Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:20, 4 July 2008

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Bishonen

I agree wholeheartedly with Irpen and others that the ArbCom has more urgent things to do, and needs to focus on solving the FT2 problem and answering the questions asked by the community re the IRC case. However, as it appears the committee would rather eat worms than focus on those issues, and as the case has in fact been accepted and involves a lot of people, I will try to help by addressing some specific points. In the interest of symmetry and the hope of conducing to clarity, I will refer to myself in the third person—"Bishonen".

Giano

Giano is sitting out a 49-hour block (P.S., just changed to 24 hours), and is presumably not of great interest to the ArbCom at this moment.

Criticism/praise appropriate to certain editors.

For fomenting drama by baiting Giano (an editor under civility parole), into breaking his parole, Avruch, as well as William M. Connolley, who came to Giano's page to taunt him while he was blocked, should be sanctioned or slapped with a trout. It is a terrible idea to bait an editor under civility parole. Please see the diffs in the Opposes to Avruch's recent unsuccessful RFA, which show him to have made something of a habit of that with respect to Giano. (That was the reason his RFA failed.) It's an equally terrible idea to go to the talkpage of an editor who is fuming under a block, and taunt him into fuming some more—and then block him some more for it, as William M. Connolley did. I think it's high time there was something about these destructive forms of drama-mongering in the policy, in WP:BLOCK. Tex , Bishonen, Thatcher and Geogre have all protested against such practices before, regarding other users (I mention this principled stand apropos of WMC's insinuation about "Giano's friends" always trying to overturn any sanctions imposed on him ), and they do so in this case as well: "Oh, come on William . You're sounding like you're talking to a child." "Do you have to come here to be offended? Is that some kind of compulsion"?? "Reblocking someone for being pissed off on their own talk page in response to a block is just about the most petty thing I can think of," " "I have a completely painless solution for people who feel that "incivility" has been here: DROP IT FROM YOUR WATCHLIST and ignore it. For being voices of sanity and moderation, Tex, Bishonen, Thatcher, and Geogre deserve a flower—say, a rose—on their pages, from the ArbCom. In the case of Bishonen, who is looking like an idiot for pompously exiting her "wikibreak" so as to post a "final message" from Giano on his "protected" page, immediately followed by a stream of fresh posts from Giano, I suggest modifying her reward into a trout bearing a rose in its mouth.

Geogre has not wheel-warred.

I will not go into the over-all wheel-warring thing, as I'm sure enough people will go to town with it, but I will query the notion that Geogre of all people was wheel-warring. (Feel free come discuss matter on Bishzilla page, Sir Fozzie. Sir Fozzie..? Come back here!) I have trouble shaking the notion that it's unnecessary, as the ArbCom is surely capable of reading Giano's log and Geogre's edits, but a timeline combining the two might still be useful. Here are all the block actions re Giano—William M. Connolley's, Geogre's and Avraham's—for July 1, UTC, combined with Geogre's edits during the same time:

1. WMC block action 18:59, 1 July 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment of other users)
2. WMC block action 20:17, 1 July 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (to extend block)
3. WMC block action 20:20, 1 July 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (repeated incivility)
4. WMC block action 20:26, 1 July 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (oh dear)
5. WMC block action 20:27, 1 July 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (re-repeated incivility)
6. Geogre edit 21:01, 1 July 2008 User talk:Giano II‎ (→Talk page protection)
7. Geogre unprotection action 21:02, 1 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Giano II‎ (Unprotected User talk:Giano II: Utter horse flop: we don't DO that. Don't watch shows that you don't like.)
8. Geogre edit 21:05, 1 July 2008 User talk:Giano II‎ (→Civility block, again)
9. Geogre block action 21:06, 1 July 2008 Geogre (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (unblock to change duration)
10. Geogre edit 21:08, 1 July 2008 User talk:Giano II‎ (→Talk page protection)
11. Geogre edit 21:10, 1 July 2008
12. Avraham block action 21:11, 1 July 2008 Avraham (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 hour ‎ (Original 3 hour block set to expire in 1 hour)
13. WMC block action 21:21, 1 July 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (to restore)
14. WMC block action 21:21, 1 July 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (restoring valid civility block)

The salient events are those from 20:27 to 21:11. This is where WMC drastically lengthens his block; Geogre unprotects Giano's page; Geogre posts on Giano's page; Geogre unblocks Giano "to change duration"; Geogre posts again on Giano's page; and then Avraham blocks Giano for one hour, presenting Geogre with a fait accompli and providing the explanation that this is the original 3-hour block minus two hours for time already served. In other words: Avraham undoes William M. Connolley's taunt-then-block-some-more upping of the original block from from 3 (!) hours to 48 hours (!). I don't by any means consider Avraham to have been wheel-warring with WMC, but rather to be instating consensus (per Bishonen, Tex, Thatcher, and Geogre, as above) that WMC was wrong to add (twice!) to the block. Geogre then—surely reasonably, and expectably—chooses to leave Avraham's block in situ. Technically, then, Geogre merely unblocked (once)—but looking at the timeline, how can anybody suppose it was his intention to merely unblock? Is he supposed to have been LYING when he said "to change duration"? Apart from not being a notorious liar (or do you say he is, Sir Fozzie?)—if he was, would he be doing it in full view like that..?
Sir Fozzie seems to think that this edit by Geogre somehow implies that he never meant to change the duration, but merely to unblock Giano and leave it at that. Because it says "block overturned"..? But please look at the timeline! Geogre posted that remark about WMC's 48-hour block (please read it, already), then unblocked to change duration; clearly he was going to overturn WMC's addition to his original block—not the whole of it. As it happened, though, Geogre never re-instated the original short block, because Avraham already had. Fozzie, you're either misreading or misinterpreting, I don't know which, but it's simply not logical to accuse Geogre of wheel-warring. (Especially when you don't accuse Avraham of anything—he is doing, in intention, the exact same thing as Geogre. Not that I think you should accuse him of anything.)

