Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cosmic Latte (talk | contribs) at 14:49, 20 December 2008 (→Reply to Newyorkbrad: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:49, 20 December 2008 by Cosmic Latte (talk | contribs) (→Reply to Newyorkbrad: typo)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:RfA Review (WP:RREV).
Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024


Current requests

User:Guido den Broeder

Initiated by Cosmic Latte (talk) at 19:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`
  • Guido den Broeder: Talk page is inactive due to ban, although I am filing this at his request.
  • William M. Connolley
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • (Not really a recent dispute but does show behaviour)

Statement by Cosmic Latte

User:Guido den Broeder was both indefinitely banned and blocked as a result of . User has indicated a desire to appeal the ban, but has had trouble doing so (see ), so I am doing it on his behalf. His appeal may be viewed at . My own take is that, while there was consensus at ANI to ban, the rationale was extremely nebulous, ignored the possibility that his serious contributions to medical articles make him a net positive to the project, and seemed to involve an exaggerated rekindling of prior grievances. Moreover, I find it in bad taste that someone would suddenly turn a good-faith ANI thread initiated by this user into a discussion about banning him; I also find it bizarre that such a specific thread with such obscure and esoteric roots suddenly exploded into a debate about banning him from the entire project. (Note: As "involved parties" I am considering all participants in the ANI thread, as well as all admins involved with the block.)

Reply to Newyorkbrad

Indeed, I would say "that the sanction of banning was seriously disproportionate to the editor's misconduct so that that the ban is grossly unfair to the user." While there was consensus, it appears to be of the lynch-mob variety: opportunistic, cumulative, and emotionally charged. Guido was certainly not doing anything at the time to warrant a ban, especially an indefinite one; he simply felt that an MfD was closed before consensus was reached--a defensible position, I believe--and brought the matter to ANI, at which point a whole crowd of angry editors clobbered him for a whole slew of (mostly unrelated, or distantly related) reasons. In defense of the view that the thread was emotionally charged, I should point out that people reacted to a distorted view of what he was doing in the MFD-contested essay; they apparently felt like guinea pigs in a "social experiment" of his, when in actuality, as I pointed out at ANI, Guido was using the term "social experiment" in reference to Misplaced Pages itself, not to his examination of it. As for the past, I've had a look at WLU's "evidence" page, and although I saw some interesting ideosyncrasies, I didn't find anything profoundly alarming. I did see his view of Misplaced Pages as a flawed social experiment, and even a claim that it can be at times a "Maoist" enterprise, wherein "uneducated" voices have undue sway. While I don't necessarily share Guido's sentiments, and while the "Maoist" label may have been a bit unorthadox, I should point out that WP:ELITE, a long-standing essay, communicates much the same message. Guido seems to be a rarity among editors, able to criticize the project as seriously as he contributes to it. This doesn't seem like "disruption"; it seems like well-rounded effort and intellectual honesty. Finally, I hope that Guido doesn't mind my disclosing this, but he privately indicated dismay at the fact that people raised so much drama about the "social experiment" essay, rather than politely asking him if he'd remove it. If he had been so asked, he might have responded very differently. Whether a social "experiment" or not, Misplaced Pages is a social something, and social endeavours are not one-way streets. For what it's worth, WP:DRV contains the statement, "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look" (emphasis in original). Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea for WP:MFD to encourage a pre-MFD discussion with the user whose material is in question. In any event, while Guido's conduct has not always been stellar (I've seen the block log and 3RR concerns), it does not appear to have warranted, and it most certainly does not newly warrant, the sort of ganging-up that has led to his recent ban.

Statement by roux

I believe the permanent block was a good move, I support the ban, and I don't really see why this is at the level of requesting arbitration. There was no misuse of sysop tools, the community has indicated it is tired of Guido's disruption, unblocks have been denied by thoroughly uninvolved admins. The correct venue for this is the arbcom-l mail list. Yes, I know responses can be slow. I urge ArbCom to decline this request and deal with the unblock appeal as per normal practices on arbcom-l. // roux   19:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos

How on earth am I an involved party? I think I commented on an MfD or something. Ah well. I have absolutely no opinion on the user either positive or negative, although I think the essay was a bit odd and it was entirely appropriate to have it deleted. Orderinchaos 19:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dendodge

I support the block, as does most of the community. Extensive discussion was held, and consensus was reached. The correct venue is arbcom-l, as this page is not for appealing against strong community consensus. Dendodge Talk 19:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Dude

I don't support the block of this user per reasons stated above my Cosmic. Again, much of the reasoning was based on past dealings with him from ages ago, forcing the user to try to justify everything he's done over things from months ago, making the discussion hard to follow and extremely unfair for the banned user. It wasn't originally even about banning him. Cheers dude (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Hermione1980

My involvement in this case is extremely limited. From what I've seen, Guido appears to be a fair content editor (though his contribs are outside my area of expertise), but he is unable to respond appropriately to talk page comments. I have no opinion on whether or not his ban should be lifted; I do not have enough information to comment. Hermione1980 19:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-statement by Tan

I wasn't nearly involved in this enough to comment. I made a peripheral comment to Guido on the ANI thread that he should take some dispute to DR. I didn't participate in the ban discussion. Tan | 39 20:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seicer

My original involvement in this case was at WP:ANI#Improper use of MfD page?, when Guido mentioned that this MFD regarding a user subpage was inappropriate, posted at 14:15, 17 December 2008. I closed the MFD and deleted the page at 16:56 per the rationales given. Guido, prior to the closure of the MFD, had restored the content to his userpage at 15:23. He then filed a DRV regarding the case.

The DRV had near unanimous support of my closure of the MFD. It is worth noting that at one point, Guido had commented about starting a MFD for the MFD as a sign of an unwillingness to abide by the operation of the MFD. It is also worth noting that, per my rationale given at the MFD, that I would provide a copy of the deleted page to Guido; this was done immediately after the MFD closure.

Guido then began a thread at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Attack page regarding User talk:WLU/RFC, which has been identified as not an attack page, but future content for a potential RFC or AN thread. The page is clearly covered and supported under WP:UP#NOT, item 10. He later started User talk:Jimbo Wales#User page to complain about the MFD and the subsequent DRV.

I later removed the Social Experiment material from his userpage, citing the MFD case. This was promptly reverted, then tagged as CSD G4. The material was once again removed, citing CSD G4. It was again reverted, removed (with a notice), reverted, and removed with the page being protected from future abuse. It is entirely inappropriate to, while a DRV is in progress, to restore the material to a userpage, especially when consensus bears that it stay deleted. It is also entirely inappropriate to circumvent a MFD that was supported at DRV, and to mislabel edits as vandalism -- especially to multiple administrators and users.

An initiative to community ban was started at ANI, as a subset of the existing complaint Guido had started earlier. Per BAN, he had proven to be repeatedly disruptive to Misplaced Pages, and had exhausted the community's patience. His block log is quite lengthy, and he has had two legal threats prior to this ban. Guido was community banned under consensus, and his userpage content was removed and replaced with a template; his talk page was protected and redirected to his userpage. Both pages have not been deleted, as is typical under BAN, as I expected that this case would be taken to RFAR; it provides a layer of transparency so that others can see the content that were not involved in the cases at ANI/MFD/DRV.

As a last note, I am worried that a proxy was used in this case to file the appeal. Per WP:BAN#Appeals process, Guido should contact member of the committee or an Arbitration clerk by email and ask that a request be filed on their behalf. When he was community banned, his e-mail access was not restricted, and he is free to do so. He made a mention to Cosmic Latte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to file the RFAR as his e-mails to RFAR were "lost." It is noted here. seicer | talk | contribs 20:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Franamax

I don't see why I'd be a party to this (as Sam has noted). My involvement was a single edit to initiate a ban discussion. I made it where I did because it was immediately under a post of GdB's, so he would be sure to see it, and the thread itself showed a continuation of what I consider to be GdB's long history of disruption. I made it when I did because my impression was that GdB was leaving after having completed his "investigation", which basically amounted to a breaching experiment, but he seemed to be continuing his disruptive activities. I made it why I did because I have a visceral objection to people who conduct experiments (and/or investigations) on unwitting subjects, and the day I first read GdB's "report", AGF went out the window for me. Who and how: Franamax, MediaWiki.

Many editors commented, there was a strong consensus to ban, and the arguments against were not particularly compelling. The discussion may have been closed a little early, but I don't think the outcome was in much doubt. I don't think there's anything to arbitrate here, appeal can be made through the mailing list. Franamax (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

I don't see the need for this case, this is a normal community ban. However, I can also see that if this case would be accepted, I would be an involved party. Anyway, now that we are here, I'll take the opportunity to highlight an example of the behaviour that lead to this ban. In his unblock discussion today, he claims that William M. Connolley has a personal vendetta against him, as evidenced by a talk page removal and the subsequent ban. Quite a one-sided presentation of the facts. In fact, at 21:12, William supported the ban. Three hours later, Guido goes to a talk page of an article he never edited before, to give Willam a warning for edit warring. This is stalking, following someone you have a conflict with to an unrelated article just to attack him. Guido's behaviour is unacceptable in a collaborative environment, and it is clear that he will not change in any way. Like je said today: "I am however not aware of having caused any kind of disruption and have seen no evidence to substantiate such a claim." This is his right, of course, just as it is the right of us as a community to decide that in that case, he is no longer welcome here. Fram (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Skinwalker

I don't particularly see why I'm named as a party, but it seems that I'm not alone. I'd like to direct the arbitrators' attention to the extensive evidence compiled here concerning GdB's long history of edit warring, lack of good faith, legal threats, personal attacks, soapboxing, gaming of the system, importation of disputes from other wiki projects, and general obtuseness. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to Brad's comment, I believe this dispute meets none of the criteria he sets out, and the request should therefore be declined. Skinwalker (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

My involvement in this is, I think, limited to declining one of Guido den Broeder's unblock requests and noting that ArbCom review is the one remaining venue for relief, because it appeared to me that the ban did have community consensus at that time. I have no desire to participate in any arbitration proceedings concerning it.  Sandstein  22:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Caulde

I would encourage the arbitrator's to decline this case at this particular moment in time; absent any further developments – in which case – I see not much need for proceedings to be conducted here anyway. With respect to the specific user involved, I would register my concern with the legal threats, the long and chequered block history (usually regarding violations of the three-revert-rule) and the general lack of compromise he has been aligned to over the past few months or so. All relevant diffs are given in other's statements or their respective edits to the said pages. Caulde 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

I would just like to note that Guido den Broeder was active at other wikis as well. He was at one point banned from nl:wp and after failing to get satisfaction in exactly the matter he felt appropriate, brought the matter to Meta: Requests_for_comments/Dutch_Wikipedia_-_unblock_request. Apparently he wanted the stewards, or the Meta community, to override the decisions made at nl:wp. During the course of that he got into some considerable disagreement with User:Troefkaart, including bringing the matter to Meta's ANI equivalent: Behaviour on other wikis is not necessarily determinant but I do think it warrants mentioning so that there's some context ++Lar: t/c 23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MacGyverMagic

I commented on the MFD that started this. In my opinion there are several separate things at work here:

  1. User:Guido den Broeder conducted an experiment to see the effect different behaviors had on cooperative editing. He described the results of this failed experiment on the page Wikipeda, the Social Experiment using harsh language some editors would consider disruptive. This lead to an that was prematurely closed as a delete "to avoid drama" while several editors in good standing supporting keeping the page. Of course, the deletion did not avoid drama (since we're here now) but most importantly, it was closed without consensus. It was probably worded too strong and it would have been better for him to ask approval from the Wikimedia Commitee before performing said experiment.
  2. The ANI thread discussing the ban seems to be a reaction to Guido's attempts to get a bad deletion undone.
  3. In the course of his stay here, he's positively contributed to numerous articles.

