Revision as of 17:37, 25 November 2008

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

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Edit this section for new requests

Mactruth

Mactruth (talk · contribs) broke his revert limitation under WP:ARBMAC (1r/48h, with additional requirement of first posting on talk page and waiting 3h before rv ), on Macedonia (the dab page): 21 Nov (edit summary: "Why was it changed I put it back"); 23 Nov; 23 Nov. Was recently blocked for similar edit-warring. (Note: I'm the admin who imposed the revert limitation, but I'm involved in the content dispute now.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• The thane of Skopje is blocked for 100 hours. Go, get him surgeons! Moreschi (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano II

Arbitration case:Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC

Relevant remedy: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Civility:Giano (See also )

Ok, stop

Was SlimVirgin's unblock appropriate?

On Community Consensus

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

Reconsideration of block and unblock

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

Edits at issue

• You called user:Will Beback a "troll",

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

,

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

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

  ==Query==

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

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

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

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

  ==Interesting diffs==

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

With this comment:

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis

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

Civility: Giano

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

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

The enforcement ruling:

Enforcement by block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With the comment:

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

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

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

Comments on proposed reblock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by FT2

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

What Fred is proposing is roughly the following logic:

Click "Show" to view (short)

Giano was blocked several times under the civility ruling in circumstances where an administrator had reasonably (in his view) concluded the Arbcom restriction was violated. A review (which I'm not examining in depth) has led Fred to hold the view that 7 of those times were valid, and therefore a number were unblocked where in fact a reasonable judgement had been made to block. In his view, these were blocks which would not have been undone given good review with a legitimate aim of deterring disruption by enforcing the restriction. He concluded that absent improper reviews, Giano would have been blocked between 1 and several months more and may have been deterred. He has therefore decided upon a block to enact the impact of the blocks administrators had legitimately decided, less the effect of the improper unblocks. His likely view is this is either 1/ the missing time reinstated, or 2/ present deterrence whose dureation is assessed by counting the past "missing" blocks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

FT2  00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

further comment by LessHeard vanU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments prior to reblock

Underlying issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Fresh Start

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

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

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

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

Coverup?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meowy

Enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asgardian

Arbcomm case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae

Diffs showing violating behaviour:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More examples of reverting without talk page discussion:

• Ultron
• JLA/Avengers
• Avengers Forever
• Death (Marvel Comics)
• Avengers (comics)
• Bi-Beast
• Secret Wars
• Blacklash
• Kang the Conqueror

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

More examples of treating other editors with contempt:

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

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

I will say three things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Setanta747

Arbcom case: The Troubles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, Misplaced Pages is not a primary source. --Setanta 12:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for a special restriction at Naked short selling

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

Bogdanov Affair analogy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

Jaakobou

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbcomm case: WP:ARBPIA

In March 2008 Jaakobou (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week for disruptive talk page conduct, and two months later he was blocked for a week for continuing to spar with PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs). He knows what soapboxing is, but he continues to do it, despite the recommendations of the Arb comm to which he was a party to avoid it. Recently, he has returned to soapboxing with prejudicial allusions at Talk:Q-D-S. I am at the end of my rope here. I created the article with the Arb comm recommendations regarding disengaging from contentious articles in mind. It's only very remotely related to I-P issues, and yet Jaakobou followed me (or perhaps User:Nishidani) there to pick a fight over the inclusion of a wikilink to Al-Quds (disambiguation). Please review his talk page comments at Q-D-S. It's not a long page and the problem is pretty self-evident. If you require specific examples of what is so offensive and tendentious about his argumentation there, I'd be more than happy to provide them. Please, help. Tiamut 18:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a rather odd request; Jaakobou's editing has been quite restrained in the past few months. And if you were truly concerned with soapboxing, you would have instead suggested sanctions for User:PalestineRemembered, whose every talk page edit is a soapbox (e.g. ), or User:Nishidani, who is infamous for filling Talk: pages with 2000 word screeds (e.g. ). Jayjg 18:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You are an involved and partisan editor, Jayjg, so it's unsurprising that you would not see a problem with Jaakobou's comments. Tiamut 18:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in the Q-D-S article. Jayjg 19:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

