Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Current requests

Preventing edit on Arjun MBT page

Initiated by Chanakyathegreat (talk) at 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by Chanakyathegreat

There was an edit in Arjun MBT page long back which provided a one sided view of the issue. That's the Winter trial failure. That version stayed with the involment of Admin Jauerback. Now When I try to edit the article with the latest information by providing sources without deleting the older edit, it got reverted back by By78 and later by Admin Jauerback. I am not able to edit the article because of the reverts by By78 and Jauerback. They are not understanding the issue and not allowing the article to be with correct information. The only reply that i get is accusation and comments like why don't you understand. Request the issue to be settled.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jauerback

This is essentially a content dispute, so I'm not sure where arbitration is going to lead. As of I've told Changa numerous times, I have no position on the content of the article. I was led to by a request on AN/I. Essentially, the problem is there was a consensus from other editors of the article back in August about the information that Changa was trying to change/add. Changa's sources have gotten better, but the consensus for his content hasn't changed. I've only told Changa that he needs to gain consensus as he has been warned numerous times by others for POV pushing. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected, like I thought it would be. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Stifle

Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution, used only when all previous efforts have failed. Have you tried a request for comments or mediation? Remember also that the Arbitration Committee does not tend to consider content issues without an underlying user conduct issue. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by By78

I have nothing more to say regarding this matter. For all those who are interested, please read the discussions for the Arjun article, as they contain pretty much whatever can be said about this dispute. To see records on Chanakyagreat's POV pushing, please simply refer to his talk page, as it is full of comments from other editors rebuking his POV pushing on not just the Arjun, but also the Great Power article. By78 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Supreme Court and U.S. code quotes

Initiated by Kay Sieverding (talk) at 16:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of request

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arthur_Rubin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Famspear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Non_Curat_Lex


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

There is extensive discussion on the article discussion board. Some of it they removed to subpages

Statement by Kay Sieverding

When I found the "pro se" page, it contained statements that were contrary to the U.S. code and Supreme Court statements. No sources were cited for the misrepresentations. I pasted in the U.S. code and Supreme Court cases concerning the subject both with footnotes and they were repeatedly deleted by "Non Curat Lex", "Famspear" and/or "Arthur Rubin". One of them also deleted a quotation, with references, from the ABA journal interviewing Justice Scalia. They appear to have an agenda of wanting Wikipedia to keep these Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. code, and Justice Scalia's statements secret. They keep calling Supreme Court decisions "primary sources" and "case dumps". In other articles on legal issues, Supreme Court decisions are simply summarized or quoted with footnotes. One of them deleted a Supreme Court discussion of William Penn. It does not appear that they have posted anything with any footnotes. I deleted only a few unsupported sentences that were contrary to the Supreme Court and the U.S. Code. My character is being attacked for adding quotations of the U.S. code, Supreme Court and various constitutions. I don't know what to do but I hate to see Wikipedia spreading misinformation. I don't have a problem with them posting laws, cases, quotations etc. but they are not posting verifiable authorities, they are just deleting my verifiable major authorities and criticizing me personally. They also deleted a scholarly U.S. 2nd circuit decision that quoted 2 law review articles and 4 history books. Much of what they deleted they removed to "sub pages". I don't have all the Wikipedia formatting figured out and I tried to post a request for style. I guess I did that wrong somehow because it didn't appear but they wouldn't help me do that right. All that I want to do is make sure that the U.S. code and relevant Supreme Court decisions are posted so that Wikipedia users see them. I thought the Justice Scalia interview was relevant and that the deleted 2nd Circuit discussion of history was much better than the postings without footnotes that it supplemented.

Statement by uninvolved user Stifle

I've fixed the formatting of this request. Recommend rejection as this is primarily a content issue and prior dispute resolution has not been tried. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also properly notified the involved users and explained to the filer that this RFAR is probably premature. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Famspear

I don't see this as being properly the subject of arbitration. This matter relates to the article Pro se and edits by a relatively inexperienced user, "Kay Sieverding." The article is on a legal subject -- pro se - a term describing a person who files a lawsuit representing himself or herself without using a lawyer (a perfectly legal procedure). The edits by Kay Sieverding are to some extent tententious and even off topic. The main motivation for my edits, however, is that the material Kay Sieverding is inserting is confusing, or the sourcing is confusing.

