Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cool Hand Luke (talk | contribs) at 09:30, 23 December 2009 (→‎Motion to close: Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
SeanNovack and Marlin1975   18 December 2009 {{{votes}}}
GiacomoReturned Motions 18 December 2009 {{{votes}}}
McCready edit warring topic ban   7 December 2009 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Clarification request: Noleander none (orig. case) 3 July 2024
Amendment request: Durova Motion (orig. case) 4 July 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox none none 10 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

SeanNovack and Marlin1975

Initiated by Rapier1 (talk) at 05:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by SeanNovack

It appears that this editor is not happy with my political stance, and it is affecting his judgement and behavior on Wikipedia. While editing the Fox News Channel article in early November we were on opposite sides of a debate over edits regarding POV, with Marlin continually making personal attacks, commenting on the editor as opposed to the edit, and pushing a POV. All the while accusing others of doing the same thing. If you look at my userpage you will see the message he left me there. Since losing that debate, this user has been following my edits looking for a way to make changes. I don't believe this is editing in good faith and it appears that he is doing this with other editors as well. Kent Hrbek is the example that finally set off my temper. I asked for mediation, no response from Marlin. This user has a history of this behavior and has already been banned. I'm asking for 1.) A cease and desist on the confrontational behavior or a re-ban, 2.) A decision on the Kent Hrbek article, and by proxy the Ron Gant article.

Response to Coren

I have attempted mediation, but as that requires the consent of both parties and Marlin has not been responsive to this that has been ineffective. Also, each time there is an issue I've brought it to the WP:NPOV Noticeboard for discussion. This has resulted in uncivil discourse, and with the exception of the Hrbek-Gant issue (to which there has not been enough participation) the consensus has gone in my favor, which only seems to aggravate the situation. Rapier1 (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Wizardman

I would be happy to have you interceed as a third party and help with this situation. As a fairly inexperienced editor (one who is not familiar with the technicalities or proper proceedure) please contact me directly so we can start the process. Rapier1 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/1)

GiacomoReturned

Initiated by — Coren (talk) at 00:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Too numerous to list at this time.
    • Precepitating event: [2]
    • Previous ArbCom cases: IRC Giano
  • RFC

Statement by Coren

At 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC), I blocked Giano for his latest attempt to disrupt the project with offensive and unjustified accusations towards other editors, basing my block on the policy about disruptive editors. This block was indefinite, but accompanied with an offer to return to productive editing under conditions.

John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked shortly after without discussion, stating that community consensus was required for the block. I obviously disagree, although I do not single him out or name him as a part of this case since history has shown that someone invariably steps to the plate to unblock Giano, regardless of context.

Giano has been a disruptive element for the project for well over two years, and while constructive criticism and dissent should always be welcome, there is a point at which unfounded accusations and repeated bad faith must stop: many editors are being driven away by his continuing disruption — or in disgust at the community's inability to handle him.

Despite multiple RFCs, countless AN/I threads and even at least two ArbCom cases, Giano finds himself over and over at the center of unproductive drama. History has shown that the community is unable to handle him: either people avoid dealing with him for fear of appearing to be suppressing dissent (a fact that Giano himself is not above exploiting for his own designs) or one of his few, but vocal, supporters manage to cause enough heat to confuse the issue away from Giano's own behavior.

Only two possibilities can account for this: either he is continually being persecuted by a number of vast conspiracies against him — as he claims — or he is stirring the trouble up himself by inventing or imagining those conspiracies. I contend that the latter is true, and that the committee needs to control him to stop the disruption.

In case this is not painfully transparent, I am bringing this case in my private capacity as an administrator and not as an arbitrator. I obviously entirely recuse from the committee aspects of that matter in toto.

John: Yes I did. I'm still writing it up. — Coren (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Carcharoth: Giano's continuing disruption of the project and the apparently unsolvable community division about what, exactly, should be done about it. Jay's unblock is, in my opinion, peripheral to the core matter and is a symptom of Giano's de facto immunity to our community standards rather than an issue worthy of inclusion, IMO. — Coren (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that we are seeing the tail end of a long pattern; I'm no fan of dragging the past up needlessly, but I would expect that at least salient points for the past two years or so would need to be raised to show a pattern, not to be rehashed. I think we have reached the point where the overall contribution of Giano to the project needs to be evaluated (some would argue we are well past that point).

    I guess what I would expect the scope to be is along the lines of:

    To address your other point, I don't think that anybody else needs to be implicated in this. If a close investigation around the disruption that seems to follow Giano around finds that other editors have contributed, I suppose they could be included, but I'd be inclined to keep this focused to avoid a big drama pileup. — Coren (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DuncanHill: No suggestion or discussion took place before I filed this case (except for Rlevse bringing Giano's acccusations up, which he also did publicly), and the discussion about the case is taking place on a list to which I am not subscribed (for the obvious reason). I did not do the block at the suggestion of anyone, nor with the intent to file a case (although I knew this was a possible consequence), and did not involve the committee or any arbitrator in my decision. — Coren (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit; it occurs to me that it may not be clear outside of context that this block came after a warning about further attacks towards editors. — Coren (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Important procedural point about a possible resolution by motions
  • I see where the decision to take the case or not is heading, and while I'm not opposed to the matter being resolved by motions there is one point which worries me greatly: the possibility that I would be admonished for doing the block after taking off my Arb hat. There is a good argument to be made that it was wrong to do so (though I obviously disagree with it) but doing that by motion is catastrophic for a simple reason unrelated to the case at hand: such an admonition (or even just a motion declaring such an action improper without trouting me for it retroactively) is a very important point of procedure about how the Committee works and standards of behavior for its members, and it would be taken with no less than four of the active arbitrators (a big chunk of the current roster) unable to participate, all of whom have continuing mandates for at least the coming year and would be bound by that decision.

    I would not be opposed to a decision on this matter being taken ("Can an arbitrator act outside the committee in their own capacity as an editor/admin?") if we can all participate and discuss it — and I would of course recuse from any discussion about whether it applied in this particular incident or if there are actions to be taken regarding my warning and block of Giano as a result of that decision. — Coren (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A comment on Carcharoth's proposals: I trust that any admonishment towards me will be based strictly on the basis that my warning[3] and block[4][5] of Giano would have been improper on its face from any other uninvolved administrator? Basing it on the fact that I happen to also be an Arbitrator would be punishing me for breaching a rule that does not (yet) exist, or implicitly creating that rule as precedent and applying it to me retroactively. — Coren (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification, Carcharoth. — Coren (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giano speaks

I don't think I shall bother concerning myself heavily with this "case". It seems little more than a couple of Arbs who have behaved badly trying to justify themselves at my expense. It seems to be based on the fact I have been involved in previous cases, but fails to mention I have always ultimately been proven right.

In this, the latest, attempt to silence me and save themselves further embaressment, Coren says here [6] I have driven off innumerable editors (or as he so quaintly puts it "uncountable") - which is little more than the overreaction and distortion for which he seems to be becoming famed (is this I wonder why the report was delayed, by other Arbs, until after the elections? - a lot certainly seem to want to change their vote now). Whatever, I wonder who these many people are? Actually, it is just more of the character assassination and lies I have come to expect and accept on this project.?

Rlevse say here [7] he did not ask MBisanz to find an oversighter, he merely "vented" to him on the subject where and when - one wonders, and why was MBisanz not encouraged to come forward and explain. Indeed, why was MBisanz omitted completely from the report? What a pity RLevse, this "responsible Arb", or indeed any of the Arbs (who have all emailed me since saying "we knew you were not outing Rlevse") did not choose to ask me before rushing to IRC or "venting" to anyone; the first I knew of the matter was when I discovered it for myself, some time after the oversight, (no one had the common decency to tell me that I had been oversighted as an "outer") and than asked an Arb what WTF is going on. I am accused of assuming "bad faith" well I find having my edits oversighted for outing - to be pretty bad faith on someone's part, and it sure as hell aint mine.

Not once has Rlevse contacted me or apologised. I do not out people - I leave that to the low-lifes who enjoy such behaviour. Although in this case RLevse had placed his full name completely voluntarily in the public domain many many times - so I could not have outed him, even if I had wanted to - which I did not. RLevse was simply miffed at having his naive behaviour compared [8] to that of a "Randy from Boisse." Regarding this latest attempt to justify their poor behaviour, I'm not that fussed whether this case is accepted or not. I see the the peanuts are already being thrown in the gallery - Sandstein and co are already here with their ten pfennigs of venom; no doubt "Mattisse and the Mentors" and the chorus of the "EE Mailing List" will all arrive shortly like the warm up acts at a pop concert. I don't think I will bother to attend such a vulgar spectacle as is planned here. As I have said Wikipedia is about to enter a dark period if Martial Law, I expect this is the start of it. I don't think it's going to be a very attractive place to be. When such regimes are embryonic in real life the intelligentsia and morally wealthy usually emigrate pretty quickly - a few intellectuals stay and are normally persecuted to death. That is exactly what will happen here. I wonder who will be who? I wish you all a very happy Christmas and prosperous New year!  Giano  10:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Vandenberg

Coren blocked Giano for his latest attempt to expose the underbelly of the project by posting some facts that had not been disclosed, and a few unproven accusations to fill in the gaps in the audit report. The block was indefinite, but accompanied with a request to bend over backwards.

