Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive31

Edit Warring at Ulster Special Constabulary

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

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

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

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

But it fails our internal non-free content criteria, in particular #8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RAT clearly states # Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article. . The inclusion of Lord Brookeborough as one of the founders of the Ulster Special Constabulary is pertinent - he is discussed prominently in the article.Thunderer (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

First, the text at WP:RAT is not policy, it's just an example of a rationale that might work for some images, where those statements actually apply. Here, they don't. The photograph is quite obviously not the object of discussion in the article. The person is, the image is not. The photograph is not historically significant at all, certainly not for any relation to the Ulster Constabulary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I agree that the image does not meet fair use criteria, and appears to be purely decorative in this article. Please remember that Wikipedia intentionally has chosen fair use standards that exceed copyright law. Finally, it appears that you have edit warred over this issue. I only came here because I was considering enforcing a block based on a report from User:3RRBot. Please desist. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help admins - now I know why I am leaving wikipedia. Thunderer (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Coming late to the party, I agree that image is decorative and your behavior in handling it is subpar. Edit summaries are not a replacement for discussion and there needs to be a compelling reason to keep a non-free image in an article. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong

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

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

Resolved

Giano II

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Motion: re SlimVirgin → Wikipedia talk:Wheel war

Arbitration case:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

Relevant remedy: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Civility:Giano (See also [1])

Original enforcement notification from FT2 and discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Giano, you have yet again violated your requirement to interact with other editors in a civil manner without excessive bad faith. The restriction you are under is very simple: "Giano II is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Violation: You have violated this restriction several times in the last few days, the most recent an hour ago. Edits by both your Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account and the another account you operate, Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs), contain posts that breach this requirement. Despite warnings by multiple users, you have continued. As just a few examples: You called user:Will Beback a "troll", [2] [3], Implied to a female user that she should be "ashamed of her sex" and told her "men don't like a woman with an opinion" [4]. You blanked your talkpage and tried to get back to high quality content work, but shortly after, you were back to incivility, writing "Just in case any of you were stupid enough..." [5], Posted uncivil comments related to your "upset of the day" [6][7][8]. Your other account had similar posts, couched in "Olde English" as may be [9]. You were told to drop it in that post, and then formally told on your main talk page that this wasn't acceptable by two administrators -- Elonka, and GeorgeWilliamHerbert [10][11]. Your response was broadly to blank and/or ignore those warnings. Giano, these are not even close to being acceptable styles of speech to other users, and you well know it. Acceptable norms do not include name calling, offensive comments to female editors about their sex, and egregious bad faith. These would be egregious even for a user who did not have a lengthy history of disruption, and offensive rudeness outside communal norms. For you, there is no excuse. You know exactly what you are doing in each of these actions, and cannot complain at the results you know it brings. It's clear this isn't because of the situation, since you do this repeatedly. It's apparently the choice you make, that any user you feel like speaking that way to, you do so. Plenty of people get upset at situations. Most do not choose to act as you have chosen. Block: Your last block for this was 31 hours. It didn't deter the behavior, and you continue to act in a manner you know is not acceptable. I have therefore blocked your account access for 55 hours -- a little more than 48 -- due to the egregious repetition and wilful ignoring of warnings, which suggests a slightly more serious wakeup call is needed than usual. This is in the hope that this will prevent others being attacked or spoken to offensively or with bad faith, and to make clear that I am serious - changing in future is not merely optional. Use this time to take a break from Wikipedia. When you return, go on with what you're really good at, which is writing articles. Avoid the other areas you are good at (pushing envelopes and insulting people) - it's a skill but not a welcomed one. And if you want to criticize Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures and administrators, or myself, then you are welcome to do so, so long as you do so within the same conduct norms that other content writers and editors are held to, and you stay outside the problem area of WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Other administrators should note as stated on the page header: "ArbCom has already decided that certain types of behavior are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur. The question here is whether that prohibition was breached." This page is not to open any question of past rulings, but purely to consider whether the Arbitration restriction is breached: "Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked" The majority, and probably all, of the above diffs appear to me to be uncivil, personal attacks, or bad faith made by Giano II. This thread is in case any administrator feels that the above posts are not uncivil, do not show bad faith, or that Giano was not warned and previously aware. That is the sole question for this page. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Since I'm not an admin, I guess I'm not welcome here, but what is this block supposed to prevent? It strikes me as punitive. --NE2 02:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I disagree. The intent is to force a cooling-off, reflective period for Giano (especially in the light of Fred's timely note, and the more severe sanctions that may come about in future). I agree with FT2's reading of the case and of the particular situation; the diffs he gives should be troubling, and the fact that they're merely unsurprising is a sign that we have failed in our duty to the project to prevent such poor behaviour from disrupting it, I fear. James F. (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Correction. We don't do "cooling off blocks", so it isn't that. It is to prevent the continuing flow of incivility, bad faith, and other name calling which three admins had seen fit independently to warn him for; and it is because he is in violation of his restriction. The aim of the block is prevention, and deterrence, precisely as blocks are intended to be used. The hope of all blocks is that the blocked user will reflect on the matter, or at the least will be prevented from continuing their active behavior for that time. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) So it's a cool-down block? He's already been blocked and speedily unblocked for these actions, which is what started the whole ArbCom request. --NE2 02:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC) No it's not. Read my comment above. (Noted that the above is an edit conflict, written before I had commented.) FT2 (Talk | email) 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Call it what you will, it's a punitive block for old events. --NE2 02:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC) It is deterring future misconduct, enforcing a requirement to desist from this kind of conduct, and follows (and backs up) warnings requesting Giano cease this conduct. The diffs cited, far from being "old events", have persisted until almost his most recent edits, barely an hour ago before the above post (and 2 hours ago now)... FT2 (Talk | email) 02:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Well, excuse me for not checking all the diffs... maybe you shouldn't include irrelevant ones. It still strikes me as punitive, especially because you guys made this civility restriction that you are now applying. --NE2 02:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I think this comment, while in poor taste, can be reasonably read as satire and comedy, however poorly executed. This block shouldn't be, and I'm sure isn't, a "cooling off period," but a preventative block, aimed at enforcing an arbitration remedy. As we've stated in our blocking policy, blocks are preventative, and one of the way they prevent is by deterrence. --Tznkai (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Then why is he being punished only now, and not when he made the comments? David Gerard's block was already overturned, and this is just an attempt to get another block to stick. --NE2 02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) He isn't being "punished". Read the block notice and my comment following James' above, they should provide you with enough information. And no, it isn't "another" anything. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC) It's another block on him for operating CdB. --NE2 02:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Not so. The posts cited relate to conduct, not the identity of the account used for that conduct. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC) NE2, this is heated enough without you poisoning the well. Please assume good faith, instead of simply disparaging motives without evidence.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I'm saying that it should not be, and I think is not, a cool off block, but a deterrence block.--Tznkai (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC) We already had one of those, and it was overturned. --NE2 02:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Does this Civility Patrol reach a new level of desperation when it solemnly objects (above) this edit, in which the contributing persona also comments on her own cosmetic dental work? Somebody says above The hope of all blocks is that the blocked user will reflect on the matter, and I'm very sure that Giano (II) has done just that; my own reflection is that the arbitrators involved should turn off their computers and run along and enjoy the autumnal foliage (the seasonal variety of "get a life"), and thereafter, refreshed, return to reconsider the daft year-long "civility" restriction. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC) A user is more than welcome to engage in self deprecation. I have done so too. They are not entitled - especially when under a civility requirement - to engage in offensive comments along the lines of implying that a female user should be "ashamed of her sex" and telling her "men don't like a woman with an opinion". FT2 (Talk | email) 02:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Pursing this line of inquiry will take us off the beaten track and divert us through the Albuquerque sewers. These comments are not the crux of the matter.--Tznkai (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC) This solemnity is absurd. Only a ninny would be likely to be upset about that remark in its context; if anyone else genuinely seemed to be offended (and by "anyone else" I don't mean civility patrols searching for offensiveness), it's very likely that somebody would give an amicable tip-off to this person that "CdeB" was in jest; perhaps also that Pride and Prejudice is that rarity, an older and respected novel that's fun to read (for those who actually read books) but that actually got a spirited and enjoyable (if not all that faithful) work-over at Hollywood, and therefore that an adequate appreciation of the hilariously ghastly C de B(o)urgh merely requires that you sling some dirt-cheap disc in your DVD player. Now, FT2, I'm sure I've seen your username attached to sensible writing in the past; please don't get carried away here. Enjoy the autumn; or of course spring. -- Hoary (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC) To address FT2's points: The diffs listed above include recent incivility and bad faith. Giano has been warned repeatedly about his behavior and has been blocked by nine different admins since the February ArbCom case. This block appears to be the only way to prevent Giano from engaging in further incivility and bad faith for the next 55 hours because requests and warnings have failed. Let's hope it deters any repetition. Giano's contributions are welcome and appreciated, but civility and assuming good faith are still requirements for participating in this project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Giano cannot claim that he doesn't realize that his behavior in the above diffs would be considered as disruptive. It isn't like he hasn't been reminded of this again and again. Giano does go through periods when he does wonderful work for the project, however his interpersonal skills create a hostile atmosphere for all editors who aren't him. Such a hostile atmosphere drives away other good editors, and as such should not be tolerated. All instances of disagreement with him are evidence of a grand conspiracy which is bringing Wikipedia down; all attempts to ask him to behave in a civil manner are personal insults to him, and all people who hold any opinion which might run counter to his own are met with streams of never ending vitriol. Blocks in this case are preventative; for the 31 or 55 or however many hours the block is in place, we are spared from this highly disruptive behavior. At this point, we need to see if he returns to this behavior before deciding if the blocks are having the intended effect; however we should also be thinking about what the next step should be if these blocks do not encourage him to avoid creating this hostile atmosphere. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Are you referring to the "Just a few examples list"? That's ludicrous. If anything the list shows that Giano has been relatively constrained in his reactions, given the circumstances. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC) In regards to: [12] You should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until you have no powers to abuse at all. You should never have the opportunity to do this to anyone else again. You are a disgrace as an Admin and a disgrace a checkuser. Can the blocking admin please describe how such an opinion may be phrased so as not to be lacking in civility? Is it uncivil because it is spoken directly to the user on his talk page? Would it be acceptable to state that opinion on one's own talk page or the talk page of a third party as: He should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until he has no powers to abuse at all. He should never have the opportunity to do this to anyone else again. He is a disgrace as an Admin and a disgrace a checkuser. Or, is it uncivil due to the word disgrace? Would it be acceptable to state: You should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until you have no powers to abuse at all. You should never have the opportunity to do this to anyone else again. You are doing a not very good job as an Admin and are below average as a checkuser. It must be acceptable to be able to explain to a user that you find their behavior unacceptable. An administrator is able to block in order to prevent an editor from continuing their active behavior for a time - but an editor with no such powers is not allowed to ever find such behavior disgraceful?Uncle uncle uncle 07:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC) The subject of a punitive privacy violation is of course not allowed to question it. This is made very clear by the fact that we have two instances of "recourse" (Arbcom and Ombudsmen), both of which are not prepared to even look at such matters. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

unblock notice from SlimVirgin and discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've unblocked in part because this is more of the humourless self-importance that caused the previous block, and in part because these IRC blocks of Giano have to stop. SlimVirgin talk|edits 09:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC) "IRC blocks"? What!? --Deskana (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC) IRC or not. This is the next most stupid thing after the absurd OrangeMarlin case that made me quit Wikipedia for almost 2 months in protest at a time when I was very furious about OrangeMarlin. So far, in the spirit of AGF I assumed that there was something at the time that for some reason just didn't get public. But after this new example of outrageous stupidity I am no longer willing to do that. There are obvious conclusions to be drawn about FT2's social intelligence. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Hans, you're forgetting WP:ASSUME JAMAIS VU, the special version of WP:AGF that applies to the most powerful editors. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, stop

more discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No more insults of anyone else please. We already are too deep in a situation that does not bode well for a good portion of the en-WP Community. There is a situation here that needs resolving. I'm not sure if we can, to be quite honest. But gratuitous insults and precipitous actions like those already taken in and around these threads needs to stop. Wikipedia's built on the wisdom of crowds.. Let's not turn it into Wikipedia relying on the anger of two sets of lynch mobs. DISCUSS, not insult. GET CONSENSUS, not act precipitously. LIGHT, not heat. It may seem like platitudes to some of you reading this, I'm just trying to remind everyone of our basic principles here. Let's not let the divide between groups open up any further here. SirFozzie (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC) This is basic enforcement of a long-standing Arbitration remedy. I'm confused by the unblock's reasoning; if SV thinks the remedy should never be applied, she should ask for an amendment on Giano's behalf on the RfArb page. Certainly, I don't think it's helpful to just unblock without any discussion. James F. (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC) So helping one of our best content contributors to become Wikipedia's most prominent Michael Kohlhaas case is OK so long as one can cite an Arbcom case? --Hans Adler (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Was SlimVirgin's unblock appropriate?

more discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was somewhat surprised to see that SlimVirgin had unilaterally unblocked. This unblock is particularly bad and ill-considered. In this case the block is the result of an arbcom decision, not the result of normal discussion via WP:BLOCK; so only arbcom should lift it. We don't need to see every admin second-guessing arbcom enforcement. It looks like the block should be reinstated and SlimVirgin should be counseled (particularly in light of her recent arbcom cases). Just to re-state the obvious: arbitration enforcement is not a consensus-forming page. The consensus was already formed during the arbitration case. The only issue relevant to this page is whether Giano violated the sanction decided there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I want to clarify one thing, which is that this was not an "ArbCom block" (nor did FT2 suggest that it was). It was an "enforcement of a prior ArbCom decision and of policy by an administrator who saw what he believed to be a violation" block. That administrator, of course, happens to be an arbitrator, and I don't expect that people can completely ignore that fact when he or any other arbitrator does something, but the committee did not vote on the block or adopt it as a committee-decided block (and again, FT2 did not suggest that it did). (Not commenting now on the merits of the block or unblock, although I still feel guilty that my being AFK on Tuesday night precipitated this whole maelstrom.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Yes, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that the block had been voted on. It's the sanction that was voted on by arbcom. So at this point, that ship has sailed, and the only question at hand is whether an admin reasonably feels Giano has violated the sanction. I'm hoping SlimVirgin will explain why she thinks that no reasonable admin could feel Giano has violated the sanction, in this case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Obviously, I defer to Newyorkbrad's explanation regarding the circumstances of the block. However, regarding the unblock, I'm not sure that CBM is correct about only ArbCom should be able to lift it. I can't see anything to that effect on the case page. Normally, enforcement blocks can be overturned by a consensus of uninvolved admins. As it happens, I heartily endorse the unblock. I agree with Hans Adler's remarks on Giano's user talk page that an editor shouldn't be blocked for an amusing in-character remark by an obvious over-the-top humorous sock puppet. Also, expressing frustration with David Gerard's recent behaviour certainly shouldn't have been a block reason either. PhilKnight (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC) On behalf of the ArbCom clerks, I apologize for not having properly leashed Newyorkbrad to his computer, which allowed him to roam free in MeatSpace for a while. The error has been corrected.--Tznkai (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Could you explain how no reasonable admin could feel Giano has violated his civility sanction? That's the elephant in the room during the unblock discussion. If we were hoping for a consensus to form on this page, it would be much more reasonable to wait for a clerk to close the thread, rather than unilaterally unblocking without waiting for consensus to form. This sort of consensus-avoiding unilateral unblock has become too common these days. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC) My understanding - and I could be wrong - was the last time this happened the discussion on AN/I legitimately overturned the block. Accordingly, it's considered acceptable to look at this not just from a quasi-legal perspective, but also in terms of what course of action is in the best interests of Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Two points, and these are important ones I think. First, is the stated, (and with the assumption of good faith), actual reason for blocking Giano was the incivility. That is, not what he said, but how he said it. Compare "Your actions are out of line" to "You're a troll." The second adds insult to the thrust of the first, and insults are by their nature personal, inflammatory, and malicious. Second, the relevant remedy states, in part "Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked..." (emphasis added) This conforms to the now established pattern of Arbitration remedies that grants wide discretion to administrators when dealing with a particular type of behavior from a particular user. Lower tolerance for that kind of behavior from the restricted user, (Giano in this case) is the entire point. The community has never overturned an Arbitration remedy before. It is unclear how it would do so, if it could, without simultaneously withdrawing its support for the Arbitration Committee as a whole. I am willing to say while there is obviously a loud and vocal portion of the community that is unhappy with the system of Arbitration and the current Committee, there is not by any means, a community consensus, which would most certainly have to be established across the wiki over several days at the village pump, AN, RfAr and other boards. All of that comes down this: the validity of the restriction is not at issue here, whether the blocking admin (FT2) acted within the confines of the arbitration remedy is.--Tznkai (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Arbcom already made these considerations when deciding the original case. The reason for applying a semi-legalistic standard to arbitration enforcement is that the only reason we are here is that the involved editors have refused over a long period of time to engage in any effective dispute resolution. Thus arbcom enforcement is not dispute resolution any more, simply the enforcement of the outcome of the arbcom case. The problem with the ANI thread you linked to is that it should not have been at ANI (which is for the ordinary, dispute-resolution). — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC) (ec) Don't agree - this isn't any different from the previous unblock - the community hasn't overturned the remedy, merely 2 instances of application. PhilKnight (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC) As I understand it, David Gerard's block was under socking policy and was subsequently overturned with fairly raucous community approval, but with some dissenters. This block overturn was done unilaterally by a single administrator, and that overturn has not attained community approval. Based on the comments above, it seems this may have in fact gone counter-consensus.--Tznkai (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Nope, I mean the last ArbCom enforcement block. PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC) PhilKnight - the question here is not "should Giano be blocked", it is "could FT2 reasonably believe that Giano violated the sanction." Could you explain in more detail why you think FT2 could not reasonably believe that? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I've already explained this. The last ArbCom enforcement block was, in my understanding, legitimately overturned by consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I don't believe you have actually answered my question; I apologize if I missed it. Could you give a diff to help me out? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC) For the last time, my understanding, and I could be wrong, was on the previous occasion this happened, the discussion on AN/I legitimately overturned the ArbCom enforcement block. Accordingly, it's considered acceptable to look at this not just from a quasi-legal perspective, but also in terms of what course of action is in the best interests of Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC) If you accept that FT2 reasonably could believe that Giano violated his civility sanction, then you have to accept the block under AE is valid. This is different than a block posted at ANI, which is subject to admin consensus as normal. The consensus system for AE blocks is very different - the only question is whether the arbcom sanction has been violated, not whether anyone agrees that the block is helpful or whether they would personally have blocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I concur with SlimVirgin's characterization of this as yet another in an endless series of "IRC blocks", and I support her actions, albeit with a healthy dose of WP:IAR in the mix. At some point you have to stop looking for opportunities to score points and start looking towards the will of the community. Nandesuka (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Arbcom has already made a decision in this case, because the community was unable to handle the situation. The underlying motivation is that if people decline to resolve disputes for long enough, eventually you have to give up on normal dispute resolution. That's the point of arbcom decisions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Exactly. What is the point of ArbCom decisions if they are never enforced? Should Giano never be blocked no matter what he does, and all blocks be overturned because it has become a tradition? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Or to put it differently: What is the point of ArbCom if they make so many bad decisions, that it actually gets disruptive? Imagine the Berlin Zoo has a problem with naughty children who are getting into the enclosure of Knut and teasing him. Will they start to lock him up in a place where visitors can't see him after the fifth scallywag has been hospitalised? --Hans Adler (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Yes.--Tznkai (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC) If this was an "IRC block", it certainly wasn't cooked up in #wikipedia-en-admins. Black Kite 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC) To concur with BlackKite I frequently leave my account logged into many channels for days at a time, since I joined in April 2008, I have not seen David in -en-admins or any other IRC channel for that matter. MBisanz talk 16:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC) It was "IRC" in the sense that it follows the remedy from the IRC arbitration case. Avruch T 16:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Ah. It might've been better for her to have made that explicit, then. We're not psychic. Black Kite 16:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On Community Consensus

more discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it should be apparent by now that there is not a clear community will on this at all. I'd wager most of the community is sick of our collective shenanigans. This whole Giano episode is destroying the cohesion and credibility of everyone involved, no matter which side they're on. We have got to get our collective act together, not use tools, admin noticeboards, empty rhetoric and Giano to fight a proxy battle over philosophical and political issues. There is nothing more damaging in these melodramas than our inability to discuss with the mutual assumption of good faith, except perhaps the near wheel wars that break out. Everyone should stop claiming that the "community" is on their side, cause I'd bet all my privileges and all the money in my pockets that they just want us to collectively figure it out.--Tznkai (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Resist the temptation Those who keep blocking Giano lack of clue. Such blocks never help, and usually lead to massive disruption. We're so sick and tired of this pettiness and personal feuding. Go work on an article. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC) If the short blocks don't work, then what is to be done? This arbcom ruling isn't being enforced- quite the opposite. Individual admins just keep being banned from blocking Giano. How many will be stopped from blocking him, so effectively no-one can, and when will it be admitted that numerous people think he's acting wrong, that's why he keeps being blocked, not through individual prejudice? This is why FT2 blocked this time- but even he is now being accused of persecution. Even members of arbcom now can't enforce the rulings. I can only think it would need Jimbo to act, not that he would as it would make him unpopular with some people- we need to wait until consensus comes, but perhaps gradually each person will see the line and think Giano has overstepped it far enough. Sticky Parkin 16:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Any idea what to do about Giano's aggressiveness then, if blocks don't help? I posted a note about it on his talk page now. We will see where it leads. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC) The first thing to do is to tone down our rhetoric. The Giano block problem is not that a block is good, or a block is bad, or whatever, but the weary accusations, counter accusations, and general escalation. Likewise, ignoring the situation only allows it to fester. We can't just "go work on an article" the suspicion and accusations create an incredibly hostile editing environment. If we talk sensibly, do our best to control our well intentioned desires to "tell it how it is" or "call a duck a duck" or "end things once and for all" that would be an excellent first step. If we do that, then Giano and those blocking him should do it as well, and if they don't, they will look properly ridiculous in the face of it.--Tznkai (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Well, if Newyorkbrad is correct and the block wasn't an strictly Arbcom block but a block by an admin who happens to be an Arbcom member, and if that's a useful distinction, then the enforcement should be adjusted that only Arbcom members acting in the name of the full committee be allowed to carry out sanction in this case. That would stop this block/unblock cycle. RxS (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Right, perhaps we can write that into WP:GIANO where we can spell out the special treatment and rights of this exceptional user.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Why can't we be practical about this? Arbcom can shape enforcement however it wants. The current enforcement is clearly not working, why not adjust it? Why let this go on and on just in the name of principle? RxS (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Is this so hard to understand? The problem is not blocking Giano, the problem is blocking Giano stupidly. Bad blocks of Giano happen more often because so many wait for an opportunity to block him. Bad blocks of Giano lead to more drama than those of other users because they will be reversed. Bad blocks of Giano serve no preventative purpose because Giano obviously won't learn anything from a reversed block. If an admin doesn't have sufficient judgement and neutrality to see on their own whether a block of Giano is good or bad, they must not enact it. Blatantly obvious. What they can do instead is try to get a substantial consensus that Giano be blocked. Another issue in this case is that if a block is supposed to have any educational effect, then the official explanation must not contain ridiculous justifications. (Such as: Your obvious Jane Austen joke account behaved in character.) That's another thing that can be corrected by a discussion before the block. My guess is that many of these bad blocks happen because the blocking admins want them so much that they don't want to discuss, lest the resulting consensus deprives them of the satisfaction. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC) What was bad about FT2's block? --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC) The problem is that not everyone agrees that a particular block was bad or stupid...there are people on both sides. There are Arbcom enforcement principles in place, and if they are not working they need to be fixed. RxS (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC) We seem to be living on different planets. FT2's block of Giano was reversed, and there is no chance of a consensus to reinstate it. The only thing it did was produce drama. So it was bad. FT2's block came complete with a stupid justification that has no chance of being taken seriously by Giano. That could have been rectified before the block, but it wasn't. So it was bad for a second, independent reason. Why do admins often block without discussing first? Because it's often easier and reduces drama. Why must they never do it in case of Giano? Because it makes everything more complicated and produces drama. The Arbcom ruling says Giano can be blocked in certain cases. It does not say the blocking admin must do it without first consulting other admins. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC) It also doesn't say they need to discuss first. And once the block is done, there needs to be consensus to reverse it. A non-consensual unblock is worse (and more disruptive) than a block that's perfectly in line with the enforcement process in place. Your use of terms like stupid and drama don't really add to anything here. Again, there is no requirement for discussion in order to carry out an (this) Arbcom enforcement. From there, normal discussion needs to take place when considering reversing the block, something that was not done here. RxS (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC) This is not the place to get into the details, but there are reasons why there will be no consensus to reinstate the block. An admin who is too clueless or too biased to see such things on his own must discuss first. The Arbcom enforcement rules allow blocks to achieve a certain purpose. It follows from general wiki principles that you can't use it to justify blocks that don't have a snowball's chance of achieving that purpose. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC) The problem, Jechochman, is that a portion of useful work at Wikipedia actually involves interfacing with the arbitration committee. Two days ago I opened an unban request at AN for an editor named Bus stop--someone who doesn't have an entourage of loyal editors advocating on his behalf. Over a year ago I had been the banning admin on his case. When his user talk got blocked he was referred to the Committee. The other day it came to light that for seven months now, he actually has been making polite appeals exactly as instructed. He hasn't been socking, pledges not to repeat his old problems, and has displayed remarkable patience as each review began with encouraging signs and ultimately disappeared into a black hole. In October Bus stop approached me with a polite apology. I accepted and wrote my support to the Committee, followed up per request with more information, and ultimately that fell into the same black hole. So this week I took Bus stop's appeal directly to the community. Fortunately Bus stop's account got unblocked last night, yet I wonder how many other people like him have been neglected. It's time to do something about that. Large drama fests over a handful of high profile editors might just have something to do with why a series of well meaning people got so utterly distracted that Bus stop kept falling through the cracks. I've outlined a set of other reasons and a set of solutions. Now I want to set up a better ban review system to make sure that sort of thing doesn't happen again. What does that have to do with this AE thread? Well the solution needs attention and time from the Committee and the community in order to get off the ground. Inviting reformers who are serious about ArbCom reform to join that effort. To Giano and supporters: if you truly want a better arbitration committee and a more equitable Wikipedia, please reconsider your choices. What you are doing is not helping. Every one of us is wrong sometime. The difference is who recognizes their own mistakes and sets about becoming part of the solution. DurovaCharge! 17:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Durova, could you explain who is part of the 'entourage'? I don't remember commenting on any previous Giano blocks, nor do I remember speaking to him on or off-wiki. I don't remember Hans Adler being someone who commented on previous blocks either. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I certainly doubt that the way forward in this is to lecture one side in their wrong-doing. That frankly isn't any more of a clever move forward than these blocks. And what exactly are Giano and his supporters doing other than responding to pointless impotent drama-inducing blocks from on high?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC) In which case, should we close this discussion? PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC) FT2's block of Giano II (talk · contribs) was appropriate, per the ArbCom civility restriction on Giano which says, "Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked". This diff alone, among several others, is a blatant violation.[13] A 55-hour block was therefore reasonable (and indeed a bit lenient, considering the previous block history for that user). The unblock by admin SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) was inappropriate, and a violation of administrator policy. I saw no attempt by SlimVirgin to contact the blocking admin, FT2 (talk · contribs), nor do I see a clear case from her that the blocking admin's judgement was faulty. Instead she just said that the blocks of Giano under the IRC ArbCom case "have to stop".[14] But this is SlimVirgin placing her judgment above that of the Arbitration Committee, and I do not support this action. If she believes that the ArbCom restriction is faulty, then she should address it via appropriate dispute resolution and consensus, and not by overturning blocks by admins who are trying to enforce it. --Elonka 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) 'FT2's block of Giano II (talk · contribs) was appropriate' - I don't think so. 'This diff alone, among several others, is a blatant violation.[15]' - nope - certainly not in context. 'nor do I see a clear case from her that the blocking admin's judgement was faulty' - fair cop in some ways, but there had been pretty extensive community discussion on this which would seem to support Slim's position that blocking was a bad idea. 'SlimVirgin placing her judgment above that of the Arbitration Committee' - that's just plain wrong (as in you're incorrect, Elonka). Sorry! Does WP:IAR help you understand why this was a good thing at all, E? Privatemusings (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC) SlimVirgin was wrong to do a speedy unblock without even an attempt at discussion with the blocking admin. I denounce that action and hope the committee will prevent that happening again. As I have stated publicly, I oppose all blocks for minor incivility--whether applied to Giano or anybody else. With Giano, the cost of such blocks is highest of all. When incivility rises to the level of egregious personal attacks or harassment, that's when a block should be applied. User:Catherine de Burgh was being saucy, but she was not harassing anyone. The block on Giano appears to have been motivated by politics. I denounce that action also. Durova hits the nail on the head. Why is ArbCom wasting its time spoiling jokes by a humor sock instead of dealing with important matters? Many of our articles are being diddled by tendentious, single-purpose, advocacy accounts. This is an encyclopedia, not a social club. It's about the articles. Jehochman Talk 20:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC) You're right: this is an encyclopedia, not a social club. That's why so-called joke accounts are out of place. Especially joke accounts that make inappropriate edits and disrupt the project. However, this block of Giano was not due to the sock, it was due to Giano's unremitting incivility and bad faith. While we don't commonly block for minor incivility, Giano has engaged in major incivility so many times that he's on civility probation. That probation calls for any single administrator to block him for violations. It does not require a consensus. As it happens, nine different admins have blocked Giano since the February IRC ruling. That shows that the belief he is violating his probation isn't limited to just a single admin. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC) (outdent)If these discussions are limited to Administrators? then please remove this post. Excuse my naivety, folks. But, why is there always 'high drama' when Giano is blocked? Why can't Administrators make up their minds about this editor? Either block him or don't. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Reconsideration of block and unblock

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

Edits at issue

• You called user:Will Beback a "troll", [16]

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

[17],

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

• Implied to a female user that she should be "ashamed of her sex" and told her "men don't like a woman with an opinion" [18], (On Talk:Anti-Flirt Club).

  ==Query==

Just out of curiosity, how much of the information in this article is actually true? --Elonka 21:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• You blanked your talkpage and tried to get back to high quality content work, but shortly after, you were back to incivility, writing "Just in case any of you were stupid enough..." [19]

  ==Interesting diffs==

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

With this comment:

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

• Posted uncivil comments related to your "upset of the day" [20]

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

[21]

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

[22].

• Your other account had similar posts, couched in "Olde English" as may be [23].
• You were told to drop it in that post, and then formally told on your main talk page that this wasn't acceptable by two administrators -- Elonka, and GeorgeWilliamHerbert [24][25]. Your response was broadly to blank and/or ignore those warnings.
• [26]

  ::I have never read such stupid claptrap in all my life, you must be the most uninformed Arb in history, and that is saying something - "I also now have evidence (that I didn't have before, due to people the many people making a fuss" Fozzie told you that in his statement, or do the Arbs nt bother to read them - don't bother replying we can work the answer out for ourselves! People making a fuss, if people were not making a fuss you lot would have swept it under the carpet. Giano (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• [27]

  :::"As I understand it, David Gerard was unaware of who owned it too, and he has stated as such." Thank you Deskana for showing your complete ignorance of this case - probably best if you don't tire yoursekd further lookingat it. Giano (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• [28]

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

• [29]

  ::You should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until you have no powers to abuse at all. Giano (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• [30]

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

• [31]

  :*::Thank you Fozzie. If I don't yell the Arbcom puts this under its already filthy carpet. There can be no closure at all on this while Gerard is still allowed to violate editor privacy by abusing his checkuser rights. I am not alone in thinking this, but I do feel alone in vocally wanting this problem properly sorted. The Arbcom have wanted the matter silenced and swept under the carpet from the first moment they knew. What their motives were for this, one can only speculate; what the hold is that Gerard exerts over Jimbo and the Arbcom one can only speculate too. The ARbcom has done nothing to solve this problem. One or two of them send me "soothing" emails saying they understand, but in public they have the balls to do nothing. It has been suggested to me that I should run for Arbcom, having first announced that while it would be impossible to be accepted and appointed by Jimbo, a vote for me is a vote for those to register their disappointment at the way the project is currently being run. If one ran a business like this, one would be bankrupt. To me at the moment Wikipedia seems morally bankrupt. Perhaps I should run, I don't know. If I don't run - I hope those that agree with me will vote instead for those unafraid to say what changes they will try to implement for the better. A vote for the likes of Matthews and Forrester is to maintain the status quo. Forrester, is even now denying he owns IRC (Remember: "I...er..own the channel" said so smugly) , but refusing to deny that he would accept an appointment against the majority vote[32]. Are we a buch of automatons or fools to put up with this? Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue. We do the work - we have a right to a say and to be treated fairly and properly. Giano (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• [33]

  ::The reason I am blocked is because they knew I was about to put my name forward and run against them for Arbcom. Simple as that. Happy editing to you all. Giano (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

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

Civility: Giano

2.2) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

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

The enforcement ruling:

Enforcement by block

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

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

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

[34]

:::Nobody has asked you to be silent. What we asked you to do is to pursue this discussion within the confines of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF.