Contrary to the assertions by Kay Sieverding, I don't see any attempt or "agenda of wanting Wikipedia to keep these Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. code, and Justice Scalia's statements secret." I also don't see any personal attacks against Kay Sieverding. The legal right of an individual to file a lawsuit without a lawyer is not exactly a secret, and there is little that is controversial about it.

It does appear to me that the account for "Kay Sieverding" is being used for a single purpose by an individual with a conflict of interest, especially regarding the topic of pro se litigation. For background, google the name "Kay Sieverding" and the problems she has been having with the U.S. legal system in her pro se lawsuits.

I believe editors Robert A. West, Arthur Rubin, Non Curat Lex, and myself are trying to deal with the edits by Kay Sieverding in a constructive manner. This is not a proper subject for arbitration, in my opinion. Yours, Famspear (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor Robert A. West

I have edited several articles in cooperation with both users Famspear and Arthur Rubin. I have always found them respectful, patient and mindful of Wikipedia policies. I came across this article just today, and there are some serious cleanup issues, mostly related to primary sources (statutes and opinions) that have been "dumped" into the article . A quick review of the history convinces me that this is a garden-variety content dispute that can be resolved by the ordinary workings of Wikipedia. I see no evidence of any conduct issue, on either side, requiring intervention by Arbcom. I am hopeful that, as another editor who is not a legal technician, I can be of assistance. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Arthur Rubin's request below, I have attempted to format an RfC per Kay's apparent wishes. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Non Curat Lex

I agree with Famspear and the uninvolved editors to weigh in to this point. The request pertains to content, primary dispute resolution has not been attempted. Therefore, the request for arbitration should be denied (without prejudice) as premature. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arthur Rubin

I agree that this is a content dispute, although my refactoring the text inserts into subpages of the talk page might also be considered questionable. In any case, the proper venue is an article RfC, which Kay attempted to do (but didn't format it correctly). If any uninvolved editor or arbitor wishes to reformat the RfC attempt at the start of Talk:Pro se#Quotations of U.S. Supreme Court as verifiable source into a proper RfC, I have no objection. (I don't think I should do it, myself.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Decline; premature, and content issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, per jpgordon. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. It is a content dispute and it has not gone through previous steps in dispute resolution. Also please note that court judgments themselves are normally considered as primary sources, which does not mean that they are not reliable and cannot be used, but does mean that a secondary source is preferred. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban of Benjiboi

Initiated by Daedalus969 (talk) at 10:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


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

Statement by Daedalus969

I request that Benjiboi's topic ban be removed, as it was discussed without his notification here, and apparently, the blocking admin used this discussion as reasoning to ban him from the topic, as noted here. I was aware that secret trials were prohibited here at wikipedia, due to a Arbcom case in the past that I read through. Although I cannot cite the case, I hope those reading this know which case I speak of. If not, then I shall look for the link if requested.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 10:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I remembered the case that prompted me to request this, please see Orangemarlin.

Just to make sure I make my case clear, the topic-banned user was not given due process regarding his ban, and the situation could have been remedied with a warning to cease and desist. Is an indef ban really necessary for what happened here?— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 10:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Guy

As the user in question has continuously stated, it is not the the ban on that particular topic that distresses him, but the way the topic ban was handled. As he has stated to you numerous times(this is not a quote): it would be the same if it was any other article or topic, and the same procedure you used for this ban was used again.

Response to GRBerry and Jpgordon

As to the final version of the thread at the notice board, I had not known it had existed. Secondly, I shall not withdraw, as I believe that if the topic-banned user had been notified, and in fact, others outside the subject of debate were involved, that the outcome would have been different. This is in regards to the statements by GRBerry, where it is asserted that assumptions had been made despite the fact that that the topic-banned user in question was willing to back down and apologize if noted. If you disagree with this, GRBerry, can you please cite the specific lines which justify the assumptions that the topic banned user "essentially promised to keep violating policy" and that "Benjiboi can get the topic ban reversed simply by modifying his stance toward editing the article, but he's made it clear he won't do so".— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Fay

An indef topic ban to prevent what? It isn't the topic that the user is concerned with, as the user has previously stated that he wants to distance himself from the subject, it is the way he was treated in regards to the topic ban. I still have yet to receive responses from my own concerning how he was treated. But as I was saying, it is not that the user is obsessed about this particular subject, it's about the fact that he was topic-banned in an unjust way without due-process. That is why another tried to clear his name in the past.