It has long been my belief that the project does not benefit from arbitrators acting as über-admins. If they do "tough blocks", they need to have community support just like any other admin. They should never be giving ultimatums that would be unacceptable if delivered from another admin, speak as though they represent the community at large, or worse .. imply that they are acting with the support of the Arbitration Committee when that isn't true. As other members of the Committee know, there have been prior incidents of Coren taking action without strong Committee backing. It is my opinion that this most recent block of Giano was another such example of poor judgment on Coren's part. In many ways, Coren is an excellent arbitrator; however, he jumped the gun in regards to Giano's block. When I saw that the clear emerging consensus was also to strongly disagree with the block reasoning, I opted to overturn the block myself. see [9] and [10] for comments before the unblock; and User_talk:GiacomoReturned#Enough and User_talk:Coren#Please_unblock_Giano for comments since the unblock.

My unblock was done in a disrespectful manner without discussing it with Coren first. For that, I am sorry. In my defense for not contacting Coren, I felt that the ultimatum meant that Coren would not back down if I discussed it with him, and action needed to be taken swiftly to avoid a sprawling ANI thread that carried into the Christmas period when people should be spending time with their family, rather than fighting an inappropriate block.

Coren wisely does not want to name me as part of this "spat", and would like us all to disregard the context. That is not going to happen folks.

This all started when Giano said "Randy from Boise", referring to an arbitrator.[11] That should have been water off a ducks back, or a short block for a "personal attack", however the response has been ill-informed, disproportionate, and ugly. It has dragged on for over a month, and the recently announced audit report has left a number of people dissatisfied.

Many editors also leave the project when they are dissatisfied with the administration of the project, and they leave for many other reasons. I look forward to Coren's evidence that Giano is the cause of people leaving the project. It had better be sound, otherwise his statement here contains unfounded allegations. Also "a fact that Giano himself is not above exploiting for his own designs" looks like bad faith to me. These things must stop!

I am pretty sure that there has only been one RFC about Giano, which had certification issues but proceeded because the Arbitration Committee had recommended it, and there was plenty of community input in the RFC. Everyone should re-read the RFC, and also the arb comments about the RFC.[12] This recent episode is another example of the conduct that the RFC drew attention to and aimed to prevent reoccurring. Giano is disruptive at times. He throws a lot of shit, especially at admins and arbcom. A lot of it sticks, but that isnt an excuse for the personal attacks and allegations without evidence (or for publishing evidence that people don't want public).

An arbitration case about Giano is the next step.

I implore you all to realise that there can only be two possibilities as Coren asserts; one is unbelievable and the other is that Giano must be stopped. As should be obvious, I contend that the former is true, and will present evidence to support this.

Consequently, you might accept that both possibilities have an element of truth in them, and the committee will need to look at both sides of this battle that crops up often enough to be annoying. Alternatively, dismiss the request, issue trouts all round, and undertake to prevent or better prepare for a similar request in due course. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Coren, am I hearing you right? You want to be able to vote on the principles on which this case would be decided? That is novel, and I would like the same courtesy given to me too please ... John Vandenberg (chat) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
confirmed.
@Durova, I'll not wear a shoe on the wrong foot unless it is for a good cause, but I have no problems with being whacked across the face with that allegorical shoe, either by full case or summary motion. I've spelled out what I did wrong. I hope Coren can do the same, and maybe strike the claim that "many editors are being driven away by [Giano]" unless he intends to support it with good evidence if the case is accepted.
p.s. I already have a second home in your neck of the woods; that glade is coming along nicely. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chillum

I would like to see some sort of resolution of this endless addition of zeros. This has been going on for too long without significant variation on the theme and a decision one way or another is needed. Clearly there is something very wrong with the community when such a huge volume of administrators have felt the need to block and unblock one person. This is very destructive to the community and is an endless source of drama and bad blood. Please, I implore you, do not let this case finish without some sort of resolution. This issue is polarizing the community month after month and either way you go people will be pissed off, just please settle this one way or another as the community is not capable of doing so. Chillum 01:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Giano: You say "I find having my edits oversighted for outing - to be pretty bad faith on someone's part, and it sure as hell aint mine". But this is not the first time you have outed someone. After you observed me being driven away from my first username due to death threats against my family and I came back with another username you were kind enough to connect the two accounts: [13]. This was your response to me asking you not to call people trolls in response to a content dispute(Should "London" be disambiguated in an article). I am glad that your exposing my prior account in response to a request that you not call people trolls did not endanger my family. If I had known that discussing a content dispute would lead to such a revelation I would have likely just not logged into Wikipedia that day.

Statement by Tznkai

Pardon the crudity, please, but: for fuck's sake, what is wrong with all of you? (The list of 'you's is long, and probably includes you) Can we try not ending each term with inter-functionary warfare, please?--Tznkai (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen states the thing I was trying to get at. Same sort of thing as I said last year, almost to the day--Tznkai (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

I would have thought an arbitrator, with or without his arb hat, would properly show that other steps in dispute resolution have indeed been tried, rather than make a large gesture about how "numerous" these steps are. That's more like posting a Request that goes "I'm feeling really irritated towards Giano right now". Bishonen | talk 02:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment to Newyorkbrad

That's it, leave it to Fred! Bishonen | talk 02:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment on Carcharoth's Arbitrator Comment below

A propos of John Vandenberg's complaint that Coren is acting like an überadmin (with which I agree), Carcharoth's solicitous inquiries of Coren aren't helping. Coren's not only acting like an überadmin, he's being treated like an überadmin on this page. Carcharoth, when did you last, or ever, wetnurse a non-arb request for arbitration to the point of making such inquiries of the submitter? Who should be examined, how many and what kind of incidents ought to be looked at, how far back, in how much detail, etc... ? Ordinary requests—certainly any request I've ever made— are regularly thrown in to sink or swim without anybody on the committee holding their hand and urging them to specify this, that, and the other in order to fix up their request. It looks unfair, you know? It looks like special treatment with bells on. Incidentally, to answer one of your questions, Carch: the 2007—2008 arbcom case IRC, which Coren says was about Giano, wasn't; it was a lot more about me and Tony Sidaway (right, Tony? Mackensen? NYBrad? Am I right? Maybe I should be a party here?). Bishonen | talk 15:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment to Tony Sidaway

[14]. I believe Tony posted below just before I posted a message to him on Coren's page (well, it fitted there, sorry!). Bishonen | talk 23:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Jake Wartenberg

I am having trouble understanding Risker and NYB's recusal. Wikipedia:AUSC#Procedure states "An arbitrator's service on the Audit Subcommittee is part of his or her official service as an arbitrator, and therefore shall not constitute grounds for recusal in a subsequent matter involving the complainant or the subject of the complaint." ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mackensen

You idiots. Giano makes unfounded attacks on the character of other editors; Giano blocked; Giano unblocked; arbitration request filed. Don't waste everyone's time with a case unless you've agreed beforehand to one or more of the following: banning Giano, de-sysopping Coren, or de-sysopping John. Otherwise just reject it and let everyone go back to what they were doing. Don't stick the new arbs with a long drawn out drama-fest which just leaves everybody more pissed off than before. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Durova

A tempest in a teapot.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Durova382 03:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per John Vandenberg[15] and Coren,[16] expressing wry amusement that arbitrators who had previously raised no objection to the practice of summary admonishment discover problems once admonishment is proposed against themselves. How does the shoe feel on the other foot, gentlemen? For a short while I was looking forward to the company of admonished Wikipedians looking a whole lot better. You probably mow the front lawn more regularly than most of the folks in this neighborhood. ;) Durova386 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr.Z-man

I normally try to keep a safe distance from this, but I was extremely disappointed when reading some of the comments on Giano's talk page. If this is what passes for "asking questions and challenging authority figures" nowadays, then this project is beyond hopeless.

(and as a procedural note, Giano was also a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley) -- Mr.Z-man 03:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Wehwalt

I've had my run ins with Giano. The thing is, this is someone who skates the thin edge of conduct, and when he goes over into the red, usually has someone willing to bail him out. So it seems here.