But you have been involved with me, and we have had many unpleasant interactions in both the distant and recent past. Tiamut 19:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You and I haven't much significant interaction in a long time. When the usual I-P suspects show up to support you and insult me, will you also say to them "you are an involved and partisan editor"? Jayjg 19:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, this discussion should be focussing on Jaakobou. If you want to start a new section for a different editor, then go ahead. However, in this section, please stay on topic. PhilKnight (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Jayjg (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should I report Palestine Remembered or Nishidani? The problem is Jaakobou's commentary at the Talk:Q-D-S page. Nishidani made one comment there in response to Jaakobou's soapboxing and PR doesn't appear there at all. Am I suppose to follow the two of them around? Tiamut 18:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You brought the two of them up. Jayjg 19:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

At Jaakobou's request I have been monitoring his edits occasionally and keeping an eye. I also agree with Jayjg. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There has been a longstanding problem of Jaakobou's interactions with Tiamut, however I agree his soapboxing comments on the article talk page are not in themselves sufficient reason to apply a restriction. I'll give him a final warning on his talk page - he has been warned about this before. PhilKnight (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's far too early for a "final warning", considering that several uninvolved admins have spoken up as opposing views on this subject. Jayjg 19:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Also agree with this comment by Jayjg (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Earlier this year, I banned Jaakobou for a week for disruptive talk page conduct, so I disagree - this an ongoing problem. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Note:

• I'm not sure why an action from March 2008 (9 months ago) is still held against me, when I've obviously changed my editing habits. To put it succinctly, I'm not aware that there's an ongoing issue or that a warning for nothing less than a one month ban should be awarded my attempts to improve the article. (Samples: )

Cordially, Jaakobou 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC) add links 22:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Another opinion from an 'involved' admin (I guess)... I agree with Jayjg, especially about PR and Nishidani, who are well-known soapboxers. I presume that this AE complaint was made in good faith, but also ask Tiamut to seriously compare the actions of the 2 editors (you mentioned them!) with Jaakobou's. Especially PalestineRemembered, a self-proclaimed single-purpose account, where the 'purpose' seems to be adding pro-Palestinian information to articles. By comparison, Jaakobou (whose editing habits I strongly opposed in the distant past, including the time he was blocked by PhilKnight) seems to have changed his ways, contributing to articles related to Israeli culture and other unrelated stuff, getting a few DYKs in the process. He also significantly improved his conduct in the past few months, with little to no edit-warring and tendentious editing.

PhilKnight, I don't think you're being quite fair here. For example, a long time ago there was a discussion where Jaakobou complained against Eleland, and the discussion actually turned into an analysis of Jaakobou's actions, not Eleland's. You were present in the discussion and didn't interfere with this change in topic. I therefore ask you to look at all involved parties here again, not just Jaakobou, and decide who is really soapboxing, block-shopping, etc. Jayjg provided some relevant diffs, and I can probably provide more if you need some specific ones. -- Ynhockey 20:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the WP:ARBPIA decision defined an "involved admin" as anyone who edits articles in the I-P "area of conflict". Jayjg (talk · contribs) does regularly edit there (most recently at Israeli settlement, and we interacted at Second Intifada just a few days ago). Ynhockey (talk · contribs) also regularly edits there. Both are therefore disqualified from invoking discretionary sanctions related to the WP:ARBPIA ruling. This is a good thing. Because for editors like myself who find themselves often on the opposing side of a debate with these guys, it would be difficult to accept that they could determine our fates without prejudice. Tiamut 20:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, I'm not block-shopping and didn't come here to try and get you or anyone else blocked. If you believe otherwise then you have absolutely no understanding of what I'm all about and why I came to Misplaced Pages. I came to this page merely to offer my opinion as someone who is only moderately involved and thus knows extremely well the problems in I-P articles, and hope that as such, and as a Wikipedian who has been around for a very long time, my position will be seriously considered by actual uninvolved admins. -- Ynhockey 20:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