An indef ban without a warning to stop in the first place; when the editor wishes to distance himself from the subject, why is an indef topic-ban required?— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 07:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

What, again? We already went round this loop several times. The subject considers Benjoboi's edits to be agenda-driven and offensive, I concur that Benjiboi's edits and discussions there have proved inflammatory in the past, and the subject is a serial complainer to OTRS but it seems that things are currently quiet, we've not had a complaint for about four months I think, and I believe that topic-banning Benjiboi was a major factor in achieving peace - and this is not a reflection on Benjiboi, more on the history between the two, particularly in the matter of tireless advocacy of a meme which the subject vigorously denies and is based on interpretation of one passing comment in one interview - which many of us judged violated WP:UNDUE even if it passed WP:V, which is debatable.

The ticket list is not short and I don't think OTRS has the bandwidth to take this one up again right now, it's been a massive time-sink.

And the uber-ticket to which others were merged:

This doesn't mean anyone is evil, just that the mere presence of Benjiboi is inflammatory to this rather volatile article subject. There's no assertion that the article lacks neutrality as a result of Benjiboi's absence.

We have 8 million editors and 2.5 million articles, surely Benjiboi can accept that this particular article should simply be left to someone else? Guy (Help!) 11:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Benjiboi

Admin Guy (JzG) topic-banned me from Matt Sanchez citing a Morton's Fork, believe it or not, that the subject of that BLP, was distressed by my presence there. I was never warned or cautioned and the trigger incident seems to show I was on the side of reason so the whole matter has brought me unneeded wikistress. In this forum I've already been accused of promising to violate policy which is false, I pretty much always stated the opposite. This entire Sanchez drama has opened my eyes a bit more to gaming wikipedia and how admin tools should be used so I certainly have learned from this. Matt Sanchez, is a former gay porn star amongst other things. He used to edit here as well until he was community-banned for personal attacks amongst other violations. Since then he has apparently been taking opportunities to make his concerns known through the OTRS system regarding myself and other editors. More than all his personal attacks, and what I see as wikistalking of me I find the topic ban stressful as the admin seemed to pride themself on getting people banned and didn't bother to dialog with me to let me know there was any issue involving my editing. Personally I've been made aware of some information about the subject of the article's stability that makes me want to have nothing to do with that article and the other drama related to this entire affair affirm that decision. I notice soon after my case a recommendation to provide "A diff showing that the user has previously been cautioned at their talkpage about the sanctions" has been added to the WP:AE instructions.

If someone is misbehaving we dialog - especially if they have shown a willingness to communicate. That I can't wikilawyer well, is not, IMHO, a bad thing. Unlike the admin who banned me I take all bans seriously and not "no big deal". In addition, the original issues were 1. Citing content to the original source instead of YouTube - something I would have supported if it was presented as such. and 2. Discussing Sanchez's broadcasted, and later denied, statements he was a prostitute for men - we discuss uncomfortable material all the time, and after my ban there finally was a discussion but minus all those who had been driven anyway. I never advocated for including false information but instead advocated for discussing the issue of how to treat the sources and statement. It is central to Sanchex's notability and therefore seemed a relevant subject to discuss for possible use in the article. Take from this what you will but I will have nothing to do with it and my eyes are much further opened to issues of gaming and how to treat other editors. That the banning admin shows more good faith towards a community banned editor and paints me as inflamatory, offensive and trying to insert false information, etc. is a bit alarming but sadly I'm used to it. Sanchez was told that I was the last editor he could drive away from the article about him so it's little surprise that's what happened. Since the topic ban I haven't touched the article, and I want nothing to do with him or his article. The prostitution statement is verifiable but I no longer care and unless asked to participate with some compelling reason would rather not be involved with Sanchez on any level - if he again wikistalks me I will simply use AIV or ANI, etc. ::Banjeboi 19:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to jpgordon and GRBerry
  • "essentially promised to keep violating policy"
  • "Benjiboi can get the topic ban reversed simply by modifying his stance toward editing the article, but he's made it clear he won't do so"
This is patently false. I've never said I would violate policies and indeed stated throughout the process that I would do my best to follow policies and also indicated that if I was violating any policy to please let me know. I was, and am still against removing of sources without discussion but I have no interest in violating policies on that or any other article and my record suggests that following policies is what I do. -- Banjeboi 22:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to jpgordon