There is a small class of drama-mongering "vested editors" who are almost immune from sanction because they have friends. It is time to put an end to this. Either ban Giano or put him under severe restrictions. His contributions to the project just aren't worth the drama they cause. Enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Unitanode

Coren, you're stirring the "drama pot" far far more than Giano, first with your horrendous block, and now with this self-serving RFAR. Is there an arb recall process? UA 04:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthier statement, re:Giano and outing

First, let me say what anyone who's been around the project, and interacted with me before probably already knows: I didn't first edit this project on 21 March 2009. I've been around since the last part of 2006 (as an IP), before registering in 2007 (intentionally left ambiguous, because of the busybodies). I disappeared, not because of any malfeasance on my part, but because of very serious, real-life issues. When the shit hit the fan, I turned to three people on this project: Newyorkbrad, Risker, and Giano. Now, Giano and I had not been particularly close friends (like his relationship with Bish, for example) before this. In fact, my first interaction with him, back some time in 2007, was negative. I was a fairly young user, and was making an ass of myself, and he basically told me so. But I'd gotten to know him well enough to know that he guards real-life identities, he doesn't out them. Through the whole, stressful process, Giano was a rock for me (as were Brad and Risker). He (and they) talked me down from proverbial ledges, and it's largely due to their influence that I finally signed up again on 21 March. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I trust Giano with my WikiLife -- and even some portions of my real life. Anyone who knows Giano at all on-wiki, knows that "outing" isn't his thing. In fact, quite the opposite. Rlevse knows Giano. Thus, I can only conclude that Rlevse's "concern" about potential "outing" is rooted more in his pique at being dismissed as "Randy in Boise" than in any real fear. I've known real fear. Being called "Randy in Boise" does not engender such fear. This "case" should be dismissed out-of-hand, and Coren admonished for using the tools in a fit of anger. UA 16:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC) (I apologize for the length of this. It just needed to be said.)[reply]

Statement by MZMcBride

A few comments:

  • "Inter-functionary" is a very lulzy word;
  • Tempest in a teapot.jpg — I have to say, I'm not a huge fan of this one; needs better integration between the two concepts;
  • Both Mackensen and Coren include the parentheses in their user talk page links in their signatures and this is rather jarring; the practice is shared by others, including James F. and Doc glasgow, though we could (and should) quibble over the latter's use of the punctuation marks.

--MZMcBride (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

While I am uninvolved in this particular replay of the periodic Giano drama, I endorse this request for arbitration and concur with the assessment of Coren and Wehwalt in particular. The immense amount of drama and conflict generated by Giano's battleground-like conduct towards any who disagree with him by far outweighs any productive contributions he may have made. What makes this situation particularly worthy of arbitral intervention is the fact that the community can't seem to deal with it, as made evident by the long string of blocks, contested unblocks and even arbitration cases associated with Giano. Given his history, I see a longtime ban of Giano as the only sensible outcome of a case, and if this request is accepted, I will contribute to the evidence for it.  Sandstein  05:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment to Newyorkbrad
I do not think that you need to recuse yourself as a result of the circumstances you describe. Judging by my experience, Giano commonly and persistently attacks those who disagree with his conduct, in an apparent attempt to provoke the appearance of involvedness on their part and to discourage them from continuing to examine his conduct. That is not a tactic that should work at this level of conflict resolution.  Sandstein  05:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with respect to FayssalF's opinion
I agree that administrators unblocking users without discussion and consensus-building, even if the block is not clearly erroneous, is an important recurring problem unrelated to Giano's disruption. Apart from being rude and uncollegial, it often hinders effective enforcement of Wikipedia policy and enables continued disruption. Accepting a case would provide a venue to clarify policy and community expectations in this regard.  Sandstein  11:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

I opposed this block - and feel that the unblock was appropriate, albeit poorly communicated. But I support Arbcom taking up this case.

The reason that I support taking it up is that you are about to close the Ottava Rima case, which if ever there was a precedent for taking this one on, and being able to do so successfully... this is it.

Giano has clearly exhausted Coren's patience now. He has done so with others over time. There are suggestions here and there of a community consensus, but none has formed via RFC or other mechanism. Much grumbling, many supporters, many detractors. People afraid he's being picked on. People afraid he's getting away with "it" repeatedly as someone always comes to his rescue.

This is what Arbcom is here for. You just proved you can do your job. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved The Wordsmith

The community seems unable to deal with this matter, due to the complexity of both Giano's positive contributions and his friends in high places. Since we have tried (many, many, many times) to resolve this issue, and failed, I request that Arbcom accept this case and give us the final word on the vested contributor controversy. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question by uninvolved DuncanHill

Have members of the Arbcom discussed Giano amongst themselves (either as a whole or in part) off-wiki; and have such discussions included proposals, plans or desires for a block or ban? I ask this because of previous incidents involving misunderstood off-wiki communications between arbitrators in the past, and my belief that, wherever possible (having due regard to BLP issues), discussion about wikipedia matters should take place on-wikipedia. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having taken a couple of days to look more deeply into this, I feel that to accept this case without also looking into the behaviour of Rlevse & his/her alternate account(s) would be unfortunate. I appreciate that Rlevse has decided to take a wikibreak, and that this seems to me to be wise, but there is a perception of double standards in some sections of the community and it would be unfortunate if the handling of this case added to it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recused Arbs emailing functionaries

According to Carcharoth, recused Arbs have been emailing various functionaries about this case. Would they be so kind please as to make their statements/requests on this page, rather than fuelling cabal/conspiracy theories by publicly recusing while privately attempting to exert influence off-wiki? DuncanHill (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hans Adler

The community is divided about Giano: Is he a brilliant article writer whose bad reputation and short temper make him the ideal mobbing victim? Or is he a would-be Prince of Condé, engaged in a ridiculous insurrection against Louis XIV the rest of the wiki Establishment, supported by numerous other noblemen experienced and otherwise respectable admins and users?

Sooner or later we will need a reasonable solution. But this seems not to be the occasion where it will or should be found:

Wrong time
Right before Christmas, and right before we get a new Arbcom.
Wrong underlying dispute
The situation (Giano is rude, someone overreacts, Giano overreacts to the overreaction, block, unblock) was relatively typical. But it involved someone's private information that Giano did not publish and that would have to be published for a full understanding of the case. I don't see the problem with waiting for the next similar occasion that doesn't involve someone's privacy in this way.
Technical problem
A complainant who should know better brought the case in the absence of any reasonable attempt at dispute resolution. Hans Adler 11:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The time at which this broke out was probably not an accident. I don't think Giano conflicts escalate at this time of the year because people want to have some nice Christmas entertainment. It's more likely another symptom of Christmas stress. The experience in my family has been that this can be reduced enormously through the principle that only presents for young children are allowed. Hans Adler 11:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Thatcher

The unblock should be reviewed. It is the unblocking that empowers Giano and denervates administrators who try to deal with him. You will have to address this problem sooner or later.

It is not possible to have a legitimate difference of opinion with Giano. Giano is right, and if you disagree you are ignorant, ill-informed, or deliberately acting in bad faith. And yes, this applies to articles as well as to project space.

When Giano is involved in a dispute, or involves himself as a third party, this tendency is magnified. If the facts are in dispute, Giano's facts are right and you are either ignorant, someone's dupe, or are involved in a coverup. If the facts are not in dispute, then Giano's interpretation of the facts is correct, and if you disagree you are either ignorant, a dupe, a liar, or part of the conspiracy. Remember that this started because Rlevse blocked Vintagekits while it was nighttime in the UK, and Giano strode in to complain that it was unfair and improper to block a UK editor while other UK editors were sleeping and unable to offer their opinions. This is one person's opinion. Another person's opinion might be that Wikipedia is a global project and that no editor has the privilege of being judged only by other editors from his home country. Nevertheless, Giano is right and everyone who disagrees is treated with contempt, or worse. Giano said of Rlevse (paraphrasing), "One might expect such behavior from a stereotypical ignorant American (i.e. Randy from Boise) but an arbitrator is supposed to know better." Insulting people and expressing contempt for their actions and differences of opinion is not quite how we expect editors to behave. I like Giano, at least as much as it is possible to like someone you've never met, and I certainly respect him. I hope to think he respects me. But even with me, when we were discussing the "Randy from Boise" suppression issue a few weeks ago, you can see how he has contempt for and dismisses my comments because they don't confirm his already-decided conclusions.

Of course, there is always someone who will say, "Arbitrators should have thicker skins" and that is certainly true, up to a point. However, this is not the first or the tenth time that Giano has sparked a firestorm (or fanned the flames of an existing one) by his insulting and contemptuous remarks. I do not have a list in my head but one remark I recall was in a previous arbitration case where he told FloNight that he would not allow Arbcom to castrate him. Only he didn't say it quite that way, he said (paraphrasing) "if you try to chew my balls off you might choke on them." While it is possible that the myriad people whom Giano has insulted are all overly sensitive and should all grow thicker skins, it might be time to consider an alternate possibility.