After a more serious inspection, it is fairly clear to me that this is a content dispute, and not a case of one user breaking the rules. From Talk:Q-D-S#Disambig linkage you can see that there is a disagreement about a certain 'see also' link, and the one user there who came close to soapboxing was Nishidani. Jaakobou might not be perfect, but it was actually Tiamut who edit-warred on that page, so there's no room here to make accusations against just one editor. All sides should be warned to stop immediately (Tiamut, Jaakobou and Nishidani), end of story. If someone doesn't stop, that's another problem. -- Ynhockey 21:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted twice to re-include the link. I have avoided edit-warring for ages, and though I definitely lapsed today, I won't be continuing, so no worries there. However, this does not change the fact that Jaakobou stalks me to articles I create or am hard at work expanding to make arguments heavily peppered with WP:SOAP. If anyone needs more evidence of the wider context of a pattern of stalking and provocation, I can work over the next few hours to collect the diffs. I think PhilKnight's course of action was the right one and will help towards diffusing the situation. Jaakobou got a warning and hopefully he will stop engaging me the way that he has been over the last year.Tiamut 21:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The behavior of PhilKnight (talk · contribs) is - at the very least - perplexing. He criticizes Jayg for going off topic while Jay was only responding to Tiamut's off hand snide comment directed at him. PK then proceeds to dish out his "final warning" after the only two uninvolved admins who chimed in agreed that Jaakobou's behavior did not warrant any sort of warning. I propose that PK should no longer be considered a neutral and uninvolved admin in regard to I-P editors. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant to write "You are an involved and partisan admin", and not editor. I was only referencing the WP:ARBPIA decision that admins who edit in the I-P area of conflict are disqualified from invoking discretionary sanctions. It was oblique sure, but snide? Please WP:AGF. Tiamut 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I modified my comment.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am not sure that anyone said the behavior "did not warrant any sort of warning." I've only briefly evaluated the underlying issue, but that claim doesn't seem to be accurate with regard to PhilKnight. I'd also note that Tiamut responded before Jayjg included any evidence for the claims that PalestineRemembered's "every talk page post is a soap box," or that Nishidani is "infamous for filling Talk: pages with 2000 word screeds," as did PhilKnight. If Jayjg corrected this, that hardly renders PhilKnight's comments less appropriate. Mackan79 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Although the word "warning" was not mentioned, it was clear from the discussion that the uninvolved administrators held that Jaakobou's edits were valid and no warning was warranted. Regarding the initial lack of diffs, that's irrelevant to the on-topic/off-topic discrepancy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noted this. If I may be permitted to write a word of two without being hit with the charge of soapboxing, which all of a sudden, from the usual group, is thrown my way. Tiamut asked me on my page, given what she thought was a certain knowledge on my part of linguistics and languages, if I could review her work (see November archive). Notwithstanding a reluctance to edit wikipedia in its present hyperpolitized atmsophere, I went over, corrected some spelling, and added two citations from academic sources, one to clarify a wording that might have led to ambiguities regarding an Ugaritic expression, the other to clarify that the etymology of kudos in Indo-European linguistics is not thought of as related to Semitic as a loanword, even though that has been proposed, as Tiamut's original text made out. All of a sudden I found, having earmarked the page, that Jaakobou turned up and started reading everything as a political battle. 'Uh, God starve the flamen crows, even in Indo-European and Semitic philology, after Cyrus . . these folks are seing, well not red, but anti-Israeli, pro-terrorist POVs everywhere' was my private exasperated reaction. I now see, as Tiamut rightly complained, that Jayjg, Ynhockey and several others are now talking about my soapboxing. What in the fuck is wrong with this place? I'm a trained philologist. I did my bit to fix a few errors, and now we have politics? I'm fucked if it's worth it, Tiamut. These people are indeed malicious, and will stop at nothing to insinuate politics in order to take scalps. Throw a sanction at me, whatever. Crap, and under it, pure paranoia and gamesmanship.Nishidani (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had concerns with Jaakobou in the past - me and him have discussed them at length. About 9 months ago I thought he was on his way towards a community sanction/ban, but since he's been with Durova he's been doing just fine. I've taken a look at Talk:Q-D-S and I don't really see a problem with his comments. I wouldn't class them as soapboxing at all - he's putting facts and points forward to back his side of the dipute up. It's certainly within his normal article scope and AGF would suggest that he didn't simply follow Tiamut to the article. I'd suggest closing this down and seeking outside opinions on the article at a content RfC. If that fails, try mediation. This is a content issue, not behavioural. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Is wikistalking not behavioural? You are wrong on his 'normal article scope'. This is strictly an article on the linguistic reflexes of the word for 'holy' in Semitic languages. If he is concerned, he would do well to ask any number of qualified specialists in Semitic languages to look over it and improve it (it could certain benefit from any native Hebrew speaker with a good background in linguistics). He hasn't. He is arguing on a disambiguation link, and came there because he saw Tiamut and I were editing it. I don't care to ban anyone. I just wish them to ratchet down their suspicions, keep off pages unless they can improve real content about which they are informed, and stop editing pages just because someone one clashes with edits them.Nishidani (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's get on with a content RfC and we can hopefully get some outside opinions on the matter. I disagree with the wikistalking accusation if I'm being honest. The best thing that everyone involved with this can do is to concentrate on getting these neutral opinions and the content at hand, rather than the editors behind them. Cultural disputes always get fighting between various people - let's forget about that for a second and think of a way forward with the actual article. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucracy. Look, if jaakobou or any other Israeli editor here is worried about the article, the simple thing to do is to get a native Hebrew speaking wikipedian with a background in semitic linguistics to look over it. That is helpful. Stalking, and making silly comments about 'Jewish attributes' being more relevant than 'militant' Arab stuff is provocative, as the extensive challenge over disambiguation links is vapid and boring. There is huge room for some good specialist Hebrew imput here, without trying to play politics or, make a milhemet qodesh (QDS) of what looked like a straightforward piece of work to contribute to Misplaced Pages by Tiamut, who, by the way, was gratuitously insulted by Jaakobou in the past, something which requires him to be careful in interactions with her, and certainly not to jump in on an article she is drafting before she's even got here wind. Nishidani (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This report , and the actions taken as a result, are nothing short of bizarre. The report stems from an allegation of 'stalking', based on the fact that Jaakobu edited one (1) article, out of the more than twenty-five (25) main space articles that Tiamut has edited, in the last 24 hours alone. Never mind the flimsy nature of the "stalking" accusations based on a single article which the two editors have edited together - what has escaped attention is the fact that the article in question - Q-D-S - was promoted by the complainer, as a self-nomination on the highly visible DYK page. A DYK nomination is an open invitation to editors, one and all, to apply close scrutiny to the proposal, and indeed, there are very stringent metrics used to judge the nomination. Jaakobu is a very active participant on DYK pages - with no fewer than 6 successful DYK nominations to his name, so it is of no surprise at all that following Tiamut's self-nom of an article in an area he is a frequent contributor to, he makes edits to this newly created and widley promoted article, edits which are clearly good faith, well argued changes to the article.
Now the bizarre part begins: PhilKnight apparently does not notice any of this, and without looking into the validity of the "stalking" charge, or the actual edits involved, issues Jaakobu a "final warning" - for what, exactly? And when his actions is questioned by another administrator, he issues that admin a warning as well!
Meanwhile, as more administrators weigh in, and side with Jaakobu or with the admin who questioned PhilKnight's actions , it transpires that Taimut herself has admitted to edit-warring on the article in question - a b lockable offense under the best of circumstances, and doubly so for an article subject to WP:ARBPIA. Yet, is there any 'final warning' issued to her by PhilKnight? or anyone else? I find PhilKnight's actions here to be highly questionable, and suggest he should not be further involved in WP:ARBPIA actions. NoCal100 (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of your confusion is that all though Jayjg does have admin status, he is considered involved, so he is treated the same as any other editor. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple uninvolved admins (Cirt, Peter Symonds, Ryan Postlethwaite) sided with Jayjg, making the above response a bit of a Red Herring. Now, to the substantive point: Did you bother to review the evidence presented for the "stalking" allegation prior to issuing your bizarre "final warning", or were you relying on an 8 month old prior interaction you had with Jaakobu? NoCal100 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