What keeps getting you in trouble is that you perceive affronts and problems to be excuses to violate those policies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With the comment:

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

[35]

==Re-focusing== Giano, I'm not usually involved in the maelstrom that surrounds you (for example, I didn't know that you were Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs) until I actually saw the block message), but even I am noticing this particular incident. I am also getting increasingly uncomfortable with the namecalling. For example, Will Beback may be many things, but I don't believe that "troll" is one of them.[36] So could you please try to ratchet things back a notch? Also, as I look at your contribs, Giano II (talk · contribs), though you're clearly spending a lot of time on Wikipedia, it appears to have been days since the last time you worked on an actual article. So do you think it would be possible to try and re-focus your efforts on the main purpose of the project here? Or, aside from having Gerard's head delivered to you via Fedex (I can envision all the little biohazard symbols already), what exactly do you think is needed to de-escalate things? --Elonka 02:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Comments on proposed reblock

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

  I don't consider calling a laughably absurd proposal "laughably absurd" in any way "virulent." I attacked the proposal, not Fred.^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  I wasn't referring to your comment specifically (as I didn't use your name, or indent beneath your comment). On the other hand, this is not the only forum where you have been making your very strong opinions known. Avruch ^T 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  I have very strong opinions on this, but I've remained completely civil/polite at all points when dealing with the issue. Strong opinions (and the expression of them) aren't the problem here, in my view. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Every time somebody does anything against Giano, several people will jump at that person very quickly and with very little actual arguments. Please, read the analysis and make comments relevant to it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  Claiming I (and others) haven't read the "analysis" is an astounding assumption of bad faith. Please stop. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not assuming bad faith. I think you and others have entirely noble though misguided reasons to support Giano no matter the circumstances. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  I have dealt with Giano on several occasions, and have looked into the "history" of the dispute. Your calling me "misguided" has more than a hint of irony. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 20:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comment by FT2

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

What Fred is proposing is roughly the following logic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

further comment by LessHeard vanU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No longer authorized by Arbitration Committee The recently passed restriction on further enforcement by the arbitration committee makes it clear that Fred may not impose this proposed block without the prior written consent of the committee. On that basis, this entire thread should be archived. We don't need further discussion of just how ridiculous Fred's proposal is. GRBerry 05:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments prior to reblock

further discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Except that, of course, in a couple of days, any block you might then re-impose will have become purely punitive. Shouldn't you maybe better redirect your attention to clowns? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC) It's not automatically punitive to use of the few tools that are available to enforce a remedy. For those who believe Giano's behavior has been a problem, it's been an ongoing problem. What else would you suggest trying? Friday (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I do not find giving the task of determining the appropriateness of Giano's actions to an ex-arbitrator who failed at his re-election bid, and who has been controversial throughout his time on arbcom to be one that increases the legitimacy of the decision. While I applaud Fred's willingness to take the bullet here, and have little doubt personally that he would come to a fair and just decision, I don't see this approach as productive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Should Fred Bauder enact the block, or any subsequent block, on Giano then it should be vacated on the basis of bias shown here - this editor has a history with regard to Giano that does not inspire confidence in a truly neutral conclusion being drawn. The results of Fred Bauders review need to be in turn considered by a community and a consensus reached over any proposed action based on them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I do not think that a credible case can be made that Fred's bias expressed in the course of an arbitration that he was serving as an arbitrator on can be taken as valid grounds for his bias. By that logic the entire arbcom is unfit to pass any judgment on Giano because they have done so before. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC) The language used and the viewpoint expressed were quite opposed by the majority of the ArbCom in that case. It may have been Freds last case and he may have felt free of the limitations of expression still required by other members, but the strength of feeling and the opinions expressed generally (not in respect of the case itself) indicate a level of personal animosity toward Giano. Also, the ArbCom is elected to do the difficult things the community has not been able to do and it has to be acknowledge they may need to be involved in situations or people where they have previously been; it comes with the job. Fred is no longer on that Committee, and therefore has no specific remit to revisit people and situations in which he had previously been involved and upon which he had expressed views (including those not always deemed appropriate within that role). Therefore I am not persuaded by your comment, as it is comparing apples and oranges. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Regardless, I just don't find that any past expression that a user's conduct has been unacceptable plausibly precludes future enforcement. That seems to excessively prune out those who, well, are of the opinion that Giano has a history of problematic conduct. It is not, to my mind, a useful recusal criterion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC) I have no problem with Fred taking any one of the roles of judge, jury and executioner or even two if the jury comprises of more than one, but he cannot be all three where there is evidence that there is a bias present, there needs to be a method of review independently. I can take one of those roles, as could many others, but will my evident sympathy toward Giano and antipathy toward various mind sets preclude from being asked? Why? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC) To quote myself from above: The Arbcom enforcement rules allow blocks in order to achieve a certain purpose. It follows from general wiki principles that you can't use the enforcement rules to justify blocks that don't have a snowball's chance of achieving that purpose. Was I wrong? Metaphorically speaking: Is beating your children only allowed in an emergency, to prevent serious accidents? Or do some of the little brats need to be spanked routinely, for educational reasons? Even supposed there is an educational effect in some cases, is violence acceptable in those cases where it obviously doesn't help? Should a father beat his son if he knows that he will afterwards run to his mother – who will console him and reassure him that the beating had nothing to do with him and only happened because the father is a violent drunkard? If the metaphor doesn't apply – why? Isn't this the philosophy behind "preventative, not punitive"? --Hans Adler (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC) If one can't Enforce the rules? What's the point of having rules? What's the point of calling this Arbitration enforcement, if ya can't enforce? GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC) This is where you're mistaken, Hans. The word you're looking for is "judgement". What you're asking is "whats the point of having glass windows when anyone can throw a rock through them". The answer is, most people don't, and there are (in principle) effective options for those that do. You (I, nobody) don't get to push the envelope, breach the norms, act out of the envelope, then say "well that proves the rules can't work!" Administrators are given their escalated access because of the view that they will try to act well, and understand the norms and intentions of the norms enough to not act greatly outside them, even if there is serious disagreement. What you're arguing is an administratove version of "well I can vandalize any article if I want so that proves Wikipedia can't work". I happen to feel that's poor logic. It's likely to be uphill convincing others here of it. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC) You are using the word "judgement" in an ambiguous way, and you are saying that there are rules that should not be broken. I will resist the baiting. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Then let's put it differently. Arbcom enforcement -- read the page yourself and its historic revisions a long way back -- is not dispute resolution. That means, we aren't assessing if conduct was "reasonable" or "justified" or any of those things. We are assessing if it violated an applicable arbcom ruling. There seems no dispute that in the period concerned, Giano made edits a reasonable administrator might judge to be bad faith, or uncivil. That is the end of the matter, unless there are good grounds to believe that he did not do so. If you would feel there is a good case that calling someone a "troll" or offensive and belittling comments to a female user (whichever account from) could not reasonably be considered uncivil, or that none of the edits above could reasonably be read as showing incivility, bad faith, or the like, then do so. But that is basically, the remit of an Arbitration Enforcement discussion. Dispute resolution's long done. This is much more about measuring current conduct against that decision, exactly as the page says. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC) You seem to be assuming certain answers to the two questions I asked at your Arbcom motion: 1. Does Arbcom punish? 2. Does Arbcom have the power to enforce its rulings by force if/when there is no chance of doing it by consensus? I believe that in the past editors disagreed about the answers to these questions, but didn't notice because it didn't matter. Due to Arbcom's loss of natural authority, which seems in part due to your carelessness, these questions have unfortunately become very relevant now. Your answers seem to be "yes" in both cases. My answers are "no" in both cases. I read some of the text at the top of this page as confirmation that I am right, but the community is probably divided. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, I may be misunderstanding you. Are you comparing being blocked for incivility to child abuse? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC) In the context of such a question, there are two interpretations for "comparing to". If you mean "drawing an analogy with", the answer is (obviously) yes. If you mean "implying that they are similarly bad", the answer is (obviously) no. The main point was that blocking is the wiki equivalent of using physical force, and that this case isn't too different from this absurdity. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC) So, you are saying that since blocks of Giano always cause controversy, they must be discussed first. Discussion always takes time. If time passes before the block, then it is punitive and therefor wrong. Is that the line of thinking? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Good point. Like a social worker who tries to educate parents that they must not beat their children, I cannot offer a silver bullet for problematic cases. But I can point out that violence actually creates behavioral problems, rather than solving them. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Underlying issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the community held an RFC on Arbcom, these were Giano's only two posts to it.[37][38] Durova^Charge! 21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Fresh Start

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

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

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

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

Coverup?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notification: NPA block for cross-wiki abuse

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

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

I've been reviewing Raso mk's (rather incoherent) unblock request. As I've already mentioned on his talk page, I think this block is questionable and should be undone. I have no reason to doubt that what Fut.Perf. says is factually true. But WP:BP states that blocking is intended to prevent damage to Wikipedia, which we have traditionally understood to mean this Wikipedia. Because nothing indicates that Raso mk was disrupting this Wikipedia at the time of his block, the block appears to be ill-founded. (Of course, I don't intend to excuse Raso mk's misbehaviour, if any, by this.)

If the block is not undone, I ask that the objectionable contributions please be reproduced and translated here.  Sandstein  23:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I foresaw these objections, that's why I made the notification here, but personally I stand by this block decision. This is, in fact, a block designed to prevent disruption on this Wikipedia, and as such conformant to our policies. The disruption lies in the fact that Raso with his off-site attacks has poisoned the well regarding collegial cooperation with the attacked contributors here. We cannot demand of the victims (User:TodorBozhinov and User:Laveol) to keep cooperating with this person on this wikipedia in light of these continued insults as if nothing had happened. We can also not demand of them that they should pretend the insults didn't happen or weren't relevant to them, merely because they formally happened in some other place. It's been my position for a long time that wherever Wikipedians meet and interact in their roles as wikipedians, with a focus on their activities and conflicts on Wikipedia, be it on other wikis, on IRC, in e-mail, or in face-to-face communication, whatever they say is relevant for their standing here and should be taken into account for disciplinary purposes just as if it was actually posted here. If there exists a policy against this, that policy is counterproductive and needs to be swept aside.

The requested translation (given to me by the attacked user in e-mail) is as follows: "I see you're having troubles with the ugly face [link to target's en-wiki user page] from the English Wikipedia! You'd better stand aside as he obviously has a problem with himself. And it's not his fault, it's the Tatar syndrome they [the Bulgarians] have. It's the same case with the "vegetable" [hard to translate, it's a colloquial word from the root for green + the derogative suffix -ash; directed at Laveol I guess]. It is incomprehensible that in the 21st century one could live and have a brain like in the Middle Ages. Communism frustrated them and they're still suffering the consequences of the culture shock they lived through in the 90s. Their ancestors and their current southern neighbours said it well: kenef raya [roughly "shitty lower class"]. What a Porca Misèria."

Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the relevant prior case would be Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Conduct_outside_Wikipedia:

A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums.

I can see how a legal threat or outing on another site would be blockable, but from the translation provided, I do not think it rises to something blockable, particularly since it occurred on another wiki. Different wikis have different standards of conduct, just like IRC/WR/Skype has different standards of conduct. Also, I question the block as the translation of the material that is being used to support it, comes from the person requesting the block. I would expect a translation from a less-involved party if the material is the primary basis for the block. And the comment was made 5 days before the block was placed. Generally blocks are placed to prevent imminent harm. I do not see how incivility/personal attacks that stopped five days ago rise to the level of an block on another Wiki. I would support an unblock here, with the understanding that at the English Wikipedia, all users must abide by NPA and CIV. MBisanz ^talk 03:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

By quoting this, are you claiming the Macedonian Wikipedia is not a Wikipedia? I'll put it plain and simple: I don't edit the Macedonian Wikipedia, and the comments made there do not relate to my activity over on the Macedonian Wikipedia, but to my activity right here, on the English Wikipedia. They were posted on the Macedonian Wikipedia with the direct intention to get away with it. However, they are directed at an English Wikipedia contributor and have nothing to do with the Macedonian Wikipedia. This is an attempt at Wikipedia:Gaming the system, and we should be wary of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. We must not forget about the spirit of the policies when applying them.