My recommendation here is simple, and I have made it before. When Giano starts insulting someone and holding them in obvious contempt over some disagreement, find a reasonably neutral and clueful admin to ask him nicely to rephrase or withdraw the comments. If he refuses, block him for a day (if there have not been any recent similar outbursts) or a few days (if this is part of a recent pattern). No dramatic discussions, arbitration cases, or noticeboard threads. No escalating blocks for outbursts on his own talk page. No ultimata, no indefinite blocks until he apologizes (or kisses the right ring, depending on your point of view), and no unblocks. Just a simple block. If we impose simple blocks for unacceptable behavior, without drama, and that stick, and if he is as smart as he thinks he is, he will learn to moderate his comments. Thatcher 14:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wehwalt

Sounds good to me but who bells the cat? And who stops Giano's admin friends from unblocking him?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point is that there should not be a special group of admins to handle Giano, it should be a routine matter. When someone, anyone, makes outrageous uncivil attacks against another editor, he should be asked to withdraw the comment and if he refuses, he should be made to stand in the corner for a while. It merely takes a credible and reasonably mature administrator, who knows the difference between boundary testing and venting which should generally be tolerated, and the kinds of attacks that should not be tolerated. (And who is willing to engage in reasonable discussion about the block afterward.) As far as unblocking is concerned, Arbcom need only sit down hard on the first one or two admins who reverse such blocks without concensus, for it to sink in with the rest. Thatcher 19:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subcomment by Jehochman

What you would need to implement this is an arbitration remedy that says these steps can be taken: (1) warn and request to refactor, (2) if that fails, 24 hour block, (3) if that fails, 48 hour block, and so on, going to (5) indef block after five connected incidents. Arbitration enforcement blocks cannot be overturned without a discussion and consensus. You'll note that I just added some language to WP:NPA about customary block lengths. It's been a long term problem that WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and others have been enforced very unevenly. If we could get everybody more or less on the same page, that would help a lot. Jehochman Talk 20:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think such a long series of warnings/blocks would be out of order and inconsistent with how we treat other editors. I'd point out, Jehochman, that you hand out indef blocks fairly often to users with clean block logs. I see no reason why Giano should be handled with kid gloves. I think Macdonald's comment is to the point. Ban Giano or declare him exempt from the rules which govern everyone else. ArbCom decides.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that that the annual rite of hazing new arbitrators will commence on schedule.
Arbs, for the future if you need any difficult blocks, leave me a message. If you need any unblocks, see Wehwalt. Jehochman Talk 10:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah so, Jehochman as hired hitman for the ArbCom. Incidentally, Giano would play that system like a Stradivarius.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hitman is so unseemly. I prefer to think of myself as Dirty Harry. Jehochman Make my day 15:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the "graded block" idea, but it does seem to me the process regarding unblocking is quite vague and problematic, maybe the first thing we need to do is set some sort of clear criteria for an unblock - for example, a two-thirds majority in favour of an unblock, with a minimum number of users participating in the !vote. The same would go for a block reduction. Gatoclass (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motion

Giano is treated the same as every other editor. If Giano makes personal attacks or unfounded assumptions of bad faith against other editors, he will be subject to the normal consequences for all editors. Steps to be taken by an uninvolved administrator:

  1. Warn and request modification of any inappropriate remarks.
  2. If the attacks are repeated, 24 hour block.
  3. Next related incident, 48 hours.
  4. One week.
  5. One month.
  6. Indefinite block.

Any blocks placed under this remedy are considered arbitration enforcement actions and may not be overturned without discussion and consensus at the appropriate noticeboard.

I submit this proposal without suggesting that Giano has, or has not, done anything wrong. The idea is to eliminate, once and for all, the false idea that Giano gets special treatment, and to prevent future cycles of excessive blocks and undiscussed unblocks. He should be treated the same as every other editor, no better and no worse. I demand the same for myself, and I'd like to see our arbitrators insist on the same for themselves. Jehochman Talk 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The real problem is that there was an RFC on civility where the idea of "civility blocks" was apparently rejected. At least, such appeared to be the case the last time I looked, and I don't have a link. While the idea of talking nicely to uncivil editors is wonderful and idealistic, experience has shown (and not just with Giano) that the carrot does not work well without the stick. The idea of indefinitely blocking anyone for being uncivil and attacking the integrity of other editors is silly, but so is the idea of doing nothing. Incivility is corrosive (and, re: your comments about "no article was harmed", I can cite diffs where Giano has attacked and insulted editors who disagree with his opinions on content disputes, should this go to a full case).
You should look up the civility RFC from earlier this year and see what the consensus was about blocking for insults and other rude behavior. Arbcom may not be able to effect such a motion as you propose if the RFC was opposed to such. Thatcher 21:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that mere incivility does not warrant a block. There's a difference between diffuse incivility, and targeted personal attacks or harassment. I've added a section to WP:CIVIL that says we don't normally block for incivility unless it rises to the level of personal attacks or harassment. We frequently block people for specific personal attacks, especially those based on race, religion, ethnicity or sexual identity. In WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS, we've specified to warn, and then go to escalating blocks starting at 24 hours. The key to controlling all these problems is to establish more uniform enforcement. I'm sure Giano would not demand special treatment. He and everybody else should be treated the same in fairness. Jehochman Talk 21:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed trouts

  1. Oversighters should be very careful about suppressing statements made against functionaries. Measure twice, cut once. The potential for harmful drama is great.
  2. Arbitrators should not place controversial blocks. Defer to the community instead.
  3. Administrators should not undo controversial blocks without discussion and consensus.

In addition to the above proposed motion, and in lieu of a full case (though it would be fun to watch the Arbitrator newbies squirm), the above trouts should suffice. Jehochman Talk 18:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by LessHeard vanU

Just above, and likely in other statements/comments too, Giano is depicted as a great content writer. I regret that recently, and especially in the current guise, this is no longer true - the content writing aspect has been greatly deprecated. A review of Giano's current editing history will indicate someone who is more often interacting within the administration processes than article writing. It is to the shame and pity of those authorised to administer the creation of the encyclopedia that this has come to be, and that it is more the fault of those institutions than it is of the once content contributor. This matter is the result of Giano being misunderstood to the extent that he is accused of attempting to out someone( in the way of an innocuous generality - living in Boise in a similar way to someone called Randy) for which those edits are suppressed and removed, Giano threatened with a block for those actions, further threatened with a block for protesting the suppression of the comments, and threatened with a block for his (now quite familiar) reaction to being threatened with blocking. A subsequent report into a review (I cannot bring myself to call it an investigation) of the poorly judged removal of innocent comment results in a declaration of the matter being nothing more than the result of an unfortunate series of assumptions of good faith... Disregarding the one major Assumption of Bad Faith, that Giano would attempt to out another editor. Not particularly pleased with the lack of acknowledgement, let alone anything approaching an apology, Giano then strongly (and in a very familar manner) presents his opinion on the lack of a comprehensive report in the matter. Giano is then blocked, without informed discussion, for daring to protest the content of the report.

Small wonder Giano is no longer the content contributor he was. I urge the non recusing members of ArbCom to accept this case; there needs to be found whether there is a body sufficiently competent enough to deal with any editor who is motivated to criticise the processes and those who administer it of this project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gladys j cortez

Oh, holy Pete. I've yet to become involved in a Giano-storm, probably due to my near-inactivity in recent months (that RL thing keeps kicking me in the head). But I've seen most of them unfold, usually inflamed by the usual cast of storm-chasers. Randy-in-Boise-gate is a little different from the norm, however, and unfortunately to examine Giano's reaction and its consequences, I believe this case would also have to delve somewhat into the original precipitating event--the suppression of edits based on a mischaracterization of their nature, whether one AGF's about the basis for that mischaracterization or not. And even if the arbs disagree with me re: the need to discuss it, the fact remains: it's probably going to get discussed, like it or not--along with every other incident, issue, dispute, hoo-raw, kerfuffle, snub, and slight allegedly either perpetrated by, or received by, Giano. Do we really want to go there, especially during the week before a two-week holiday period, and two weeks before the new class of Arbs matriculate? Is one of the "shadow qualifications" for ArbCom a deep streak of masochism? Regardless of the answers, please put me down as one who sees both acceptance of the ArbCom case, and the imposition of the block that precipitated it, as Spectacularly Bad Ideas. The difference is, one of those two is in the past tense; the other is up to you. If Giano's conduct is really as pernicious as you say it is, another chance to take him to ArbCom will come; but as it stands, I urge that you decline this case. GJC 15:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tex

I would like Coren to identify these "countless" editors who have been driven away from the project by Giano. I have seen many more editors leave because uberadmins come to their page twice in a month and tell them in no uncertain terms that the uberadmin is better than them and they should do exactly what the uberadmin says or be blocked indefinitely. This is exactly what Coren did with Giano. Because Coren, himself, was personnaly mad at Giano, he gets to decide that the only way Giano can return is if he is "supervised". I call bullshit. Coren is not God. He does not get to decide these things without community input. I happen to agree with Giano's point of view in this whole dust-up. Certain "powerful" people fucked up and didn't have the decency to apologize for it. They put this "report" out that said absolutely nothing and expected everyone, including the person who felt wronged the most, to take it and shut up. Enough of this "arbcom is better than you" meme that has been going on. As Thatcher says, if Giano gets out of line, block him for 24 hours. Don't go crying to the mighty arbcom. Sheesh. Tex (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unacceptable behavior for an arb. If any sanctions are to be placed because of this mess, I would hope this trolling is sanctioned as well. I'm disguisted with this behavior. Tex (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by One Night In Hackney

