which Cameron Scott noted above.

There is also a more disturbing issue I wish to raise and Cameron Scott alluded to it on my talk page. How does an IP user know about an Arbcom matter and go straight there? The behaviour - the fixation on civility - is very similar to that of another user who erroneously blocked me and was challenged regarding the act. I know of no way of checking for sure, but is seems very convenient. For your consideration. Asgardian (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classic tactic - turn it back on the person who points out the bad behaviour. Sow seeds of doubt because of course an IP address must be trying something underhanded. None of which changes the fact that, as this edit shows, you reverted without discussion on the talk page, and that your first post to my talk page was to call me ignorant. And for the record, it's not very hard to track down the Arbcom case or your record of incivility when your block log is littered with references to them. 98.210.221.64 (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please just answer the questions put to you, as your erroneous edit and statement in the Edit Summary started this. Asgardian (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not agree to play your blame-the-victim game. This is Arbitration enforcement, and the only issue here is your edits. Do you deny that this edit is a reversion to a previous version with a few cosmetic changes? Do you deny that your first post to an IP editors talk page referred to my edits as "incorrect and even ignorant comments"? 98.210.221.64 (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to acknowledge your actions. You made an incorrect statement in your Edit Summary that was also uncivil. You reverted legitimate information. I have made an accurate and true statement as to my actions. Others are now welcome to comment, although I still see this as an overreaction. Asgardian (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More examples of reverting without talk page discussion:

Note: These diffs show the version reverted to, and often contain superficial differences. To see what was removed, look at the difference from the last version prior to Asgardian's.

More examples of treating other editors with contempt:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics
Ultron talk page
User talk:Daniel Case
An entire section at User talk:Emperor#Asgardian, again

These were all accessable from the first page of Asgardian's recent changes. This shows that there is a strong tendency to remove the bulk of changes with which he disagrees, keeping only minor formatting fixes, all without talk page discussion. When he does choose to use talk pages, the tendency is for sarcastic, belittling statements that question the editors intentions, knowledge and competence. In short, all the same problems evident in the Arbcom case are still in play. 98.210.221.64 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will say three things:

1. Much of what 98.210.221.64 presents is opinion, and there have been mistakes made by administrators I have spoken with in recent times. Others admit as much.

2. This smacks of a grudge. I've made peace - and considerable progress - with Tenebrae since the original Arbcom, and even met another user who I initially clashed with, halfway. I think everyone would just like to move on. User 98.210.221.64, however, does not seem willing to drop the matter. Unfortunately, the behaviour (fixating on civility) and editing style matches that of Nightscream. I know of no way to prove or disprove this.

3. Finally, 98.210.221.64 has yet to address the original points, being his uncivil and misleading comment, and why legitimate information was removed. This user does not seem capable of admitting that they are at fault.

That is all I have to say. Other comments are welcome. Asgardian (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the behavior on Asgardian's part that led to this ArbCom matter, I will let other editors here and the relevant Talk Pages speak for themselves (unless otherwise asked to elaborate), including the Talk:Black Bolt, Talk:Ultron, User:Emperor's and Asgardian's own Talk Page, from which he blanks material related to his multiple blocks, rather than archiving them, under the rationale that they were "nothing of note anymore". I will, however, address two points:

First, if one observes violations of the Civility policy, then the proper action is to politely admonish that person, or refer the matter to an administrator. The proper action is not to use such events as a rationale for engaging in such behavior oneself. Asgardian has argued that it is hypocrisy to be admonished for his incivility (what he calls "obsessed" or "fixated") because other persons were not so admonished. This is a fallacy, unless Asgardian can demonstrate that the same admins who addressed his incivility are the same ones who were aware of those other editors exhibiting the same behavior and did nothing. I am not familiar with Cameron Scott, nor has Asgardian furnished diffs showing his violations, and indeed, this is the first time he's mentioned any of these past violators by name. In any event, the fact that others violate a policy is not license to do so yourself, or to make personal comments about others who call you on it. Arguing that you are not violating policy because others are is a poor argument.

As far as his thinly veiled implication that I and User:98.210.221.64 are one and the same by pointing out that an IP check website reveals that IP to be from Santa Clara, CA, whereas I live in New Jersey, and have never been to California. I am not familiar with his/her "editing style", but for the record, I have never engaged in anonymous IP sockpuppetry. Nightscream (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know. I note, however, that the IP user in question seems to have gone to ground. Odd. Asgardian (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Setanta747

Unresolved

– See "Further problems" section

Arbcom case: The Troubles.

Setanta747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Setanta747 is on probation from the above case, and is limited to one revert per article per week, which was imposed here. He has reverted twice on List of flags by country to his version which includes an unofficial and POV flag - first revert and second revert. Domer48_'fenian' 18:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Declined~~ with a caveat. List of flags is not within the "area of dispute", but this is a content conflict that needs to be sorted out, and my view on it is this: we record the controversy not our opinion on the controversy.--Tznkai (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai if I could just draw your attention to the fact that edit warring over that flag is within the area of dispute, it was specifically stated in the case. "To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles." Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and in consideration, but I'd like to give Setanta747 a chance to respond.--Tznkai (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. Tznkai, it was clearly stated here that the dispute specifically included articles related to NI flags ("...The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner..."). This double revert clearly violates that, and this is a second breaking of the ArbCom ruling. Therefore, I have blocked Setanta747 for a week. Black Kite 19:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, this all could've been avoided, if the dependant countries were deleted from the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree. However, all Troubles editors should know by now that edit-warring over the Ulster Banner is a guaranteed way to get yourself a short holiday from editing. Black Kite 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

struck my decline, but I still would like to hear from Setanta, who was not notified of this thread when it started.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see Domer quick off the mark as usual. Always helps to improve relations, espicially considering his impecible behaviour.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to muddy the waters, but at least one of those reverts (and possibly both) was to remove an edit of a persistent, and bothersome, banned user. Whether Setanta747 was aware of that is unclear (and the fact that there was no mention in the edit summary would suggest he probably wasn't). However, there is an ongoing issue of this banned editor using multiple IPs to revert edits from, shall we say, a more unionist perspective. Inevitably, the legal editors revert (usually multiple times) and the consequence is that those editors face sanctions where the banned editor just jumps to another IP. Now, the editors probably shouldn't be making those controversial edits in the first place at least without discussing them first, but we should be careful of blocking them as a consequence of a banned editor gaming the system. Rockpocket 20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I take your point, given that one of Setanta's insertions of the Ulster Banner had a completely misleading edit summary as well, which was clearly meant to 'hide' the edit, something which he'd done a few days previously as well ("disambig template" - I think not), I don't think there's much doubt that he's being tendentious. Black Kite 20:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I would disagree with Setanta's view on the flag issue I really think this goes yet again to show that reverting IPs should not count towards 3RR or even 1RR. Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Sarah777, they in fact don't count according to the arbitration case at hand. "2) Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert." (emphasis mine)--Tznkai (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that the original edit was tendentious, but that wasn't the reason that the request was bought here. This isn't any old IP, its a banned editor doing his best to aggravate editors under restriction. There is typically two different issues here: there is editor #1 making edits that may be problematic, controversial or tendentious. Then there is a banned editor #2 reverting and an edit war ensures. Editor #1 gets restricted, incorrectly, for edit-warring. That should not be happening, though it does not change the fact that editor #1's edit was problematic, controversial or tendentious in the first place. We need to deal with the first issue (if it is a problem), without getting suckered into the second. Rockpocket 23:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So could we be maybe a bit flexible here and reduce the block to 24 hours? perhaps? maybe? please? Sarah777 (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)The first one would from any other editor deserve a quick trouting, but Setanta747 should know better, so some sort of more forceful measure (a block) may be sensible. I agree with Rockpocket's analysis of the situation, and recommend either vacating or reducing the block, Sarah's suggestion seems reasonable.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too think that might be appropriate, but since Setanta probably isn't even aware he is blocked yet, its better to wait for the blocking admin to comment. If Black Kite hasn't commented again after 24hrs we can probably unblock Setanta with a warning about misleading edit summaries. Rockpocket 23:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Setanta is probably out having a few scoops like any sensible Irishman on a Saturday night! Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I was, which is why I haven't commented in the last few hours! OK, that's a fair enough consensus, I think, so I'm going to unblock Setanta, but really - any more sneaky editing like that and a block would be reasonable regardless of who it was reverting, as I'll say on his talkpage. Black Kite 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Kite. Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging resolved: congratulations all around on the spectacular lack of drama.--Tznkai (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[de-indent] Although this case was submitted and resolved (hasty decision reversed), I would like to comment on it. There was no "sneaky editing" involved. There was no "hiding" involved. I resent the lack of good faith and the accusation of it. My edit summary was as clear as most of my other edit summaries. In this case, I was disambiguating the flag of the United Kingdom from the flag of Northern Ireland. No 'hiding' or attempt at being "sneaky" was made and anyone who thinks that should perhaps take a look at the mote in their own eye. I am fully aware that any and all edits made by me is being watched by Republican-minded editors.