I would prefer that the topic ban be lifted, I feel it was a premature step, and unwarranted, and just because I have no interest in the article is no reason to hold an indefinite ban over my head. Treating editors in this manner is in poor taste and i would prefer to have my name cleared of this. -- Banjeboi 23:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also from WP:Ban "The Arbitration Committee can use a ban as a remedy usually following a request for arbitration. In the past these bans have nearly always been of limited duration, with a maximum of one year." I see no reason to keep a ban on an editor that may have been unneeded in the first place, has caused an otherwise good user stress and doesn't seem to be needed. Unclear what good is coming from what I see as a smear against my reputation. -- Banjeboi 23:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to FayssalF

This isn't prevention it's a punishment now, I've shown no obsession and my only wish is to clear my name. I would hope too that no one else was treated in this manner per WP:AGF policy. Editors in good standing shouldn't have to have a scarlet letter. The ban wasn't needed and an indefinite ban serves only to bring me stress. If I were to edit there again, had I any interest - which I don't - don't you think I would be unwaveringly cautious? Indeed I did learn more about BLP policies as a result of this as well as nuances of sourcing and image policy, hopefully we all learn from our mistakes. I have moved on and continue to learn as I go. My record on editing, I believe, is rather clear of any charges that I was in some way violating policies and when an issue comes up i look to the spirit of our policies as well as the letter of them. They exist not so we can punish each other but so we can creat and improve the project collaboratively.

So the only reason to hang an indefinite ban on someone is keep them away from an article they simply can't be trusted to follow policies on - that is not the case here. Instead the subject of the article, now forced by their using personal attacks and socks against myself and another editor (since banned), targeted me. An admin, who's got a bit of a reputation for heavy-handedness and over-zealousness, painted me as a problem editor and has perpetuated that through their accusations and, IMHO, lack of good faith towards me. And now this situation, which could have been easily resolved - on my end at least - is at the half-year mark as far as this episode is concerned. It's not preventing anything and it causes me grief. -- Banjeboi 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sam Blacketer

I actually have calmed down quite a bit in my dealings with other editors, and except in AfD situations - where there is only a few days for any action - have learned to adapt to the concept that we aren't in a rush. I handle content issues better now and in this case I think I would have started or suggested an RFC to try to put the issue to rest. What has been implied repeatedly is that I want to simply add - or did add - controversial and unsourced content. That's simply not true, I wanted to have the discussion resolved what was usable and did the sourcing support it, it had been a source of ongoing debate and like all the other threads there I tried to find closure - could we use any of this or not. These are the same conversations we are suppose to have on borderline and controversial material.

the topic ban was subsequently debated with Benjiboi's participation
I walked into a forum where I was assumed guilty having to prove my innocence, I was shocked that I had been banned. Even in that forum people stated that generally my editing there was fine with a few transgressions that an apology and dialog about sourcing to the original broadcaster would have easily resolved. The banning admin showed no signs of changing their stance and readily dismissed my attempts as resolution and dialog insisting i would have to seek an overturn at Arbcom. So besides behaving myself, following policies, remaining civil throughout this ordeal, and being a good editor - all of which I've done - I'm wondering how I can clear my name of this. -- Banjeboi 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added note of clarity to Sam Blacketer

In response to I would need reassurance that Benjiboi understood how to improve behaviour.
I believe I've stated this numerous times but in case it needs repeating I now generally avoid using sarcasm and extend plenty of good faith towards other editors - even when I feel they are quite mistaken on an issue. There are plenty of admins who I have confidence to dispassionately offer assistance when needed so when dealing with problem editors or content I am happy to dialog when there is disagreement and am comfortable handing a situation off to others if it is warranted. I've walked away from quite a few articles now where the atmosphere was toxic or a battleground so taking a break or leaving it altogether was a good choice for me. Unsure what other assurance would help but I hope this helps. -- Banjeboi 10:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note from GRBerry

The filing party does not link to the final version of the thread, in which Benjiboi did get a chance to respond, and essentially promised to keep violating policy in the same way he had been. The final version is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive18#Matt Sanchez. GRBerry 13:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Random Question from Rocksanddirt

Has Benjiboi asked for a retraction of the topic ban? I recall the initial discussions, and agree with JzG that it seems that the issue is really between the subject and benjiboi, rather then some general failing of benjiboi to be a appropriate editor generally. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes

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

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

  • CommentReject: Apparently this request is based on the procedure that led to the topic ban, as opposed to the reasoning and actions that resulted in the topic ban. I'm inclined to reject; tThough it's correct that Benjiboi doesn't appear to have been brought into the original conversation on 22-23 March, he quite fully explained his positions on 24 March, and did not succeed in altering the conclusion of the reviewing administrators. The same result would have occurred if JzG had warned Benjiboi of the impending topic ban and invited him to the discussion rather than taking immediate action. The likely result of an arbitration on this matter would be a principle that warning is good, a finding of fact that a warning wasn't given, and a remedy that that JzG should be reminded about issuing such warnings. None of that would invalidate the topic ban. Benjiboi can get the topic ban reversed simply by modifying his stance toward editing the article, but he's made it clear he won't do so, and as such it falls under the article probation in Bluemarine, and no further action is necessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "reject". Given Benjiboi's comment above, the topic ban is harmless, since he has no intention of going to the article anyway; or, alternately, it could be said that the topic ban is working. I suggest the filer withdraw the action, since the actually subject doesn't seem to want or need it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I am very uncomfortable with the obsession of editing one specific article (involving a specific edit) when there are millions out there. This is a wp:blp which has had a long history indeed. I'd prefer prevention than taking action. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. A WP:BLP about a controversial subject which has seen problematic edits (even if the subject was unaware and not expressing himself forcefully) is a place for calm editors and I fear Benjiboi's passion on the subject has led him to excessive zeal. The subject does not have a veto on who may edit his biography but I would need reassurance that Benjiboi understood how to improve his behaviour before considering whether to overturn the ban, and that I lack at present. The procedural point is one without substance; there are circumstances in which an editor can be restricted without having been warned, and as pointed out the topic ban was subsequently debated with Benjiboi's participation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Georgewilliamherbert

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

Involved parties

  • Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
  • Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • arguably Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[2] [3] [4]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[5]

Statement by Moreschi

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

Given that GWH has spotty history with the block button [6] [7] [8] and [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] I think this merits a couple of months off from the admin buttons. Think of it as relaxing vacation so he can re-evaluate his performance. He's not a bad guy, just seems to be a bit out of touch. Moreschi (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, RFC would be useless for temporary desysopping, arbcom being the only body that can do this, and I think it would be useless anyway, seeing as everyone's already told him he's wrong at ANI and he didn't listen. And he's still not listening. I see no need to open a full case: the evidence is not complex. A simple vote on this page should suffice. Moreschi (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for anything drastic. Just a couple months away from the tools to think about things, because he is making bad blocks while not making really very many blocks. Moreschi (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another particularly bad civility block seems to be the block of Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one comment, not directed at any one individual made in response to clear baiting at, [15]. Why that one was not overturned I don't know. All of these are comparatively recent, too. The ANI thread for this one is linked to above. Moreschi (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a further note: I'd be surprised if there's really a need for a Stifle RFAR, although I actually overturned (to which Stifle, to his credit, did not object) a very dodgy "personal attacks" block of Paul Barlow (talk · contribs) he made recently. There are two issues here, only one of which is for arbcom to resolve: "incivility blocks" and GWH's judgment. The latter is within your purview, guys - the former is more important, but that we will simply have to sort out ourselves. Essentially, WP:CIVIL needs to be rewritten, but that's the community's task. Moreschi (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

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

My comment on ANI this morning was this one.

I stand by that statement . Before blocking, I reviewed Giano's complete contributions in that thread, other contributions recently, and the thread context on AN ( [16] ) regarding Stifle's block of Peter Damian.

This revolves around three issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(addendum 2) Responding to a couple of the comments below - regarding the particulars of what I did here"
  1. I was not on IRC (and as a rule am not, my current workplace has a firewall which doesn't pass the traffic out) and not part of the group of people who are usually involved there, as far as I know. If there are lingering issues with the IRC / administrator interactions that's fine, but please keep that separate from what happened here.
  2. I wasn't involved in (and hadn't previously read) the AN thread which I blocked over, and wasn't trying to goad or encourage followup sanctions, both because that's rude and abusive and because I read the most recent prior arbcom case decision and am aware that that sort of behavior is currently appropriately a focus of attention. I did civilly try to discuss the events with Giano (after the block) and had no intention of continuing to engage if it was just provoking things.
It's clear that this incident has inadvertently held up a mirror and a lot of things look uglier than we want them to. If there's a decision to examine those issues then that makes sense - I just don't want anyone under a misaprehension that this particular thing happened because of an IRC clique or because I was stalking Giano and trying to goad him or something crazy like that. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