I've no idea how the perceived Giano problem should be dealt with, but the actions of others also need close scrutiny particularly last night's block. Regarding Thatcher's comments above about the spark of the current fracas, I think Giano had every right to be cheesed off in the first place. Rlevse declared a long-term contributor banned after a discussion lasting 1 hour and 23 minutes. No matter what people's opinions are about the time this discussion took place excluding many European editors, a discussion lasting less than 90 minutes is not sufficient to declare a community ban especially when the editor concerned was already indefinitely blocked at that time. There was no need for such a premature rush to judgement, and Giano's unhappiness at that was quite correct, although I'm passing no judgement on the correctness of his response. 2 lines of K303 16:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Ncmvocalist

One Night In Hackney, recently, a similar discussion involving a separate set of users was closed early too. I dispassionately voiced similar concerns to those voiced in the discussion you cited, and although there was initial murmer over it, the admins and editors participating respected/appreciated the reasons and agreed to keep the discussion open for at least a day instead of 2 hours. In other words, where possible, attempts can and should be made to raise those objections appropriately or 'correctly' - in good faith. Also, before pointing the finger at any one user, what needs to become part of Wikipedia culture is a consistent expectation that such discussions should longer than 2 hours rather than being selective. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are many issues with Carcharoth's proposals, in that, I don't think there is any sense of a just outcome when all parties get the same remedy, despite engaging in different degrees of improper conduct. I also think attempting to find the precise correct proportion may not be the most productive use of time without opening a full case. Therefore, Roger Davies' motion to close is probably more satisfactory in the absence of a full case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Henrik

Given the locus of dispute, the direct involvement of sitting arbitrators and the long-term history between the committee and Giano I respectfully put forward the thought that the committee itself, dedicated as it is, will find it difficult to render a judgment that will be fair, disinterested, and respected.

Giano is perhaps our most vocal voice of dissent, and his interactions with the community has a long and unique history. In sui generis situations, it is sometimes worthwhile to propose unorthodox solutions. In this case, I would urge the committee to consider seeking outside assistance and referring final judgment to another body of uninvolved persons, from inside the community or outside. henrik•talk 17:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Twenty-seven years online has left me bemused by all this. Draconian measures almost invariably backfire is one lesson. The second lesson is that one need never underestimate the ability of others to misunderstand you. I fear this is a bad Baroque opera with an overly complex plot. If the committee, in its wisdom, takes this case, I suggest it carefully use it as a means of determining limits on administrator actions of greater severity than the committee normally has imposed after hearings. I would further suggest that administrators ought not be treated with higher regard than normal editors in any Wikipedia process -- that their main function is to act as functionaries, not as an adminocracy. Collect (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Brilliantine

Oh joy. AUSC makes vague finding, Giano makes wild allegations, someone tells Giano to 'put up or shut up', Giano puts up, truth looks by all accounts to be somewhere between the two. Things would have probably died down by now if it had been left here. Really silly block by Coren that he should have known would only inflame the situation. Not the kind of judgement an arb should be displaying. And as others have mentioned, his statement here seems to be full of accusations just as wild as those Giano is known for making. Just reject this, give Coren a private trouting and send everyone on their way somewhere else. Brilliantine (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved BirgitteSB

Reject this case. Please. Just because the community has been unable to resolve something, does not mean that Arbcom must give it a try. Sometimes things simply cannot be resolved until greater emerges. There is no clarity to be found here, especially in the precipitating events. Reasonable people beg to differ about Giano. Those who wish to see Giano prosecuted can patiently wait for a clearer case than this. If he truly requires the attention of Arbcom, he will certainly prove in less muddied circumstances. I am not quite able to articulate what I feel about the position Arbcom is in generally. While it certainly has the remit to take on this case on paper, I don't believe it has the practical ability to resolve it. Taking this case and not resolving it would be very damaging to Arbcom. Arbcom cannot sustain much more damage. I question whether Arbcom as an institution can recover from the position it was in yesterday. I don't think it would even be a question any longer, if this case is accepted. Please try and ignore the whale-cases people are scouting out for you to harpoon and start bailing out the boat. There is a time for ambition, for tackling the issues no one has been able to find any sort of handle on. And there is time for securing the process, for shoring up the confidence that allows for such ambition to ever exist at any time. It is very easy to lose sight of the reality of this whole situation. To believe that Arbcom is in a position to deal with case, merely because there nothing else that is nearer to being able to deal with it than Arbcom. But this is not the reality. Situations exist where the best available examination will do nothing but compound the problem. Sometimes the best decision is to wait till the situation is made clearer by repetition in slightly changed circumstances. This repetition is not the worst possible outcome. Yes if this case is not accepted, we will still have a problem. Giano will again make himself a problem, or rather compound a problem someone else makes with his street theater tactics. Everyone should expect this, surely is cannot be as disruptive now as when it was novel. Eventually the problem will be resolved; it is nearly manageable now if people would only keep their heads and approach it rationally. Arbcom imitating the Charge of the Light Brigade would only compound the madness. Arbcom needs to seriously begin rejecting futile cases and conserve their strength for where they can best prove themselves effective and improve their reputation to increase their strength, rinse and repeat. Those on Arbcom who are able to lend themselves to introspective and long-term thought need to seriously consider what sort of a candidate they want to see running for Arbcom in year or in two years. And why might such an ideal candidate be willing or unwilling to attach themselves the Committee. Then consider how to increase the reasons in Column A and decrease the reasons in Column B. If Arbcom doesn't begin to rely on a more accurate and far-reaching cost/benefit analysis for accepting cases and you all are in danger of letting a self-reinforcing pull of duty work Arbcom into irrelevance. Arbcom is not destined to be successful nor trusted merely because you all won an election. There is no divine rule that will prevent Arbcom from being presented with a task that it cannot handle. You all have repeatedly overextended yourselves, by focusing too much on a case's individual merits of being heard instead of the actual resources available to hear it. You all have repeatedly undermined yourselves by focusing too much on the immediacy of each individual case instead of legacy of the institution. You must reverse these trends while there still remains something salvageable in Arbcom. This case is no brainer in an extended cost/benefit analysis. There is no possible way that Arbcom has the resources to do anything useful here. There is no possibility of honor to being gained by Arbcom here. At the best Arbcom could come out looking incompetent and at the worst complicit. Reject this case quickly.--BirgitteSB 20:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply @ Penwhale I am suggesting that Arbcom cannot handle this issue reputably and that they are running out reputation to sacrifice to such things and badly need to accumulate some clear successes rather put their names up beside another futile effort that is already half-botched right out of the starting-gate. Haven't you any sense of scope? Stopping looking at terms of Giano's history of hubris and look at it terms of Arbcom's. Arbcom is not an intrinsic thing here. It not some natural law that what community cannot handle is dealt with by Arbcom. Arbcom could outright fail if no one takes care to see it both succeeds and is perceived as a effective.--BirgitteSB 22:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Penwhale

In response to Birgitte: If the community cannot handle an issue, normally ArbCom take it up. Or are you suggesting that the community needs to actually discuss this and come to an conclusion? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added 21:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC): I once blocked a well-established admin at the time for 3RR vio AND using rollback, and the unblock discussion on ANI only lasted about 37 min before the unblocked was made. (I was offline at the time of discussion and note that the block at that point has been in place for over 12 hours). What do we do regarding block/unblock practices? Wasn't there a precedent of what happens regarding admins undoing each other's actions? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steven Zhang

Going to be direct and blunt, because you (Arbcom) have proved that you understand nothing else. For over two years you have turned a blind eye to Giano's behaviour, solely because he a) Writes articles and b) Has a group of friends that back him up. I really don't give a shit. Honestly, grow some balls and stop fence sitting. Either declare Giano is exempt from the civility policy, which he defacto is at the moment, or ban him. Admonishments will not suffice and I propose a strike or mass revolt until Arbcom takes action, either way. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Protonk

The perennial problem isn't Giano, it is the ease with which the 2nd admin in a blocking wheel war can act. John V. reversed a block without comment or consultation in pretty much the same fashion that previous blocks on Giano (and similar editors) have been reversed. The immediate unblocking (where re-blocking would result in de-sysopping, even if a third admin intervened) offers a de facto protection from sanction. How many more cases are we going to have to see where a possibly dodgy first block is instantly undone without discussion before we treat this as a problem? Policy is fairly clear on the matter, though it allows for the possibility that John felt the block was an "unambiguous error". More later. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TS

We can't put this off any longer, this extremely disruptive user must be told in no uncertain terms that he cannot bully other Wikipedians. While his work may be valuable (and I am skeptical on that point, having looked at his works and not felt the earth move) his inability to work with others has marred the project severely because up to this point those individuals who have stood up to his bullying have all been let down by a succession of supine, spineless arbitration committees. It's time to stop the bully. --TS 23:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Uncle Uncle Uncle

I am currently undecided on how this should best be handled. Uncle uncle uncle 00:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tan

I would like to cheerfully point out the dumptruck loads of navel-gazing and self-aggrandizing hyperbole. I don't think national governments have this stratospheric level of beaurocracy; I think most of you enjoy making cases against each other and self-importantly pointing out policies like they were cast in Congress. It's rather fun, and FSM help me, I'm starting to think Kurt has been right all along. Tempest in a teacup, indeed, Durova! Tan | 39 03:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment upon comment by Tan by Proofreader77

Hear hear. (And no, I am not following Tan around saying hear hear.) This hear hear, of course also applies via containment, to Durova's image. My apologies to Arbcom and all present for slightly irreverent comment upon comment, which will surely not be made a habit of. But since we're waiting for the announcement of Arbcom members and our favorite holiday to arrive, I choose to license this comment upon comment with the good will of the moment and the season. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by a bowl of petunias

"Oh no not again".