I have made an edit to the article in question and I feel this represents both "POVs" adequately until this dispute can be resolved in some way. --Setanta 14:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I have reverted it. "Disambiguating" is fine if the Ulster Banner was the current flag of Northern Ireland. It isn't. Setanta is skirting the limits here. Further eyes welcome. Black Kite 14:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you why you have reverted the article? You do not own the article, yet you resist any attempt at improvement or compromise. You also continue to assert that the flag of Northern Ireland isn't the flag of Northern Ireland... and you have then the audacity to claim that you do not have a POV (see my talk page)!

I am unsure why I need to "assert" that the UB isn't the current flag of Northern Ireland, when it is clearly stating a fact. I don't see much point in continuing to attempt to argue with your non sequiturs, though. Black Kite 19:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Wikipedia is not a primary source. --Setanta 12:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not quite as black-and-white to say that it is "stating a fact" that the Ulster Banner is not the current flag of NI. In terms of custom and practice, it is, as far as I know, the only flag used to represent NI. It is used in the Commonwealth Games, for example. Until such time as a new flag is adopted, the Ulster Banner must remain the (unofficial, if you prefer) flag of NI. The campaign on WP against the flag can be viewed in the wider context of other nationalist-POV campaigns to undermine NI in related articles right across the whole encyclopaedia, particularly the attempt to impose "Ireland" as the name for the 26-counties rather than for the whole island, of which NI is a part. Mooretwin (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now - sporting use is a different matter, as I've mentioned before. However, the article involved here is List of flags by country - in other words, the current official flags of each country. Now, looking at Flag of Northern Ireland, we see that the current flag is the Union Flag. So, either we use the Union Flag in the former article, or we contradict the latter. See the problem now? There may well be a nationalist campaign to remove the UB from Wikipedia - OK, no point beating about the bush, there is, and I've sanctioned users on both sides for edit-warring on it before - but on the other hand we do need to ensure consistency across our articles. Black Kite 20:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I completely agree about the "Ireland" issue, btw. (Not to mention the "British Isles" issue). Having said that, the focus here is on editor(s) covered by the ArbCom probation edit warring on articles. Black Kite 20:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again, Wikipedia is not a primary source. The "current flag" of Northern Ireland is not the Union Jack. The Union Jack is the flag of the United Kingdom (as a whole). An entry which specifies Northern Ireland should have the flag of Northern Ireland beside it, as per other countries. --Setanta 12:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you achieved any sort of consensus that the Ulster Banner is in fact, the verifiable and appropriate flag for the country of Northern Ireland?--Tznkai (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have been here many times before. Northern Ireland doesn't have a current, legal, veriafiable flag which applies only to Northern Ireland, hence the use of the U/Flag as the closest possible fit. In articles where an icon is required, a compromise was to use Image:NIShape.gif, as can be seen in such articles as Red Kite. However, where the article is actually about the current flags for a particular country, our own article makes the legal position clear. Black Kite 23:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further problems

See [68]. I have unresolved this, as it is clearly still open. Black Kite 18:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. This is lame. Someone please invite Setanta to explain himself.--Tznkai (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did try. His talkpage should show you how much use that was. Black Kite 19:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed very lame, Tznkai. You may not have noticed, but I have already explained my attempt at a compromise with the article. This second attempt at compromise - one which clearly shows both 'POVs', if you will - was reverted by Snowded. I am going to ask him why he has done this - he has labelled it "vandalism" in his edit summary and my edit was clearly not vandalism. --Setanta 16:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that disputing something is not vandalism. Your so called compromise however, is edit warring in substance and reverting in spirit, which is, as noted repeatedly above, a major no no for anyone on discretionary sanctions having to do with the Ulster Banner and other Troubles related issues. You need to be able to walk away from this.--Tznkai (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact in my last edit I did not revert the article to a previous state - I introduced a new edit, which most definitely could be regarded as a compromise, considering it reflected two 'points of view'. I will not "walk away" from this until the issue has been satisfactorily resolved. I consider it an important issue with regard to this encyclopaedia reflecting and presenting facts. --Setanta 13:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Setanta, the UB is simply not the flag of NI today, if it ever was. Note that some passing non-Irish/British editor who was removing "non-countries" removed a province of Finland, Sardinia and also Scotland, England and Wales on the same basis! Sarah777 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Dear! Upon closer investigation maybe User:Yman88 isn't just a random passing non-Irish/British editor! Sarah777 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate please?--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea who Yman88 is, nor can I claim to have much knowledge of Finland or the province thereof, or Sardinia. The flag of Northern Ireland however, has not been replaced. Nor has it fallen out of use. It remains the only flag which specifically represents Northern Ireland. I am fully aware of your opinion on it and, in fact, I share that opinion on the flag to some extent. However, Wikipedia is not censored in order to appeal to the sensibilities of some. --Setanta 13:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you now Tz! - that message on my page from last night was a bit cryptic till I figured out that AE = Arb Enforcement. OK.

(1) I noticed that an editor who I assumed was an "outsider" (uninvolved in the British/Irish area) called User:Yman88 brushed through the article and removed a provincial Finnish flag, the Flag of Sardinia and those of Wales, Scotland and England on the grounds that they were'nt countries, in the sovereign sense.
(2) I took Yman88 to be Japanese - for obvious reasons!
(3) It has been argued, by others including myself, that as England etc are not sovereign they are not really "countries" in the normal sense.
(4) It appeared that this random passing (Japanese) editor was therefore validating my position and undermining Setanta; not alone on NI but even on Scotland and England. Thus the WP:NPOVness of my view was apparently validated by an objective, neutral Japanese source.
(5) Then I went to make a comment on Yman's talkpage - and discovered ....well...have a peek!

Sarah777 (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, noted and keeping an eye on, thank you.--Tznkai (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a special restriction at Naked short selling

Executive summary: To prevent sophisticated sockpuppetry, I propose that we bar new accounts from editing the mainspace of articles under probation.

collapsed due to length

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Me and User:Mackan79 have become concerned that it is impossible to enforce the article probation from the Mantanmoreland ArbCom. Although editors are instructed to edit only from their main or sole account, technical evidence cannot enforce this instruction against highly sophisticated sockpuppeteers. Mantanmoreland, having learned from at least four prior sock puppets, is an extremely sophisticated sockpuppeteer. His most recent User:Bassettcat account initially passed check user with flying colors. This account was only caught after making one—and only one—unproxied edit.