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

Comment by Jehochman

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

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

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

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

Comment by Durova

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

Comment by Coren

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

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

Statement by John254

I would suggest that this case be accepted to examine Stifle's egregiously inappropriate and premature AFD nomination of Epistemic theory of miracles, which resulted in Peter Damian (talk · contribs) leaving the project in disgust, as described at [17], and precipitated this conflict. Despite the fact that serious concerns regarding the AFD were raised at WP:AN, Stifle has maintained the legitimacy of the nomination, refuses to promise to refrain from further nominations of this nature, and indeed blames Peter Damian for starting an article in the main namespace [18]! While there may be no prior formal dispute resolution with respect to this matter, how many valuable content contributors should Stifle be permitted to drive off the project before his behavior is examined by this committee? John254 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bishonen

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

Comment from JzG

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

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

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

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

Comment from Mr. IP

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

Comment from uninvolved Horologium

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

Comment from uninvolved S. Dean Jameson

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

Comment from Tom harrison

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

Comment from uninvolved Ncmvocalist

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

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

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

After reviewing a few other incidents, I think there might be a case after all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Chillum

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

Comment from Giano

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

In February of this year a group of Arbs namely (FloNight, Deskana, UninvitedCompany, Kirill Lokshin,Sam Blacketer, Morven and Jpgordon) placed this sanction [19] upon me. This was not because I had been hurtling about referring to other editors as "Bastard bitches from hell" "Fucking bastards" etc and other choice expressions used by some of my peers, but because I had become widely known for pointing out the shortcomings of the project - and most worryingly to the Arbcom, I seemed to have quite a lot of editors who supported my views - and still do. The Arbcom knew at the time of passing the motion that certain admins would use the sanction to ensure Wikipedia censorship - in fact, there is no alternative explanation, but to believe this was the Arbcom's intention - it has undeniably been the result, and as a consequence , "civility" is now used as a weapon by those in authority for silencing dissent. This is a bad state of affairs, and those members of the Arbcom who passed the sanction upon me have to shoulder some responsibility for this deplorable state of affairs. I think those that chose to become Arbs have to expect some criticism and take it on the chin, and not exact personal vengeance.[20]

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

I seldom use the word troll, for the reasons explained here [21] so when I do use it - it is with the correct form and meaning. That is not being uncivil - it is using it for the good of the project. Giano (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stifle

For the record:

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

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

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

I've just read over the AN thread (which I thought had closed and was not following) and wish to strengthen the above. I apologize for my actions in this matter and will try to be less short-sighted in future. Hopefully we can move on. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, and mine offered also in return. Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reply to FayssalF

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

Minor note

Peter Damian has recently been banned by Jimbo. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Physchim62

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

Comment from uninvolved Mayalld

This looks like drama for the sake of drama!

Was the block bad?

No, I don't believe that is was bad

Was it borderline?

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

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

Comment by Thatcher

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

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

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

Comment by involved Peter Damian

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

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

Comment by Nsk92

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Barneca

Suggest three courses of action:

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

Comment from Protonk (talk)

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

Comment from MastCell

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

For the record, I think:

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

I also think:

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

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

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

  1. If what you're doing is working, keep doing it.
  2. If what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it.
  3. If you don't know what to do, don't do anything at all.
  4. Never allow a surgeon to make patient-management decisions.

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

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

Outside View by User:Prom3th3an

Premature Case = Reject.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
  • Recuse; peripherally involved. — Coren (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/4/0/3)