I don't consider your approach is helping matters. I agree with Ryan concerning the best approach to resolving this dispute, and suggest this discussion is closed. PhilKnight (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that you don't find criticisms of your actions helpful, and would like to consider the discussion closed, but I don't think that closing it now would be fair to the people impacted by your actions. You have issued a bizarre "final warning" to Jaakobu, who has done nothing wrong as far as I can tell, warned an administrator who disagreed with your actions, and let the complainer here, who has filed a bogus bad faith accusation of stalking and admitted to edit warring on the article, off without so much as a word of caution. We will resolve the content dispute via an RFC, but the behavioral issues here are far from closed. Unless you plan on retracting the warning to Jaakobu, I would like an answer to my question: Did you bother to review the evidence presented for the "stalking" allegation prior to issuing your bizarre "final warning", or were you relying on an 8 month old prior interaction you had with Jaakobu? NoCal100 (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting this discussion is closed. Obviously, if you want to a RfC then go ahead. PhilKnight (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand you suggestion, and disagree with it. This matter is not closed. NoCal100 (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I took a mutli-month break from editing and only picked it up again in earnest very recently. So Jaakobou has not had much opportunity to interact with me over the last eight months. Therefore, any apparent improvement in his attitude toward me (no stalking or provocations) had to do with my being absent, not a sea change in his behaviour in this particular regard. In any case, if people are not as familiar with the context as PhilKnight is and want to see diffs to get a better sense of the context, I can work on that on a sub-page. But I too don't mind taking Ryan's lead to consider the discussion closed. Tiamut 01:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You've filed a bogus, bad-faith report alleging 'stalking' , when nothing of the kind occurred. You admitted to edit warring on that page, and have in fact edit warred today on at least one other page. And you are now compounding matters by, rather than apologizing to Jaakobu for you bad faith, alleging that the improvement in his attitude, attested to by numerous uninvolved editors, are just due to your absence. Sorry, this matter is not closed until your actions in it, and Phil Knight's, are hashed out and addressed. NoCal100 (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the purpose of this page, which is explained in the header section. Also, I suggest reading dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The purpose of this page, as stated in the header section is "This is a message board for requesting and discussing enforcement of Arbitration Committee" decisions". You have enforced an ArbCom decision, by issuing a warning to an editor, and we are discussing this enforcement, which appears to have been a very poor call on your part. Please answer my question: what did you give Jaakobu a warning for? Do you seriously think there is stalking here? NoCal100 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PhilK's status as an "uninvolved administrator" becomes more and more questionable as this thread continues. Instead of apologizing for insulting Jaakobu by plastering his talk page with - what is becoming more and more clear - an unwarranted "final warning" or at least discussing his actions he continues avoid the issue with his procedural claims. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