OK, I have spent some considerable time reading round this and I find I agree with Coren. Not about blocking Giano, which is always going to cause friction at least until some agreement is reached on what should be done, but about the fact that Giano seems to have erected a wall around himself built of circular logic: any reaction to his often grossly inappropriate behaviour is somehow evidence of the vast conspiracy, and anybody who blocks him is thus part of the conspiracy so is not allowed to block him.

Sanctions have already been tried, but any attempt to enforce these sanctions has resulted in nothing but drama. I guess that we are faced with a limited range of choices. Either there is a consensus that Giano (and a very small number of others) can do and say whatever the hell they like, so no admin action may be taken to restrict that; or there is not, and meaningful sanctions need to be in place, perhaps with a mechanism where by all potential blocks are reviewed first by the Committee and reversal of such blocks without consent will result in desysopping.

All this is a very great shame: Giano is highly intelligent and very committed to the project, but seems to have fallen into a particular set of conspiracy theories. The idea that any secret cabal could operate on Wikipedia without leaking and being brought to public notice is laughable - it's pathetically easy to find and exploit divisions on Wikipedia even if you only manipulate the good faith of a few notorious softies.

Like Giano, I can be rude and obnoxious (though he writes far better articles). Like Giano, this has caused problems in the past. Unlike Giano I accept it is a problem and have done my best to reform. The problem is that Giano seems unwilling to learn to live with those he perceives as fools. This is a bad way of going through life and a very bad way of going through Wikipedia with the many fragile egos who hang around here. Giano, you don't have to fight every fight. You could sometimes just step back and let Bishonen or someone help. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jayen466

Trouts all round for this display of human nature and Happy Holidays. Cool Hand Luke makes a sensible point to keep in mind in the New Year. --JN466 12:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by John Carter

Not sure if I count as involved or not, so opting for indicating I am. Would simply like to say that some sort of variation on Jehochman's proposal above sounds to me like a good idea. Yes, I know, ArbCom doesn't write policy, but it can establish rough guidelines, and I think some sort of guideline for such matters is something that would be very useful. The older wikipedia gets, the older we get, and the crankier and longer history of blocks, bans, admonishments, and trout scars we all get, and I personally think that some sort of variation over time should be accounted for in such a guideline, but I would like to see the case taken both for the reasons of establishing some sort of clear guideline of block lengthening over time given repeated violations of the same basic policies and proposals, and, specific to this case, some indication that all of us can see as to how and when arbitrators can and should act as administrators involved in potentially contentious administrative actions. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Upon further thinking, something I obviously indulge in rather rarely ;), I believe that the time may have come for this situation with Giano and the Giano Rules to be resolved in a conclusive way one way or another. It looks like we have already lost one arbitrator (Rlevse), may lose another (Coren), and might have also lost John V had he not retired a few weeks ago, all as a result of this one incident with Giano. The expense to the project of this individual being allowed to continue to act as he has, and continues to, without some form of long-lasting judgment perceived as equitable by the community has, I believe, gotten beyond the point of being justifiable by his admittedly exceptional quality content contributions. I would also point out that the recent disruption by Ottava Rima, whose case has recently been closed, was in no small part related to the remarkable preferential treatment Giano has gotten and to some extend continues to get. And Ottava might have been an even better content contributor than Giano, at least in the short run. Mattisse has expressed similar reservations about Giano. In fact, I think at this point there is one and only one person who is invulnerable for being sanctioned in the long term or truly damaged by Giano's actions. That one person is, of course, Giano himself. At this point, I think he knows better than anyone if he doesn't threaten to kill Jimbo or something equivalent, someone will unblock him.
I would like to offer one suggestion as well. I doubt very seriously that almost any of the "old hands" at the ArbCom would be held as being completely impartial, because, in all honesty, having dealt with Giano and Giano-related situations as long and frequently as many of the more senior editors have, it is extremely unlikely that they have not formed some sort of opinion regarding this matter and editor. But we do have a number of new arbitrators coming in in the very new future. I think it might be a good idea to take the case, and assign the case to arbitrators whose previous interaction with Giano and related situations has been comparatively limited. These individuals might also be able to help draft some sort of rough guideline which could be applied in general when dealing with editors who have made and continue to make significant contributions to the encyclopedia, but at the cost of the disruption they regularly bring with them. As the project gets larger, both in terms of number of articles and number of editors, this is a problem which I believe is likely to recur several times in the future, and has already occurred with such individuals as Mattisse, Ottava Rima, and, yes, Giano. John Carter (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment on non-substantial issue by Risker

I will not comment on the substance of this matter and remain recused on all aspects of it. My comment is specifically to Cool Hand Luke's comment about creating a "bylaw" with respect to administrator actions by arbitrators. I'm sure the choice of the word "bylaw" was accidental, as we all know that there is no such creature within this project. My point, however, is that I believe it unwise for a small group of arbitrators to develop and put in place a decision binding on the entire committee at a time when a significant number of arbitrators are recused on the substance of this case, and where a significant change in the membership of the committee is imminent. Policy changes such as this should be discussed fully, with all viewpoints considered, and should not be made in haste. As the Arbitration Committee returns to full strength in the New Year, I suggest that this be one of the concepts discussed as we look toward completing the revision of the arbitration policy. Risker (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bigtimepeace

Obviously this case should be declined. I didn't read through everything above because that would have been a bad idea, but wise comments by Jayen466 and JzG (wiseguy?) are good 'nuff.

The main problem is that the issue here is not Giano, the Wikipedia editor (and certainly not the real person in real life), rather it is "Giano" (yes those are "scare quotes"!). "Giano" (and all that surrounds "Giano" in the past and in the present) means different things to different people (I literally have no idea what it means to me), and has come to be shorthand for any number of issues related to the en.wikipedia community (while we often don't think this way, I literally guarantee you that the whole "Giano" thing will be studied for decades by scholars who write about Wikipedia). Those issues may indeed be important when it comes to writing an encylopdia (it's also distinctly possible that they are not), but it should be obvious to most outside observers that this current thingermajig is not the time to deal with them, as others have already suggested.

One of the many things that the en.wikipedia community needs to get better with is awareness of itself. Individual human beings will often make the mistake of speaking out/starting a fight/bringing matters to a head in the following situations, among others: 1) When they are stressed out due to the time of year; 2) When they are under the influence of mind-altering substances; 3) When they are not under the influence of mind-altering substances (that presumably help them); 4) After recent emotional or spiritual trauma; 5) When emotional or spiritual trauma seems to be on the horizon; 6) When they have become bored and don't have anything else to do; 7) When they are bothered by "current events"; etc; etc. This place is kind of the same way (albeit somewhat more metaphorically), but often (though not always) the community does an even worse job than your average Jane or Joe Schmo does of evaluating a particularly fraught moment, checking itself, and saying, "shit, I better shut up now, I'm drunk/sad I broke up with boyfriend or girlfriend/off my meds/mad about that damn Sarkozy guy/whatever." I think this is probably one of those moments, and maybe recognizing the fact that "Giano" situations are usually those kind of moments is the key to ultimately dealing with them. That is, the phrase "Giano" would ideally lead most of us in the community to a Pavlovian response wherein we say nothing at all (a bit of a 180 from the status quo, I know).