There are two new editors now at Naked short selling who share Mantanmoreland's POV. Mackan79 suggests that they're violating instruction C of the article probation (no advocacy) by their inflammatory rhetoric. I don't know whether either of them is Mantanmoreland, but I find it hard to believe that they are completely new accounts—as they claim. For example, Janeyryan claims that this is her first and only account "since the dawn of time," but I note that her first edit was a sophisticated wiki-markup contribution to Wikipedia Review, in passages purporting to deal with the Overstock.com article.[69] Still, I don't know whether either of these accounts is certainly Mantanmoreland, and I don't see why we should spend more time worrying about it. Instead, I suggest we put controls on these articles to limit the incentives for Mantanmoreland (or Wordbomb, or anyone else) to sockpuppet in these subjects.

So, I present Mackan79's proposal.

Basically, new users (I would argue users who began editing after March 2008) should refrain from ~~editing the mainspace of the~~ reverting with other users in the topics under probation.

Mackan79 hoped that the editors would voluntarily agree to such restrictions, but Janeyryan rejects them, and casts aspersions on the motives of me and Mackan79.[70] Janeyryan suggests that this proposal seeks to exclude POVs from the article. This is false. I don't know about Macken79, but I don't have a strong POV on the article. (Here I reverted to JohnnyB's version[ because I thought it was better than Mackan79's. Here I removed some pro-lawsuit SYN that doesn't belong in the article. Here I added material proposed by JohnnyB and Janeyryan.[71][72])

Our objective is solely to prevent sockpuppeteering by removing the incentives to create new sock accounts. In this way, Mantanmoreland or any other interested party can suggest changes from the talk page, but these suggestions will be reviewed by editors who were never involved in this POV war. I think this arrangement will improve the quality of the encyclopedia; it should not be applied to just these two users, but to any new accounts in this area.

This externally-driven battle must stop. In the words of Newyorkbrad, "please, not here; no more here; no more, no more, no more. We need to stop the bleeding; we need our encyclopedia back." Cool Hand Luke 02:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokes. While I appreciate and understand the reasoning behind this, this has a huge number of practical and philosophical problems. Aside from the "wiki way" issues, enforcing this would require a completely new technical tool or blocking any relatively young account if they attempt to edit a probation topic. Semi-Permanent full protection would probably be less drastic than this. More than a few accounts got their mop at less than six months, so March 2008 as a cut off is really a bit much

That all having been said, I trust that there are reasonable editors making these suggestions, which suggests a serious problem going on in the background that needs more attention.--Tznkai (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also considered that new accounts could submit some form of identification, but that seems equally unwiki, and I don't believe we have the infrastructure.

Semi-protection has been applied almost continuously since the ArbCom. Full protection is another option that I'd considered in the past, but I think it's overkill for simply preventing new sockpuppets. This is less restrictive. Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having additional, un-public information here, I am convinced that at least one of the accounts here directly relates to Mantanmoreland in some way (meat or sock). While I deplore having to take steps such as the one requested above (or something similar), this is a long term disruption from a user who is exceedingly good at preventing technical identification of his accounts. If we simply restricted the two users in question from the page (perhaps allowing them to use the talk page), I am convinced that yet another one would take his place, and attempt to use up the reservoir of Assuming Good Faith that we must do, lest we devolve into a witch hunt, the type the user in question used to do so many times to opponents in turn. This is a financial feud. This is a personal feud. This is something that has the ability to greatly harm the encyclopedia, and I urge readers to take it gravely seriously. SirFozzie (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wrong to ban new accounts, because it would give too much of a POV advantage to editors on the page whose accounts were set up before March 2008. My suggestion is that anyone wanting to edit articles that fall under that ArbCom ruling should be asked to discuss on Skype, by voice and on webcam, their interest in editing those articles, with an experienced admin who has no prior involvement in the case. Certain questions can be asked to ensure that the admin really is speaking to the person behind the account and not a friend who's standing in for them. It would have to be the same admin conducting all the "interviews," for obvious reasons. The editors would also have to be willing to give their real IP address, and to commit to using only that one, or one within the same range if it's not static; and by editing the articles would be agreeing to be regularly and randomly checkusered.

If this is applied to all accounts making edits to those pages, that would be much fairer than banning new accounts.

Alternatively, as I suggested about 18 months ago and I see Luke has considered too, the articles should be protected so that only admins can edit if good suggestions for edits are left on talk, but where the idea would be to add new material only if there were a pressing need to do so. As I see it, what's needed is for those pages to be left in peace for a long time, in the hope that people with strong views get bored. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full protecting the articles as SlimVirgin has suggested above is a possible way to move forward on this. I do think that the proposers of this AE section have been working competently and fairly (fair disclosure: I have been a dilettante on this, when I see a bit in the news about naked short selling (such as international bans), but rather then possibly play whack a mole, or twenty questions, or put every user through an inquisition just to edit the article , the we just refuse to let it happen. I really don't like to lock this down "Long term" (ie, for the forseeable future), but rather then play the game every time a new user shows up (which is what I don't like about the current situation), or unfairly restrict a broad swath of users, it may be best to say "We're not interested in your battles." and full protect it until such point that people who want to use it as a battleground drift away. SirFozzie (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we do full protection, I suggest that me, SirFozzie, and any other editor who has ever touched the article should be prevented from editing it. We'd use {{editprotected}} if required, just to get truly fresh eyes. I think announcing a long policy from the outset is the best way to bore would-be POV pushing socks. (By the way, 18 months ago this would have saved tons of drama!) Cool Hand Luke 04:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no problem with that. SirFozzie (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, tough one here. The Janeyryan account history certainly raises a few eyebrows. It's conceivable but unlikely that a genuinely new editor could share a pointed interest in Wikipedia Review, Naked Short Selling, Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne, and Gary Weiss without being our old friend. A number of arbitration cases have had a multiple editors with a single voice provision, including COFS, Starwood, and Midnight Syndicate. Although that provision wasn't specifically included in the relevant case to this thread, it may be arguable that it applies generally. So on the good faith supposition that the new accounts might somehow be intimately familiar with Wikipedia Review yet unaware of the history behind these particular article topics, suggest leaving this instance go with a caution. Although not an administrator, I am fully prepared to open a formal arbitration clarification request and seek an amendment to the Mantanmoreland case fashioned after the findings and remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Specifically:

Posted in trust that any actual good faith contributor in this unusual situation will get the message and contribute non-disruptively, refraining from confrontational actions such as characterizing a polite request to depersonalize a dispute as trolling. It is natural that concerns exist after 2.5 years of contending with a persistent and very sneaky sockpuppeteer. Nonetheless, we err on the side of good faith at this website, and in ambiguous situations seek to act politely in ways that resolve conflict (or ambiguity). Durova^Charge! 04:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be helpful, but I truly don't want this to be a finding about these editors. This is a sophisticated sock master. Like SirFozzie said, if we banned these accounts from the subject, Mantanmoreland could still start more, using each up until he depletes its share good faith. I would be interested, in whether Arbitrators would favor some kind of protection solution. Cool Hand Luke 04:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I would open it as a clarification request, so that a remedy could deal with any return of MM & Co. The Agapetos angel case dealt with a dispute that had similar dimensions (although far less high profile) and a similar disruptive pattern, and the provision settled things down nicely. Given the history of CU-confirmed socking that was known even before Bassetcat was confirmed, it's a bit surprising that this year's Committee didn't include a 'who's who' provision already. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the main proposal, heck no. Several editors already oppose arbcom's over-extension of rulings that involve editors not named in a specific case, and this would be going far further than that. Extremely out of the scope of power that arbcom has. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned's comment appears to be directed at Luke's comment, yet fwiw the Agapetos angel decision was enacted in April 2006 and has been enforced without controversy for 2.5 years. Durova^Charge! 04:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen this, and would mostly like to clarify, with respect to Luke, that this is more his proposal than mine.[73] I don't have a strong opinion, but my comment was only intended to reflect the way I was approaching the situation, mainly in response to one of the new accounts' complaints that I was "revert warring" against the two of them. I consequently raised this, as I said on the page, mainly needing to clarify what was going on: two new accounts with the same views, jumping in with apparent familiarity, insulting other editors, making questionable edits, and as I considered notable, both tending to make grudgy comments about "Mr. Byrne."[74][75][76] The specific problem I saw was that without stricter enforcement of the probation, treating new accounts like this normally would lead to another quick devolvement of the article.

To be honest, I mostly felt that if other editors knew what was going on, then the problem might solve itself (at the moment it didn't seem anyone was paying attention). From the above, I think this may still be the best option, assuming that admins are willing to look on and deal with any editor who, under the circumstances, edits tendentiously. I do think something here needed to happen, though, so I can see the basis for Luke requesting clarification. Mackan79 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to clarify, my suggestion wasn't that new editors be restricted to the talk page, but that they "be asked to rely heavily on the talk page, and not join together in reverting other editors." Of course to a great extent all editors should do this; my reason for saying that new accounts should in particular on these articles is that it is one of few ways to disarm the specific problem of sockpuppetry without much more restrictive measures. I do think that's a reasonable and possibly needed principle, whether or not it needs some finding here. Mackan79 (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the mischaracterization. No "reverting with other users" is probably more palatable solution, although it's also much more subjective. I agree that would be an improvement though. Cool Hand Luke 14:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to the exclusion of the excellent suggestions above, I have a recommendation to add. Part of the way that the WP:BATTLE was waged in the past was in the use of aggressive language and bad-faith accusations. Janeyryan's language perpetuates this: "please don't take out the articles you don't like", "you just want to remove opinions with which you disagree", "what I see are two editors...attempting to ban editors from an article who disagree with them", etc. Polite inquiry into another editor's reasoning and mindset is fine, but accusatory mind-reading inflames the discussion and disrupts the collaborative process. I'd like to recommend a low tolerance for mind-reading on the talk pages relevant to this case. Specifically: where such statements are made, they may be redacted by any editor without the permission of the one who made them, normal talk page etiquette notwithstanding. The editor who made the statement should be warned. And if an editor continues to use aggressive accusatory language or impute ill motives to another, they should be blocked or topic-banned quickly with appeal to Arbcom as the only recourse. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public suspicions of sockpuppetry are also accusations of bad faith. Cool Hand Luke 14:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I think that such accusations (as distinguished from polite inquiry) should also be covered under the restriction I proposed. If sockpuppetry is a concern, a discreet checkuser request or note at this AE page would be far preferable to derailing a content discussion on an article talk page. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret some of my language such as that and apologize for it, but I was upset at edits that I felt were arbitrary and which changed things from correct to incorrect. This edit [77], reverted language by another editor that, however imperfect, made the point that the most serious NSS regulations were temporary, not permanent. That was pointed out on the talk page when originally made, but was changed back anyway. It has since then been changed back to reflect the temporary nature of those regulations.

I also was upset by this edit [78]. While I agree that the language was inappropriate,this edit changed authorship of the cited article from correct to incorrect. Subsequent to this change, the citation was removed in its entirely by another editor, so I imagine that my concern over this was not unwarranted. I agreed that the language used by the other editor 'JohnnyB' was not good, so I later substituted more neutral language[79], discussed it on the talk page, and Mackan agreed with it. While all this was going on I had an exchange with Cool Hand Luke where I became annoyed, which I regret, but I was troubled that my editing was not properly appreciated. Also I felt that I was being goaded by Luke, but I now see that this was not his intent.

I just wanted to clarify the editing in question, as the subject is complicated but at issue here were some simple factual matters. I feel that my edits were generally proper, even though I did not always display proper tempermant and I certainly apologize if anyone was offended if I was not diplomatic. I agree with Mackan that editors should preferably post in the discussion pages first before making chages. I think this should be followed by all, and I thought we were reaching that. Yes, to respond to another point, I most certainly did have knowledge of the controversies surrounding these pages in a general way, as it has received widespread publicity outside of Wikipedia. There seem to be other editors drawn to this article by the same publicity and it is not reasonable to expect that all editors who become interested in a page because of publicity will have the same viewpoint.--Janeyryan (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll briefly address the substantive issues. 1.) Most sources I have seen report that the September emergency rules "banned" naked short selling. The current source cited in the lead says so in the subtitle.[80] Yes, some of the rules have descriptions such as "provisional," while others don't. However, JaneyRyan and JohnyB256's decision to focus only on those that do, and therefore to remove the general assessments of many sources that have said the rules "banned" the practice, did not "correct" the article as Janeyryan says. Janey says above that he or she refers to the "most serious" parts of the regulation, but this is solely their interpretation. 2.) It is possible that JohnnyB256 was correct to expand a citation while adding the language that Janey concedes was not appropriate. However, I'm not exactly sure how this is relevant. Also, it was not someone else but myself who then removed the citation altogether in response to comments on the talk page.

In any case, I don't believe Luke or I are of the opinion that Janey did not make any valid suggestions. My concern was that after Johnny made a series of problematic and contested edits that I undid and brought to the talk page,[81] Janey replaced the majority of them without discussion. Other changes were equally problematic, including that both removed mention of the failure of Lehman Brothers, and that both replaced contested language in the lead. The problem is that if new accounts can do this, then discussion becomes ineffective. This is why I suggest that new editors on these articles, or at least those that raise flags with the probation, should be asked to show some additional consideration for some of these problems. Mackan79 (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly true that the sources said the rules 'banned' the practice, but more detailed sourcing indicated without a shadow of a doubt that some of these strictures were permanent and some temporary. The edits by JohnnyB drew a distinction between the temporary and permanent ones, without making value judgments as to which were more significant than others. Your edit reverted JohnnyB in toto. I reverted that reversion, and explained my reasoning on the talk page.

I think the issue concerning the authorship of the cited study is more significant than you portray it here. A study was cited in which two of the three authors were engaged in litigation related to naked shorting. Even if that conflict was not to be noted in the article (and it eventually was, as Luke agreed with me that it was important), there was no good reason to change the citation so that the two principal authors of the study were not mentioned as authors.

I disagree with you about Lehman Brothers. I think that it is POV to imply, on the basis of an offhand comment in a wire service story, that Lehman Brothers' demise was affected by naked shorting. Mr. Fuld said that, which is in the article and should be in the article. However, in Line 35, I think that a more neutral method of dealing with that issue needs to be found, without the controversial implication that the death of Lehman Brothers was caused by NSS.

While all this serious dispute was going on, you at this point placed on the article talk page your 'proposal' that in effect would ban me from the article. Luke then reiterated that proposal, again on the article talk page. Even though he said he did so to get the input of other editors, so as to not come here prematurely, I felt, and I still feel, that it was not appropriate for you to place that proposal in the article talk page. I felt that doing so derailed the discussion and turned up the temperature of the discussion considerably. Then Luke placed a post on my talk page that I felt was unecessarily confrontational. I felt beleaguered by these actions.