NoCal and BrewCrewer, my view is that you should cease this baseless hectoring of an admin who has acted thoroughly within reason. First BrewCrewer arrives to say that PhilKnight should not have issued warnings because Tiamut had made a snide comment and because other admins argued against a warning; never mind that the first point has now been retracted, and the second is simply false. Now NoCal arrives and says that this all comes down to an accusation of stalking, presents their case for why that didn't happen, and somehow concludes that PhilKnight ignored the case he just made. This approach is not just unhelpful, but amounts to hectoring, and has no place here. Mackan79 (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well if PKnight can can act within reason (despite going against the consensus of uninvolved admins) and hector Jaakobu surely I can act within reason and hector him. Not only that, I have no problem with the fact that you are acting within reason and hectoring me for hectoring Pknight for hectoring Jaakobu. Turning to the main point of your comment, you mistakenly misrepresented my comments. I never said PKight should never had issued a warning to Jaakobu because Tiamut made a snide comment (the "snide" was later modified to "unfriendly"). I said that PKnight's comment to JayG might be evidence that he should no longer be considered "uninvolved" because JayG's off-topic comment was in response to Tiamut's off-hand comment. Your claim that is it "false" that other admins have argued against warnings is also off. Although none have said "no warnings" they were never asked if warnings should be given. They were just asked if there was a problem with Jaakobu's behavior and they both said that his edits to the article's talk page were valid. To argue that they never said "no warnings" is clearly misconstruing the context of their statements. No diffs are needed. Everything is right above. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I read the restrictions, any uninvolved admin is entitled to implement them. You've suggested there was consensus against a warning, but 1.) consensus isn't a prerequisite, and 2.) there was no such consensus or even any comments to that effect. One or two editors had said they agreed with Jayjg, who stated that Jaakobou has been restrained recently, and (as I read him) that other editors are worse or just as bad (this would of course be fully consistent, then, with a warning). PhilKnight then commented and said that a.) there have been problems with this before, b.) he agreed however that restrictions for this alone were not justified, and c.) that he would give Jaakobou a final warning, following previous warnings for the same thing. The effect, as far as I am aware, is not actually anything, since Jaakobou seems already to have been warned; however, it highlights that the comments pushed boundaries, potentially not for the first time. As I said above, the approach seems to me to have been more than reasonable and consistent with the other assessments that were given. Mackan79 (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