The only reason anyone should listen to this comment is that, in all seriousness, I really don't care about any of this, which surely counts for something. I'll try to demonstrate that by not saying anything further about the matter, and maybe some others will do the same. It will be 2010 ("twenty-ten?" "two-thousand-ten?" "oh-ten?"--who knows!?!?) before you can say jiminy cricket and by then much of the specifics here will be forgotten, at which point we can move on to fresh, new specifics. Mmmmmmmm....specifics. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Casliber

Time for Wikipedia:Randy in Boise to go byebyes then - I think we need to clean up some of the guff masquerading as essays around the place. Oh, I'd decline this case too. Some mediation might be in order if some relations are still sore. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Pharaoh of the Wizards

Coren (talk · contribs) says he is blocking Giano for long term abuse and as he would continue to do so in future and not on basis of any current issue.Further Giano has been involved in earlier arbitration cases and had rows with earlier arbs like FT2 (talk · contribs) Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) and now with Rlevse (talk · contribs) and Coren (talk · contribs) himself.The disputes of Giano with arbs where much before either Coren (talk · contribs) or Rlevse (talk · contribs) became arbs and they had no prior dispute with user Giano. Please the Arbs are doing there job they have to deal with this user Giano only because they happen to be Arbs as mere users they would had no dispute with this user. I am surprised by the call the admonish the Arbs for doing there job and making tough blocks this would demotivate arbs and admins from doing there duty .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments above

Note to Admins

Is this case being handled by the existing arbs or if the new arbs are going to hear this case and given the fact that 4 arbs recused feel it would better for them to decide whether to have a full case or a motion .Feel only if the existing arbs are hearing this case should they consider it now. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Motion to close

This request for a case is declined. The following note is to be written into the record:

  1. the related Audit Subcommittee report is endorsed;
  2. the original events have already generated a disproportionate degree of drama;
  3. the interests of the project are best served by all concerned completely disengaging.
Support
  1.  Roger Davies talk 18:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The negative side of this motion is that it fails to address any problem among the ones I referred to below. It fails to address the highly problematic personal attacks of Giano who dare to call people "stereotyped idiot national" without feeling ashamed of saying it. The differences between that and the mistakes of the involved arbitrators are too many; at least there's an apparent trend behind those and other personal attacks by the same user. The positive side of this motion is that it ends the drama at this point. I am therefore leaning more toward supporting it although I had hoped to pass a motion with a few admonishments and a ban. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (edit conflict) May be best at this time. I would like to emphasise that the oversight team need to actually discuss the AUSC report and what happened here, and take lessons from it, as the potential is still there for this (or something similar) to happen again. As for arbitrators taking potentially controversial admin actions, there is community discussion on the talk page at WP:ARBADMIN, and the arbitration committee should (as has been noted several times) discuss this when the new arbitrators are seated. Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In supporting this, I again draw attention to the statements of BirgetteSB, Thatcher, Gladys j cortez, and Jehochman. In combination, they provide substantive reason to decline to handle this request in further detail and clearly illustrate a sane way of moving forward. Vassyana (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With Carcharoth on all counts. Cool Hand Luke 09:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
  • As of this time, 4 arbitrators are recused (Coren, Rlevse, Risker, Newyorkbrad), 1 inactive (FloNight). With 7 active, 4 votes shall be the majority for any motions. - Mailer Diablo 19:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to my support vote of the motion above, someone has just privately mentioned to me that Rlevse and Coren's actions are arguably trendy as well. According to the sender Rlevse has gone into meltdown several times this year while Coren has taken bold and decisive actions before. I may tend to agree with that but the point here is that the frequency and the intensity of those actions and those of Giano can hardly be compared. That explains why —in my opinion— some merit admonishments while other repeated actions (over a couple of years) merit a ban. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/3/4/1)

I've formally entered Coren's recusal above in the tally. Carcharoth (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse as one of the signatories (though not the primary drafter) of the Audit Subcommittee report that triggered this immediate incident, and as one of the people whom Giano characterized negatively (I won't say more) on-wiki in the wake of its issuance. Arguably, by itself this involvement as a subcommittee member might be borderline to require recusing from an ensuing user-conduct case, but this case has the air of a re-run of several that we have already heard involving this editor, and there will likely be several other recusals from among the sitting arbitrators, so I am willing to defer the decision to fresher arbitrators who would bring new perspective to the issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to Jake Wartenberg: I'm familiar with the sentence you quote; I wrote it. The circumstances here went beyond my having been on the Audit Subcommittee panel that wrote the report, but also extended to my having been personally characterized (I'm avoiding saying "personally attacked" as that's a conclusion) for doing so as well as the other considerations referred to above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse as the primary drafter of the Audit Subcommittee report that triggered this incident. Risker (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Wizardman 01:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Awaiting statement by Giano (GiacomoReturned). Coren, could you clarify what sort of scope you had in mind when you filed the request. What exactly needs looking at here? Giano and John, if you could do the same, please, or give reasons why you think a case should be accepted or declined. Carcharoth (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How far back and in how much detail should the 'continuing disruption' be examined? What I want here is an idea of scope over time. An exhaustive examination of Giano's history here, or just the last year or so? Should the conduct of others be examined as well (if the same names keep reappearing), or not? Essentially, the scope is ill-defined here. If a case is accepted, and I'm not entirely sure it should be, do you want specific incidents examined, or the general history. Carcharoth (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank-you, Coren. Awaiting comments and statements from John and Giano. Carcharoth (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • On further consideration (although I was leaning in this direction already), decline a full case, but leave open the possibility of briefly dealing with aspects of this by motion over the next few days (Coren's answers to my questions have confirmed in my mind that it would be difficult to keep a full case focused in scope). I realise this may not satisfy some people, but that is a given in a situation like this one. I have a fair amount of other things I want to say, but will do that in a more extended arbitrator discussion section below (helping to lay out my thoughts as a precursor to possible motions). For full disclosure, I have been asked on the talk page about my earlier warning of Giano, and asked whether this constitutes grounds for recusal (my initial response is here). I will address the earlier warning and the recusal matter below, along with a fuller disclosure of my participation in the oversight-l mailing list thread that discussed the matter that led to the audit subcommittee report. Hopefully this will make things clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse — Rlevse • Talk • 03:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a messy case, and I am disinclined to accept the case as presented. I believe we need some clarity about how an arbitrator should act as an admin. I do not think that an arbitrator, with access to the lists, can ever truly be "only an admin," and I'm even more skeptical that other editors would ever treat him or her as "just another admin." Therefore, I think we ought to establish a norm that sitting arbitrators ought not use their admin bits in a controversial manner—almost every example of such use has escalated drama, which undermines our purpose. Cool Hand Luke 08:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept — We got three very familiar mistakes —made by different users— which need to be looked at and dealt with: a) insults by a user b) an arbitrator blocking the user c) an admin unblocking without discussion. The other issue —that can be added to point a— is a comment made by an arbitrator to a party of this case which prompted an uncivil reply. If I have missed any other party or something please let me know or else add it to the evidence if this case gets accepted. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am leaning towards decline. I see little good and much potential harm arising from a full arbitration case. Trouts all around can be delivered easily with much less controversy and drama by motion. Please take note of the statements by BirgetteSB, Thatcher, Gladys j cortez, and Jehochman. I may not hold full agreement with everything said in those statements, but they seem to cut to the core of how to move forward and the viability of this request. Vassyana (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: Comments not yet received from Roger Davies and Stephen Bain Carcharoth (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Unlikely to produce more light than heat. See Motion to close above .  Roger Davies talk 17:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

Section for longer thoughts and discussion prior to possible motions
  • Not had time yet for the longer thoughts I had mentioned earlier, but my thoughts have been stated in part here and here, and some of what I've said there may answer some questions people have. I will post something here later, but putting these links here for now. I've also noted the diff Tex pointed out above, and have raised it with my colleagues. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal 1 (moving towards drafts for motions). The following is copied (with minor alterations) from an e-mail I sent at 15:33 UTC today, during internal discussions on the secondary mailing list set up to discuss this matter.

    At a time of transition, and with numerous recusals affecting voting, it would not be proper to issue substantive summary sanctions (i.e. blocks and bans) and to propose changes in arbitration practices regarding blocks carried out by arbitrators. This is especially so with only seven arbitrators active on this request, and new arbitrators arriving soon. Therefore, the following motions are proposed as summary verdicts on what took place here, and the parties are instructed to refile at a later date (no sooner than one month and not later than two months after the date the motions pass) or to follow dispute resolution for any matters they deem unresolved.