  • Comment: Haven't decided whether to accept this yet -- would rather it were unnecessary. But regarding civility restrictions, I agree; I'll not be supporting civility "paroles" any more, as I believe they do more harm than good. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been a major failure of common sense. Giano should have written his comments in a way which did not raise any questions about civility. Georgewilliamherbert should have gone to Giano's talk page and pointed that out rather than blocking. WP:TROUTs all round. No arbitration case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm travelling over the holiday weekend and will not have an opportunity to carefully review and cast a vote until Wednesday. However, based on what I've seen so far, my tentative view is to decline in favor of the suggestion that an RfC be opened; I would ask those favoring a case now to explain why that course would be insufficient, if they haven't already addressed that question. I would also urge that blocks that will inherently be controversial, such as a block of an established contributor for a borderline civility infraction in a non-urgent situation, should be brought to a noticeboard for consensus attention before rather than after the block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see my further comments below (posted at bottom for continuity). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. The community has dealt with the specific case and arbitration isn't needed. There's a slight tendency at times by some (not naming any names) to seek desysopping or arbitration committee action (rather than "remedies") for what are in fact, not egregious misuses of the tools or are reasonably construed as good faith mistakes or divergent plausible viewpoints. Not a helpful trend to the community. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on civility policy - The aim of the policy is to ensure a social contract that all can edit within, and in principle, it works and is a good one. Increasingly it's under strain in a number of high profile cases like this. The valid aims of civility policy are probably these:
  1. We rely on volunteers, which requires creating a pleasant working space for them.
  2. Users should be able to expect that other users will talk in a respectful manner to them if asked regardless of personal feelings. (Crossref political debates, where people are always referred to with an honorific even if one personally hates their guts.)
  3. Users joining Wikipedia or exploring its community should see a standard of general conduct that reflects we are encyclopedists, not school-children having a squabble.
  4. Whatever social baseline is chosen should involve mutuality and tend towards the conservative (less likely to offend more people), not just demanding "everyone must accept me however I act".
  5. Experienced editors (whether admins or not) are broadly looked to for the crucial role of setting an example, and other editors are broadly expected to adopt it on-site.
Civility is an umbrella we use for these concepts. If the community can draft a successor to civility policy that can help achieve these things without such troublesome borderline cases, then please do. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to review the administrators whose blocks were overturned in this situation. ArbCom is the correct venue for sanctioning administrators for improper use of admin tools. The blocks that were overturned were not newbie admin mistakes that will be easily corrected by input from the Community in a AN thread or a RFC. I would not accept this case unless there is a good likelihood that I would vote for sanctions. If Finding of fact establish repeated poor judgment by these administrators then they need to have sanctions. From my initial review of the incidents, I think that sanctions may be needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to think that blocking these users was a serious misjudgment that should not be brushed aside. Over and over we see admin treating our editors as if they were vandals and blocking them instead of talking with them to hear their side of the situation. ArbCom needs to step in and make it clear that blocking is not an acceptable method of dispute resolution. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(If I may). This gets to the heart of the issue I am concerned with. But how are we going to deal with it? Peter Damian (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, to review the entire chain of events (beginning with the deletion tag edit warring) and those involved. Normally I would reject this for the lack of prior dispute resolution, but I agree with FloNight's observations, and per Moreschi's statement, there may be more to this than the single incident, and it bears further consideration (whatever the final result). Moreover, the attitudes that, at first glance, appear to underly the actions taken here are extremely troubling, and that also warrants broader consideration than would be provided by narrower forms of dispute resolution. --bainer (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just noticed Thatcher's statement, and I think it a good one. There are cultural issues underlying the actions here. --bainer (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided yet on whether to take this. I agree that there are cultural and systemic issues at stake here, even more so than the conduct of individuals. I increasingly agree that civility restrictions are not working in many cases and we need to find a different way of handling these issues. That way, IMO, cannot involve us throwing our civility standards under the bus. A reasonable level of decorum is expected on Wikipedia, especially from those who have been around long enough to know what's expected. Giano, I don't accept your argument that your incivility is OK because you're only attacking experienced users who should be able to brush it off. It damages the general tone of discourse here, and inexperienced users reading such things won't be able to make the distinction that it's OK for established users to insult other established users, but they can't do it. What I do agree with is that (a) enforcement of civility restrictions is biased, and incivility is often goaded with the aim of getting someone blocked, and (b) much rude behavior from admins and others is tolerated because it doesn't breach our artificial civility rules, but the user getting angry at being so treated is then blocked. I've also long agreed that our deletion procedures and the way we treat new content and new contributors are awful, assume bad faith, and are exceptionally and needlessly aggressive. The excuse of 'Well, we have this firehose of crap to deal with, so we have to be rude to do the job' doesn't, IMO, hold up. There's absolutely no reason why we can't give people, via bot or something, a feed of 24-hour-old or week-old articles, and weed out the crap THEN after people have had the chance to fix it. Or at least, look immediately for the insults and obvious spam and the like and worry about the non-speedy-able stuff a day or a week later. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Georgewilliamherbert's block of Giano II was problematic but we generally do not take a case to review a particular short-term block that was quickly overturned. Here, however, the block raises broader issues about the threshold of civility blocks, particularly of users under related remedies based on decisions of this committee. (The fact that I dissented in part from the governing decision does not change my analysis.) I am persuaded, though not overwhelmingly so, that we should say something about this block, but the key facts appear to be before us without the need to develop a further evidentiary record over a week or more, and I do not believe that the so-called "drama" that would be associated with another case concerning a "Giano block" would be helpful. Separately from the validity of the block, several of the comments above, including those of Thatcher and Morven, raise an important issue but one that probably is not susceptible to resolution by a decision of this committee, save for a precatory one. Under the circumstances, in lieu of voting to accept a full-fledged, arbitration case, I offer a motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as unlikely to produce any useful outcome. (For the inordinately curious, further comments at some length can be found below.) Kirill (prof) 01:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Some people are just being uncivil for no particular reason. It is not the case with Giano and Peter Damian. It seems clearly that their incivility issue is a result of some other more important issues. Civility can be nothing compared to those issues... IRC and some unwarranted admins' aggressive stance and style. This has probably nothing to do with Georgewilliamherbert who could have gone to Giano's talk page at least and see if he could fix the problem otherwise. Ok, now, Fuck both IRC and incivility (this is uncivil in my small village and I am just saying it here for the sake of argument)... Many troubles come from IRC. I personally do not recognize decisions being made there and consider that parasitism. In a nutshell, incivility is less a problem compared to some partisan decisions being made there or to some aggressive admin interventions. I suggest that the ArbCom keep the civility restrictions to counter unwarranted civility issues BUT rule out decisions made on IRC and address the admin way of intervening. Otherwise, the restrictions should be lifted. We cannot maintain civility paroles while closing our eyes when it comes to the roots of the problem. They serve for nothing but to worsen situations. Fortunately, the Peter Damian/Stifle incident has been solved in a very appropriate way but would that be enough? Not really. That is why I am accepting this case. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