what was the "final warning" issued for? NoCal100 (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered seems to have taken a new-found interest in articles concerning Polish Jewry. Some of his SOAPBOXING semi-rants are cited at the top of this section; he's also decided to make some contributions, such as an extended, irrlevant rant about Jerzy Kosinski] in the middle of an article about Polish rescue efforts of Jews during the Holocaust, and a seriously bad-faithed deletion of well sourced material, among others. I won't bother to speculate about why this editor suddenly has an interest in minimizing instances of Polish antisemitism. Boodlesthecat 15:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Because he's Polish? With respect, I don't see how this comment is relevant here, and suggest that it be removed or moved to a relevant discussion about PR. Mackan79 (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that Jaakobou was almost kicked off the project about a year ago for harassment of Tiamut. Tiamut has been absent for eight months, and it appears that no sooner has she returned than Jaakobou has resumed where he left off. Perhaps Tiamut has overreacted a little to Jaakobou's intervention at the page in question, but given its peripheral relationship to the I-P conflict, J's unexpected appearance at the page and his immediate politicization of the contents, with disparaging comments about "hate movements who consider their ideology holy", it doesn't in the least suprise me that Tiamut interprets this as another episode of harassment.

Given the poor relationship that these two have had, and Jaakobou's record in this regard, it seems to me that J. would be well advised to stay away as much as possible from Tiamut. Following Tiamut to obscure pages to start political bunfights is really the last thing he should be contemplating. Perhaps a "final warning" might be a little harsh for this fairly minor episode, but I do think it might be in J.'s own best interests to try and avoid any appearance of stalking or harassment of Tiamut, because the more often this kind of situation is repeated, the less generously it is likely to be interpreted by the community. Gatoclass (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Originally I commented here on the accusations of soapboxing, but it seems that the stalking complaint is getting attention, and in light of this last comment I will say the following: Jaakobou is a frequent DYK poster/viewer, and would obviously have seen the submission by Tiamut. There is almost zero possibility of stalking here, but as to the opinion that 'Jaakobou should stay away as much as possible from Tiamut', you could also say 'Tiamut should stay away as much as possible from Jaakobou'. It works both ways and I don't see why the discussion is so biased and double-standarded against Jaakobou when everything negative said about him so far can be applied to Tiamut as well (and a slew of other involved editors). If policy has been broken, action should be taken, following warnings to both parties. If it has not been broken, there should be no action, and no warnings. -- Ynhockey 20:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly Yn, I must reject the equivalence you are trying to draw here between the behaviour of Jaakobou and that of Tiamut. Jaakobou has come under community scrutiny on numerous occasions, not only in regards to his interactions with Tiamut but also for tendentious editing (for which he has been topic banned for a week on two occasions in the last nine months) and he is also currently under mentorship. Tiamut AFAIK has never been subject to any such sanctions and is, I think, generally regarded as a responsible and productive editor.

Secondly, when I suggested that J. should try to steer clear of Tiamut, it was not my intention to suggest that he should completely avoid pages in which she is involved. That, I think, would be both impractical and unfair. I am simply trying to suggest that he should avoid unnecessary interaction. In this case, for example, we have Jaakobou turning up at a page on a very obscure subject which was authored by Tiamut, and repeatedly removing a link he apparently finds personally objectionable in some way. My question is, was this really a necessary interaction? Was the issue so vitally important it was worth risking, once again, a confrontation with Tiamut, with the attendant possibility that it might be perceived as another episode of harassment?