As for my translation, I stand by it and I did my best to translate the text as well as possible. I wouldn't mind if someone unrelated to these events produces another translation so that it can be verified that mine was correct. The text is still available so you're welcome. Todor→Bozhinov 14:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of history here. See this, this, this, also see both Raso mk's and MacedonianBoy's block log. This is textbook WP:HARASS and Wikipedia:NPA#Off-wiki_attacks. Also just some weeks ago User:Crossthets was indefbanned for less than this and there was no such fuss...--Avg (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was proper, Crossthets committed harassment and personal attacks at the English Wikipedia and was banned from the English Wikipedia. If Raso mk's makes personal attacks at the English Wikipedia he will be handled according to the English Wikipedia's policies, if he makes them elsewhere, he will be handled by the policies of the other forum in which he made the attacks. MBisanz ^talk 05:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, FP, I don't think that's a good block. Blocking an editor here for misbehaving on another wiki is stepping squarely on a line I am fairly sure we don't want to cross. Except in cases of truly egregious behavior, we don't act on-wiki to things happening elsewhere; there is no damage to be prevented here. There's probably a good cause to bring this to the attention of the other wiki, however, or even perhaps at meta if the behavior is so bad it might justify a global block; but an unilateral blocking here is... icky. — Coren ^(talk) 19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"There is no damage to be prevented here"? Well, we evidently disagree over what the damage is that a preventative NPA block is meant to prevent. With NPA cases that are not just one-off attacks in the heat of anger on a personal level, but indicators of an entrenched stance of politically motivated ethnic hatred, what must be prevented is not, or not only, the danger that the victims might have to hear repetitions of the same kinds of insults uttered again. What needs to be prevented is them having to interact with the ethnic haters at all. If somebody has been persistently spreading racist hate speech, we don't want them to just shut up, we want them out, banished to a place where their victims no longer have to deal with them. We cannot demand of our good-faith contributors that they should continue interacting with these people and treating them as fellow Wikipedians, to be taken seriously and to be negotiated with. The very idea of having such people continuing to show their faces here would be a continuous source of very concrete damage, as it would dampen the spirit of good-will and cooperation among the other contributors.

I see I'm probably in a minority position here, so if others think there is a consensus against me, do what you must, but I'll strongly maintain my opinion about this issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the poisonous result of repeated personal attacks; someone who takes aggressive behavior elsewhere directed at our editors is a Bad Thing indeed. Now, if there was discussion of banning the editor as an egregious aggressor, then that outside behavior would rightly be used as evidence of bad faith and continuing misbehavior. The end result might be a ban, but then it would be because the editor, as a whole, was considered hopelessly disruptive and not because of an overt act on some other wiki. It might seem to be a fine line of distinction, but it is one I really feel we should not cross: enwp is the 800 pound gorilla; if we start enforcing our rules for behavior over behavior on other wikis, we place ourselves on shaky ethical ground. — Coren ^(talk) 19:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should be concerned about "enforcing our rules on other wikis". Do you mean "ethical" problem because it would be unfair over the mk-wiki community? But it's not as if we are trying to govern over them. I'm not proposing that we should tell the mk-wiki admins what to do about him there. I don't care if they block him over there (I doubt if they would, even if somebody raised the issue there; there seems generally to be a consensus at mk-wiki that it's quite okay to keep up a healthy national fighting spirit against the neighbours.) But if they are causing problems that affect us here, why shouldn't we do our bit in protecting our project from the effects? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To MBisanz: (1) the translation seems correct. I can read Macedonian just enough (with a help of an online dictionary) that I can verify it says what the translation says it says. If some nuance should not be rendered quite precisely, there are enough Macedonian users here who can correct it. Raso has not (as far as I can comprehend his unblock request babble) actually claimed the charge is wrong. (2) The insults have not "stopped" ("five days ago"), they are part of a campaign that has gone on for close to a year, including e-mails, postings here, postings there and all sorts of other things. (3) As for the "off-wiki" nature of the behaviour: I simply don't buy it. When we deal with personal attacks as "disruptive", it is never the attack in and of itself that is disruptive. It is the social effects caused by attacks that are disruptive. The attack was spoken over there and five days ago; its social effects are right here and now. These effects – the degrading of a collegial cooperation atmosphere - are tangible, very real, very present, very directly affect this project, and were very much calculated and intended as such. – You quoted the Arbcom there. Honestly, I don't give a damn what Arbcom thinks about this. I'm perfectly prepared to IAR the Arbcom here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest moving this thread to WP:AN then, the Arbitration in the page title is a bit confusing to the topic being discussed. MBisanz ^talk 09:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks like the right page for the thread, although I share misgivings about the block. As someone who is currently sysopped on three WMF projects I deal with cross wiki grudges from time to time. These things tend to get handled on an ad hoc basis. Allow me to articulate a few guideposts.

• Clean slate - Some Wikimedians extend a clean slate to users at each project, disregarding all behavior that didn't occur at that project. This has the advantage of giving editors who ran into trouble on one site the ability to start over and become valued contributors. Its disadvantage is vulnerability to deliberate gaming by individuals who exploit good faith to dodge blocks.
• Shorter leash - As an alternative to the 'clean slate' approach, this welcomes editors who've had rocky histories on other projects so long as the problematic behavior doesn't recur. If the problem reappears at the new project, the editor's prior conduct and block record at a sister project influences the administrative response. So an editor who was sitebanned for vandalism at one project may edit another so long as he or she doesn't vandalize. If they do vandalize, warnings and blocks would escalate at an accelerated rate. I prefer this approach to the clean slate.
• Grudges - Cross-wiki hounding is a matter of particular concern. Suppose Editor A has been blocked three times for personal attacks against Editor B at one project, and A goes to a second project to vandalize B's user page. That, in my view, is more serious than random vandalism because it creates and sustains a hostile environment for a particular contributor. Not all Wikimedians agree with that analysis, though.
• Porting - Where is the problem moving? Hypothetically, if Editor C has been blocked for two weeks for edit warring at Commons and starts edit warring at Wikinews, I may block C at Wikinews but I wouldn't automatically reblock them at Commons. As long as C doesn't resume edit warring at Commons they're welcome to contribute there. If edit warring does resume at Commons, though, it might be reasonable to weigh the recent problem at Wikinews--especially if the problem bears a direct relation (such as edit warring over an image that illustrates the Wikinews article).

So although this list has no formal status at all, it might be a better idea to unblock with a caution. That particular insult isn't at the level of threats or coercion which would normally merit separate remedy at this project. If Raso mk ports that behavior back to this site he'd face arbitration discretionary remedies. And the acting administrator might exercise discretion based upon cross-wiki pattern behavior. Hope that rationale makes sense to fellow editors; few guidelines exist in this realm. Durova^Charge! 20:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the "clean slate" approach between pairs of projects such as enwiki vs commons, the point being that these projects typically involve different types of activities, people deal with different issues in each, so if two users meet again on commons after having had a conflict on enwiki, there's at least a chance they'll interact in different roles and on the basis of a different set of parameters. Not so here – the people involved are enacting a single set of disputes, all of the same nature and along the same national frontlines, across all the wikis in question. In fact, the recent attack on mk-wiki had nothing to do with mk-wiki at all, it was Raso-the-enwiki-editor speaking with MacedonianBoy-the-enwiki-editor about TodorBozhinov-the-enwiki-editor. "Clean slate" makes no sense at all there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Both you and I are 'shorter leash' proponents. Where we differ is porting. Durova^Charge! 22:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't see there's anything to "port" here, for the real focus of the issue has never moved from one project to the other at all in this case. Also, your hypothetical example, of edit-warring, is really not comparable. Ethnic hate speech poisons the atmosphere between editors and groups of editors, as human beings, in a far more lasting manner than edit-warring. If I have edit-warred with somebody on project A, that doesn't necessarily stop me from cooperating with them on project B, if the same dispute doesn't also arise there. But if I know that person thinks I and my whole nation are scum, there's simply no way I can move on and continue working with them on a different project (discussing articles about that very ethnic group!) as if nothing had happened. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The rationale is the moment he carries that behavior back here to this project, then it becomes blockable here. In other words, we wait for him to repeat the behavior on this project. And the administrative response may consider the cross-project pattern when and if it ports back to this site. Makes sense? Durova^Charge! 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. It doesn't answer my point. The damage is being done here and now, and we must prevent it from being continued here and now. (The damage being, as I said, his mere presence, not necessarily any further insults.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Their behaviour was here, on this project, they don't need to carry it back anywhere. I'm not an MK wiki editor and I have no intention to become one. The comments were posted on the MK wiki for one single reason, which I'm repeating once again: to get away with it; they have no effect on the MK wiki, they are aimed at an English Wikipedia contributor and affect the English Wikipedia only. And yes, to confirm what Future said, I won't be able to co-operate with these people on the English Wikipedia anymore. I don't want them around and I don't see why anybody would. Todor→Bozhinov 13:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not defending Rašo's insults, Bozhinov has made it very clear that he "knows" that Macedonian (Rašo's language) is a dialect of Bulgarian (Bozhinov's language) and that Macedonians (Rašo's people) are Bulgarians (Bozhinov's people). This is all on en-wiki. So why should Rašo, or anyone else, be expected to cooperate, or dare I ask, be civil to someone who makes such statements? Poisoning the well only works if the well initially contains clean water. Here, it never did. BalkanFever 06:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, divergent opinions about the Macedonian language and nationality are just that: opinions. Which Todor is entirely entitled to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Opinions on the psychological state of Bulgarians? BalkanFever 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that itself a sanctionable ethnic attack? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please spare me the misquotations and qualifications, Fever, your revelations about the "psychological state of Bulgarians" are extremely inappropriate right here. Don't let me remind you you were also involved in the abuse we're discussing here and asking you friends to continue insulting me by e-mail and not on talk wasn't exactly the one right thing to do. You deserve a thanks for not joining in though, I give you that. Todor→Bozhinov 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster

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

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

Grandmaster's misuses and distortions of the word Azerbaijani are not "minor things" because they are part of a larger campaign of POV warring that he and others are engaged it. That "Romans are not called Italians" example is worth exploring more to illustrate the reasons behind that POV warring. During the 1930s, the Mussolini regime would often produce propaganda equating being a true Italian with being a "Roman" of the "Roman Empire" in order to encourage or manipulate the Italian population into behaving in a particular way and to justify that behaviour to both themselves and the world. The regime of modern-day Azerbaijan is misusing the word "Azerbaijani" in a similar way - to invent or distort history and ethnicity for its own ends. Wikipedia should not be hijacked into propagating those inventions and distortions. Meowy 17:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I also think it isn't minor, Parishan has been extensively involved in this too. Meowy you'd be delighted (I'm being sarcastic) you have have not seen this, when Parishan attempted (and is still attempting) to introduce the Russian (then Soviet) school of thought, where to lay claim on Ottomans (and then Turkey) the Russians attempted to associate the Turks of Anatolia to 'Azerbaijani Turks' (a term they coined). He actually revert warred over this. Apparently in Anatolia the lingua franca was not Turkish but Azeri :) Note that Parishan's similar disruptions were partially documented in AA2 and ignored. After several instances of incivility, edit warring and POV pushing and formal warning, he still isn't restricted. - Fedayee (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm not under any supervision. The parole I (along with other parties to the first AA case) was placed on more than 1 year ago expired. Despite that I agreed to voluntarily abide by 1RR rule and never ever violated it. So I don't understand, which rule I did violate? Did I make more than 1 rv? No. Did I fix the inaccuracy in the article? Yes, I did. The info that I added is supported by sources and is factually accurate. Azerbaijanis were called Tatars in the Russian empire, same as all other Turkic people, since Russian at the time did not make much distinction among them. So what's the problem? This is not a place to discuss content disputes, if you happen to disagree with other editors, seek dispute resolution, and don't ask the admins to ban your opponents to eliminate the opposition. It does not work that way. Also, I would like to ask the admins to put an end to constant personal attacks on me by Meowy. I'm really tired of constant bad faith assumptions and incivility by this user. This is the latest example, he says on talk of Shusha: I question Grandmaster's moral suitability to be editing articles [39] This is the final version of his comment: [40], he removed some of his aggressive rhetoric, but it is still incivil and a personal attack. Grandmaster (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Grandmaster is not under those specific restrictions anymore. And yes, this is not the proper forum to discuss the misuse of the word "Azerbaijani" problem (though having Grandmaster point that out is rather like the kettle calling the pot black, because that editor has often placed spurious or off-topic complaints into this noticeboard). It is a content dispute, but one which affects dozens of articles, not just one or two, and concerns the meaning and use of a specific word. So using an article's talk page to confront the problem is not the longterm answer. Could an administrator suggest a more appropriate forum? Meowy 21:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with the comment made by Meowy which Grandmaster is quoting and I hope an administrator for once will take the time to read the comment above and decide whatever or not Grandmaster is being honest.

Grandmaster had no problem with the wording before April 24, 2007 before he decided to changed it. The slow revert war followed even with the Arbcom restrictions in place, and finally it was discussed that just as the title of the article the info in it was also accurate and reflected the title. The article was first named Armenian-Tatar, then was renamed without justification then renamed back to it's original name after it was shown that was what it was called by sources of the time and most of the modern ones. Parishan came out of nowhere and renamed it again, claiming there was no consensus etc...

Grandmaster's change from Tatar to Azerbeijani is OR, while he is partly right that they are mostly the same people, it was already provided and sourced that most nomadic people in the region (not only Turkic speaking) were tagged with the Turkic speaking people and called Tatar. And by changing Tatar to Azerbeijani Grandmaster is deliberately attempting to mislead those who read the article.

If the evidence of dishonesty isn't clear here, I invite administrators to check the edit summary he left when he asked me to stop distorting the source, while he was the one doing just that[41].

Lastly I would like you to note the sorry stub state the article was put by Grandmaster, thats despite the 30+ sources available in the talkpage. He has effectively stalled the progress of this article, just so he can push a certain POV. --VartanM (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically there's a group of users, who push the same Armenian POV that Azerbaijani people did not exist before 1930s. They try to push it here too, despite not being supported by a single reliable source. Those 30 sources VartanM refers to only name the hostilities after the name that was used in the Russian empire, but none of them says that those Tatars who lived in Caucasus were not the same people as modern day Azerbaijanis. On the contrary, we have the sources that say quite the opposite, and those sources are used in the article. By looking at the history of the article it is clear that the article was stable since October 27, until on November 27, one month later, VartanM came and reverted the article to the older version: [42] Note that he never even tried to apply for any sort of dispute resolution, the sole purpose of his revert seems to be getting reverted and then report it here, claiming to ban those who happen to disagree with his POV edit from the article. This tactics previously worked on some other articles, which encourages such behavior. I hope the admins reviewing this report will take time to look into everyone's behavior. Grandmaster (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you just dismiss 30+ reliable neutral sources? And thats from someone who couldn't come up with one decent source to back-up his failed attempt at OR?. Your own source says exactly what was written in that article. VartanM (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano II, Giano II, Giano II is... (just kidding, I hope for once someone will read this and see how Grandmaster is being dishonest) Grandmaster claims that the majority position has no reliable source. Several were provided not limited to the title. And I'll provide here some of them. (Grandmaster's dishonesty can be exposed by the fact that he claims the majority position can not be backed by any reliable sources)

Azerbaijani national identity is a recent growth, following a period in the early twentieth century when Azeris identified themselves with other … (New Terror, New Wars, Paul Gilbert, Edinburgh University Press, 2003 p. 61)

Azerbaijan features an official national identity based on an improbable blend... In actuality there has been little historical basis for national identity formation among Azeri elites. ... (National Identity and Globalization, Douglas W. Blum, Cambridge University Press, (2007) p. 106 )

Azerbaijani national identity is a relatively recent formation: before World War I, the people of this territory were alternatively referred to as Turks, Tatars, and Caucasian Muslims. (Language Policy in the Soviet Union, Lenore A. Grenoble, Springer, 2003, p. 124)

In fact, the very name Azerbaijani was not widely used until the 1930s; before that, Azerbaijani intellectuals were unsure about whether they should call themselves Caucasian Turks, Muslims, Tatars, or something else. (Modern Hatreds, Stuart J. Kaufman, Cornell University Press, 2001, p.56)

It was already told to Grandmaster that all Tatars in the Caucasus were not all Turkic speaking. Two sources were provided to him: In 1897 'Tatars'-which officially included most Muslim groups... (Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917, Harvard University Press (2005) p. 19). Nomads, be it Kurds, Circassians were also counted as Tatars. Here is another from Britannica 1911, it says the same thing: The Tatars of the Caucasus seem to be for the most part Azerbaijan Turks mingled with Armenian, Georgian, Lesghian and other blood. But the name is often loosely applied to any Mahommedan Caucasian tribe. So definitely Azerbaijani does not exactly equal Tatar.

Grandmaster is also, as repeated countless numbers of times, very dishonest, the article was created by a Georgian user, with the Tatar term, (something which Grandmaster claims being an Armenian POV) and the usage of Tatar. Grandmaster was actually the first one to erase it and place it in parenthesis.

The purpose of Grandmaster's POV pushing is to name all of the Turkic people north of Araks river Azerbaijani, before there was any Azerbaijan north of the river. Dozens and dozens of sources were provided, and Grandmaster still distorts, twist and is being dishonest by answering as if there was some rational opposition between both parties. But we have yet to see anyone taking the time to read what the problem is, and how he's being dishonest. --VartanM (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And in republic of Azerbaijan media, Armenia is sometimes called "occupied western Azerbaijan". But it's not just north of the Araks river - for the claim to remain logical Azerbaijan also extends the claim far into Turkish territory and says that all Turks living in eastern Turkey are actually "Azerbaijanis". Of course on an official level this isn't said much by Azerbaijan because it would anger Turkey. There was an editor who recently edited the Erzurum article to claim that Erzurum was an Azerbaijani city. Meowy 21:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from the article about Azerbaijan from Britannica, written by Ronald Suny:

As social resentments festered, particularly in times of political uncertainty, ethnic and religious differences defined the battle lines; bloody clashes between Azerbaijanis and local Armenians took place in 1905 and 1918.

They were referred to as “Tatars” by the Russians; the ethnonym Azerbaijani (azarbayjanli) came into use in the prerevolutionary decades at first among urban nationalist intellectuals. [43]

Another source:

Until the 1905-6 Armeno-Tatar (the Azeris were called Tatars by Russia) war, localism was the main tenet of cultural identity among Azeri intellectuals.

Willem van Schendel, Erik Jan Zürcher. Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. I.B.Tauris, 2001. ISBN 1860642616, 9781860642616, p. 43

So the people in Transcaucasia, whom Russian called Tatars, were Azerbaijanis. It could be that they included other Muslims among them, but the majority of those people were Azerbaijani. That's what the sources say. Again, this is not a place to complain about content disputes, take it to dispute resolution, you never even attempted to get this issue resolved via DR, instead, you chose to ask the admins to ban those who happen to disagree with you. Grandmaster (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would like to ask the admins once again to put an end to personal attacks on me. VartanM says: Grandmaster still distorts, twist and is being dishonest. I wonder if WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are still in force here? Civility supervision is a part of VartanM and Meowy's paroles, but they feel free to attack other users, and no one tells them to stop. Grandmaster (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is needless to add anything else, as again, Grandmaster is substituting decades of scholarship and publications for one quote from Britannica over and over again. When several times it was presented to him, that Adil Baguirov and his friends massively campaigned to have Sunys head out from Britannica. The same thing was attempted for Encarta. Britannica’s example shows more the way Adil Baguirov’s team threats results than actual scholarship. Besides Britannica is a tertiary source not secondary. For the rest, I’m not even going to waste my time, when obviously you are still attempting to distort by your second source which says Azeri and not Azerbaijani. You know that there was endless of discussions about this and you are still doing this as if it has never taken place. VartanM (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this particular noticeboard is the correct place to discuss this issue of the use and misuse of the word "Azerbaijani". The whole issue need to be carefully presented, needs to be discussed withthe aim of establishing a Wikipedia policy on its use, and should not based on a discussion about the actions of individual editors. Can administrators suggest an alternative venue for this to take place? Meowy 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that Grandmaster along with Parishan really push this to the brink but you are right that a more permanent policy is required. Everytime this issue comes up I always ask, what did the Azeris/Tatars identify themselves as back then? Nothing. As for a venue that can come up with a settlelemnt, maybe an Armenian and Azeri wikipedians cooperation board?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster has been violating Wikipedia's rules, both in letter and spirit, and should be suspended from editing articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh. He pushes POV and defies consensus-building measures. He uses dubious sources and resorts to frivolous reverts. Capasitor (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Science Apologist and Pseudoscience

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist → Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ScienceApologist (4th) → User talk:ScienceApologist#Meatpuppetry → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop#ScienceApologist banned → Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist

• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SA has just been blocked (under the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience case) by an admin with whom they have had intense personal conflicts . Evidence of that conflict is here. While it may not be good practice for arbitration enforcement to have an arguably involved administrators placing blocks, I am also concerned that SA is currently a party to an arbitration case I started, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, and that any such block may impact SA's ability to participate in the case. Therefore, I'd like this AE block to be reviewed. Please, don't reverse the block without obtaining a consensus first. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no personal conflict with ScienceApologist. All of my actions with this editor have been as an administrator. See WP:UNINVOLVED. The case is pretty open and shut: ScienceApologist was under a page ban at WP:FRINGE, and this ban was upheld by other admins. ScienceApologist violated his ban, ScienceApologist has been blocked. See his talkpage for more details. --Elonka 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions restriction says that in order to be considered uninvolved, an administrator must not be engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Elonka doesn't have a current dispute, and the block is a valid one no matter who made it. I say it stands. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh joy. The page ban is logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log of blocks and bans. SA was notified.[44] SA's actual edits to the article are here and here. So not only did he violate the ban, he edit warred on the page. 48 hours seems generous. GRBerry 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits, given Elonka's disdain for science-oriented editors the potential for drama would have been reduced if the block were done by a more neutral admin. This assumes of course that drama reduction is considered a good thing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka is clearly involved and this could be construed as a misuse of admin tools. Verbal chat 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"regardless of the merits"? Sorry, but that's what admins do, take action based on the merits. Good block. Ronnotel (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's anti-science attitude towards editor is obvious. Why she would take this step is impossible to ascertain, but she should have no involvement with SA, given their past interaction. Elonka is not a neutral admin in this matter. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are not disbarred from enforcing arbitration remedies merely because they have previously enforced them and the subject of the enforcement has decided that the administrator does not like them. A 48 hour block will not significantly impact on Scienceapologist's participation in the ongoing Cold fusion case. There is no problem with this block. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Sam Blacketer, Ronnotel, Hemlock Martinis, and GRBerry. Concerned that several editors here are personally attacking Elonka ("Elonka's disdain for science-oriented editors", "Elonka's anti-science attitude") rather than addressing the substance of this block. ScienceApologist edit-warred, was warned, continued to edit war despite the warning, was banned for 30 days, ignored the ban to continue the same edit war with inflammatory edit summaries and uncivil discussion. I brought this matter to Elonka's attention because as she was the one issuing the page ban originally (endorsed by Lar), it seemed proper that she should also be the one enforcing the page ban. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Sam. For clarity, are you commenting as Sam the Editor, or Sam on behalf of the Arbitration Committee? Jehochman ^Talk 21:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As an individual administrator who is also a member of the arbitration committee and familiar with the background. Not on behalf of the committee but I should advise you that in my experience it is highly unlikely they will disagree. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing is one of the major skills lacking in the current ArbCom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't the 'Elonka shouldn't block SA because Elonka's got a known bias' thing come up before? Shouldn't Elonka get the point already? Get someone else to do it, to avoid this crap? That said, this is a good block. Unfortunately the 'good block' part is going to stick in Elonka's mind, not the 'Avoid picking fights that get you more shit' part, ehich means we'll see this again soon. ThuranX (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Two comments:

• I did not look deeply into the situation at WP:FRINGE, but it looks uncannily like what he has been doing at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, and Elonka's description would fit that situation exactly. See Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts and WP:AN/Edit warring#ScienceApologist reported by Jim_Butler (Result: )
• ScienceApologist is well known for mercilessly gaming the system. There seems to be a chance that he thought he would be immune while he is involved in an ArbCom case. That said, it might make sense to unblock him with the understanding that he is banned from all but the pages he needs to edit to participate in the case. These pages would have to be listed specifically, to prevent any further gaming. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. I'd like any further blocks applied to SA to come from administrators with whom SA does not perceive an existing conflict. We don't need to give SA any more grounds for gaming or disruption (evidence at this page). Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. SA is subject to the same rules as the rest of us and it is not up to WP to conform to his perception of what is fair and what isn't. We've already heard from an ArbCom member that the block will not interfere with his participation and that Elonka's actions were not unwarranted. If SA suddenly finds that he needs to participate at the ArbCom case, he can make a request through the normal channels. Enough bending over backwards for this particular user. Ronnotel (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

An accurate summary.

Sam Blacketer also said it correctly. By the nature of their role, some admins will become disliked by some users. It's no bad thing to stand back a bit, let it be seen what others think a while, but there is no rule "an admin who isn't liked by a user cannot act on their conduct", and probably never will be such a rule, for obvious reasons. So far not one person on this page has put forward what might be a compelling case for overturn. The case would be: "SA is EITHER not under an Arbcom-derived page ban, OR (if he is) he did not breach it (eg by editing that guideline while page banned)". Is anyone proposing to make that case? Those are the kinds of questions that I'm not seeing anyone propose.

ThuranX makes a good point. The problem is, if SA did breach an agreed page ban, then why didn't anyone else act first? Editing guidelines one is affected by, and page-banned from, is not trivial. It exists to prevent some unhelpful kinds of conduct so editors (including SA) could focus on productive content. If nobody else actually says "no" when issues persist, and takes the appropriate action, then the same admin often ends up picking up the baton. In theory Wikipedia has many admins willing to share such work, but in practice sometimes more need to do so. If you expect Elonka to let others handle matters, then others have to also be willing to take such things seriously too, and to take their share of the discomfort of drawing lines on conduct where appropriate. Worth thinking about.

(Elonka, anyone else - if you ever want someone to help on this, you can always ask at ANI: "I've been watching <X issue or user> for <Y> matters. In the interests of more eyeballs I'd like to step back a while. Can someone else take over watching for me so I can do so?" You can see what response it gets, and then judge for yourself.)

As to the other concern, SA will have no problem participating at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion; blocked or unblocked, users always have ways to present their evidence there, and disruption to everyday editorial and project activities is more important than the ability to post directly (rather than by proxy) at RFAR. Not a problem, that'll be taken care of. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• There are two standards to consider: 1/ what is allowed by "the rules" and 2/ what is best practice. If a user experiencing difficulties has expressed intense negative feelings towards an administrator, it is best practice for that administrator to give them as much space as they can. I feel the problem FT2 points out -- not many admins are willing to wade into difficult situations. I am currently at arbitration with SA, so I will not administrate anything with respect to them. Additionally, SA has accused me of harassment, so that's a second reason I will not block them. If I obseved problem editing by SA, it would take just a few minutes to harvest diffs and file a report on this board. That would resolve the problem with minimum opportunity for fusses. Last time Elonka blocked SA, SA retaliated with disruptive actions in multiple fora, ultimately leading to the arbitration case. For the sake of efficient administration of the project, can we please shoot for best practices rather than minimum standards? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has definitely rowed with Science Apologist before, I think over edits to WP:FRINGE itself or the noticeboard, within recent weeks. I can't think of an admin that isn't more involved in criticising SA recently, blocking him or appearing to 'target' him for blocking, arbcom enforcement crusades etc. I can't think of anyone less neutral over him at this time. Having said that, it may not mean the block isn't correct arbcom enforcement; the pseudoscience arbcoms don't seem to have been enforced for some time, not that they are necessarily useful. Sticky Parkin 16:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course. However, I am not saying Elonka did wrong. I am saying that her involvement risked generating more heat than light (which in fact is what has happened, most regrettably), and that in such situations the best practice is to be a team player and pass the responsibility along to another administrator. (This is advice that I should have paid closer attention to myself on several past occasions.) By bringing the matter here, other admins have confirmed the block, and now SA has much less opportunity for wikilawyering. Jehochman ^Talk 16:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Threats

ScienceApologist has just threatened to maim, poison and kill specific editors (including myself). [45] Enough is enough. Will someone sack up and indef ban this editor once and for all? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would if I were not involved in an arbitration case. Everybody hang on. It is being handled by somebody else. It will be dealt with quickly. Jehochman ^Talk 03:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute that this language is uncivil enough to merit a block, but please don't tell me that SA's post is being taken as a serious threat. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Same here. They're obvious references to those editor's area of interests, intended to be taken in jest. I'm amazed that he didn't menace homeopathy proponents with drowing them in destilated water. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

After he (or one of his mates) tried to get me to divulge my real name and home address earlier today [46], ScienceApologist then threatens to kill me. Yes, I am taking this very seriously. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Claiming to take those threats seriously doesn't pass the sniff test, Levine2112. If you want to claim they are blockably incivil, feel free, but claiming that they should be taken seriously is impossible to take as an assertion made in good faith.—Kww(talk) 04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not concerned about blocking/banning him at this point. That should be a given. I am more concerned about my safety here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop being silly. This board is not a place for humor.—Kww(talk) 04:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is unacceptable to post threats, even in jest. I am OK with FT2's resolution, but in no way does that condone what SA posted or suggest that anyone else should ever post something like that. An indefinite block would have been fully justified, but FT2 decided to give SA another chance. That's a judgment call. Jehochman ^Talk 04:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Whether written in jest or not, making such a comment isn't particularly wise. Coupled with SA's most recent comment, I'm not left with a particularly warm-and-fuzzy feeling about this editor continuing here. His problems are well known, and if the decision was mine, he'd be shown the door...permanently. We all known that will not happen, but something should be done. - auburnpilot talk 04:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, FT2 seems to have resolved this particular matter, but there's nothing preventing anyone from giving evidence about SA's behavior at the Cold Fusion arbitration case. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the idea of an indef block at this point. These comments and edit summaries are not acceptable.[47][48][49][50] If any new editor said these kinds of things, they would already be blocked, and their talkpage protected. Instead, this is like ineffective parenting: "Stop it." "No, I mean it, stop it." "Okay, that's it, last warning." "What did I just tell you?" "Stop it or you're really going to get it." "Oh come on, how many last warnings do I have to give you?" "Really, I mean it this time, you have to stop..." (etc) ScienceApologist's block log is already one of the most extensive logs I've ever seen,[51] and even on his current 48-hour block, Checkuser seems to be confirming that ScienceApologist is just sending in blatant meatpuppets to edit war on his behalf. Eventually the time for second chances has to be done, and the community's patience exhausted. It's time to block indefinitely. --Elonka 04:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the notion that an editor can make a death threat, credible or otherwise, and then be allowed to continue editing absent any display of remorse. This type of behavior creates a chilling atmosphere, for the target as well as any one with whom the editor is in conflict. I'd like to see some sort of acknowledgment from this editor that a line was crossed before editing privileges are restored. Ronnotel (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

At this point SA is not a net benefit to the project. Indefinite block until/unless behavior and attitude improve, I would say. --John (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

not a net benefit to the project? You probably should be looking at what we are actually trying to do here at Wikipedia - here's a hint "Write an encyclopedia". The fact that editors get frustrated with Civil POV pushers and blow up is a symptom of Civil POV pushers, not with the editor who has just blown up. You all know this, you all discuss it endlessly, you all determine it's a problem, yet here we are - with yet another datapoint. Shot info (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The comment was clearly uncivil but is obviously not a threat. The fact that he refers to putting fluoride in various editors water should make it clear that this is an extreme attempt at sarcasm. Any attempt to claim this was a threat is simply not credible. Moreover, when someone has repeatedly asked certain people to stay off the person's talk page don't be too surprised when they get upset that the people do not so. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Particularly when the instigator of this report (ie/ Levine2112) didn't just edit once or twice, but 23 times and 12 times in a row. Harrassment - so who exactly is doing it? Shot info (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

SA's comments were beyond the line and certainly could have justified a block. However, As Shot Info has pointed out, Levine2112's edits to SA's talk page, including this group of 12 straight edits, looks like an attempt to bait SA into an uncivil response. My sympathy for SA is pretty low at this point, but I can't say that Levine2112 deserves our sympathy either. If SA continues editing, it might be a good idea to prevent Levine2112 from making further posts to SA's talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• If only my concerns near the top of this thread had been heeded, SA might not have come to such a low point. There need to be consequence for the folks who were baiting him on his own talk page while he was blocked. An editor cannot walk away from their own talk page so easily. We are in the right place, so let's discuss what those sanctions should be, and to whom they should be applied. Jehochman ^Talk 05:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