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

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

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

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

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

Support:

  1. Proposed. See general comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm supporting specifically because b will, as Kirill says, gut the "any admin" model of sanctions. It's time to gut it in favor of requiring discussion before blocking. "Any admin" is particularly improper with the necessarily vague definition of "civility". If I thought it had a chance of passing, I'd move to immediately amend all existing "any admin" civility paroles to "discuss it on AE" civility paroles. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. Due to Georgewilliamherbert's comments on this request, I oppose since I do not think a warning is enough to get his attention. Blocking should rarely be used against Wikipedia editors. When users have a sanction against them, it is going to be one of the few instance when I think a block should be considered on users. But it always needs to be a last resort to stop a serious problem during an active incident. That simply was not the case in this situation. I do not see more harm coming from Giano's comments then others in the discussion. And in this incident, I'm at a loss to see how blocking Giano was going to do anything to help the Project. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (B) basically guts our traditional "any administrator" model of sanctions; I don't think that's a useful step to take until we have something else to use. Kirill (prof) 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We can put the question separately on the three sub-parts if desired. It looks like this request is going to be rejected as a full case under the "net 4" rule, and I would like to get at least some result out of the discussion, which has touched on some important points. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with the sentiments of all parts with one possible exception, but disagree that it needs a resolution of the committee to declare so officially. (If a centralised discussion on a topic is needed then just start one). The exception is the part warning Georgewilliamherbert off enforcing on Giano; it puts an administrator in an impossible position to be urged to refrain from taking action as the administrator has to think action is necessary before they take it. Georgewilliamherbert should be either clearly allowed, or clearly not allowed, to take action in according with policy. At present I do not think there is a justification for preventing him. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

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

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

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


Current requests

Motion in E104421-Tajik

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This was recommended to us by Khoikhoi, and I thank him for offering to help enforce the editing restriction. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

For this motion, there are 11 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.

1) Remedy 1 in E104421-Tajik is rescinded.

2) Tajik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on an editing restriction. Tajik is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Support:

  1. bainer (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill (prof) 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=237848390

Leave a Reply