I'm sorry, I realize this evidence with all its timestamps is hard and displeasing to wrap your mind around, but if you have any notion that Geogre wheel-warred, please give it a chance, Bishonen | talk 01:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC).

Evidence presented by User:Stifle

I forget whether presenting evidence makes me a party, but if it does, then feel free to add me.

Wheel-warring

With reference to Bishonen's evidence above and to wheel warring, WP:WHEEL provides the following "possible indications" of wheel warring:

• Administrators getting too distressed to discuss something.
• An administrator undoes another administrator's actions without consultation.
• An administrator deliberately ignores an existing discussion (often at the Administrators noticeboard/Incidents or Deletion review) and implements their own preferred action or version of an edit.
• An administrative action is repeatedly performed and reversed (by anyone).

The second definition would suggest that Geogre wheel warred (both by unprotecting Giano II's talk page and unblocking Giano II) and the fourth that William M. Connolley wheel warred (by reblocking Giano II). It would appear Avraham did not.

(Supporting evidence: Giano II's block log and protection log for Giano II's talk page)

Note

William M. Connolley has since reverted his own extension of the block and left it at approximately 24 hours from the original block. It has now expired.

Evidence presented by David Fuchs

Block removal did not have consensus

While I would prefer that this case stays on the strict scope as defined by the title, I do feel I need to respond to Bishonen's following statement: "I don't by any means consider Avraham to have been wheel-warring with WMC, but rather to be instating consensus (per Bishonen, Tex, Thatcher, and Geogre, as above) that WMC was wrong to add (twice!) to the block." Leaving aside the wheel-warring or possibility of none, or the right/wrong action of the block, Giano's "friends", for lack of a better word, do not consensus make. Geogre has shown time and time again he is willing to unblock Giano and pardon him for his "transgressions", i.e.:

1. 09:53, June 16, 2007 Geogre (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (No "exhortations" anywhere and not "incivil" comment, either)

Any time Giano is blocked, he starts up a diatribe on his talk page, and often becomes increasingly uncivil as a result. While WMC should not have instituted a longer block beyond the 24 hours, and even that should have been discussed at WP:AN first, the point is everyone here is well-acquainted with Giano's drama shows and exactly who shows up where to defend him. To sum: leaving behind all other evidence of wrongdoing, the block was not discussed and a consensus reached on Giano's talk page. (diff before blanking: ) -12:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussions about blocks:

Evidence presented by Carcharoth

Timeline of events

Going back beyond the events slightly to give some context, but the events and diffs (all timings GMT) I have found so far are as follows (note that "starting a session of editing" does not say anything about off-wiki activity or whether someone has been reading Misplaced Pages before or after that time):

• User:Giano II (hereafter Giano) started a session of editing on 1 July 2008 at 18:11 (previous edit was at 10:30 earlier that day), with a series of edits to two ongoing thread at User talk:Alison and User talk:FT2. The edits are at: 18:11, 18:15, 18:20, 18:22, 18:39 to 18:40, 18:43, and 18:46. The threads in question should be read in full to get the full context of the comments. The threads are Charades and a bal masqué and FT2's head on a platter.
• User:William M. Connolley (hereafter WMC) started a session of editing on 1 July 2008 at 18:57 (previous edit was at 06:39 earlier that day). He made one unrelated edit at 18:57, and then carried out a block of Giano at 18:59, followed by a notification of Giano at 19:00 informing him that the block was for Giano's 18:43 edit (see list above). WMC's next edit was over an hour later at 20:10, to add a note to a log someone else had made of that block. It is not clear how Giano's edit came to the attention of WMC.
• User:Geogre (hereafter Geogre) started a session of editing on 1 July 2008 at 18:50 (previous edit was at 13:47 earlier that day), with two unrelated edits at 18:50 and 18:51. The next edit came at 21:01, over two hours later. Geogre's two administrative actions were at 21:02 (page unprotection) and 21:06 (unblock of Giano "to change duration").
• User:Avruch (hereafter Avruch) started a session of editing on 1 July 2008 at 18:27 (previous edit was at 02:03 earlier that day), with an edit to the 'FT2's head on a platter' thread mentioned earlier. This edit was at 18:27. There was an unrelated edit at 18:33. Then, 40 minutes later, and 30 minutes after Giano's 18:43 edit, Avruch opened an arbitration enforcement thread in a series of edits from 19:13 to 19:15. The thread mentioned the 18:43 edit that day, along with diffs for seven other edits by Giano, one the 18:11 diff from 1 July (already listed above) and the other six being from 30 June 2008.
• More to come later

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.