Whatever steps you take to enforce good behavior in this article I hope will be applied evenhandedly to new and older editors alike. I don't think it's fair to say that only new editors are making or have made inappropriate reverts, when as I just described there were edits by more established editors that were inappropriate. I think that all editors should take pains to discuss changes before making them. I also think there also should be a firm rule against discussing editor behavior, or editing strictures affecting current editors of an article, in article talk pages, whether it be this article or any article.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To explain my "confrontational" postings: You accused me of being a POV warrior five times before I posted to your talk page, and I only did that after you said we should stop discussing it on the talk page altogether; I was doing what you requested. Contra what you state above, we were not "reaching that" or any other agreement. The talk page now stands in a position where you reject Mackan79's proposal as an attempt to "bludgeon" POVs we allegedly disagree with.

The point is not whether this or that user is making good or bad reverts. The point is that by allowing new users to revert war, we continue to provide incentives for dedicated sock masters to battle over this material. Like Cla68 said (but you reverted calling it "trolling" [82]), this dispute would benefit if you stop personalizing it. Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing what happened in the article and talk page, and I don't see how one can do that without naming the editors who did what and when. Certainl my edits have been discussed at some length, as you just did. Why is your describing my edits not 'personalizing' but when I discuss your edits it is 'personalizing.' ?

A proposal was placed on the article talk page that specifically singled out new editors, naming JohnnyB and myself, for a topic ban. That's about as personal as one can get, and it had no place on the article talk page in my opinion. It turned up the heat level and it was unnecessary. I also think that it wasn't necessayr for you to post on my article talk page as you did, essentially to make the case that even though you were proposing a topic ban of new editors, that it didn't have anything to do with me, when it clearly did. This is not 'mind reading.' Mackan's proposal singled out me and Johnny B.

I felt that the article talk pages should be confined to discussion of the article, not the editors, and I did not agree with your view that discussing a topic ban for new editors belonged in the article talk space, when it would specifically affect (and antagonize) new editors actively editing the article.

As for reverting, I believe that no one has the right to revert war, new editors or old, and that all editors should be encouraged to use the talk pages.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one ever suggested a topic ban. Along with SirFozzie, I don't even think a topic ban would be slightly helpful. It's a facially neutral proposal concerning editing to the article, not the editors. Cool Hand Luke 21:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal was that editors from after March could not edit, but would be confined to the talk page. That;s a topic ban, in effect if not name. Look at the 'executive summary' at the top: Executive summary: To prevent sophisticated sockpuppetry, I propose that we bar new accounts from editing the mainspace of articles under probation. You then go on to talk about 'two new accounts,' one of which is me. How can you possibly claim that this has nothing to do with me? That is why I objected to your post in my talk page, as it was making a claim that was obviously not true, which obviously would annoy the recipient of such a post.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the intial proposal to in topic ban new editors was made by Luke in this edit[83], in the article talk page, specifically mentioning JohnnyB and myself. I don't think it's correct to say that this is not plainly directed at myself and this other editor,--Janeyryan (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr but this is about a larger problem, and not (just?) you.--Tznkai (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, and have never been interested in uniquely restricting you or JohnnyB. Cool Hand Luke 00:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping back

Janeyryan, let's step back from the particulars of how Luke presented his proposal. You arrived at Wikipedia with substantial familiarity about Wikipedia Review and a distinct interest in several articles that were favorites of an editor who was sitebanned a few months ago--one whose POV appears to be indistinguishable from yours. During his two years as a Wikipedian he and his interests were discussed extensively on Wikipedia Review. If this is coincidence it certainly is a remarkable one, particularly as we extend the good faith assumption that you stumbled into this quandary innocently despite your demonstration of fairly in-depth knowledge of the website that was most critical of him. Combine that with two other circumstances: the sitebanned editor was a serial sockpuppeteer whose last accounts were identified and banned a few months before your first edit. Now one way you could distinguish yourself from him--if indeed you have no connection to him--is by breaking from other patterns he exhibited. He was extremely skilled at sidestepping pertinent concerns about his conduct, and at blowing smoke over minor side issues, and at taking umbrage at direct questions. If you have a simple and direct explanation for this highly unusual profile of interests and POV your account has demonstrated then the community would give you a fair hearing. Historically, every previous account that has exhibited the same profile has turned out to be a sockpuppet of that same banned editor. So you can clear the air right now if you want: please, how did this come about? Durova^Charge! 23:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained that I became interested in these articles and subject matter by raading about them off-wiki, in a number of venues where they maintain that Wikipedia is a center of market manipulation and other forms of agita. These articles (and subjects) have received substantial publicity. They were one of the numerous topics in the Deep Capture website, which devoted substantial space to them, and they were also addressed in the Register in several articles. Surely there are other editors who were similarly drawn to Wikipedia, to this article and others, by reading about them elsewhere. It's quite that simple, and I hope that is a direct enough answer. I don't think there is anything sinister about that, or suspicious, though I am aware in general terms of the recent problems and of the socking that has taken place on both sides.--Janeyryan (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Surely there are other editors who were similarly drawn to Wikipedia, to this article and others, by reading about them elsewhere." Actually, no, there weren't; certainly not in this particular combination. A few new editors showed up after naked short sales made headlines in mainstream news, but they didn't seem to have interest in the rest of the spectrum. In any case, much as I would like to agree with the idea of locking the page and having neutral administrators make edits agreed to by consensus, I am afraid it will be largely ineffective. There is a relatively small group of editors working on this article now, and a consensus generally would mean more than 3/5 editors wanting something in, with the other 2/5 saying it shouldn't be added. Despite significant efforts by several individuals to try to attract additional (and knowledgeable) editors to these articles, there is very little interest in them outside of a core group. The article probation is, I believe, important to providing a degree of control; however, given the real-world issues surrounding naked short selling, editors who work in the financial industry are probably constrained from editing that article, in particular. The other three articles specifically covered by the Arbcom probation have been much less problematic. Aside from addressing edit warring and forcing people to stick to the talk pages to work out improvements, I am hard pressed to see what full-protecting will do other than keeping the article in static form. Risker (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note too this was three days after the Wikipedia Review article was moved into mainspace. Cool Hand Luke 00:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: that's remarkable. These articles have been publicized everywhere, not to recruit people to edit them but to publicize their supposed deficiencies. I disagree that people in the financial services industry cannot edit articles on financial topics, if there is no direct conflict.

@Luke, my first edit was nine days after the Wikipedia Review article was moved to the website. I was not seeking to imply that I read about the Wikipedia Review article elsewhere; I read about WIkipedia Review itself elsewhere, as well as reading that magnificent website myself. Personally I think it is remarkable that Wikipedia has the forebearance to allow an article on a critical site. One correction: you or someone said that I had engaged in 'sophisticated formatting' in my first edit. Not correct. I moved a sophisticatedly formatted citation from one place to another within that page. I hope that my having done so does not detract from the fact that in my first edit I corrected a mistake.--Janeyryan (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, new editors would usually be expected to make a mistake with their first edit. That you did not is clearly suspicious. John Nevard (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a remarkably unhelpful comment. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral rather than technical solution?