I'll quote Cosmic Latte from the ANI thread as he worded things better than I could: "...I disagree with Franamax's belief that Guido's "statements carry a strong connotation that he regards us as a bunch of fools, to be experimented on at will." Guido is not conducting the Milgram experiment or the Stanford prison experiment--both of which were conducted by Ivy-League researchers, and both of which seriously messed up some of their participants. What I sense here, in the opposition to Guido's efforts, is a post-Milgram, post-Stanford aversion to being "guinea pigs" in someone else's activities--an aversion that allows people to overlook the prosocial intentions of any sensible "social experiment." What I sense in Guido's efforts is a benign attempt to understand and improve the encyclopedia; indeed, he has explicitly offered suggestions for improvement..." - Mgm| 23:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  • To aid Newyorkbrad in his decision, I'll post this as he requested in his comment: I believe the ban to be disproportionate to the wrong that was committed. - Mgm| 23:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley (talk)

speaks for itself. On the irrelevant subsiduary matter of the "report to the UN": it doesn't exist. My opinion is that the arbcomm should reject this request William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ImperfectlyInformed

I'm not involved and I'll admit I don't have much experience with Guido, but the way this fly by night ban worked leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. I'm bothered that yesterday I was commenting on a legitimate content dispute between WLU and Guido, and a couple hours ago I found that Guido is gone and WLU may just impose his preferred view on the issue without taking into account the other side. Long-term editors should not be banned without a clear presentation of evidence and a minimum amount of time to gather opinions. This looked more like a lynch mob. Someone suggests banning and then a bunch of people with chips on their shoulders pile on. It appears that many of the "supports" were presented before any diffs had even been presented, and then the diffs presented by WLU mainly showed Guido removing things from his talk page. The votes fell something like 14-4. Community bans are obviously much weaker in their weight than ArbCom bans; it seems as if they get done by the people who happen to be trolling AN at the time, or people who got instant-messaged, or what have you. In any case, if ArbCom generally bans for only a year, then community bans, with their loose standards, should stand for only a year. Perhaps setting up an RSS feed would help to ensure a broad base of opinions, along with a minimum of a couple days discussion time (or more), plus a required posting of evidence at the top of the thread. Incidentally, an RSS feed would be nice for admin nominations too. II | (t - c) 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved Sticky Parkin

This doesn't need an arbcom case and I think has been pretty much dealt with at AN/I twice. Ban or indef this person- that doesn't need an arbcom and has consensus. Don't let him forum shop further- he's said himself his "illness" has been exacerbated by being on wikipedia. This person has even been on Jimbo's page forum shopping. I think he's banned or blocked on some other language wikis. Misplaced Pages is not therapy. Sticky Parkin 00:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by CIreland

I've been keeping half on eye on Guido den Broeder since the initial controversy involving him and the Dutch WP users spilled over to us. I have no firm opinion on the ban itself but can only offer the advice to the committee that it is the nature of Guido den Broeder and his approach to the manipulation of disputes that the committee are going to end up having to deal with this whether they wish to not. Whether that will involve a full case or not remains to be seen. CIreland (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by CharonX

I cannot speak for the community, but Guido den Broeder has at least exhausted my patience. The wide majority of the users that voiced their opinion in the ANI thread supported the ban. I see no compelling arguments that makes it necessary for ArbCom to either investigate the validity of the Ban, nor the way it has been enacted. CharonX/talk 00:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Mccready

I don't support the ban. Despite being asked for evidence of content damage to wikipedia, none, including an administrator, have provided evidence of damage. The "experiment" is irrelevant. Here is a case for the new arbcom to demonstrate it can quickly focus on content and get us back to editing an encyclopedia. Good luck.Mccready (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk (talk)

I'm listed as a party above but like most of the people here I'm not actually involved. I want to strongly echo what II said about about the tenor of this ban discussion. GdB pisses a lot of people off and has been involved in disputes both on content and conduct. But we cannot convince ourselves that "the community" is a collection of editors who happen to be on An at any given time. I understand that this is the nature of consensus on wikipedia--for every editor who had something relevant to say about GdB, there are a dozen who could care less about the whole affair. But we have processes, controls and expectations for discussions where we cannot enforce a quorum. A user conduct RfC goes 30 days before becoming 'stale'. An AfD goes 5 days. This discussion lasted a little over a day. Both have pre-determined expectations regarding evidence, presentation, availability, and fairness. ANI has none of these things. As such, it is a powerful vehicle for group-think and emotion. Even the structural nature of AN/I (high edit volume results in multiple edit conflicts, threading presents no clear place for the 'accused' to rebut claims and churn gives a false sense of urgency) works against an editor facing a community ban in this fashion.

There is also an incentive problem. AN/I becomes the forum for these debates because it (if you'll pardon the expression) gets shit done. If I have a user issue that might involve a person being blocked I don't take it to WQA (too toothless) or RfC (too long). I take it to AN/I. I can make a short case, get some positive feedback and get rid of the person in the dispute. This results in alternate forums being less well attended which tends to fulfill the prophesy that they are less effective. Even AN gets approximately 1/2 the traffic of AN/I. If we continue to bring community ban discussions to AN/I expecting immediate action and continue to get it, the other forums and the proper methods of dispute resolutions will wither from inattention. There are important fundamental reasons why AN/I (or AN) is the wrong forum for these sorts of long term user conduct discussions. Reasons we all know. IF the community refuses to be adult about things and demand that long term user conduct issues be handled through the dispute resolution pipeline then ArbComm should step in and dictate changes.

Statement by Verbal (talk)

None of New York Brad's criteria are met. GdB has caused repeated problems across wikipedia. He has been discussed on ANI several times, several resulting in blocks. The previous ANI thread, where there was consensus to ban, closed early due to GdB indicating he would no longer edit. Unfortunately this was not the case and he has continued the disruptive behaviour. I would have preferred all WLUs evidence to have been presented, but the community has shown that it will no longer tolerate GdBs behaviour. The Arbs can look at this evidence and see what they think, but I would urge them not to take this case at present.

I endorse the statements of Roux, Dendodge, Seicer, Franamax, Skinwalker, Lar, and the WP community as expressed at ANI. Verbal chat 10:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/2)

  • Comment - the list of parties is considerably longer than it should be. While it is possibly helpful to notify all those who commented on the Administrators' noticeboard thread, they are not all parties. Without prejudice as to whether to accept the case, if it is accepted, I would suggest that the parties be limited to the filing party, Guido den Broeder and William M. Connolley only. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • When asked to review a community ban decision (whether here or on the mailing list), I ask myself whether there is reason to believe that an arbitration case would add value to the discussion that has already taken place. That might be the case in one of the following circumstances:
    • If there were a good argument that the sanction of banning was seriously disproportionate to the editor's misconduct so that that the ban is grossly unfair to the user. Note: this means more than that an arbitrator might personally disagree with the decision.
    • If the community discussion could not be not fully informed, for example, if there are private facts that could not be shared on-wiki but could be provided off-wiki to the arbitrators and might bear on what a fair result would be. This circumstances will be rare.
    • It there is a genuine dispute as to whether the consensus of the community discussion was in favor of the ban. Note that a "genuine dispute" does not mean wikilawyerish, hypertechnical procedural objections.
    • (Not relevant here) If a significant amount of time has elapsed since the ban and there is reason to believe that the user might now be in a better position to resume productive, collaborative editing.

Editors supporting acceptance of the case should try to explain why one of these circumstances, or a comparable one, is applicable. I do not see any of them at present but remain open to persuasion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi

Initiated by Scott Mac (Doc) at 22:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`
  • Moreschi notified
  • Charles
  • FT2


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Since he's calling into question the final step of the dispute resolution process into question, there is little point.

Statement by Scott MacDonald

I've no dog in the Giano fight. I gave up caring a long time ago about that one. It is arbcom's to sort, because that's what we elect you to do. Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution, arbcom's decisions are from from infallible, and should never be beyond question, appeal, or revision. The community elect arbs, and if people don't like what they get, then they've just had the chance to elect others. However, if admins feel free to overturn and reverse arbcom decisions, then all hell breaks loose. That way lies chaos and madness.

Giano was recently blocked by arbcom for incivility (rightly or wrongly.) Charles Matthews then, on behalf of Arbcom then extended that block for "block evasion" (rightly or wrongly). Moreschi, an admin not unknown for controversial actions, without any discussion whatsoever (see his logs), then overturned that block. 20:47, 16 December 2008 "Petty block based on wrong-headed thinking: per Bishonen's statement this was not block evasion, was trivial evasion in the first place, and Matthews' arbitratorial authority has been very bankrupt for a while now anyway" (I note in passing this is the third Giano block Moreschi has overturned.) If Charles Matthews was wrongly applying arbcom's decision, then it is surely for arbcom and not any admin to overturn him. Wheelwaring without discussion is intolerable enough, doing it with arbcom is unacceptable.

I have already stated that it is past time for arbcom to put the boot into any vested user who crosses the line. The drama this minority cause in their petty partisan soap opera is waaaay past beyond their utility to the project. See User:Scott MacDonald/When to shoot an admiral for my reasoning.

You desysopped SlimVirgin for this very same behaviour, I call on you now to desysop Moreschi. Otherwise, arbcom's authority is bankrupt and any forceful minority can get its way.

Resp to Brad. Well, you can accuse me of stoking drama by bringing this. But, I'd say, the drama is caused by the constant unwillingness of arbcom to stamp any type of authority on vested users. Wimpy solutions and assuming good faith to ridiculous levels, and your inevitable "on one hand, on the other hand" approach has created this whole absurd mess where powerful cliques run a mock. The pathetic lack of leadership, evidenced by jpgordon's ridiculous recuse is simply allowing this awful soap opera to be prolonged. (If you want to be biblical see Judges 17:6!) No, perhaps an arbitration case isn't the best way, but you really do have to start slapping people like Morsechi. I have no quarrel with Giano, and no comment on his block, but bishonen's defense of block-evasion which is being used by you and Flo to make this go away is patently ridiculous. When blocked Giano announced he was leaving. He then changed his mind on seeing a way to test the limits - he got Jehochim to move his talk page to a subpage to allow him to edit articles on his talk page and issue instructions to others. Heck, who can object to him creating great content? But anyone who think it wasn't gaming and stirring - aided by proxying admins - to defeat a block isn't awake.

Statement by Viridae

Ahh but arbcom's authority IS bankrupt as indicated by blocking Giano for block evasion in the first place (apologies to those of you who disagreed witht he block) and then blocking Moreschi for misusing tools. Oh and there is FT2 refusing to answer questions about whether or not he knew that material pertinent too his candidacy was oversighted during the arbcom elections in which he ran. Viridae 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John254

In response to Moreschi unblocking Giano, FT2 reblocked Giano, and blocked Moreschi for violating Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin#Restriction_on_further_enforcement. Discussion on User_talk:Moreschi#Block indicates a strong community consensus against both blocks. LessHeard vanU has indicated his imminent intention to reverse FT2's block of Moreschi. I have requested the assistance of Jimbo Wales in this matter at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#The_Giano_II_wheel_war. John254 23:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Cyde Weys

I disagree with Doc's final sentence that ArbCom is bankrupt if it does not apply the exact same punishment to Moreschi as it did to SlimVirgin. It is my understanding that SlimVirgin's desysopping was a result of a large combination of factors, of which the unblocking of Giano was simply the final straw. The situation is not necessarily the same in Moreschi's case, though I do not think a desysopping would be too harsh. And John254, a bunch of people commenting on Moreschi's talk page does not a community consensus make. That is a bit of a biased crowd. --Cyde Weys 23:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Mackensen

If Moreschi knows better than those damn fools on the Committee then he should submit his name to the community to become an arbitrator. I suspect half the people who run do it in anger--I know I did. As to whether this case (if accepted) should be delayed until the new intake assumes office, I'm split. The decision might have more legitimacy coming from a mix of new arbs and old arbs. On the other hand, the new arbs will be getting their feet wet and don't know the full history, inevitably leading to long, drawn-out, drama filled case. Just like last year. Mackensen (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Charles Matthews

I volunteered to implement a decision of the ArbCom to reset a 72 hour block on User:Giano II. That decision was split 7-5, and details are on User talk:Giano II. Moreschi unblocked, with a misleading summary suggesting this was in some way or fashion my decision alone, or taken carelessly. He made no effort to contact me about this matter. Moreschi was certainly acting way outside any sort of process and protocol, and his attempts to personalise the issue are just a smokescreen. I think this is clearly use of admin tools to grandstand, and I think the matter should somehow or other be dealt with by the ArbCom. A full case may not be the way, but it is not for me to say. I do think that formal Arbitration decisions should not simply be brushed aside. And I think any attempt to play divide-and-conquer when ArbCom decisions are not unanimous should be taken very seriously. Charles Matthews (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Maxim

Since none of the present ArbCommers are impartial enough to actually arbitrate wrt to Giano, I propose that a sub-arbcom be elected to arbitrate this case. Maxim(talk) 23:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement from Moreschi

I have little more to say. My thoughts are in extensive detail on my talk page. Here I will keep it short and clean.