There are editors on Misplaced Pages with whom I too do not get along, but you won't find me following them to obscure pages to initiate content tug-o-wars over minutiae, for the very reason that they might start to accuse me of harassment, and perhaps rightfully so. In general, I try to limit my interaction with such editors to substantive issues where I feel an important principle is at stake. I am simply suggesting that Jaakobou adopt a similar approach in Tiamut's case, and vice versa. Gatoclass (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Civility needs to work both directions. There does not seem to be any soapboxing or stalking going on here and no violation of the arbcomm decision. They should work it out or use the normal dispute resolution process. Gtstricky 21:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Tiamut has only been absent for two months, and our interactions have been quite scarce for quite some time. I've no idea where the suggestion that I stalk her is coming from and certainly there's not many articles we collaborated on. -- Jaakobou 21:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, your personal interactions with Tiamut have been grossly offensive. And that's on top of the other outrageous comments you've made about various nationalities (it's not just Arabs you've slighted or abused). You almost succeeded in driving her off with your conduct earlier in the year, and (if I'm reading the signs rightly), it looks as if you came back for the kill. PR 22:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PR, that language is unacceptable, and you should strike it out. I think it was generally agreed that this would go to a request for comment, and further bickering is inappropriate. Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Gatoclass' comments above seem very fair. Ynhockey & Gtstricky, tbh yours were not - it is uncontroversial that Jaakobou followed Tiamut to a page that Tiamut had created, despite the history between the two of them (yes it is history, but it is surely remembered). Either way, it most certainly is not an issue that "works both ways". --Nickhh (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, a few words from Jaakobou's mentor. First, a reminder to all that Misplaced Pages:Wikistalking has become a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding. Let's avoid use of the old term that conflates online irritation with a real world felony. As mentor I won't comment on the decisions made here other than to encourage editors who see a problem with Jaakobou's conduct to contact me with diffs; will endeavor to work things out. The suggestion for article content RFC isn't strictly an AE matter and seems like a good idea. Best wishes, Durova 22:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, never knew about the redirect. I would note that most seem to be following the chat, mainly along partisan lines, rather than looking at the Q_D_S page. I haven't remarked on it, because I expected in these cases that evidence would be analysed, rather than political battle lines be drawn. For example, Jaakobou thinks this a helpful contribution to the page, making an edit which accentuates what is already implicit about the Jewish holy city, while introducing a remark about Mohammed touring heaven with the angel Gabriel. Perhaps I was raised in another era: in polite company once, if one boosted one's own beliefs while describing those of another group in comical, undisguisedly satirical terms (a revered figure's ascent in tradition phrased as 'touring heaven' is Montypythonesque to put it gently), it would be taken as a put down (apart from being irrelevant to the article). I suspect Jaakobou can't see the problem, not out of malice, but because he can't see where other people are coming from, and the way language works.Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Might be better to assume good faith and suppose his English isn't quite at native fluency, and suggest a better alternative. He didn't show me that post before it went live, but from interacting with him off wiki and reviewing other statements pre-post I'll affirm that his use of idiomatic English isn't picture perfect. On a less contentious topic that wouldn't ruffle any feathers, but he's usually proactive about checking when something might come across the wrong way. Durova 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did rewrite the passage, suggesting an alternative, though thinking it bizarre. Tiamut rightly elided it as irrelevant padding.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I was working from Isra and Mi'raj (stable link) and the relevant text I referred to was "the Mi'raj, is taken to the heavens, where he tours the circles of heaven, and speaks with the earlier prophets, and with Allah." Jaakobou 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(In response to comment from talk page)

I have absolutely nothing against Muslims and/or Arabs. I still believe that my noting that, militant groups who tend to call their endeavors "holy" are a not relevant enough for a "see also" link on the Q-D-S article, was not soapboxing but a fairly reasonable and certainly not an anti-Muslim argument. Let me know if you feel otherwise and I'll think of ways to rephrase this argument in the future.

Coridally, Jaakobou 23:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you still think that, then I think we have a problem. Because as I explained to you here, Al-Quds (disambiguation) is a not a link to page of "militant groups who tend to call their endeavours 'holy'", but rather a link to a page which defines the meaning of the term al-Quds "holy", a word derived from the Q-D-S root, also meaning "holy". What follows that definition is a list of Misplaced Pages articles that have the words "Quds" in their title. Of the eight entries listed there, two are militant groups.