Perhaps instead of trying to find a technical solution to this problem, a behavioral one will be better. I suggest that any editor who revert wars, personalizes any content disputes, is unwilling to compromise, or personally attacks any of the other editors/admins involved with these articles (the four mentioned in the ArbCom ruling), be immediately and completely banned from participation in these four articles for a month, with subsequent penalties escalating from there. That should be enough to make sure that any interested editor behaves. By the way, I've noticed that since the banning of Mantanmoreland at least three of those articles are now much improved. Cla68 (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would almost work. The problem is in the loose definition of "edit war," and if we are still treating new users exactly like those who have been around. If I disagreed with an edit of Luke's and reverted it, for instance, I would be surprised if SirFozzie immediately reverted me, but I might say "ok, I guess I was wrong on that one." If SirFozzie tried a middle ground, I'd almost certainly go along. If new accounts can do the same thing, however, then there's more of a problem. That's what happened here: I disagreed with changes made by JohnnyB256, so I reverted them.[84] Janeyryan then replaced JohnnyB256's edit with some minor adjustments.[85] After explaining on the talk page, I reverted most of these edits again.[86] Whoever is right in this case, I think Johnny will be able to get a hearing and show in talk if I'm disrupting the page. I can't create another account like this one, so if that happens, I'm done. If new accounts are on entirely equal footing, however, then sockpuppets can effectively overtake the page.

This isn't to disagree with your suggestion, but to say you probably still need something more to prevent that. From most restrictive to least, I see these options as 1.) Protect the page indefinitely, 2.) Restrict new editors to the talk page, 3.) Ask new editors not to revert, or 4.) Restrict editors who appear to be violating the terms or intent of the probation. Mackan79 (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When editors are put on article probation, aren't they allowed only one revert a day? Why not use that as the standard for what constitutes edit warring in those article? Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, this could still be gamed by socking; in fact, it may even increase the incentive to sock in the same way as strict voting, by taking out the judgment element.[87] So, it could slow down revert wars in the hope that then more editors would pay attention, but I'm not sure it would solve this problem. Mackan79 (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mackan79. As long as new and old accounts are treated equaly, there will still be a strong incentive to sock. I see Risker's point that locking the page will keep it in largely static form, but I think that's the core idea of SlimVirgin's suggestion.

I dunno, it's not an easy problem. At the least we could try 1RR and hope that slowing reversion will provide enough time for more eyes, but I'm not confident it will be enough. Cool Hand Luke 14:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alarm bells?

You know, when I see edit summaries like the one here, all sort of alarm bells go off on my mind. Turns out that all the stuff removed by User:Janeyryan was a)weasel worded b)wrong c) in direct contradiction with the first source on the section d) already reverted once, told to go to the talk page, where his only discussion was placing in doubt the quality of the source and making a personal attack on the person that reverted him (Shapiro) [88] before killing the sentence again

See my repairs [89].

Notice that JaneyRyan writes the edit summary as if it was an unsourced sentence, but he had previously seen the source for that very same sentence and he had only put in doubt the credentials of the source, not the sourced material itself [90]

(TL;DR paragraph) He has also tried to downplay the incidence and damage of NSS[91][92] and puts in doubt that companies were bankrupted because of NSS[93] (doh) and restoring outdated articles from 2006 and 2007 before NSS started being a visible problem[94] and sort of misquoted sources[95] when the source says "For the market as a whole, however, it appears to be a large and growing problem (see chart). Hundreds of smaller firms claim to have fallen victim to naked short-sellers (though some clearly only say that to excuse underperformance)" so it's perfectly correct to say that there is concern of faltering companies and not just a reaction to a crisis.

Given that these edits show an attempt to whitewash NSS, given that he re-made his edits with only personal attacks as discussion, given Janeyryan's history (which I have only looked at superficially on the last two hours), given that it's not the first time that his edits try to whitewash NSS in some form, and given that the article probation says "to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external (...) allegation,". Can I has a topic ban on Janeyryan? (this is the correct noticeboard to ask for a probation-related topic ban, right?)

For all that is worth, JohnnyB256 edit warred over the same sentence and source the day before [96]. Maybe a coincidence, is it enough to has a checkuser too? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the train of thought int he first paragraph in the above post, except that it appears to ascribing malevolent motives and actdions to me where none exist. The sentence in the litigationj section that I rewrote I explained in the talk page, under 'litigation section (redux),'[97] and it was agreed to by the other main editor on this article without any objection. I did not know that the language was taken from the Emswhiller article, and no one mentioned it. It is absolutely not true that I had 'previously seen the source of that sentence.' (the Emswhiller article, that is). As far as I could tell it was unsourced, and it was not supported by the law review article previously given as a source, for which the authorship was not properly stated.

The assertion that thousands of companies have been bankrupted by NSS is highly controversial and should be sourced. The article saying that companies say they have 'fallen victim' to NSS is not proper sourcing for a claim that companies have been actually bankrupted, or put out of business, by NSS. If there are any such companies, let see a few examples. One would suffice.

The articles from 2006 and 2007 were not 'outdated,' and represent a skeptical school of thought that should be in the article for purposes of balance. Attempting to balance this article is not 'advocacy.'--Janeyryan (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wikilawyering... it hurts my eyes >.< . You removed a sentence saying that illegal NSS had happened, which should have been sourcable from multiple sources....

Articles from 2006 and 2007 are of course outdated. I remind of the The Register from October 2008[98] where it's explained how Byrne's denouncing of NSS was downplayed by manipulating the wikipedia article, which in turn made the media believe that the issue was not important, and the manipulation wasn't uncovered until mid 2006[99] and it wasn't linked to the DTCC until mid 2007. Knowing that, it's silly to take at face value the media statements on 2006 and 2007, as we know that they were manipulated.

Anyways, you make some good points: the number of bankrupted companies should be sourced. However, if multiple huge companies make public statements that their notable bankruptings were caused by NSS then that's a notable thing to add to the article (especially the ones claiming that it was the only causing factor) and then balanced with analysis of which were the real causes.

Seriously, your edits are just too sympathetic to NSS, to the point of whitewashing. If you are a legit account and not a sock, then you need to take more care to make neutral edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.D.:Notice that the reason that I "attack" article specifics is because I am comment on your edits, not on you, so I forcefully have to cite specific issues. Once I have looked at them, I can tell if the edits go in a certain way. [I cut the rest of my comment, per WP:BEANS] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the language 'there's no denying.' Surely there is a more neutral way of phrasing that, because there are indeed those who deny there is a problem, Jenkins for one. I doubt very much that he got that idea reading Wikipedia.--Janeyryan (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but content disputes are for the talk page of the article, not here. Please make this question again at Talk:Naked short selling --Enric Naval (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the point