1): The original block of Giano may have been right or wrong. I have not looked and care little. Regardless, it was made with proper authority, and I was doing other things.

2): The decision by Charles Matthews to extend Giano's block was not only wrong but also a violation of the Giano special restriction. In extending the block he failed to obtain consensus ("agreement", in the text) among arbitrators: 7-6 (5?) is simply not consensus. NYB publically stated "I dissent", and 5 others evidently did so privately. My reversal of this block was merely undoing a violation of arbcom's own Giano special restriction.

3): FT2's block of myself and reblock of Giano constituted wheel-warring: they violated both WP:BLOCK and WP:WHEEL.

Moreschi (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  • There is, of course, a much simpler argument to the effect that I am right, everybody thinks I'm right, and that Matthews and FT2 are hopelessly wrong, and this is what WP:IAR is for. Even without, that, however, I am confident I violated no arbcom motion: that Charles Matthews did: and that FT2 wheel-warred. I am astounded that Matthews can confuse a 7-5 majority with "agreement" or "consensus". Clearly we have nothing of the kind: in such a scenario the default option is not to block, much as at AFD "no consensus" defaults to keep. Moreschi (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sticky Parkin

This is mainly a reply to Maxim. None of the arbs are impartial?:):) There is constantly a debate about who is allowed to do anything about Giano and if people disagree with his actions people claim they are biased. Arbcom are arbcom; i.e. they're the one's who are supposed to decide some things, as Scott says. I'm sure they're not all equally partial- those who are may recuse. We all have an opinion when it comes to Giano, (even if some people's is just boredom) but that doesn't mean some of them can't be impartial. Sticky Parkin 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of them are not impartial, and most importantly they've utterly failed to resolve this dispute. Maxim(talk) 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What G did on his talk page (use of it for editing, getting one of his mates to move his talk page so he could do so) and then editing as an IP on someone else's talk page, was block evasion, he's not thick he's been around long enough to know what those blocked are allowed to do. I agree with Folantin (and perhaps Sam, though maybe permanently, rather than just for a couple of weeks.) A moratorium on Giano drama- just permaban him, or let him write his high-gloss, deeply profound articles so vital to the educational task of the project, which cover such philosophical, theological and sociological subjects, which those seeking knowledge are bound to google so frequently, so vital to our encyclopedia, without disruption. Though of course he can never just do that, can he? Sticky Parkin 23:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What seems to have happened possibly is that some people weren't sure if extending the block was enforced by arbcom or by charles acting alone. There's been the same confusion in previous recent cases as to whether an arb was acting as themselves individually or as arbcom enforcing itself. What I suggest is the creation of an account called "arbcom" which enforces/makes actions which are by order of the arbcom and have their consensus. That way individual arbs won't be blamed individually when they were enacting the arbcom consensus, and people can't be confused. Sticky Parkin 01:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin

Moreschi is one of the few admins with the guts to deal with the numerous ethnic and national conflicts on Misplaced Pages. The vast majority of the 1600 or so other admins on the corps couldn't give a monkey's. Mainspace content would suffer a dramatic deterioration were he to be desysopped. But let's not lose sight of the big picture because, as we all know, nothing is more important to Misplaced Pages than the Giano Wars and the endless drama and bureaucracy which accompany them...

Seriously, let's get a grip. Can we have a complete moratorium on Giano-related drama for 2009? It seems no incident involving Giano can be allowed to pass without at least 50 users having their say on the matter. As far as I can see, none of it ever has any bearing on encyclopaedic content. How about wiping the slate clean on all sides of the dispute and trying to start from scratch on January 1? People must have better things to do, like write a reference work.

Moreschi's suggestion "maybe start an academy " is about the only positive thing to come out of this mess. ArbCom is important but it's not that important, otherwise turn-out in the elections would be much higher than the small fraction of the "community" who bothered to vote. Anyone who sees Arbcom as some kind of Wiki-government needs to get a sense of proportion. What should rule Misplaced Pages is core policy which has a bearing on encyclopaedic content and we need more admins prepared to enforce it (rather than just fighting vandalism and "incivility"). --Folantin (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

Agree with Maxim - all 12 Arbs who voted on the Giano re-block will have to recuse from this, which leaves practically no-one. Sam's idea below is one possibility (though that would still leave very few uninvolved). Meanwhile, this is pointless. Unblock Giano and Moreschi and let's get on with more important things. Black Kite 23:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Note by Ryan Postlethwaite

I got in contact with FT2 and he agreed to a partial unblock to partipate in this request for arbitration. He was away from the computer, so I did the honours. For the length of the original block, Moreschi is only allowed to edit this page and his talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the presumption that the original block is valid. You cannot restrict an editor by conditional unblocking of a controversial block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:B

Could someone explain arbiter Sam Blacketer's statement here that Giano was "compelled" to request a separate talk page? I may be missing something here, but it looks like Giano is using his/her real talk page for proxy editing while blocked. There are several directions worth going here. (1) There's nothing about that use of the talk page that would preclude also having a conversation there - so that is no compelling need for a separate page. (2) Blocked means blocked. Blocked doesn't mean "on a brief vacation, but continuing to edit through proxies." I have no strong opinion on Giano other than that special Giano rules are silly. Blocking Giano for things that nobody else would be blocked for is silly as is the reverse. It astounds me that this committee is so woefully unable to deal with this situation. Whatever blockworthy disruption Giano may be causing at some point in time, this committee amplifies that disruption by its own actions. --B (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(Sam answered the above question on my talk page. I disagree with his reasoning, but thank him for explaining it.)

In regards to the block of Moreschi by FT2, I am shocked that anyone is defending it. There was obviously nothing to be gained by a preventative block here. That action could only possibly be seen as not only punitive, but petty. You don't block an admin because you disagree with a block. Regardless of the correctness of Moreschi's actions, FT2's block was wholly inappropriate and abusive. If this case ends with anything short of desysopping both Moreschi and FT2, it is a failure on the part of arbcom. --B (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Majorly

It is time for arbcom to be abolished, or, at the very least, enforced to learn where they're placed. This is completely petty retaliation. I have some respect for FT2, but this is just childish. ArbCom is no longer respected by the vast majority of the community, and with each and every stupid move they make, the more sure I am of that. It's time the power was given back to the community from whom it was wrongfully taken, so that these stupid moves don't happen. It's just a shame some admin didn't unblock Moreschi and Giano II, then block FT2 and Charles Matthews. That would have been funny. Majorly 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of his block evasion was daring to reply to a request of mine to help me out in working on Bramall Hall, which he kindly assisted with me last year. It's unbelievably stupid that I would have had to wait an extra three days because he dared to tell me that he'd help, uh, improve an article. Pathetic. ArbCom needs abolishing, and fast. I'm sick and tired of their bullshit. Majorly 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
To Elonka: Arbcom do not have the backing of the community, at least, not the current one. People overwhelmingly voted against current arbitrators, not supported them. People voted because they wanted different people, who have more of an idea of what's what. Oh and I didn't vote against Kurt because of his platform. I ignored his platform completely, and opposed him because he's a troll. As did many others. It shows nothing for confidence in arbcom at all, moreso against it. We elected the current batch a year ago, some two years ago, and a couple in 2006. We no longer have their confidence. Majorly 00:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Apoc2400

  • Moreschi wheel-warred the same way SlimVirgin did and was temporarily de-sysoped for.
  • The background of Moreschi is different from SlimVirgin, so consequences may be other or none at all.
  • The block of Moreschi was unprecedented, as was his action.
  • Reclusion will be controversial, as any arb could be said to be involved. Still, if what arbs do in their duty as arbs is seen as involvement, then anyone can choose their own jury by picking fights with parts of ArbCom.
  • Cue all the other drama llamas. Yee haw! --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Arbcom will makes mistakes sometime. I believe the block extension of Giano was a mistake, though technically he did evade the block. ArbCom was already reconsidering the block, as Moreschi should have known. Admins rushing to undo any Arbitration remedy they disagree with is completely unacceptable, whether he has the crowd assembled on some user talk page behind him or not. No community consensus can ever be established on a user talk page. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

  • Is that a 'lama' (as in a priest) or a 'llama' (as in a beast)?
  • In my uninvolved opinion, the whole Giano mess from start to... not actually finish, because it's unlikely to ever be over... is entirely silly. Everybody needs to chill. Whoever's still blocked should just take a wikibreak and enjoy the so-called real world until the block expires, and everybody should stop stirring up more drama by commenting on it (including me... :-) )... and do no more blocks, unblocks, escalation of sanctions, starting a federal (or ArbCom) case, or anything else... just find something better to do like watching paint dry. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

(five or six ec's - sorry Theresa) I believe that either ArbCom is unable to take this case, being a party per the block rationale provided by FT2, or that individual Arbiters need to be made parties. I had intended to unblock Moreschi per this rationale, since I saw no basis upon which the block could stand, but found that Moreschi was unblocked a little over 5 minutes before the time I had given had elapsed. I stand, as someone who has used and appreciated the ArbCom in the past, in desperate disappointment in the practice of blocking someone, and then taking arguments on whether a trial is necessary. As there is no apparent basis for the block of Moreschi I would ask for the Committee members acknowledgement that the block is lifted in its entirety. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to FT2; Where are the wordings within policy or guideline, or given practice, that supports your arguments? ArbCom do not make policy but interpret and act upon existing descriptive ones, and at the behest of the community or Jimbo Wales specifically. Where was a request for review of the actions of Moreschi made, and by whom? I find your justifications sound in logic, but utterly bereft of reference to the policies of which sysops and even more so ArbCom are the servants. I do not believe that ArbCom has the power to extend their authority over tangential actions relating to their past decisions unless requested to do so by outside parties, their ability to extend the scope of a case only exists while it is being discussed, and I see here no desire from the community to grant that ability. I ask you to consider that your actions were bankrupt, for you had no basis upon which to make them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Response to Newyorkbrad; the extension/reset of Giano's block was for block evasion, which is not in respect of the civility parole specifically noted in the SlimVirgin wording; ArbCom has no specific remit in adjacent areas to its previous determinations, so Moreschi was not defying ArbCom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by CharlotteWebb

Why is Sam voting to accept this when he has already indicated that he intends to recuse? That doesn't make any sense. — CharlotteWebb 23:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jossi

A royal waste of time. It is about time that restrictions imposed are respected. I would also argue that bringing forth an argument against the ArbCom in this manner is quite unbecoming. What about abandoning the bloody politics and focus on productive stuff? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rootology

Everyone, including the arbiters, and everyone affected and involved in this, needs to read Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not about winning, and this needs to be policy. The AC is not entitled to "win", admins are not entitled to "win", editors are not entitled to "win".

Misplaced Pages is not about winning. Disputes over content or behavior are not meant to be "won". They are meant to be resolved per consensus, with all users here for the betterment of the project at all times willing to yield to consensus. Ego does not matter to Misplaced Pages; egos and pride are not helpful to building encyclopedia articles, and ego and pride need to yield to consensus if a conflict between them somehow occur. Any editors using Misplaced Pages who at any time feel they should win are incorrect; there is nothing to win.