I don't see why you continue to misrepresent the contents of that page, nor why you continue to use that misrepresentation as an opportunity to soapbox about the use of "holy" by militant groups. It's entirely irrelevant to article improvement and tt's tendentious argumentation which is either provocative by design, or a result of incompetence. In either case, it's a pattern, and it's getting awfully tiresome. Tiamut 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My main argument/comparison regarding groups which use "Islam", "Allah", "Quds", etc. in their name should probably be addressed and it would be a nice change if comments made would stop taking a personally oriented tone. Jaakobou 09:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing against Muslims and/or Arabs. Please note, Jaakobou, that even when, on second thoughts, you reined in your remarks, you didn't see them as 'offensive', but, as one can see in this diff, possibly offensive. That your outburst proves you think Tiamut is heir to a terrorist and racist culture is obvious. You may have had second thoughts, but history is as the records state it, not as we would now rewrite it.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that this discussion can be closed, and also that an RfC on that page is not necessary. I haven't seen anyone echo Jaakobou's position on the see also link, and I (and most others, it seems) think that Tiamut and Nishidani have it correct on that particular point. Avruch 17:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Couple notes:

• Here's one which supports my content related perspective. There were a couple others who noted they certainly see a point in my argument.
• I find Nishidani's "heir to a terrorist and racist" comment above wholly innappropriate.

Cordially, Jaakobou 11:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Just for the record, before the thread is archived, this has been posted on my page. I find it incomprehensible, personally, but then again many things regarding the working of this fascinating wikiworld remain beyond my comprehension. The diff. I gave was pertinent, and my construal of it unexceptional. This is not a request for comment.

NPA 3 Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Your personal attacks, such as this, against Jaakobou, are unacceptable. Even if you honestly believe the statement, which I don't consider supported by the evidence, it's inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your problem is that you're trying to improve articles - and bringing to them a high degree of patient and knowledgable scholarship. This puts a severe damper on the poisonous Islamophobia that is constantly being forced into articles by tendentious wiki-lawyering.

More of this makes sense now I've seen the following from 2006:

Here is some background on Jayjg and Misplaced Pages ... Two years ago (ie 2004) there were elections to the Arbitration Committee and Jayjg got no votes. So a few months later ... appointed him, without a vote, to the Arbitration committee. So a few months later there was another vote for the ArbCom (the Arbitration Committee). Due to massive opposition to Jayjg (over 100 people voted against him), he did not make the cut of people with enough vote percentage to get into the Arbitration Committee. Guess what? ... *still* appointed him to the Arbitration Committee again. ... the only person who was given these powers against the democratic wishes of the majority of people who use Misplaced Pages was a Zionist POV-pusher. Which shows you how important the person running Misplaced Pages consider this point of view in his encyclopedia.

... I predict you will keep wasting time here in an exercise of futility for several months and then finally quit in frustration, going on to other things. This is what happens with most people. ... If you choose to continue to waste your time that's your choice, it's as futile as a Palestinian throwing a rock as a tank.

... You may be asking yourself why you are being ganged up on, why many people keep coming after you and none comes to your defense, or maybe one person does in a weak fashion for a short while. ... No one is helping you because the people who run Misplaced Pages have driven off or kicked off everyone who would have agreed with you.

In the last 2 years, things have deteriorated further, and what we're seeing now is more transparent. Free reign has been given even to the openly Islamophobic. While there's unpunished and unpunishable smearing of editors as antisemitic, pointing out clear evidence (eg use of "crack-head Arabs") of racism is a blocking offense. PR 11:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You have just been issued with a warning about your personal attacks, and your response to this is the reposting of a personal attack on Jayjg, which got the original poster a block for personal attacks when he first made it. I'd say you are due for a block yourself. NoCal100 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting information, PR, thanks for reposting it. NoCal100 - I note you are not claiming any basic inaccuracy in the Ruy Lopez's original. And I've checked and don't see any record of Ruy Lopez being blocked for that specific posting. Regardless, the "no personal attacks" rule should have limits, like all things. If it is being used to surpress important information then it is going beyond those limits (in the same way that privacy laws can have limits by using public interest arguments). Meowy 17:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.