Janeyryan: You are again arguing about article specifics, which has already been pointed out as not helpful, and is a diversionary tactic we have seen before. I agree with all the other editors here (that is, just about everyone) that you are exhibiting a lot of hallmarks of previously banned accounts that all ended up resolving to the same problematic person. There is a problem here that transcends this particular ID, because if we decide you too are Gary Weiss or whoever it was that was behind MM etc. (which I find behaviorally quite likely) then there will be a next, and a next and a next. A prohibition of a different nature entirely is needed. Without such, we will waste valuable time of otherwise productive editors, administrators, Checkusers, and arbitrators. (I looked at the CU log again to remind me, and a fair bit of time has been wasted looking into you by several CUs, to no avail) Remove the incentive to sock, and the socks will stop. Even if we posit that you are NOT a sock, your behavior is nevertheless problematic. Remove the incentive to get away with problematic behavior and the problematic behavior will stop. So I support the notion of developing and implementing a different sort of prohibition. The sooner the better. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'You are again arguing about article specifics, which has already been pointed out as not helpful.' That is really unfair and not accurate. I am responding, on point, to accusations made against my editing, as can be plainly seen from the exchange above. I strongly disagree with your saying that my 'behavior' has been more 'problematic' than that of other editors on that page, where surely I was not the first to revert. Even Luke, a regular editor of the page who brought this case here, has gone to great lengths to say that he is not singling me out and that he has agreed with some of my edits. --Janeyryan (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Janeyryan ID is an example of a class of problematic IDs. My beef is with the class which this ID is a member of. My commentary (in a new section that I started to break things out from being a response to any particular posting) is not a direct response to any one posting by this ID, but to the discussion on the page as a whole. I see a lot of diversionary activity, attacks, and the like. Not helpful. There is a real problem here and trying to divert this into a discussion of those pointing out the problem is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is amazing. Somebody attacks me on article specifics. I respond to that attack. You say, 'Don't argue about article specifics, it is unhelpful, and is a diversionary.' I respond that I had been attacked on article specifics. You respond again that my saying that makes me part of a 'class of problematic IDs.' I am at my wits end here. Am I just supposed to sit down and shut up and not respond to accusations against me?--Janeyryan (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to respond to article specific concerns if you like, but realize that in doing so you are not addressing the major concern I have. Which is that you and several other users that frequent NSS and related articles are as likely as not to be socks of a long term problematic user. Given that that user has a track record of becoming increasingly hard to detect with each new sock, it is unfortunately irrelevant whether you technically correlate or not. You pass the WP:DUCK test and rather than trying to cope with increasingly sophisticated socking (or what appears to be such, even if it is not) the users here addressing the problem (none of whom have the remarkably narrow focus you and the other users of concern do) are trying to come up with novel solutions. You're not helping that. I note that there seems to be a pretty wide consensus (absent yourself and a few other users most of whom pass the duct test) that there is a problem and something needs to be done. Hence, you're not addressing the main point. Which is an expected behaviour pattern. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already addressed your main point, which is to say that I am not the sock of a banned user or any other user. Apart from that I answered directly what people say. I am not being 'diversionary' (changing the subject). Enric Naval advocated my topic ban, and I responded to that point. I don't see how I can just let such a remark go unresponded to, even if it does not address your concern. You do seem to have a similar concern, which is that my 'behavior' is 'problematic.' I addressed that. My purpose here is to respond to comments directed at me, or concerning me. I have done that, and accusing me of responding in a way that is somehow sinister or inappropriate, or exhibits a 'behaviour pattern' that is to be 'expected,' is not fair. Why is it objectionable for me to discuss article specifics but not when other users raise the subject, and in a way that mandates a response from me?--Janeyryan (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bare assertion that you are not a sock, given your behavior pattern and area of interest, is not sufficient for my satisfaction. Sorry, I'm fresh out of Good Faith^TM in this matter. The rest of it matters not. I would like to find a solution that allows even socks to edit constructively in this area, or not at all. What we got now... ain't working. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what behavior pattern? Every time I try to narrow this down to specifics, so that I can figure out what the problem is and respond, I am accused of being 'diversionary' or exhibiting 'an expected behavior pattern.' Apart from defending myself in this page and its calls for my banning from the article, I have tried to make the article on naked shorting more neutral and in that editing there seems to be agreement to my contributions, albeit grudging, even from editing accounts with which I have crossed swords.

You made another comment earlier about other accounts involved in this discussion that 'pass the duct test.' Can you please elaborate? Are you claiming that I have brought socks into 'this' discussion on this page?--Janeyryan (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior problems are:

Attacking the motives of other editors, even when it is just content that is being discussed. Huldra raised this on Janeyryan's talk page here. Cool hand luke has raised it again here. I raised it here, noting that you and JohnnyB256 were both doing this.[100][101]
Other advocacy on the talk page, most noticabely in making off-topic jabs at Patrick Byrne. I noticed this coming from both Janeyryan ("Mr. Byrne is the dominant voice on this page, so please let's not be silly about this.")[102] and JohnnyB256 ("I think what you have here is an article that while it pleases your contributor Mr. Byrne is misleading to readers and skewed.")[103] ("Mr. Byrne no doubt is pleased that his pet crusade is given one-sided treatment, but you are doing a disservice to your readers.")[104]
Editing of the article, for instance both Janeyryan and JohnnyB256 removing mention of the failure of Lehman Brothers without explanation,[105][106] as well as other generally partisan edits.[107][108][109][110] I note that the same also applied to JohnnyB256, possibly to a greater extent.[111] ("tangential at best");[112](adding that a statement was "generally derided," a term (and tone) also favored by one of the banned accounts on this page.[113])

As previously, the problem is not just one of these elements, but the three of them together; however, the three of them together is exactly what caused the problems last time. Mackan79 (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. My language was more antagonistic than it should have been and I've apologized for that, but this was in the midst of a heated argument, in which similar rhetoric was being used by others. Huldra was talking about people being blocked it they disagree with the 'Gary Weiss-people' and I replied by pointing to the action that was taken against me when I disagred with the 'Patrick Byrne people.' It was intemperate and I shouldn't have said that.

2. At the time I made that remark, Mr. Byrne was using the talk page to engage in lengthy advocacy of his point of view of naked shorting, to the point of dominating the discussion by sheer length. So yes, I indicated that Mr. Byrne was dominating the page at the time.

3. In footnote 38, I reverted your revert of the language distinguishing between permanent and temporary regulations, and added back that the authors of a study on NSS were suing the securities industry. I think most of these changes were later placed back in the article and are there now. The sentence in the litigation section was agreed to by Luke, and were there until recently removed. All this was discussed in the talk section.

I agree that the Lehman issue was not discussed, so far as I can recall, and should have been discussed.

In footnote 39 I added material from the SEC website that had been in previous versions of the article, and were needed for balance. In footnote 40 I took out language not substantiated by the underlying source. In footnote 41 I added reaction to the emergency order from Barron's and the Economist. Since they're both still in the article, I presume they are not too horrible. In footnote 42 I reinstated two notable skeptical opinions now not given sufficient weight in this article, which had been removed by you in this edit [114] without discussion.--Janeyryan (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edits speak for themselves, in terms of content, tone, and approach to other editors. We could discuss it in greater detail, but I don't think it would negate my point that 1.) you and JohnnyB256 are unnecessarily attacking the motives of other editors, 2.) you and JohnnyB256 are making advcocacy-style comments on the talk page, and 3.) you and JohnnyB256 are editing from a strong POV, and are making controversial edits. As I said, the combination of these issues is the one we had before, and I believe what the probation was intended to address. Mackan79 (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits do speak for themselves, in the sense that most of them are still reflected in the article. My POV is no more or less strong than that ave seen from from other editors of that article, and I think my talk page comments, even the ones cherry-picked and cited above, have not advocated a blessed thing. Most are in reaction to what others have posted. I agree that this discussion can go on endlessly and I will try not to prolong it more than is necessary.--Janeyryan (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That only show that your edits have not been reviewed throughly, and that I need to clear a bit of time on my schedule to go throught them :) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposals

The proposals below are my attempts to address the existing problems, but without completely upending how we do the burden of proof on Wikipedia. An attempt to follow Jimbo's principle of applying strict scrutiny.

Advocacy concerning outside disputes, controversies, proceedings and feuds, is unwelcome on Wikipedia
- The appearance of advocacy is unacceptable on naked short selling and related articles, and such edits are unwelcome, as are their editors, and editors are mandated to address such disruption, keeping in mind the judicious application of common sense.
Combative edit summaries are unwelcome on Wikipedia
- Edits with combative edit summaries on naked short selling and related articles are considered to be disruptive on face, and will be removed.