What Misza13 says below is also accurate: The Committee either needs to stamp down anything and everything by force, and let the chips and proverbial bodies fall where they may, or else cede to letting the AC be remade by membership from the ground up by the editors and toss the body as it existed. The middle ground of playing to and serving personalities and egos is a model for failure. Do one or the other, please.

Statement by Thatcher

Moreshi's reading that "agreement" means "consensus" is clearly incorrect; Arbcom is one body on Misplaced Pages that does act by voting, and 7 votes is a clear majority of the active Arbitrators. That doesn't mean the decision was sensible or morally correct, just procedurally correct. There are worse reasons to be desysopped than standing up to lunacy. Thatcher 23:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"I still am not sure whether I should be congratulating the top finishers in the election, for getting their wish to serve on the Arbitration Committee, or the lower-ranked finishers, because they will not have to do this job." (Newyorkbrad)

I'm sure. Thatcher 00:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

No articles have been damaged. No editor has been seriously attacked or harassed. Therefore, reject this case and go do something productive instead. Allow the community to sort out the blocks and unblocks as needed. They could hardly do worse than the unnecessary interventions of this committee. Jehochman 23:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Cases that are primarily political in nature should be rejected. Do not reward those seeking to cause chaos by taking the bait. Jehochman 00:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

I haven't commented on this Giano block until now, but here's my $0.02 on the progression here: Giano was uncivil, the ArbCom discussed it on their mailing list, and voted to block. As per usual ArbCom decisions, it's a simple majority that counts, not consensus, and that's fine. Giano was blocked by Sam Blacketer, acting on behalf of the Committee. Giano then decided to evade his block, by coming in as an anon and posting on other pages than his talkpage. ArbCom debated this, and voted to extend the block, 7-5. Charles Matthews, acting on behalf of the Committee, extended the block. Moreschi then came in, and made a decision to overturn the block entirely. It's also worth pointing out that this is the third time he's overturned a Giano block. I have respect for Moreschi in many things, but not on his decision to unblock Giano. When an administrator simply decides to overturn an ArbCom decision on their own, that administrator should be de-sysopped, immediately. This is what happened a few weeks ago, when SlimVirgin was de-sysopped for overturning an ArbCom enforcement decision. And Moreschi knew about this, because he participated on that page, offering a statement where he even said, "I can see why SV is being temp desysopped here," and that it was necessary for the ArbCom to be "clear and consistent in application of rules".

ArbCom has the backing of the community, as was clearly shown by the many Wikipedians who voted in the elections this month. The Committee definitely has my support, and if ArbCom chose to temporarily de-sysop Moreschi over this, I would support that decision. We elect the arbitrators to make decisions in the most complex cases we've got. When the arbitrators go to the trouble of making decisions in those cases, those decisions should be respected. --Elonka 02:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Bakharev (talk)

First, original block of Giano may or may not be correct, extension of the block by Charles may or may not be correct (I, personally, would accept its characteristic by Thatcher as a procedurally correct lunacy), unblocking of Giano was not procedurally correct (although it was IMHO a right decision), reblocking by FT2 was probably a right decision although of all the arbitrators he was probably the less suitable to perform this reblock taking into account the long history of hostilities between him and Giano. What I cannot see is how blocking of Moreschi satisfy WP:BLOCK. Was the block preventative? What it was suppose to prevent exactly? Reunblocking of Giano? Moreschi was still able to unblock while blocked himself. A stern warning to Moreschi not to reunblock would be as sufficient as the block. Do FT2 expect Moreschi to go on a rampage, delete the main page and block Giano? I do not think so. Thus, why block? Similarly, I applaud to the decision to unblock Moreschi, but what those restrictions are suppose to prevent? I see them nothing but punitive. Can we repell them?

Secondly, the story is important for well-being of the community and would generally warrant an investigation. The problem is that the current Arbcom is a wrong forum for solving those problems. Even if the arbitrators would act in good faith the community would have huge difficulties trying to assume it. To much of conflict of interests here. I think it would be better to leave decision to community by doing an RfC or some other community fora.

Thirdly, being an optimist I hope that the newly elected arbcom would find some better things to do rather than coninue Giano Wars. Thus, doing nothing and waiting for the events to unfold maybe a sensitive option. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


Comment by Sean William

If any member of the Arbitration Committee believes that their banhammer outweighs that of another fellow administrator, then they've got another thing coming. Props to Moreschi for doing the right thing here; if he wasn't around, I would have unblocked Giano myself. There was absolutely no reason to extend Giano's block past what it already was. (I'm a bit tired of the "ArbCom authority" as it is. It's the things like this that make me more and more disillusioned with the powers that be at Misplaced Pages.) Sean William @ 00:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Cube Lurker

Reply to Elonka

Elonka your second paragraph is severely flawed. The two sitting arbs received 27.4 & 20.5% support. I dare to suggest that most of the sitting arbs would find their situation the same if they had to face the community again. The community voted for arbcom to try to find arbs that would be a change from the way arbcom has bungled this past year down to today. Not as a support for this current group.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Angus McLellan

A man goes to the doctors. "Doctor", he says, "when I do this it hurts." "So," says the doctor, "don't do that!"

The committee has created, by its own egregious past decisions, a situation where a vote of arbitrators is required to modify blocks on an editor. Is there anyone who thinks that this ridiculous circus, with arbitrators voting over blocks, and sitting arbiters getting involved in enforcement as a matter of routine, really reduces drama and conflict? So here's a radical new concept for the committee to consider. Go back to arbitrating the difficult cases and leave the small stuff alone. If Giano's a grumpy old so-and-so, well, that's what he is. He might get blocked sometimes by the lunatic civility police, but he'll probably be unblocked by someone else eventually, or the block will expire in its own good time. There may be some minor kerfuffle, but it will be on nothing like this scale. Please follow the doctor's advice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by enraged SirFozzie

I hate to start my statement with something that will offend some (or many) people... but in this case I think it's necessary.

HAS EVERYONE LOST THEIR FUCKING MIND?

Right now I'm disgusted with several people who I have held in high regard's actions in this. People who I thought were beyond this kind of thing. I do not completely support the block, and I do not support the extension of the block, as I've said on Giano's page. I do understand that the actions had a bare majority amongst active arbitrators. I'm not sure that it really was useful to take such an action with such a bare majority. But rather then spend paragraphs on that, I've said enough about the actions of the outgoing Arbs on this and other issues. All I can do is thank them for their time in harness, no matter what I think of their judgement and actions, and hope that Jimbo makes the selection soon.

However, to unilaterally unblock, as was done, and especially with the message that he did, is not useful to anyone. Not to the original blocking administrator/arbcom member. Not to the community, and not even to Giano. (He may have been unblocked, but there was no way such a incendiary message in an unilateral unblock was going to stand, so it had the net effect of LENGTHENING Giano's block.)

I strongly suggest that everyone involved go off and have a spot of tea, commute Giano's sentence to time served, and look for the place they lost their freaking mind. Because the actions of all involved reflect badly on Misplaced Pages, it's policies, and the community, and they've placed us in a very bad situation where the base authority of the Arbitration Committee and the person who appoints them is being questioned. SirFozzie (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Horologium

If this case is accepted, I would strongly suggest that a) Giano be added as an involved party, b) the blocking policy be formally rewritten to include the statement User:Giano II may not be blocked for any reason whatsoever, as determined by previous community consensus, and C) that a remedy banning Giano from interacting with members (past or present) of the Arbitration committee be implemented, except where Giano has a history of editing the article in question or a related article. I, for one, am damn sick and tired of seeing The Giano Show over and over again on AN and ANI (especially when it is in reruns), and so much of the endless drama comes from Giano's endlessly repeated statements of disdain for arbitrators past, present, and likely future. Yes, he contributes featured content. No, he's not the only one. In fact, there are 21 editors who have contributed more featured articles; about 15 of them are still active. (See Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations.) Few of them are the subject of tedious, interminable discussion threads. (Only Cla68 and Piotrus show up more than once or twice in recent episodes of As The Wiki Turns; most don't appear at all, and those two editors have both been active in contentious areas. Giano's contributions are primarily to the field of Architecture, not a hotbed of strife and POV pushing on Misplaced Pages.)

At the same time, while I think that Moreschi's wheel-warring with the arbcom was monumentally stupid and ill-advised, I don't support de-adminning him; a simple admonishment should do the trick. He is one of the few admins who is able to function in the nationalism wars areas, an area where angels fear to tread, and without the tools he would not be at all effective in stopping the endless stream of sewage that pours forth from jingoistic edit warriors. Horologium (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Reminder by Bishonen

Is the voting on the Peter Damian "request for clarification" finished yet? Is it conclusive yet? Is any conclusion to be drawn, any action to be implemented, any ban to be rescinded? Or will Peter Damian be left dangling ad infinitum while y'all remain stuck in the doorway, trying to get out of sight of that unedifying slow-motion execution and into the latest, apparently (don't ask me why) enticing Giano drama? Responsive replies from the committee welcome! Bishonen | talk 02:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

What do you think? Thatcher 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Grumble by Privatemusings

This is all clearly terribly important, but I really must object, deserving a higher spot than 10th really. When are the arbs going to do anything about that? Privatemusings (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand your comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Take a number. ++Lar: t/c 03:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
then you lost the game, I guess :-) - I think it's best to ignore me in this instance...(oh and probably many others, though I hope not!) - this is a silly attempt to be humourous, brad, and I apologise if your time was wasted at all in reading both it, and this reply. Merry Christmas to all :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

The ArbCom has lost the confidence of pretty well the entire community at this point. I don't know who suggested extending Giano's block, but I'd bet every penny I have that it was FT2, who should not be involved in any ArbCom or admin action against Giano. Moreschi was right to unblock. I ask the ArbCom to deal with FT2's misuse of the tools in blocking Moreschi, and to ensure that FT2 stay away from any further action against Giano, or against admins who help Giano.

In closing, the ArbCom should bear in mind that, when you damage your own standing, you damage Jimbo's too. SlimVirgin 04:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Musings by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim

Here again, what a surprise! As I frequently point out, everyone but a few pro-Arbcom ideologues and groupies realise that all this is but a undignified power struggle, the amelioration and glorification of which derive from little more than a few deluded pseudo-legalistic pontifications. Misplaced Pages has no rules except those "of the jungle" and few true laws except those people happen to agree to obey.

At stake, a bunch of egos, the status and authority of the arbcom, the Incivility policy and the balance of power between a huge range of forces.

This is where FT2 et alii might be right. Giano's case could be interpreted as the arbcom versus those who would oppose its authority. More realisitically, this would be the arbcom drama-lovers versus non- or anti-arbcom drama lovers. In these circumstances the future authority of the arbcom could be in the air. Unfortunately for one side, Moreschi probably has too much gravitas in the drama-loving part of the community to be punished easily, and given this his actions are a great boost to those who oppose any emergence of a kritocracy from an institution designed merely to resolve a few hard-core disputes.

Or perhaps FT2 et alii should recognize that the best kings can't always enforce their will over their strongest nobles. They recognize the fights that they can win in advance, and those they can't, and thus avoid the loss of face and instability resulting from unsuccessful demands for compliance.

So yes, this Giano matter has dented the prestige and respectability of Arbcom, but only because a few hard liners continue with Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision#Civility:_Giano. Please arbs, the foolishness of the original decision may not have been obvious at first, and doubtless FloNight et alii thought it would be for the best, but the foolishness is clear now. Sure, you can go for end stakes now, but you cannot do this without a terrible cost. By adhering to it still you are just advertising your own foolishness, no virtue for those who are attempting gain the position of de facto community leaders. Misplaced Pages needs arbs with leadership skills derived from intellectual competence and practical insight, not a bunch of moralising egoistical proxy wheel-warriors. Blocks of Giano for the kind of "incivility" that most adults can cope with easily are pointless drama-inducing farces, and will continue to be such, so the charge of being fools or power-mongers cannot reasonably be avoided unless the goal is to create more pointless drama-inducing farces.