    What I propose is the following: 1) Endorse Audit subcommittee report; 2) Admonish Giano (for lack of restraint during this matter); 3) Admonish Coren (for lack of restraint during this matter and for using blocks to force an issue); 4) Admonish John (for not contacting Coren before unblocking, and for using unblocks to force an issue); 5) Admonish Rlevse (for lack of restraint during this matter). Effectively, this is a stronger version of "trouts all round". I would also urge the oversight team to discuss the points raised by the AUSC report (a matter that has been obscured by all this), and the Arbitration Committee (when fully seated) to resolve the practice of whether arbitrators should be able to act unilaterally as admins when they disagree with the committee approach. I would also urge those who are recused in this matter to cease sending e-mails to any of the mailing lists (arbcom-l, en-functionaries, and clerks-l) about this matter. Carcharoth (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I think we should make bylaws that arbitrators must avoid making controversial admin acts while they sit on the committee, but you're right that it would be much better to pass this sort of rule with the whole committee when new arbitrators come in. Therefore, I agree entirely with your proposed outline. Cool Hand Luke 19:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. There is no intention for any admonishments handed out here to be binding precedents. I said: "At a time of transition, and with numerous recusals affecting voting, it would not be proper to [...] propose changes in arbitration practices regarding blocks carried out by arbitrators" and Cool Hand Luke has said "it would be much better to pass this sort of rule with the whole committee when new arbitrators come in", and Coren has said this "is a very important point of procedure about how the Committee works and standards of behavior for its members" and Risker has said that it would be "unwise for a small group of arbitrators to develop and put in place a decision binding on the entire committee at a time when a significant number of arbitrators are recused on the substance of this case, and where a significant change in the membership of the committee is imminent". You have four arbitrators there (two recused on the specific request) all agreeing that whatever is decided here must not be a binding precedent, or a change in arbitration working practices. To respond to Coren's point, the admonishment, as I said above, would be "for lack of restraint during this matter and for using blocks to force an issue". That would apply to any other adminstrator who had done the same (the Arbitration Committee has admonished admins in the past for blocks that force an issue that is being discussed), and had the block they placed overturned, and come here for resolution of the dispute. The proposed admonishment is not for taking your arbitrator hat off (that should, rightly, be discussed later and elsewhere), but for your actions as an admin. You made the block as an admin, and you have come to the final stage in dispute resolution to ask your fellow arbitrators to pass judgment on your actions. That is what we are proposing to do (though the final verdict may yet be different to what I have proposed). Carcharoth (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Risker: as Carcharoth points out, I only proposed creating bylaws (or a code of conduct, or whatever it may be called) with the whole committee when the new arbitrators come in. Our focus here will be narrow, but I do think we should put this issue on the agenda for January. Cool Hand Luke 01:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McCready edit warring topic ban

Initiated by User:Mccready at 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Statement by Mccready

I request that my topic ban for edit warring [17] [18] be lifted or modified on the grounds that 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Wikipedia since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed.

I give notice of an appeal on other grounds if this request fails. These other grounds would require a substantial amount of detailed work (going back to my history since joining wikipedia) which I hope we can all avoid. Vassyana has described my case as a battleground. For this reason I have not included attempts to get the ban lifted or modified because they have involved this history (irrelevant if we look to my contributions since the ban) and admins who have reached a point where they refuse to discuss the matter further. Kevin McCready (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Vassyana Thank you for your decision to recuse, which I think should apply to the second leg of my appeal, should that be needed. However, I think it remains open to you to express a view on the quality of my edits since the ban. If you look at my edits since then, as if I were a new user, would they give grounds for concern?
Response to Carcharoth The admin who decided this non-arbitration related ban has a notice on their talkpage that they are semiretired. They have refused further involvement after I questioned their review.
Response to Wizardman I will show in my second leg of appeal, should that be needed, that it wasn't a "community ban". Since you have not yet heard my arguments on this score, it remains open to you to participate in the first leg of the appeal. ie 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Wikipedia since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. This is a matter of AGF on my edits since the ban, edits which have contributed to the project.
Response to Risker As above to Wizardman. I think it would be more efficient to deal with the first leg first rather than waste time on the history.
Response to Middle 8 I obviously dispute your views and will refute them in the second leg if necessary.
Kevin McCready (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for clerk I'd be grateful if you could tell me what "should this be converted to an amendment request (as this doesn't seem like material for a full case)?" means? I'm unsure if this means I should amend my case. All I've ever wanted is for someone to look at it objectively without drama. Each admin that has looked at it has run away when I have asked for evidence for their position or shown how their conclusion is illogical.
Response again to Risker As I've just noted above I seek to make this as simple as possible with as little drama as possible. The question I'd like arbcom to answer, if I can put it this way, is that given my good record of edits since the ban, why not lift the ban or modify it? It can very quickly be reinstated if needed. The path you seem to want to go down is much more tortuous, and involves much more presentation of evidence going back to when I first joined wikipedia. In particular the disputed block log was referred to repeatedly during the discussion which morphed into my banning while I was blocked. Another way of arbcom setting a precedent might be simply to say: a user should not be topic banned while blocked and unable to properly present a case. Possibly the clerk's clarification as requested above might also help. Over to you. Kevin McCready (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Middle 8

Hi, just a quick comment from a mostly (re)tired user. This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key, wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then[19], including with an IP[20][21] (see checkuser results).

I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics[22] [23]. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, but he has not shown that he can stay within accepted bounds of dispute resolution while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his argumentation (culminating in a block) over this topic ban shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war {April '08) anyway.

With regard to Mccready's "disputed block log" (his term), what one finds with a little digging is that most of the blocks were for good reasons, like 3RR violations, but that he objected because in some cases the block was made by an involved admin. In other words, sometimes the blocks were made by the wrong person, but the blocks themselves were (with one or two exceptions) sound.

@Carcharoth: I believe this ban was a community ban (arising from much discussion at AN/I and elsewhere) and did not involve ArbCom. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atlan

I have no opinion on the imposed ban, but I would like the arbitrators to know, Mccready has been specifically directed to Arbcom on multiple occasions to appeal his ban. His most recent block was partly because Mccready refused to do so at first. To keep sending him back and forth between Arbcom and the community seems like poor treatment to me, whatever the merits of this topic ban.--Atlan (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Urge the committee to take this case, both supporting Atlan's comment above, and the reverse point that the community needs this matter resolving. As far as I can see several administrators have attempted to deal with the matter with limited or no success, and it has come up numerous times on AN/I. An ARBCOM support/extend/overturn/expire or indeed any clear outcome would be good for the community at large. Clearly one that returns Mccready to productive editing is preferable. Rich Farmbrough, 04:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Clerk notes

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

As a point of information for the Arbitrators, Mccready is currently blocked; the block is currently set to expire at 5:11 December 15, UTC. Also, should this be converted to an amendment request (as this doesn't seem like material for a full case)? Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User has now been unblocked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mccready: You've not done anything wrong in filing this, don't worry. The reason I asked the arbs about that was because usually ban appeals such as this are handled as amendment requests (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment) because any action by the Committee would be changing (or amending) the original sanction. In general, a full arbitration case involves a multi-step process where parties to a dispute present evidence about the dispute, propose possible outcomes, and then the Arbitration Committee votes on a series of final drafts of those proposals. Cases like this typically take a month or two. An amendment request, on the other hand, usually is handled through simple motions by the Committee, and goes much faster without the need for any formal case. It seems as though from the comments below as though the Committee would rather handle this the more formal way, so I'll defer to their judgement. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Risker: See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive581#Admin_Kevin. User_talk:Mccready#Topic_Ban and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive519#Fresh_Admin_Eyes may also be applicable. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Recuse. Obviously involved in this matter. Vassyana (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It needs to be clarified whether the initial topic bans were done under discretionary arbitration sanctions, or whether they were non-arbitration related sanctions. If the former, then an amendment request related to the relevant case (after the current block expires) would be best. If the latter, then the first port of call would be those who imposed the sanctions - or, if you want to skip that step, ask those who imposed the sanctions to state here if they are willing to relax them, and (from what you have said) why they are unwilling to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the links, Penwhale. I've looked at those, and what I see is a series of reviews of this topic ban by the same people (VirtualSteve, User:Kevin and a few others). It would have helped if someone different had done the reviews in each instance after the first one. What might be best is to direct Mccready to prepare a full appeal (the current one is not detailed enough), and to invite the previously involved admins and the community to comment on it, and then see what results from that. In other words, draw more eyes to this to get a more definitive verdict. Most of the work for this need to be done by Mccready (say two weeks to prepare something in his userspace), and he needs to accept that if this fails, then he cannot appeal again for a whole year. This will be better than a continuing cycle of AN or ANI threads where the same people comment, and hardly anyone else bothers to read or comment on the threads. Essentially, accept and leave Maccready to prepare a full on-wiki appeal to submit when he is ready, followed by discussion for a week, and then a verdict, and then leave the matter alone for a year. Of course, this is dependent on my colleagues agreeing with me that this is needed. If no-one else votes to accept or look at this, then I would suggest the community use a similar framework (allow Maccready to build a full appeal in his userspace), and then deliver their verdict, along with a restriction as to future appeals (e.g. fulfil certain conditions, and require evidence of changes in conduct, before appealing again). Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Seeing as how it's been 18 months and it was a community-instituted ban, I'd rather defer it to them. Wizardman 04:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On reading the user's talk page, I see reference to recent discussions with other administrators and/or the community about lifting of this ban. I'd like to see some links specifically to those recent discussions, please, and the administrators involved should be invited to comment on this page. Mcready, that's something you need to include here. Risker (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mcready, there won't be a second part if you do not provide enough information to support your contention. The fact that there is the appearance of your having raised the subject of your topic ban with the community prior to coming here may be a key factor in the Committee's decision whether or not to accept your case. Please provide the links. Risker (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=333508802"