To start the discussion, I think a lengthy block of Levine2112 would be good deterrence, per the evidence linked by Shot info and Akhilleus. Jehochman ^Talk 05:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of me supports such a block but fears the punitive element. On the other hand, it would presumably deter Levine from trying to pull this stunt again. Maybe 1 week? Long enough to make clear that Levine's behavior was unacceptable but not so long as to make the matter punitive? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly would a block of Levine2112 accomplish? It looks to me like Levine2112 was properly collecting data as part of an SSP report. Granted, he probably should have put the information on an SSP page instead of ScienceApologist's talkpage, but he eventually figured that out, and started putting the information at SSP instead: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ScienceApologist (4th) (not bad, considering it's his first ever SSP report). I'm not seeing anything worth blocking him over. If anything, we should be encouraging him to help out with other SSP reports as well, since he seems to be showing some talent for it. --Elonka 05:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What would you be blocking Levine for again? I'm not sure I saw it - I did see he was being pretty zealous toting up those IP edits, but which policy does that violate? Avruch ^T 05:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a block - but given that there is a case of poke...snarl...poke...snark+bite....POKE....IRIPYOURARMOFF, perhaps if the poker should just be encouraged to chill out? As for SSP, well Levine was proven rather incorrect in his accusation. So in fact his harrassment was just that - harrassment. Are we still all surprised that a harrassed editor kind of goes off when he/she is harrassed and admin(s) seem to be just standing around saying "nothing to see here...."? Shot info (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Avruch basically says it. But to be clear, I apologize for posting so many messages at SA's talkpage. I wasn't trying to harass him; I was just trying to be helpful and collect diffs of possible sock activity. Now that I understand the proper venue for this kind of data collection, I won't put it on a user talkpage anymore. Elonka is right. It was my first SSP filing, so I was hesitant about doing it. Funny enough, I was moments away from writing Jehochman for help setting the SSP up since I know that he has expertise in that arena; but then I figured out the issue (Adding the "4th" to the report). So again I apologize for the abundance of posts and I think my last post on ScienceApologist's page confirms that I was not trying to bait, but rather get all of the discussion off of his page and onto the proper venue. Sorry again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A week for deterrence sounds good to me. Levine2112's behavior was out of bounds and directly contributed to a serious disruption: SA got very upset, arbitrators were messaging each other back and forth, somebody called the police (like the NYPD has nothing better to do with their time), in short, real harm to real people. This was the predictable result from Levine2112's baiting. There needs to a consequence to deter repeats. Jehochman ^Talk 06:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't needless drama creation sufficient? His behaviour during this report alone has been a clear demonstration of lack of sound judgment combined with a strong desire to stir trouble. Pretending to treat that joke as a serious threat comes clearly under the umbrella of disruptive editing in my book. We do need to bear in mind that in the innumerable exaggerated and unreasonable reports of wrongdoing by SA that get dragged in here, Levine2112 is frequently involved. This whole quagmire is a result of behavioural failures on both sides. If the reporters had been blocked on most of those previous occasions, this situation would not be the horrible mess it is today.—Kww(talk) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 has posted above that he understands what he did wrong, and he has promised not to do it again.[52] I can't see as a block would be at all helpful at this point. It's not preventative, because he's said he's not going to do it anymore. It's not coercive, because he's acknowledged the concerns and said he's not going to do it anymore. So why block? --Elonka 06:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The "preposterous charade" comment below sums it up. We've been dragged to Arbcom hundreds of times over this kind of crap. Levine2112 explicitly denies bad motives ("I was not trying to bait"), which either means that he does not understand that what he did was wrong, or that he thinks he can pretend that he doesn't and get away with it. Block him for a month, block the next editor that drags us in here for a month, and keep doing it until this crap stops.—Kww(talk) 06:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112's preposterous charade above may make one's blood boil with contempt but ultimately it only served to demonstrate dishonest motives. There's no way a block is going to get support and it wouldn't achieve much anyway. I propose a 1 month ban from this page for using it in bad faith; if he needs to make a report, he can email it to an admin. CIreland (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That approach may work. Additionally, Levine2112 should be banned from any further interaction with SA. Somebody cleverer than me may suggest proper wording. Jehochman ^Talk 06:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the heavy overlap in the areas in which they edit a ban on interaction will be quite difficult to construct. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure SA is going to be doing much editing in the near future. Can you folks figure out some sort of consequence. I am done here for the evening. Jehochman ^Talk 06:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely some sort of consequence for Leveine2112. A short block and a ban from this page and at least a stern warning about interaction with SA. dougweller (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right. I was going to propose something similar. Cardamon (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both Kww and CIreland, and Jehochman on general principle. The commentary on my talkpage was stretching my good faith; when Levine tried to get me to take action with the police via email with appeals to emotion, I realized I'd been taken advantage of by his dog and pony show. east718 // talk // email // 07:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A topic ban for both of them (exact area to be discussed) and a restriction from editing each other's talk pages, anybody? --John (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with a topic ban and a restriction from editing each other's talk pages. Frankly, I don't see how this is a blockable offense, as it was not incivil or a personal attack, but Levine2112 collecting information for a SSP case. Granted that it should have been posted on the SSP page instead of cluttering SA's talk page, but this could have been handled far better on SA's end. I noted that FT2 has protected SA's talk page for the duration of the block, which was a good move; if the incivility and gross personal attacks continue post-block, then I move that SA be permanently blocked, pending further review of his actions and the outcome of the Cold Fusion ArbCom case. seicer | talk | contribs 14:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

To keep SA and MartinPhi apart we ended up having to write a community sanction keeping the two of them apart. It is here. Perhaps we should duplicate that restriction here, preferrably as an interim measure. For the long run, I think all the relevant evidence should be added to the current arbitration case. GRBerry 15:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I believe there is consensus support for that. Would you like to implement it, effective from now until the end of the case? (I am a party to the case so I should not do it myself.) Jehochman ^Talk 15:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I voluntarily resigned as an administrator last month when someone asked me to run for ArbComm. It proved to me that I was spending too much time on the wrong sort of work. Obviously, my attempt to stay away from dispute resolution isn't working very well, but I'm not willing to pick the tools back up. And SA has as little belief in my impartiality as he does in Elonka's, wrongly in each case, so even if I had the tools it would not be a low drama step for me to implement. GRBerry 15:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am clerking the Cold Fusion case, so I will not be commenting on the merits or lack thereof of the complainants and other ideas expressed, but I will note procedurally, that the complaint here is outside of arbitration enforcement, and the admins involved should consider a wider community involvement via WP:AN or WP:ANI--Tznkai (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, they seem to have been bickering within the realm of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Is there any reason that discretionary sanctions remedy cannot be employed? Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Upon examination - maybe, maybe not. I leave it to the administrators here whether this issue falls within "area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted)" or within more general policies.--Tznkai (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am still in support of an indef block for ScienceApologist, since he has not responded to multiple warnings and other efforts to get him to modify his behavior. As for Levine2112, I'm still not entirely understanding what the current concern is. I agree that he was being somewhat disruptive, but he has stopped that behavior, and has acknowledged that he understands what he did wrong, and that he will not repeat. If there is other behavior from his side that is still being disruptive, we could potentially implement ArbCom sanctions, but we'd want to warn him first, and give him an opportunity to modify his own behavior so that sanctions are not necessary. That is the intent of the discretionary sanctions from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, that "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.". Levine2112 definitely knows about the case, but I don't believe we've counseled him on what he needs to do differently. Now, if we do counsel him on what needs to change, and he does not change the behavior, then sanctions might be appropriate. But so far I'm not seeing anyone making specific suggestions other than "ban him". So again, what do we want to see him do differently? The way that sanctions are supposed to work, is that first we define, then we counsel, via a clear note on his talkpage, and then only if the counseling is ignored, should we proceed to a ban or block. --Elonka 18:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, would you be willing to issue the warning and provide the counseling? Jehochman ^Talk 18:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that Levine2112 doesn't understand what behavior is problematic here, any more than SA doesn't understand what behavior is problematic. Both of them have been advised not to do various things, and they choose not to follow the advice. For Levine2112, what needs to change is that he needs to interact with SA as little as possible, and he needs not to post to SA's talk page, under any circumstances. But Levine2112 should have already known, long before yesterday, that posting sockpuppet accusations on SA's talk page would have no benefit for the encyclopedia, and was highly likely to lead to an angry post from SA and an ensuing drama fest. Does this justify SA's "threat"? No; both editors were acting foolishly. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. SA's frustration was not formed in a vacuum and the lashing-out was a predictable result of actions that were at best inappropriately inflammatory and aggressive. I find SA's various responses wholly and incontrovertably unacceptable for civil discourse, but Levine2112's hyperbole and hyperventilation regarding the "threat", and subsequent denial of any untoward motives strains credulity; if the situation was reversed (SA posting 23 messages on Levine2112's talk page, accusing, accurately or otherwise, Levine2112 of sock/meatpuppetry), the potential dramatic outcomes would still be obvious, and any plea of ignorance regarding those expectations would lack complete credibility. These two fight all the time, both constantly seeking to rid Wikipedia of the other.

So, what to do...? SA's voluntary wikibreak and the page protection serve functionally as a month-long block from editing (an arguably reasonable outcome). I say we hold him to that wikibreak: no block needed unless he comes back before the New Year. (Perhaps it would be reasonable to allow reversions of obvious vandalism, or content work in userspace? Dunno.) Furthermore, I think we strongly encourage Levine2112 to take a similar length wikibreak for his part in stirring up this hornet's nest. Finally, both Levine2112 and SA should be indefinitely banned from each other's talk pages and from directly pursuing administrative action against each other on this board and various ANs--if something is important enough to be considered for action, they'll have no problem finding a third party to broach the topic (this needn't be a prohibition on involvement in such discussions, rather a forced application of a 2nd opinion sanity check). These would have the benefits, if followed, of requiring no more admin button pressing for this event, allowing a cool-off period for everyone, and reducing the potential for future drama. — Scientizzle 20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Something has got to be done here. SA's "threat" was obviously not a serious threat that he intended to carry out, but that doesn't make it ok. On an unrelated discussion, he falsely accused me of extortion via a protection racket (utterly fanciful nonsense), then refused to retract his obiously false libel. The run off at the mouth without consequences cycle needs to come to an end at some point. --B (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

While it's clear that ScienceApologist should be permanently banned for this edit, it's equally obvious that there will be no consensus here to do so: too many editors, even administrators, will insist that ScienceApologist's comments were all in good fun, and perfectly acceptable conduct. Therefore, the only available means by which to permanently remove ScienceApologist's editing privileges is to file a request for arbitration concerning him. Relevant prior cases include Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. John254 20:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I share your frustration. We are too lenient with excusing or just plain ignoring bad behavior when it comes from productive editors. Until his attack on me, I was guilty of it too in this case. --B (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already filed a request for arbitration, and already requested a ban. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop#ScienceApologist banned. What a regrettable turn of events. Jehochman ^Talk 21:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In reply to John 254- I don't understand why we need another arbcom case, can't we just enforce the old ones, or don't they cover this sort of stuff ofvarious kinds, anything in this and the section above? Or do you mean Elonka has enforced with her action in the above section, then we need something done about this threats bit? Surely a block of some kind for the threats would suffice. Sticky Parkin 16:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Lighten up, Francis. rdfox 76 (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know if I'm allowed to comment here, but I just want to point out that there were plenty of people around to tell Levine2112 that he should make his comments elsewhere, if that was the case. I'm surprised, to say the least, that his actions are being so severely punished. Weren't some of the same people commenting here monitoring the discussion on SA's page? It seems like now in the wake of some unfortunate actions by SA, Levine2112 is being scape goated as the cause. If we had it to do over again, we would have suggested moving the discussion about sock puppets and such elsewhere. And SA could simply have said: "Take this discussion elsewhere." But I was as shocked as anyone, I suspect, by SA's outbursts, and I don't think it's reasonable to punish Levine2112 so substantially for a series of events that look bad in hindsight but that no one could have predicted at the time. Needless to say, I expect any future activities he has with respect to SA will be closely supervised.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)