This continuing dispute though is boring even me. Charles Matthews was entitled to make the block (no policy violation, potentially enforcing a remedy of his own arbcom), while Moreschi was entitled to reverse it (no clear policy violation ... could just ignore all rules anyway :p ). Scott MacDonald, you're right, but I recall you saying over and over that this drama shouldn't be perpetuated. It hence surprised me greatly to see that you opened the case, though doubtlessly you only saved some pro-arbcom authority drama-lover the job. That SlimVirgin got desyssoped was always rather arbitrary in relation to her Giano unblock, that's just the way wikipedia and arbcom work, and yet another arbitrary action doesn't make it less so.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by FT2

The action by Moreschi, executed knowingly barely 3 weeks after SlimVirgin's case, was extremely likely (in my assessment) to open the door for an exceptional degree of disruption and harm to the project and its community.

This prompt prevention, in almost the only way permissible and possible, has quite likely saved many well known users users from a complex and protracted RFAR case, sanctions "under a cloud", ANI, and so on. It has also helped in other ways.

(Background on user:Giano II -- Usually the community can work well with conduct issues of even difficult users after arbitration. This was expressly forbidden in November for "Giano enforcement issues", because after 3 years the community had sadly shown itself incapable in any way of avoiding the divisions on these.)

Arbitration process is important for editors and for content development A very wide range of disputes, resolutions, and nuanced case conclusions, are kept workable by the fact that Arbitration decisions are not the same as usual communal debates. These are workable because Arbcom decisions are tighter, and often far less debatable:– the dispute is done, this is then enforcement. We do not have a better way to handle very divisive issues. We should develop one but we don't have it now.
Moreschi's action was a direct stab at that means of keeping serious disputes under control. As with SlimVirgin, Giano was not a party in this admin action -- indeed I proposed and supported a reduction in his initial block; I proposed and supported a reduction in the reblock; and I had noticed and proposed Bishonen's point to Arbcom as worth considering. Giano was a completely innocent bystander in Moreschi's action. Moreschi almost certainly knew that the matter was in fact, already under review -- I'd said so myself, at 18:46, 2 hours earlier.
This could have harmed the project in a very serious way. We need the process Moreschi in effect tried (for whatever reasons) to undermine, in a practical sense, right now. However any given user may feel, Arbcom's somewhat more hardened processes back-stop a huge number of disputes that the community has never yet managed to back-stop for itself (I hope as a wider community we do find a way).
Response and handling - There are two practical ways to prevent an administrator being disruptive, desysopping and blocking. Both work, but desysopping and not blocking is the usual response to serious tool misuse. I could have found a steward for an emergency temporary desysop. However, we don't usually do that even in wheel wars and it felt unnecessary. I decided a simple block would be better.
A block is to protect the project, and my view was the project needed very urgently to be protected against possible further admin actions by Moreschi, until he was no longer an active risk in this incident, or until the Committee had been able to review. It was of the utmost urgency, to "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Misplaced Pages" (WP:BLOCK). Either a temporary block, or a temporary removal of admin tools would work, but either way, speed was important.
Moreschi was risking something that (at the time of his action) had a very good chance of imminent escalation. That needed to not happen -- too much harm. (Also crossref the resulting war at RFAR/IRC for an example how a Giano+tools issue can spiral into a wheel war, and the number of users who ended up unnecessarily under a cloud, wasted effort, drama, and harm, if spiralling were allowed to take place. All of which was completely avoidable.) I took strong action on a temporary basis, wrote simultaneously to Arbcom to review it, and wrote on Moreschi's talk page that any arbitrator could reverse it if unhelpful.
The block did its job. There was some strong objection, but there was not one issue of wheel warring or other warring between admins whatsoever, the integrity of the community's final means of dispute handling was not degraded, there was talk page discussion but it was reasonable, and the case was then referred to Arbitration. The case has ended up in appropriate dispute resolution. Only a block or desysop, and then probably only by an arbitrator enforcing the previous decisions, would have been so sure to block the possible/incipient warring and direct any escalating actions into safe dialog, for the hour or so needed for a return to usual dispute resolution (ie talk and RFAR).
Not one other admin or user was suckered to their detriment into the morass, which has often happened, the "out of hand" situation Moreschi created was resolved without further ado within an hour, Giano's block review is undisturbed and awaiting the last few votes, and the sole RFAR case resulting is concise and simple.
The decision was apt - The block, as a means of Arbitration Enforcement itself, was one of two means available (and the lesser of the two) to procure this. It's doubtful whether it would have been better to wield the bigger stick and ask a steward to emergency desysop Moreschi, so I could later claim not to have reverted an (arbitration breaching) unblock of his. I think that's a bit 'lawyer-ey.
In an urgent and difficult situation, there was a slightly more important priority, which was killing the imminent wheel war/admin war/Giano war that Moreschi's action threatened to spark. The block was temporary, and marked as "any arbitrator may overturn" to prevent warring on that either. It threw a bucket of cold water over any temptation to war it other than by dialog, and made sure Moreschi would not war on any Giano block related issue any further at that time, which was exactly its intention. Within 1.5 hours the risk of such warring was not likely, and I had endorsed an unblock (I wasn't online at the time but even so I'd noted any arb could decide to do so instead).
I have recused completely, both on the mailing list and here, without stating an opinion, on whether Moreschi should be desysopped or not. This statement is not to further any case for or against desysopping of any kind - that's left to the Committee. It is to explain the reason for my action, and the "eyes wide open" seriousness of Moreschi's.


FT2  04:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Question by John Vandenberg

In regards to SlimVirgin statement, I am curious why should FT2 not be involved in any ArbCom or admin action against Giano? (Ignoring other unresolved matters, please.) John Vandenberg 05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

The original 72h block on Giano was legitimate, the arbs decided it on the basis of an ongoing discussion on wiki, everybody had the facts, and it was a reasonable thing to do. The re-block, on the other hand, was cooked up in private entirely, when it didn't have to be. The arbs made that decision without having all the relevant facts to begin with (failing, e.g., to see the extenuating circumstances arising from Bishonen's information: that the arbs didn't have that extenuating information before they acted was entirely their own fault). They also shut themselves off from any chance of getting a sanity check from the community, before they acted. When that sanity check came, after the fact, it was roundly against them. Moreschi was acting on the basis of a very clear, unanimous community consensus that the re-block was a bad idea. This was as clear a case of a valid community consensus as any I've seen. The unblock was therefore legitimate. The block against Moreschi, in contrast, as well as the second re-block on Giano, served no purpose than intimidation and protection of the committee's dwindling authority for its own sake. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Gladys J Cortez

FT2: "This could have harmed the project in a very serious way. "

Stepping back from the individual leaf on the individual branch of this very particular tree, and looking at the forest as a whole, I find this statement...well, wrong.

The project = a functioning, accurate, thorough, complete, and well-written encyclopedia. 99.99999% of people who use Misplaced Pages, read Misplaced Pages, and even edit Misplaced Pages, do not know Giano, Moreschi, or any of the rest of us from a hole in the ground, except inasmuch as we cross their paths while editing. John Q. Architecture-Buff doesn't know or care about the internal politics of en:WP; he just wants to read well-written articles in his area of interest. He doesn't care whether the person who wrote them called someone an idiot somewhere in the dark recesses of Misplaced Pages's guts; if you said the words "wheel-war" to him, like as not you'd get a blank stare for your troubles.

My point: It's not any one individual's actions that could have harmed the project. What CAN and WILL, and perhaps ALREADY HAS, harmed the project in a very serious way, is the extension of, and indulgence in these repeated Wiki-political gun-battles. Every minute we spend on these miserable little verbal showdowns is a net loss to the project as a whole. It needs to stop, and the only question (and it's meant to apply to EVERY one of these Wikipolitical disputes, not just the one at hand) is this: Which side is going to put their guns down first? GJC 07:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on your talk page on this, for interest's sake mainly. FT2  13:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved George William Herbert

We didn't elect you to take half measures. We didn't elect you to quit on us. We elected you to be the arbitration committee.

If you aren't the arbitration committee anymore, send Jimbo notes of resignation so he can appoint a new one.

If you are Arbcom, get your act together. If you are Arbcom, then Christiano had no authority to do what he did unilaterally and you need to set that straight. If you are Arbcom, admit that the second Giano block was a goof, but that the process for dealing with Arbcom goofs is not any random admin saying they know better and overriding you, and make sure it doesn't happen again.

If you are Arbcom, then get with it.

If you aren't then have the decency to quit. Abdicating responsibility after taking it out of the rest of all of our hands explicitly is irresponsible. You built this house - either fix it or get someone in who will. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

This affair will eventually be reconsidered by the new arbitration committee. It isn't going to go away.

I predict that the new arbitration committee, however it may be composed, will arrive at substantially the same opinion as the 2007 and 2008 arbitration committees. At that point those who believed that there was some illegitimacy in the decisions of prior arbitration committees will be faced with the fact that three separate incarnations of the arbitration committee, the third sharing no members in common with the first and with two intervening elections during which issues could be raised, have decided that there is a problem that needs to be resolved by reining in the behavior of one user. Where the community does not do that the Committee has the legitimacy to do it, and that's why the Committee exists in the first place.

Claims that the arbitration committee as an institution has outlived its usefulness are incorrect. What has happened is substantially as I predicted in 2005: the sysops do much more work summarily and are given much more leeway than they had back then and have better tools to do that work, and Committee time has been freed up to make inroads into resolving deepseated and formerly intractable problems. People who don't want those longstanding problems resolved tend to disagree, and in all honesty this is very much harder work than the earlier (2004-2007) committees had to face. But it's certainly being done and I welcome that.

Claims that the arbitration committee per se no longer has the support of the community are false. The recent election attracted more candidates than were fielded in 2007 and (with the exception of Newyorkbrad's record-breaking vote count in 2007) the winning candidates attracted comparable (in most cases higher) numbers of votes for or against. A candidate who stood on the platform that the Committee was illegitimate, and pledged if elected to decline all cases presented, came bottom of the poll attracting 294 opposing votes. The community still thinks the Committee matters.

Having said that this is the wrong time to consider yet another Giano case. Like a Number 7 bus, another two or three will be along by-and-by. Sysops should know better than to do what Moreschi did. --TS 10:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Question by Casliber

The idea of intervention is to assist in the smooth running of the 'pedia. This is an open question to Giano really; I wonder if, instead of the thread escalating, if Theresa Knott, or some other admin, had reverted comments that were clearly vented in anger, with a edit summary or comment, "Look Giano, I can see you're angry but I have just reverted/deleted your last comment to help cool things down a bit." - would this (a) have been acceptable, and (b) hence this whole situation avoided. I am thinking maybe quick reverts of comments said in anger might be preferable to escalating blockes etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Question by White Cat

A very large number of arbitrators (three so far) and a clerk seems to have recused themselves. I think that is a serious problem with Giano's remedies. Think of a slightly more elevated case of this dispute! There would be no arbitrator left to hear the case...