OR

Naked short selling is protected indefinitely.
{{Editprotected}} should be used to request the insertion of non controversial material
Naked short selling/sandbox is created, and editors should feel free to use that space to work out their differences. Stable changes in the sandbox article may be migrated to the main article with the use of {{editprotected}}.

I'm not overly pleased by either prospect, but I find it more workable than whats already been suggested (which I liberally stole from to create these proposals. Trout away.--Tznkai (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that these accounts have had some behavioral problems (see Mackan79's newest summary above), I think POV article editing is what really provides an incentive to sock. It's all well and good to say that advocacy should not be tolerated, that's theoretically the rule throughout wikipedia. Advocacy is a very subjective thing. Therefore, I think the best option is locking the page, even if that makes the article largely static for a time. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the problem with locking the page is that other editors with a passing interest in the subject, such as myself, can't easily add new material like I did recently about Japan's temporary ban on NSS. That's why I advocate banning accounts from the article and its talk page as soon as they cause any problems, such as in the examples Mackan points to above. But, locking the page should work in the meantime, I guess. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you folks are wrestling with, over and over, is the the unique style of Gary Weiss. I see from the comments above that everyone has caught on to the style. Once you know it, it stands out like a sore thumb, doesn't it. 67.166.120.86 (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdanov Affair analogy

Does anyone remember the Bogdanov Affair, from a few years ago? Massive sockpuppetry by two individuals that revolved around external events - it prompted an arb case and much gnashing of the teeth. I propose a similar approach to enforcement here - any new user accounts or anonymous IPs which focus on naked short selling and related articles shall be presumed to be parties to the external dispute. In summary, any new account or IP that shows up on these articles is automatically subject to the MM remedies - namely, a topic ban. It's pretty hard-line, but it seemed to work well in shutting down the Bogdanov idiocy. Skinwalker (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this looks like a way better idea than full-protecting the page. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty heavy presumption against WP:AGF, but if the community doesn't object to it, I agree with Enric Naval. Cool Hand Luke 19:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of it, it kinda goes against the "anyone can edit" part. Another problem I think, is the assumption that the sockpuppeteers and edit warriors will get bored, which I doubt. If you're willing to expend as much energy sockpuppeting as we know some have on this article, you're not going to get bored just because things get shut down for a while.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I suggested something a little more narrow, to say that new accounts who want to become involved in these article can edit as they will, but basically should not do so in ways that can be exploited by sockpuppets. A one revert per day for new accounts could do this, possibly beginning at notification (any new account that started editing the page could be notified, although they probably wouldn't be until there was some reason). If this seems in any way unfair, it's based on the fact that while new accounts are easy to create and leave behind, long term editors are more accountable to various dispute resolution mechanisms. I'm not exactly sure what would be considered a new account, but possibly there could be a starting point. Mackan79 (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ed. conflict w/Mackan)Yes, it does abrogate WP:AGF. However, AGF is not a suicide pact. I've lurked throughout the MM RFC/Arbcom/CommunityBan process. I saw several gigabytes of drama, trolling, handwringing, bad faith, etc generated over editors who were obvious socks by any reasonable application of the WP:DUCK test. I think the community is done assuming good faith on this topic.

It also denies the "anyone can edit" philosophy. If that is the sole decision point, I don't see how permanent full protection is any better. Do you (the community) want a stable and neutral article with restrictions on who can edit it, or do you want to have an open access article and waste countless hours arguing with, reverting, and otherwise chasing down socks and vested interests?

To be completely arbitrary, let me suggest restricting editing privileges on naked short selling and associated articles (as well as talk pages) to named accounts with a minimum of 1000 edits to unrelated topics. Put a banner on the talk pages similar to that on Talk:Bogdanov Affair: "If you are new to editing at Wikipedia, do not start with this article, as you may be mistaken for an external participant editing with a sockpuppet account." Refrain from biting new editors to the article, but firmly point them in the direction of every other part of the encyclopedia. Topic ban them if they persist, and block them if they violate the topic ban.

Tznkai has a point, though - MM et al have not become bored with the article, and there is no reason to believe they will become bored with this topic in the foreseeable future. I suspect that a large amount of the gratification this individual receives from their activities is the reaction of the community, e.g. "dramahz" or "lulz" if you prefer. If we had a strict and enforceable rule against new and/or single-purpose accounts mucking about with these articles it would allow us to deny this person/people their jollies and would help motivate them towards more productive activities. Skinwalker (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Skinwalker's proposal makes sense and should be implemented. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skinwalker has convinced me with the WP:DENY rationale. I think he's right about Mantanmoreland intentionally fanning the flames of drama, and so his proposal addresses both the POV and lulz incentive to sockpuppet. I also think his view would have a lot of support here. Lar agreed that the community is out of good faith on this topic. I think Durova was proposing something similar. Maybe they could comment on Skinwalker's proposal? Cool Hand Luke 02:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much collateral damage and more than a little bitey. Besides, all we're creating is another hoop to go through which sockpuppeteers will be plenty good at doing: say making 1000 RC patrol changes with tools and then starting up POV warfare. I understand the concept, but this isn't a game changer.--Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this proposal is overly harsh. But, if we can't come up with something better (and as likely to be effective) I'm for it. What we got now ain't working. Further, if the cost per sock is 1000 RC vandalism reverts before they can POV push, that might be not too bad a deal! (can I get 10 car washes instead?) ++Lar: t/c 04:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... while we are talking about cost per sock... how about 1 Featured article per POV sock... ok ok kidding. I'll review this issue if/when I get time if it is not fixed soon. —— nix eagle 03:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like someone above mentioned, locking the page(s), and maybe the talk page(s) for a long time might be the best way to go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an utterly unacceptable solution, mainly because the articles are still in a really terrible POV-CoI situation. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It stands a better chance of getting fixed if it's locked down for a while first than if things are left to continue as they are. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Has there been any movement or news on this?--Tznkai (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think in general, the consensus is to go with the full protection with a sandbox for others to work on. SirFozzie (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe next time this arises? I hesitate to oppose, but it seems the problem is currently subsided, and maybe there's sufficient desire to edit the page from all around that an impending full lock-down would quell problems. I do think there's a thin line in the way of the article devolving from its current state, though, and am not sure it will hold against much. Mackan79 (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no particular problem enacting that plan now or later. I don't have the article watchlisted myself, so I'll defer to those who do as to exactly how much trouble there is with it right now.--Tznkai (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't need it now, great! "Later" then? ... How about the next time any admin thinks there's a problem, this lockdown is the approach for dealing with it? Knowing that is in the offing might help keep the peace. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good if the proposal were considered authorized but not yet implemented. It should be implemented in the future if an uninvolved admin finds in necessary; the threat of locking it down might actually promote better behavior. Cool Hand Luke 09:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may have jumped the gun slightly, but I've gone ahead with this. Feel free to treat the boldness the standard way if necessary. --Tznkai (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious question

Without going through years of archives, has any actual legitimate non-puppet editor beside the various Mantanmoreland socks, pushed the Mantanmoreland POV? How many? I'm curious because, he had a fairly obvious POV: naked shorting is a good thing, and a legal thing. rootology (C)(T) 21:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Nevard is certainly not Mantanmoreland. In fact, Mantanmoreland's POV is probably the majority POV among finance writers (perhaps not to the extent that NSS is good, but certainly to the extend that it's not bad or illegal—and that Overstock.com is wrong). I do not think any good faith identification can be made on the basis of POV alone. I found the behavior and dates of appearance suggestive of sockpuppetry for these accounts, but cannot confidently say they are socks—just that there's a very good chance they are. Cool Hand Luke 22:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]