As for the actual dispute I am recusing myself from commenting. :P

-- Cat 14:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SDJ

Restricting Moreschi for doing what a vast majority of the commenters thought should be done is wrongheaded on its face. For doing what was right, he's restricted? Seriously? It would seem that several of our Arbcom need to step back, look in the mirror, and see where the problem really lies. SDJ 17:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Caulde

I am particularly unimpressed by the abhorrent decision making that has been demonstrated over the past 48 hours or so. Moreschi may not have had the full 100% community support (unfortunately, this includes the now seemingly self-righteous arbitrators) when unblocking Giano, however, that is no excuse for a unilateral block of Moreschi - what gets 100% endorsements now? Nothing. People have to act on their will when there is sufficient need to do so - I lobby the arbitrators to decline this particular case, otherwise they will only be catalysing their own demise. Caulde 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sceptre

No comments about the original block, but blocking him for accidental block evasion was extremely silly (Giano thought he was unblocked, so we should assume good faith and believe him). Especially seeing as it was done by an outgoing arbitrator who, to be honest, kind of screwed up SVgate, and that a sizeable portion of the committee dissented (to Elonka, I think AC decide on four net supports, not a simple majority, but I may be wrong). Sceptre 18:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Ottava Rima

It's a little anti-climatic to say anything. Its probably not my right to say anything. However, I just wanted to say that Moreschi has been around a long time, and probably knew how this would play out. Is that fair? No, but he knew. However, Charles, FT2, et al, also knew. People talking to Giano to begin with knew, and Giano knew. This is the same cycle that will always happen, and probably always will happen. We all know that part of the community doesn't want to see Giano around, and the other part of the community will bend over backwards to ensure that he sticks around. Giano, you are a great editor, but you don't mix well with others. Is it your fault? Who knows! You have people willing to end up in this mess to protect you. You should realize that the mere desire should be enough to justify you sticking around and waiting out a block. Protect them like they want to protect you and keep them from starting this mess. What was the old rule of thumb? "Defend each other"? Well, we should defend each other by stopping our friends from doing things that we know will only cause destruction. Giano and your friends, Giano's loyal opposition, Arbs on either side, lets just remember that we are working on an encyclopedia, and disruptions make it impossible to do just that. Turn some cheeks, hug your enemies, and realize that sometimes we need to give up a little dignity, suck it up, and do what is best for the security of our friends and for this encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC

Statement by Theresa Knott

Whether the decision to extend the block was right or wrong , and I believe it was right, undoing such a block was spectacularly unhelpful. I don't for one minute believe that Giano thought that he was unblocked and free to edit. He IMO quite deliberately edited while logged out in order to evade a block. The arbitrators discussed it, and came to a joint decision to reset the block.(the normal thing to do for block evasion) Undoing such a block was beyond belief and should lead to a loss of admin tools. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller

So far as I can see (and there is much I don't know abut this), none of this would have happened if Giano had been dealt with as though he was an ordinary editor. No way should Moreschi be de-sysopped for doing something that had so much support and that would probably have been done by someone else if he hadn't unblocked Giano. We need to get out of the situation we are in with Giano, not get deeper in the mire, and without losing good Admins and editors. Removing the mop from Moreschi won't make Misplaced Pages any better and I think would make it worse in the areas he works in. dougweller (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement from tznkai

I blessedly missed out on all this drama, and for reasons I may share privately later, this could well be the beginning of the end for me in Misplaced Pages-governance affairs. That having been said would people please stop claiming any sort of consensus existed? Consensus is discovered through discussion over time - not taken by measuring the opinion of people who happened both be on-wiki and to show up on the relevant page (anyone here take a statistics class or a science class in their life?). As I have said elsewhere, and I say again now - please give the new committee a chance - don't undercut them before they've even started. I'd like them to be proud, happy and energized - full of hope - when they begin their terms this January - if not for them, for all of us.--Tznkai (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement from WJBscribe

ArbCom need to regain the confidence of the community. This incident makes it pretty clear that ArbCom cannot operate without that support. I think current arbitrators need to think carefully about how that support might be regained and what is in the best interests of the project. It may be that some of them need to resign (or that the committee may need to encourage some of their colleagues to resign) in order to achieve this end. If the presence of certain editors on the Committee prevents it from functioning then it may be necessary for them to quit even if they do not think they are not felt by other members to have done anything particularly bad. That may not be fair, but it may now be necessary. WJBscribe (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

We've got a real problem, but this isn't the case to address it with, because this isn't the problem. Indeed, a case is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing it.

The problem is that arbitration enforcement in general is basically dead now. There have long been more arbitrators than admins regularly doing arbitration enforcement. Of the admins who have actively done enforcement, many are now burnt out or unavailable. Thatcher has resigned as an admin. I (who never was a primary handler) got burnt out and have resigned as an admin. Rlesve, Risker, and Jayvdb have (presumably) been elected to the committee and (presumably) will have the good judgment not to enforce. MastCell is basically burnt out and on long term break. Alison who was working on the Troubles is on long term break. Moreschi was a primary enforcer for the nationalist cases; his respect for the committee is obviously limited. Tznkai who has been picking up a large portion of the slack recently says above "this could well be the beginning of the end for me in Misplaced Pages-governance affairs". Sir Fozzie is still handling The Troubles, but hasn't handled much else. Elonka is still active. Jehochman is still active. Those two regularly disagree with each other and are also sniped at by others. Tiptoety might be active, I'm not certain. I can't name anybody else regularly active.

Clerks are dealing with the immediate actions upon the close of a case, but the entire model assumes that admins as a whole will deal with ongoing enforcement. The recent history and recent archives of WP:AE make that a dubious assumption for the future. No case is going to deal with this issue, but it is in my mind far more important than the particular issue presented here. GRBerry 20:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Moreschi IS still very much active on this stuff. It's basically all I do now in my limited wiki-time. See WP:ARBMAC, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people, etc. But yes. We don't have enough people dealing with this crap. We never have. That is mostly due to the dynamics of RFA and a lack of suitable people with good judgment in the first place. That said, there seems to be very little in active meltdown at the moment. Balkans is OK (nothing more than the usual idiocy which FPAS and I usually get to promptly: Dieter has Kosovo under control), Armenia-Azeri has gone quiet with Ararat arev seemingly out of energy, Russian-Baltic is quiet, Jacob Peters is locked out, EE in general is all taken up with the Piotrus 2 case (where Kirill has written a very decent proposed decision), Indo-Pak is surprisingly tame, Afrocentrism is moribund since Lar and I nailed two major sockfarms operating in this area, and although the Troubles is a mess and pseudoscience is just plain fucking horrible, we can fix this eventually, as we fixed the SRA article. EE will get worse after the Piotrus 2 case as the non-banned users there go back to causing drama in the encyclopedia rather than on the case workshop, but overall the effect of that case should be positive. That said, I worry about what will happen when I'm not around. There have been few others looking at Armenia-Azeri, FPAS often needs someone from the outside to help with the Balkans, EE just needs an outside voice pure and simple, Afrocentrism is something that I spent a lot of time reading up on and is also something I would trust to few others, given the easy potential for American-style political correctness to be abused by trolls. It could all go wrong. And so easily. But we don't need many people to do all this. Just a couple dedicated ones who know their stuff. Maybe start an academy? Moreschi (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Elonka with surprising frequency (e.g. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII), and I don't think she has ever undermined my authority at arbitration enforcement. Jehochman 11:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Misza13

This comment abstracts from whether the blocks were valid or not. I want to reflect on the numerous voices that arbitration enforcement is dead or ineffective - it is 100% in your (ArbCom's) hands whether it is or not. Your decisions are supposed to be binding - whether people agree with them or not, such they are. WJB wrote "ArbCom need to regain the confidence of the community" - that's incorrect - you must regain authority. If you let it slide, you are undermining it. Even worse, if you allow yourself be dragged into deliberations to "outline what the authority of the Committee is", we're all screwed - those lines are already drawn. If you admit there's a consitutional crisis that has to be clarified by the community, we're screwed - the more of a community is involved, lesser the chances of achieving consensus. Despite what Sam Korn told me a long time ago, what ArbCom says is binding. Use terror to enforce that, if you must, but you're the one island of true authority on an ocean of anarchy and diffused power. If you give that up, Misplaced Pages fails; it's that simple. Миша13 21:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

Sadly I think ArbCom's standing in the community has been greatly damaged this year by its unwillingness to act or resolve in some instances, and its egregious hyperactivity in others. There's a lack of consistency and justification in many of the things coming out of ArbCom at present, and for quite a while now. I realise the nature of the complicated factors that have led to this, and that it is nobody's intention, that it's more a case of a well-intentioned process working imperfectly. But bringing out the pack wolves in the current climate against an admin trying to do the right thing, especially when such an action appears to be taking place "outside the norm" in special enforcement kinds of circumstances (which should be reserved for emergencies only), was clearly the wrong action to take, and I broadly agree in all parts with the statement WJB made above. Orderinchaos 23:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Hemlock Martinis

My God. Why are there so many comments here? There's a lot of blame to pass around for this catastrophe, but I'd have to say a fair share of it goes to the community and to those already commenting. As soon as anything involving Giano occurs, half the community's vested contributors flock to it like platelets to a laceration. This culture of soapboxing and ego-driven decision-making needs to end, and it needs to do so now. Instead of writing these long drawn-out legalistic theses on why/why not Moreschi/FT2/Charles Matthews/SlimVirgin/Giano/Jimbo/the King of England should be banned/hung/shot/sanctioned/forgiven, go write an article. Go upload some images. Go patrol some new pages. Stop this endless cycle of dramamongering. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Giano

Any motion passed sanctioning Moreschi will be, and appear as, needless, face-saving spite. Rather than sanction him, this Arbcom should show some humility and learn from this bizarre experience which it caused and allowed to happen. Giano (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Anonymous Dissident

This episode in the Giano story is not particularly complex. Moreschi unblocked—without explanation—a user whom the Arbitration Committee had, by majority, elected to block for a prescribed and then extended period of time. However, it seems as though the undermining of the Committee's decision has brought to sharp relief the little confidence the community seems to have left in the ArbCom. The content of many of the comments made here is testimony to this. I personally think that the ArbCom has, in the past, been very useful for the solving of some of the worst debates to tear at Misplaced Pages's community, but it appears as if trust in their capability by a larger portion of the community than perhaps was ever imagined has degraded, and this case has really brought that out. Re-iterating what WJBscribe stated, ArbCom needs to find a way to re-assert their authority and legitimize their existence in a way the whole community here can accept. More than that, they need to establish themselves as a fair and fairly elected body that has the power to make decisions minorities cannot overturn unilaterally. How they can do that I'm not sure, but it is something they need to consider; scribe's points above may be worth contemplation. Otherwise, the bitterness and contempt for the ArbCom, their authority, and their place in the community in general will just continue to fester, and it won't hold. —Anonymous Dissident 23:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from MacGyverMagic

After reading the comment from Elonka that specifically mentions Moreschi being aware of the SV case and knowing the block being overturned was an official Arbcom decision that he did not discuss with any arbcom members I believe Moreshi made a severe bad judgement. He should either be the recipient of a punitive measure or be put on probation to avoid this happening again. As one of the arbitrators said. There's little point in having a committee if anyone can undo their blocks at will. - Mgm| 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/5/3/2)

  • Accept a case wider, encompassing Giano's original blocks and unblocks on 13 December; open the case not before 00:01, 1 January 2009, from which time I will recuse as an involved party. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I support having on site arbcom discussion and actions related to the situation. All aspects of the situation should not wait until Jan. I see no reason that Moreschi's unblock should be limited to participation in an ArbCom case. As well, I think that Giano should be unblocked as I think a warning for block evasion was all that was appropriate. Given Bishonen's comment, I think we should assume good faith and unblock him by the time he wakes up in the morning. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll be off line for now. As I leave, it is my understanding that Moreschi's unblock is unconditional. Also, I'm hopeful that Giano's block length will be reduced. I will support either a motion about Moreschi's unblock of Giano, or a RFC by the Community about it. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Recuse (Also notified the Committee I would be recusing from the internal arbcom mailing list discussion on this, at the time of blocking). FT2  23:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Recuse. This is the sort of crap that led me to quit early. --jpgordon 00:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline with comments:
    • The civility block imposed on Giano a couple of days ago was an Arbitration Committee action, although it was voted on off-wiki, and was announced as such, pursuant to the previously adopted motion on blocks of Giano. The seven arbitrators who voted on that block supported it unanimously. I was offline during the period when the block was being discussed, so I did not vote on it. When I saw it I had serious reservations about the block, which I viewed as an overreaction and an invitation to drama, although I did not appreciate some of the things Giano said and the way he said them that night. (I know, there I go again, being, pace Scott MacDonald's essay, the worst member of ArbCom. Tea, anyone?)
    • The extension of Giano's block was voted on by the committee, albeit again off-wiki, and was also a formal Arbitration Committee action. That being the case, a majority vote, even a narrow one, was sufficient to carry a motion; unlike other aspects of the process, the ArbCom may decide motions by voting, rather than !voting. Whether it was wise to proceed with what would obviously be a highly controversial action by that narrow a margin is debatable, but that does not affect the validity of the action.
    • My position in the committee discussion was opposed to the block extension, for reasons similar to those offered by other arbitrators and administrators on Giano's talkpage. The subsequent comments on Giano's talkpage, particularly by Bishonen, confirm my initial impression that the severity of any "block evasion" here was slight, bordering on trivial.
    • When Charles Matthews announced the extension on-wiki on behalf of the committee, he commented that some arbitrators had dissented from the action and that dissenting comments would be posted shortly. I took that as an invitation to mention that I disagreed with the action taken, which I did in one sentence. I subsequently learned that Charles meant that he had intended to post the names of those who had supported and opposed the action, but I interpreted his words to mean that he was expecting arbitrators in disagreement to do so. Two other arbitrators did the same thing giving their reasons for dissent. Nonetheless, to the extent that Charles feels that I stepped on his lines, so to speak, this was not intentional.
    • Whether to overturn or shorten the block extension in light of the additional information posted on-wiki was under discussion among the arbitrators at the time that Moreschi unilaterally unblocked.
    • An individual administrator, no matter how strong his or her feelings, may not overrule or override a formal action of the Arbitration Committee, which is what Moreschi did. The incivility in his log summary for the unblock, which becomes a permanent record, was also unhelpful. As a mitigating factor, it appears that Moreschi may not have fully understood that he was overriding a valid action of the committee. I also see no allegation that Moreschi has made any previous problematic unblocks of this nature or had any personal involvement in the dispute.
    • Blocking an administrator purely for an administrator action, albeit an improper administrator action coupled with an inappropriate log summary, is generally unhelpful. Blocking typically is reserved for misuse of editing privileges, while other remedies are available for misuse of administrator privileges. This presumption, however, is not ironclad.
    • FT2's block of Moreschi was run by the arbitrators briefly before being implemented but was not voted on in the same way as the block and block-extension for Giano, and in that sense, was not an action of the committee itself.
    • The proposed opening of a full-fledged arbitration case to review any or all aspects of this matter is an invitation to open-ended and unusually bitter and divisive drama, made worse by the recusal-related issues (but see my comment on the talkpage), and worse still, by the suggestion that the case be held in abeyance for two weeks so that we can be sure it will torment not only the incumbents but the new arbitrators as well, who must already be shell-shocked at what they are getting themselves into (I still am not sure whether I should be congratulating the top finishers in the election, for getting their wish to serve on the Arbitration Committee, or the lower-ranked finishers, because they will not have to do this job). To the extent that Scott MacDonald's stated goal is drama reduction, he has chosen a poor vehicle for that task. My vote is to decline the proferred case.
    • In the alternative, we have the option of proceeding by motion. In view of the mitigating factors, I find the suggestion of desysopping Moreschi to be overkill and excessive, particularly given the significant, if imperfect, administrator work he does at other times (including, ironically enough, on arbitration enforcement). I also do not find a suspension of administrator privileges to be necessary, even though Moreschi might benefit from the rest. I could support an appropriately worded motion confirming that Moreschi's action was improper and is not to be repeated. (Analogies to SlimVirgin's six-month desysopping are off-point for several reasons, and in any event, I was not convinced that that action was warranted for the offense she committed, either.)
    • I would support the immediate reduction of Giano's extended block to "time served" if that has not already happened by the time I hit "send" and deal with the ensuing seven edit conflicts.
    • I will be offline for a couple of hours tonight, and nothing should be read into any delays in my posting anything further on this topic.
    • I've just updated the tally in the header, and this is the first time I recall a tally being 1/1/1/1, which is certainly symbolic of something, although I am not sure just what. (Jpgordon has now ruined the symmetry, but meh.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline, as below:
    • We seem to have wandered into a constitutional crisis of sorts. In my opinion, the binding nature of any official decision by the Committee as a whole is clear not only in our local policy, but also in the Wikimedia-wide foundation issues. Clearly, some editors disagree, and believe that such a decision may be overturned by individual administrators acting either on their own behalf, or with the agreement of some small group of other editors. I do not think that a ruling on this by the Committee itself—whether that Committee happens to include the outgoing arbitrators or the new ones—will gain us anything; while I think it is almost certain that any Committee vote will endorse my viewpoint here, editors who reject the authority of the Committee will obviously reject any such pronouncement as a matter of course. At the same time, merely debating the issue ad infinitum will not produce any actionable guidance either.
    • Instead, I propose that we arrange a general community referendum to establish certain basic constitutional principles to outline what the authority of the Committee is, and whether (or how) its decisions may be overturned. I recognize that this manner of constitutional process is somewhat unprecedented; but I think the nature of the situation warrants something different from the usual methods in order to produce a clear and binding result that will be accepted by the community as a whole. Kirill 01:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Recuse as party. Couple of comments. NYB has done a decent job of trying to summmarise some considerations clouding the issue on what went on Giano II's talk page; obviously the dissent was going to be made explicit, and obviously I thought we were going to agree together what to say about that before posting it. If Moreschi didn't completely get the situation, that simply goes to show that the very clear rule about consulting before unblocking is vital. Those who ignore it wilfully put themselves into a false position. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline. There's approximately zero chance of anything decisive actually happening here. I don't want to leave this as a present to next year's lucky Arbcom, either, although I'm sure someone will regift it again in short order. Could someone please reword the blocking policy with that explicit Giano exemption that nigh-on everyone who seems to offer an opinion seems to want, and have done? I'm so through with this. Frankly if it wasn't that we only have a couple of weeks left and would rather try and clear up some outstanding business, I'd quit. Thanks, you all. (struck since it was an expression of frustration but could have been interpreted literally) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject. Moreschi should definitely not have unblocked regardless of what he thought about the block extension. The Arbitration Committee agreed that the block should be extended using exactly the same method of voting that is used here on RFAR. Regardless I think nothing would be accomplished by opening a full case, but if anything happens regarding Moreschi I will try to make sure the votes take place on the site, as opposed to the mailing list. --Deskana (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject, per Kirill. James F. (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The motion below should resolve the matter without the need for a case. No matter how much an administrator disagrees with a block, unblocking without any attempt at discussion - or in this context, without voicing concerns to the Committee to convince members to change their votes - is not acceptable. I should add firstly that the criticism of Mr Matthews here and elsewhere is all completely unfounded, he was merely the one posting out the decision as it was voted for; and secondly I note this which should resolve the other aspect here. --bainer (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Motions

There are 10 active arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.
(FT2, Jpgordon, and Charles Matthews are recused.)

1) Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is restricted from reversing any block for a period of three months, and is admonished to avoid reversing blocks without discussion in the future.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Second preference. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Prohibiting him from reversing any block for three months because he (very inappropriately) undid a single block feels to me like we're just punching him in the face, even if it was a block made under Arbitration Enforcement. I am not aware of a pattern of abuse of the unblocking ability so I do not think he should be treated as such. -Deskana (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per Deskana. This is punishment, rather than treating an obviously-identifiable cause. James F. (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    Yesterday, I was opposed to the rush to judgment to desysop and block Moreschi. But we need to address the issue today. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Not the best course of action in the present circumstances. Kirill 01:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. We can't have a practice of administrators unilaterally overturning decisions of the Arbitration Committee, no matter how strongly they (or I) might disagree with the decisions. If that were to develop, there'd be little point in having a committee, and instead we'd have the "constitutional crisis" posited by Kirill (although I don't think this is an opportune time to convene the Constitutional Convention). However, there are some mitigating circumstances, as discussed in my comments above. It's a close question for me but on balance I prefer a variation of 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrator Discussion of motion:

1.1) Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished to avoid reversing blocks without discussion in the future.

Support:
  1. Equal preference to 1. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Too weak in the circumstances. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. I don't think this really gets at the crux of the issue; there was discussion of a sort, after all. Kirill 01:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Deskana (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Too weak. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. This seems generally appropriate, but the phrase "without discussion" is debatable per the comments by Fut. Perf. on the talkpage, so a minor rephrasing might be in order. I was going to suggest "without consent of the blocking administrator or an on-wiki consensus," but I anticipate the response that there was a consensus against the merits of the block on the part of many people other than the arbitrators. (That is not to say that there was a consensus to actually unblock and thereby seek to overrule the Arbitration Committee, which is a very different thing.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrator Discussion of motion:

1.2) The administrative privileges of Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are removed. After three months they will be automatically restored.

Support:
  1. Proposed. As I made clear I was strongly opposed to the extension of Giano's block, but it was a properly agreed decision. Moreschi's decision to unblock was unilateral and carried out without the required discussion with the blocking administrator. His subsequent conduct in defending his actions has included a personal attack. The effective functioning of the arbitration system relies on administrators not unilaterally sabotaging its decisions, even if they are profoundly opposed to them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Per comments above. Although, this proposal is not unthinkable; yesterday's incident and actions should not be regarded by anyone whatsoever as any kind of a model or a precedent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Agree that doing a desysop is not an entirely unreasonable idea. But I do not think that the particular facts of the situation make a desysop the best course of action. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per my comments above. --Deskana (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Not the best course of action in the present circumstances. Kirill 01:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
Arbitrator Discussion of motion:

1.3) Based upon the events of December 16, 2008, Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished:

(A) Not to reverse blocks imposed by another administrator without the consent of the blocking administrator or on-wiki consensus;
(B) Not to reverse actions taken by or on behalf of the Arbitration Committee acting as a committee, and to consult with an arbitrator if he finds the status of an action unclear; and
(C) Not to make disparaging comments about other administrators in log entries of his administrator actions.
Support:
  1. Proposed, as the best way to make the points that need to be made and end this. See my general comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Equal to 1 and 1.1. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Much more in line with what I think is appropriate. --Deskana (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Okay, we can try this approach. Kirill 01:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)\
  5. Equal preference to #1. --bainer (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Equal to 1. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I wish to cast a futile protest at the leniency, even in the unusual circumstances. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
Arbitrator Discussion of motion:

Maria Thayer

Initiated by Rwiggum (/Contrib) at 17:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`
  • G.-M. Cupertino
  • Dismas
  • Verdatum
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Rwiggum

This issue began when G.-M. Cupertino reverted one of my edits to the article. The article is one of an actress, and my edit consisted of putting her filmography into a table format, removing what I felt to be ancillary information (including the number of episodes she appeared on for each television series and several DVD extras) and un-linking several non-existent articles. I later reinstated my edits. When they were again reverted, I took it to his talk page to try and discuss why he felt my edits were harmful to the article. He believed that my revisions removed important information, while I believed that such information was not necessary and hurt the visual layout of the page. This is not an isolated incident, either. On several occasions, the user has replaced tabled filmographies with direct copy-pastes from IMDB. 1 2 3 4

Since my very first interaction with him, G.-M. Cupertino has been largely hostile and unwilling to reach a common consensus. I have tried to work with him to get this issue resolved, but he has been extremely resistant to my attempts. He has also deleted all of my postings on his talk page, so here are the revision histories that make up the most complete versions:


Likewise, in addition to being openly hostile toward me, he has continually removed his postings from my talk page as well. Here is the most recent revision of that, in case he removes it again:

After my continual insistence that he stop deleting content from my talk page, he chose instead to vandalize it twice under an IP:

Throughout this entire process I have been civil, cordial and willing to work to a conclusion. However, G.-M. Cupertino has been hostile and unwilling to make an effort, and has continued making unconstructive edits with no regard for other editors and a general indignation to those who tried to help him. (I am not the first one to bring this issue to his attention). I simply ask the arbitration committe to help me bring this incident to a peaceful conclusion. Rwiggum (/Contrib) 17:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Note Another user has brought to my attention some more instances of G.-M. Cupertino's difficulties with others. (I tried to keep it to more substantial edits to the user's talk page, as G.-M. Cupertino has made several edits and additions to his posts. The full messages can be found here.)

Rwiggum (/Contrib) 17:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Note #2 Yet another user has come forward to express their frustration with G.-M. Cuperiono.

And the user also brings up a very valid point: It isn't that I feel that Cuperino's contributions are entirely worthless, on the contrary. A lot of these pages need filmographies. The major problem is his complete unwillingness to work with other editors to improve the articles. Rwiggum (/Contrib) 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Note #3 and Question It appears that I misunderstood the initial comment by Dismas on my userpage. He wasn't just directing me to his talk page and Cuperino's previous postings, but he was posting me here, to a user page he created to chronicle his dealings with Cuperino.

This leads me to my question: Now that the request for arbitration has been started, would it be too late to include him in this discussion? It seems as though he has quite a bit of insight into this situation as well. Rwiggum (/Contrib) 22:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Note #4 Dismas and Verdatum have been added as Involved Parties. Rwiggum (/Contrib) 22:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Note #5 It seems as though he's getting worse. He's taken to making personal attacks, as well as removing some of the disputed content from pages wholesale. Rwiggum (/Contrib) 14:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Note #6 Here are a few more: At this point, he has moved past unconstructive edits and into the territory of pure vandalism. Rwiggum (/Contrib) 15:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Note #7 I apologize for making so many additions in such a short time, but he has now moved onto nominating all of the articles for speedy deletion, in addition to continue removing filmographies. At this point it is clear that his edits are intended to be viscious and in bad faith, and if arbitration isn't the correct way to go about this, then I need to know what to do with him. Rwiggum (/Contrib) 15:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE The user has been temporarily blocked for his edits: Rwiggum (/Contrib) 15:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by G.-M. Cupertino

Statement by Dismas

I am not involved in the article for which this arbitration was started. I have however dealt with Cupertino on several occaisions. In almost every case he has been difficult to deal with.

When I put links to WP guidelines and policies into my edit summaries, he does not take the time to read those guidelines and policies. He has claimed that he doesn't have time to be reading pages of rules even when specific parts of policies are pointed out to him. I could understand if he didn't read every word of a particular guideline but he won't even take the time to skim them for relevant info. Although, somehow he has been able to hold onto the line at the top of every guideline that says that guidelines are not to be enforced on every page and are left to editor's discretion. He uses this excuse liberally to explain his edits. Due to having to re-explain guidelines to him, he now smugly inserts the word "mandatory" before every instance of using the term "guideline".

He has been uncivil on many occasions, whether on my talk page or in edit summaries.

Only by having an admin intervene or get a third opinion, through WP:3O, have I been able to speed up the process of reaching an agreement with him. For a long time now, he's had an "admin for emergencies" listed on his talk page. As far as I have gathered, this admin at one time helped Cupertino out and has since been listed there. They seem to be one of the few people that Cupertino listens to.

Only by posting things to his talk page does he ever engage in any sort of communication and even then it's spotty. He doesn't seem to have learned that this is a collaborative project. Instead of reading an edit summary and asking what something stands for, why someone has reverted his edit, or why someone has tweaked an edit that he's made, he simply reads it, dismisses it, and puts the article back to his version. When going through the effort of getting him to realize that dates were not to be linked 100% of the time, one of his rants was about how some 'powers that be' made some changes to the rules and didn't make him aware. When the recent notice was put at the top of everyone's watchlist about the discussion over dates, I made sure to point out to Cupertino that he could have his say on the matter. When I checked the discussions just now, he had still not weighed in with his thoughts even though this was such a hot button item with him previously.

Due to the fact that I've had to deal with him in so many cases and have had to go to such great lengths, I felt that at some point things may come to arbitration with him. Therefore, I have been building a record, of sorts, of his actions. You can find this at a sub-page of my user page, here.

With all that being said, I do have to say that he is able to do a large number of tedious edits seemingly without any scripts. When they are good edits, it is a very good thing to see. I just wish that he was more communicative and more receptive to changes because then he wouldn't waste so much time undoing various things. Dismas| 19:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Verdatum

I am not involved with concerns on this article itself, but instead regarding the actions of User:G.-M. Cupertino. I first had a disagreement with him in regards to the Kyra Sedgwick article. It resulted in in the following discussion , where he made Legal Threats, Personal Attacks failed to Assume Good Faith, failed to remain Civil, and acted as though he owned the article. The first argument, regarding WP:BLP, was resolved eventually, and the second argument, regarding Filmography, was eventually resolved through a compromise after making a request for a third opinion.

I found interacting with this user most off-putting. His correspondence were consistently in an aggressive tone (as seen in the above link). He overlooked requests for discussion, instead choosing to voice brief agressive arguments in the Edit Summary . I added messenges to his talkpage , both of which were immediately removed by him, which as I interpret WP:TALK is alright, but it makes threaded discussion difficult. I scanned the user's contributions and found a general history of the same agressive argument style. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, assuming it was just a matter of a language barrier, and unfamiliarity with some guidelines and policies, still I continued to watch his talkpage, in case I could try to aid with any future altercations he might have with other editors.

Shortly there after, I was contacted by User:Dismas regarding concerns about this editor . I believe that resulted in Dsmas opening a RFA/UC which was quickly closed for not yet being a last resort.

After noticing a long string of back a forth edits on User talk:G.-M. Cupertino‎, between Cupertino and User:Rwiggum on my watchlist, I glanced through them, and decided to drop Rwiggum a note about Cupertino's editing style .

Any other issues on the matter are merely practices I've witnessed in sporadically monitoring his contributions, but I'm not yet comfortable enough with this process to know what level of detail I should cover, and would mostly be redundant to the statements of the other editors involved. -Verdatum (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion by uninvolved Sandstein

In view of G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs)'s comments at , noted by Kirill below, I suggest that this issue is most expediently resolved by indefinitely blocking G.-M. Cupertino for gross incivility and personal attacks, as well as threats of physical harm. An arbitration case is not required for this.  Sandstein  18:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved NVO

I "met" with G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs) only once on a subject not worth any quarrel. We did not agree then on notability issue, but, again, it is unimportant. However, I was bemused by G.-M. C.'s deletion of that discussion from my talkpage . When this arbcom case popped up, I realized that this is G.-M. C.'s routine modus operandi that has been complained about by other editors to no avail. This arbcom case is an example of current "administration" failures. G.-M. C.'s incivility and 3RR violations had to be handled by admins way before. Where were the admins when they were needed? the first block of G.-M. C, ever, was effected by User:Orangemike after the arbcom filing. Contrary to what User:Sandstein said above, arbitration is required, because of the admins' failure. NVO (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

There are some real issues with this user's conduct; a clear lack of receptiveness to any sort of feedback, let alone community feedback. This reminds me of certain conduct I unfortunately experienced with certain other users (example) - though the conduct issues are somewhat different, it comes down to the same problem. The example nearly managed to let his disruption go unnoticed for a long period of time (nearly greater than 2 years) - I note that it was only after several community discussions, and an unfortunately horrible wait that the example recently received a 3 month block for a lack of receptiveness to community feedback, among a couple of other issues. However, the sense of disruptive off-wiki coordinated editing with certain other editors (example) was something that could not be addressed. Perhaps, one day I will have no choice but to make a request for arbitration on these examples...but that'll be another case for another day. Back to this case....

Fortunately, there is no sense of such disruptive off-wiki coordinated editing yet, and G M Cupertino's lack of receptiveness to feedback is more clear cut; as with his conduct issues. An RFC is likely to prolong the dispute more than necessary in this case. It would take more than a couple of community discussions to demonstrate that the conduct has not ceased before sanctions may be imposed - even though we are reasonably confident that regardless of how much we AGF, the conduct will recommence in the future. There is no doubt that it is one form of problem editing that has adversely affected other users contributions.

Based on my own experience with the above examples, this user's conduct will continue to be a problem, sometime in the future - unless there are measures in place to prevent it from happening. If the Committee is willing to provide long term solutions/sanctions (such as bans) for this sort of problematic conduct, then this case should be accepted - if ArbCom will only go to the extent of providing minor sanctions or admonishment, then this case should be rejected. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Comment. At first glance this does not look as if the situation is ripe for an Arbitration Committee case. There may be user conduct issues, but it is not clear to me that others attempts to resolve the problems have been tried. Since Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, some preliminary steps need to be tried if they have not been done yet. See Dispute resolution for methods of to give users feedback. For example. Request for commentFloNight♥♥♥ 21:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Awaiting more statements. There are very real conduct and civility concerns here, but per FloNight, it might be possible to address them short of arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with what has been said above, and would reject the request at this time. G.-M. Cupertino's refusal to participate in mediation is worrying. Nevertheless, there are other methods of dispute resolution available. I would recommend making a request for comments; see the instructions here. If that fails to reach a suitable outcome then arbitration may be appropriate. --bainer (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024


Request for clarification: Tobias Conradi

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

Statement by Ncmvocalist

I seek clarification on the recent principle that was passed (via a motion) in this case here - specifically, its application. It appears there is reluctance amongst administrators when it comes to enforcement - specifically with a comment/passage that appears on User:Bedford's user page:

I was a Wikipedian Administrator, but it was stolen from me without due process by a few fellow administrators who thought they should arbitrarily decide what should be and should not be on Misplaced Pages, despite WP:NOTCENSORED, and got me desysoped. I was once p.o.ed about it, but since then I've realized it is a greater honor to have been screwed of the status than to actually have it, as it just meant I am better than those behind the gangrape. Besides, it means I don't have to do as much as I did before.

No doubt, there are several problems with the ill-considered wording of the comment, as well as the cause for which it is written (if any). The page ended up protected amongst an edit war between User:Bedford and a few other editors. Bedford refused to change the comment when asked to, per the discussion at ANI at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bedford_blatantly_breaking_policies....

I submit that even if it isn't necessarily BLP-related, the rule of thumb is to avoid harm. Unfortunately, there is a reluctance among admin-enforcement through full protection - the admins either seem to downplay the issue, or think greater consensus is needed - even in such a case of requiring more consensus-building, it's not unreasonable to remove a term such as "gangrape" (as an interim measure, even through full protection). I request the Committee to affirm this view and to effect such an enforcement action. Additionally, I request ArbCom to provide clarification on how the relevant principle would apply to the above passage as a whole. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Horologium

I am the admin who protected Bedford's user page. While I don't agree with a lot of what Bedford has to say, and I dislike his choice of words in the paragraph that was at issue, the argument presented was ludicrous on its face. A user who has baited Bedford before comes sniveling to AN/I over a single word, clearly used in a metaphorical sense, on Bedfords's user page. (It is in the penultimate sentence of the last paragraph of a big chunk of text, not highlighted/capitalized/italicized/bolded.) Then another user, who was at the forefront of the effort to desysop Bedford, starts removing the entire paragraph from Bedford's page. After I warn him about edit-warring and 3RR, he stops, and the first user starts doing the exact same thing, at which point I fully protected the page. Note the edit summaries left by the editors seeking to remove the entire paragraph. one of Sceptre's is incivil; the first of Mixwell's is incorrect, and the second is snarky. I would encourage Bedford to change the word, but the arguments that have been presented so far in the AN/I discussion have ranged from the fatuous and sanctimonious to the inane. Sceptre's WP:IDONTHEARYOU attitude, in particular, is annoying. There is no assertion of rape, and therefore there is no personal attack. Bedford has not called anyone a rapist. I suggest Sceptre should consult a dictionary; My copy of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth edition) offers this definition for rape: 3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation. In that context, the word is justifiable. Horologium (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Category: