Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 03:23, 31 December 2006 (→Logs?: thank James F for reply and express hope that all can move on now). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Arbcom-talk

• ]

Archives

January 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – January 2005 January 2005 – April 2005 April 2005 – June 2005 June 2005 – July 2005 June 2005 – July 2005 July 2005 – September 2005 September 2005 – October 2005 November 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – October 2006 October 2006 – December 2006

Comments on motion in Giano case

Sadly, Giano will be bullied and hectored by the likes of you no more, and has decided Misplaced Pages can have the government it truly deserves. Giano 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has no government (though it does has some somewhat-eclectic governance). But ignoring that, and assuming to speak for the rest of the Committee, we are sad to see you go, and hope that you will return.

James F. (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Feel free to remove this if this is not proper procedure, and move it to the proper area if need be - I'll note that baiting was an issue here. As it seems folks are very quick to vote on this one in particular, I impore the arbitrators to do some research into this to see if it's an issue before diving in on what will certainly (if it hasn't already) affect the quality of the project. As Giano was not as much as warned about civility, nor do any of the findings of fact of the case find civility to be an issue in context, I'm not convinced of the degree of punishment fits the alleged crimes given the possible baiting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to reject

1. On formal grounds, this is not a proper request. There is no provision at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_policy that allows such a motion to a long-closed (3 months) case.
2. On ethical grounds, this is not proper, as we see three support votes arrive within 13 minutes. It is so exceptionally rare that three votes appear on any proposal on any side of the issue that it appears that the voters were involved and therefore should have recused.
3. On legal grounds, this is entirely inappropriate. Civility sanctions were considered in the original RFAR, and they were rejected. In other words, that evidence was considered, those findings were made, and those motions were considered. Barring a new evidence phase with new evidence of new wrongdoings, there is no way to overturn and re-arbitrate in motion form. No venue for consideration or deliberation is presented here.

This is ill considered and illicit. Furthermore, I would add that Giano has already suffered death by a thousand pricks, as people have already been blocking him whenever they've felt like it. These blocks have been instantly reversed in every instance. Therefore, the "penalty" is already status quo. Additionally, given the way that WP:AN and WP:AN/I is in flames due to a wedge of people pushing at Giano and a much larger group resisting, and given the fact that Jimbo recently unblocked Giano, this motion would prove to be far more disruptive than Giano saying that he doesn't expect Doc Glasgow to understand what it means to not talk behind people's backs! The motion is vindictive, and that's not what ArbCom does. Geogre 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, this is arbitration, and not the place for streams of consciousness or lawyering. Most of what you've said here is nothing but procedural. I'm not interested in a circular argument, so here are a few short facts. Motions of this type are common; your "formal grounds" are simply factually incorrect. There are no "legal grounds" upon which to reject a motion: you seem to be under the misconception that ArbCom is a judicial body, when it isn't. The basis of this motion is continued incivility, not the old cases. Your accusations that this is "illicit," "vindictive," or that I and the other two are involved in some way have no basis whatsoever, and border on insulting. Please don't make such idle claims without evidence; resorting to ad hominem while skirting the actual basis for the proposal is unwelcome. Dmcdevit·t 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For there to be "continued incivility," there would have to be a finding of incivility to begin with, no? Reading the AN/I thread, I'm more and more convinced that certain parties are baiting him. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already commented on a couple of other pages that I was surprised to see this motion in a closed case presented for immediate voting, without at least providing the subject and others with an opportunity to comment on the proposal. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Much worse, it appears the damage has already been done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If it has or has not, the principle remains important, and this motion is not appropriate. Geogre 04:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd hate to be legalistic about this, but the Arbitration Policy states that "The Arbitrators will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to Arbitrate." Incivility by Giano is not mentioned at all in either the proposed or the final decision of the previous RFAr, so this flare-up between Giano and Doc looks like an entirely different dispute to me. Wouldn't it make sense to defer it to mediation or RFC, rather than immediately escalating it to ArbCom? >Radiant< 10:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not in dispute with Giano. I don't know what we'd be mediating. I've been trying to de-escalate the community conflict all week, and I've no idea why Giano appeared on my talk page with personal attacks.--Doc 12:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Radiant, that part of Arbitration policy is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. In my case the committee thought nothing of bringing in a totally extraneous matter which had not been mentioned by any of the parties, and actually making a finding based on it without even telling me that it would be considered! That utterly appalling breach of the policy was accepted without demur. Shame on the idiot arbitrators who did so. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A call for some creative thinking

We need to de-escalate this thing. It has been going on for too long, and is far too damaging. I think it well obvious that the community can't settle this alone, and Arbcom may need to intervene. However, unless Arbcom want to be seen as just another player in a partisan dispute, care needs taken. It seems to me the issues surrounding Giano boil down to a vicious circle:

1. Giano is incivil. (A quick look at the diffs in this motion are evidence enough)
2. There is a wide perception that Giano is being excused gross incivility that would not be tolerated in any other wikipedian.
3. This encourages some Wikipedians to try to 'get' Giano (or at least the perception of this): to provoke/bait his incivility to a point that he will be blocked or the community will have to act against him.
4. The sense of being 'got at' (trolled, even) leads Giano to being more incivil, and to in turn bait his opponents (What was he doing on my talk page anyway?)
5. The perception of a 'get Giano' campaign encourages other Wikipedians to defend him come what may, and to try to focus attention on the failings of his 'persecutors' (some of them justified).
6. This defence of Giano (or at least the failure to blame him for the incivility) increases the sense of injustice.

We have got to the point that blocking Giano simply increases the temperature, yet not blocking him increases the sense of injustice. We need to do two things:

1. As a community state that Giano's incivility/attacks must desist. If it does not then, regrettably, he and Misplaced Pages will soon part company. Giano must be treated like any other established editor.
2. As a community ensure that any baiting, provoking or campaigning against Giano, or any perception of this shall desist. Giano must be entitled to be well-treated an protected like any other established editor.

A gentle word in Giano's ear by Jimbo has failed. Firmer action needs taken. Yet, this proposed remedy isn't it. It will simply be a permission for those who feel aggrieved by Giano to look for ways to block him. We can't expect him to tolerate that. And those that defend him will only feel the injustice of this.

I propose that Arbcom act creatively and try the following:

Arbcom appoint three independent persons and charge them to defuse the situation. They are charged and empowered:

1. to block Giano for any future incivility as they see necessary, and/or to temporary ban him from any user talk page or other forum where his comments are likely to inflame.
2. to warn, and if necessary block, any user who's future interactions with Giano might be construed as tending to bait or provoke him, and/or to temporarily ban them from further interactions with Giano.
3. no other administrator is to block (or unblock) Giano without the consent of these persons or the arbcom.

I realise this is novel, but unlike anything else I've heard considered, it just might work. --Doc 12:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The proposed motion allows Giano to be blocked by any uninvolved admin. I don't see why this is insufficient, other than Giano's automatic assumption that everyone who advocates blocking him is an "IRC fairy" out to get him. Giano's massives failure to assume good faith in this area is his problem, not ours. I do think that for the sake of transparency, block requests should be made through the normal channels (AN/I or Arbitration enforcement), but I'm not sure that needs to be written formally into the motion, and even if it was I doubt it would lay to rest Giano's belief that he is being persecuted by the IRC cabal. Thatcher131 13:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I was an uninvolved admin when I blocked two months ago, Chairboy considered himself uninvolved this time. That didn't stop the assumptions of bad faith, which are unfortunately not simply Giano's assumptions. Besides, I do think Giano has been subject to some baiting, and this remedy might encourage (or be seen to encourage) involved people to bait that uninvolved people might block. This isn't just about Giano, this is about a community at war. I'm looking for a general peace plan.--Doc 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What reason does he have to assume good faith at this point, though? AGF has its limits, clearly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

? I, for one, have acted in good-faith throughout. Giano has consistently chosen to assume otherwise. If he thinks I lie, then there is little I can do about that. We ask everyone to AGF, why should Giano be any different?--Doc 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced you're the problem here, although I see no reason for him to assume good faith of any "IRC fairies" or whatever folks who IRC are considered. There's many, many problems at stake here, and when people are actively baiting him, and he's unfortunately taking it, he's not the only person at fault. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think these are excellent points by Doc Glasgow. While Giano's behavior is problematic, it's not only his behavior that is problematic. Putting only Giano on parole implies that only he is to blame here. >Radiant< 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I continue to support my vote on the motion. It is a very mild sanction, and if enforced responsibly, may lead to resolution of the problem. The missing element is Giano, who must accept some responsibility and begin to work on acting nicer to other users. Others must help too, of course, but Giano needs to get on board, admit some fault, make a few apologies, and change a bit, himself. Fred Bauder 15:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that this "is very mild". Paul August ☎ 22:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So he's baited directly following a ruling involving him where baiting is an issue, and this is considered mild? What, exactly, is the responsibility of those who continue to bait him if Giano must accept responsibility to the point of being sanctioned? I note again - Giano was not found at fault, warned, or anything in the arbitration case this references. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In hindsight, we should have warned him, not cut him the slack we did. Fred Bauder 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Which I can accept. However, what I'm still failing to see is the balance on this - again, the evidence suggests plenty of baiting, on and off site. If, "in hindsight," you can see a reason to have made this an issue in the original arbitration, I question why that same hindsight isn't being applied given the findings of fact in the case to the parties who are continuing to be bothersome. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You interpret Giano as a victim, I interpret this totally otherwise. The point of my suggestion was not that we agree I'm right, or that you are right. It was that we recognise that some people feel Giano has been treated unfairly and harassed, while others feel that he has trolled and consistently been given a free pass. We are never going to agree. We need a remedy that recognises both interpretations and allows us to move forward. If wither side insists on a 'win' here, then we all lose. The balance here is that it allows Giano a guarentee of protection from harassment, whilst insisting that he has to be civil in future. So hopefully we move to a situation acceptable to all (except those who want to 'win' a 'war')--Doc 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Giano is a victim here. Being the victim, however, doesn't give him a free pass. I'm not requesting Giano be "let off the hook" or whatever, but for the arbitrators looking at this to actually propose something that reflects the findings of the previous case. If an editor is being baited again after the previous case surrounding him had a finding regarding baiting, and nothing has changed, those involved with the baiting should be held accountable as well as Giano for losing his shit again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Editors who repeatedly engage in personal attacks get blocked. He has, he should. Anything else is a free-pass. Anyway it is all a bit academic now. His wikipedia days are now over.--Doc 23:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So do you want a list of people, in that case? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The list of people with a free-pass I hope is very short. Like empty short. The list of people who would get blocked for repeated personal attacks I hope is very long - like all of us. All my other lists are in my own head, and no logs are currently available.--Doc 00:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What action was taken for this? – SAJordan _contribs 16:16, 30 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Indeed. Looking over the evidence in the Giano course, I concur that a civility warning for him would have been appropriate. However, from that very same evidence, civility warnings for a few other people would also have been appropriate. Thus, a parole on Giano would seem to be a rather one-sided remedy. Also, given how easily people are accused of incivility these days, I do not agree that a year-long civility parole is "very mild". >Radiant< 16:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Logs?

So what was in those IRC logs, Jdforrester? The suspense is killing us. El_C 10:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was this comment not moved to the talk page, if dissenting views were? Geogre 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No idea; it's been moved now.

James F. (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of claims about IRC logs existing, and various people quoting from them; I cannot vouch for said logs' existance or their accuracy, sadly, as, well, despite what people suggest, I'm not actually omniscient (yet). From what I can gather, it is in some way my fault, for being "in charge" of IRC, for being there but not stepping in to stop people acting, for trying to get people to discuss but not getting them to do what party x wants me to have achieved, or for not being there at all. I'm most confused, I have to confess. Were people to ask me direct questions, I might be able to answer them. :-)

James F. (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

By now, I have read a portion of the logs (posted on this very page), and, if authentic, they reflect rather poorly on you. Unless you'd like to address this, there's really nothing left to talk about. I'm not inclined to play these games. El_C 23:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course they wouldn't reflect well on Jdforrester, they were posted by someone who has a vested interest in defaming him. I, for one, take them with a grain of salt based on that. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the "direct question" implied (albeit, perhaps not directly enough) by if authentic is: are they authentic? That is what I wish for him to address. I do, of course, take everything with a grain of salt, regardless, including "grain of salt" advises. El_C 00:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think more important is when it happened if it did happen. Everyone can find dirt on someone if they dig far enough into their past. I'm not defending Jdforrester here - he wouldn't've been admonished to act more appropriately if he was acting appropriately, but I find myself skeptical that the logs are A: recent and B: relevant to anything but JDforrester's character. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If the the logs excerpt cited on this page are authentic, they appear rather damning, regardless of when the alleged conversation took place, although of course periodization is not unimportant. El_C 00:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My style, especially in groups of people with whom I am familiar, is very heavily skewed towards sarcasm; this is true on IRC, in real life, and on-wiki, too, but it's never been a problem, because said people are not only familiar to, but also with me. This means that I say things that, when taken out of context, can seem to be "disreputable", when in fact they are far from it.

If you refer to the particular log excerpt that Giano posted to this page (and about half a dozen others) from when he was embroiled rather regretfully in an Arbitration case, there are three lines of my text. In the first:

James_F> Redux> Apparently I'd have "influence" in my other votes. Which, to be fair, is entirely correct. I have lots and lots of influence with the rest of the Committee. That's because, err, this is my system wot I designed. :-)

... I was laying out the reasons for several people requesting that I absent myself from the wiki during the (rather bizzare) Arbitration case that involved me. Note that I agreed with the requests, and carried them out, without any protest or objection; my comments, when seen in this way, more obviously show that I was using my normal sarcasm to show how, indeed, there was a potential for people to see a potential problem for the rest of the Committee in creating a conflict of interest. In the second:

<James_F> Tony_Sidaway> I never, ever actually would call someone an idiot on-wiki. It's far too impersonal. If I was to make personal attacks, I would do them on IRC (which, ahem, I control) or e-mail (both of which, ahem, I've ruled aren't under the Committee's jurisdiction).

... I was being facetious, obviously, and again using sarcasm to highlight the real concern that I have, and, I hope, others have to ensure the Committee's transparency of process and clarity of judgement. Finally, in the third:

<James_F> Well. Doing Foundation- and Wikimania-related stuff, which is about the same.

... I said nothing of interest to anyone, I'd imagine. :-)

In sum, I stand by my comments; they are merely examples of my poking (very mild) fun at myself for the dangers inherent in my position.

Oh, and yes, a quick clarification: These logs are, to my recollection, entirely accurate with regard to my text. Please do note accuse Giano of falsifying them on my account. Giano has enough difficulties without the bad faith assumption that what he posts is false. They are from, I believe, mid-September (2006).

James F. (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My doubt lies in the fact that if this happened significantly in the past there would seem no good reason to bring it up again other than perhaps to draw attention to Jdforrester's misconduct in a somewhat inflammatory way. Now, if it's happened since - then we need to ask some hard questions, and fast. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is a direct question for you (James F.), or rather two direct questions:

• (1) Do you believe your status as an arbitrator affects your comments and actions on IRC, especially any comments relating to the Arbitration Committee?
• (2) Do you believe your recent conversations on IRC maintained "decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator"?

Thanks. Carcharoth 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

To (1), of course my status has an effect on how my comments are seen and interpretted, and thus, as I would hope any member of our community would so do, I try to weigh that which I say. However, I hold myself to a very high standard, and would do so whether or not I was in a position wherein some look to me for guidance, as to do otherwise would be dishonourable.

To (2), I'm not sure what particular "recent conversations on IRC" are those to which you refer; if you mean the quote made of my comments by Giano, which I disect above, they are over three months old, but nevertheless, yes, I would say that I would never violate the "decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator" - and I believe that I never have so done, for that matter (I believe, but cannot state for sure, that I talked quite a bit about the importance of "decorum", even using that word, back in '03 when we were forming the Committee, and I am happy to say that most if not all of the Committee agreed, and have continued to agree, with me, both in words and actions).

James F. (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Your explanations of sarcasm and being facetious in other replies have reassured me (and hopefully others) over what your words in those logs meant. Thanks again for clearing that up. Hopefully you, Giano, and others, can all move on now. Carcharoth 03:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the snippets of log that have been posted by Giano: they look to be about two to three months old, dating from the last arbitration case Giano was in. That is, if they are genuine. I've gone through my own logs and I've been unable to find this excerpted passage Giano is copying around. Now my logs are by no means 100% exhaustive, but I am in that channel far more often than not. --Cyde Weys 00:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If it was during the previous arbitration, or before, then Jdforrester's already been admonished for it and I don't see much relevance in it being brought up again. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it's kind of dishonest to be passing them around now, because even if they aren't fake, they are still very old news, and of no real relation to the current issue at hand. --Cyde Weys 00:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly subject to debate (possibly; I am no longer confident that this discussion is permitted — accordingly, I have sought clarification here). Irrespectively, it does underscore the problematic nature of IRC, as a seemingly free-for-all medium. El_C 00:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

People say stupid things. That's a fact not restrained to IRC. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's misdirected; the issue is accountability and openness of IRC discussions. El_C 13:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it? That's a rather sudden swerve to the generic from the specific. If this is meant to be a discussion about the former rather than the specific, this talk page certainly is not the appropriate place.

James F. (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope all ArbCom clerks recognize that they need to do their utmost to take a neutral stand on cases in arbitration. We expect the arbitrators to take a stand as they have been elected to do so, but it's important for the clerks to not pick sides in matters related to ArbCom cases. I suppose I could elaborate on why I believe this is important, but suspect one should be able to understand the need for clerk neutrality without further explanation.--MONGO 13:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Clerks only need to be careful to be seen to be netural on cases from which they do not recuse themselves, much as Arbitrators are expected to behave. Of course, all Clerks and Arbitrators are of impeccable judgement, so would never deviate from a lack of neutrality. :-)

James F. (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wise words to heed, Thatcher131. El_C 13:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

On UninvitedCompany's proposal

I am sure that Uninvited intends this as a kind way to enforce a wikibreak for someone who seems to be in a very upset mood at the moment. Even so, I cannot shake the feeling that this is really a two-week ban no matter how it is worded. I recall a cartoon (Penelope Pitstop?) where the villain places the heroine on the railway tracks, says that he is going to be very gentlemanly and not tie her down, and asks her to just remain down, upon which the heroine agrees. (Of course she is rescued in the last second.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• He already left. All those articles in progress are lost to us. A user is here for 3 years. No one notices any "incivility" for two years, and then suddenly he must be "banned," according to Kelly Martin. A dozen templates and blocks follow, where every comment from "you're stupid" to "go away" is a vicious "personal attack" that requires an instant block without consultation, and he leaves. What changed, folks? Him or us? What is proven, that he is incivil or that anyone can be made to abandon volunteering for us if we are vicious enough? Fools. Geogre 15:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What changed is us: when this was noted, but this mild remedy rejected. Fred Bauder 18:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Um ... how to phrase this? ... with the greatest respect to your work as an arbitrator, Fred, the remedy you proposed as to Giano in the case you refer to was not the one you cite (which does not mention Giano). It was this, which was considered wildly disproportionate if not bizarre by virtually everyone who commented and did not pass, but sat on the voting page for close to a month before being rejected because other arbitrators were away over the summer. Unfortunately and regrettably, I believe that Giano's anger at that proposal played a not insignificant role in how things unfolded from there. Newyorkbrad 20:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the link. The point is that even a mild remedy was rejected, although I do think the stronger remedy was justified. People who get caught do get angry. Fred Bauder 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's just an artifact of voting by committee. As you know, it has happened that some arbitrators support remedy A and oppose remedy B, and others support remedy B and oppose remedy A, and as a result no remedy passes at all, even if a majority believe that some remedy is necessary. In any event, if the committee had voted a formal caution for the teasing involved in the Eternal Equinox case, I think we just would have lost Giano (and possibly some others) in August instead of now. Newyorkbrad 21:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it was User:John Reid (now also lost to us) who opined, when he was a party to the original "Giano" case a few months ago, that he was he would readily accept and abide by a proposed ArbCom decision banning him for a week, but would never forgive anyone who actually blocked his account for the week rather than trust him to obey the ruling. I suspect that it is that spirit that UC is appealing to here. Personally, I don't think a ban would be helpful here, but that is something of a moot point if, as Geogre has noted, Giano is gone in any event. Newyorkbrad 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is intended to serve several important ends. As Sjakkalle perceptively notes, it is a two week ban. I believe that the level of discourse has deteriorated at Misplaced Pages to an unacceptable degree, with WP:NPA honored mainly in the breach. In order to fix this, we've got to start somewhere. Giano may not be the worst offender in this area, his responses may not be the most unprovoked, and his case may not be the best example, but it will nonetheless serve. A two week ban is neither a mere slap on the wrist nor is it something which should lead a dedicated and responsible editor to conclude that they must leave the project.

I would like to point out to Geogre and others who share his views that while Giano has left for the time being, he may well return at some point. Experience has taught us that many editors who leave in frustration ultimately return. What has changed? I'm not entirely sure, but I don't believe that it is wise for us to ignore ongoing civility violations once they are brought to our attention. No doubt you are correct that many earlier opportunities to defuse the situation were missed, but that's water over the dam at this point. Your point that people sometimes do get hounded to the point where they flame out is well taken, and I would agree that elements of that are present in this situation. That testifies for a need to address such hounding head on. It doesn't make the case that we should ignore an inappropriate response to it.

As I noted during my candidacy for the arbitration committee, I believe "probation" remedies have historically been overused. Having Giano subject to such a remedy, where he could be blocked by admins with relatively little process and limited opportunity for review, hardly seems useful. Administrators blocking Giano in such a manner in the past appear to me to have contributed to the intractability of the situation. Perhaps I'm being idealistic, but if the remedy is adopted I would hope that he would sit out the two weeks and return as a full-fleged member of the community.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano

Since it appears that we are revisiting Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, I went back and read through some of the pages associated with that case. The situation here bears distressingly similar hallmarks to what happened then. I would suggest that the best solution might be to community ban all those involved in the latest contremps for two weeks and wait, with baited breath, to see if the encyclopedia collapses around our ears. I suspect that there might be stronger consensus in the community to collectively identify those involved and carry out such a ban than some of those involved might realise.

Failing that, it was instructive to see that the remedies included: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Jdforrester_reminded: "Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator."

I would respectfully suggest that the time has come for this to extend outside Misplaced Pages, and that arbitrators, who should be role models for the community, should be expected to display decorum when discussing Misplaced Pages on blogs, in newspaper interviews, IRC channels, e-mails, personal websites, and so forth, as well as when representing Misplaced Pages in their official roles.

If this is thought to be workable, will one of the arbitrators consider bringing a motion to return to the Jdforrester remedy and modifying or restating it in an appropriate way? That would be better than the rather pathetic edit warring that is going on at the moment over these "IRC logs" in the edit history of this page. Carcharoth 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm obviously having a stupid day - exactly what is it you are saying here? Spartaz 18:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's possibly necessary to have seen the logs that Giano posted in order to fully understand the above comment. I am not, of course, going to post them again, and I assume the edits have now all been oversighted, so I'm not entirely sure how that could be resolved – Gurch 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

They are still available in edit histories, at the least. And that probably ought to remain the case. Now that the information has been made public, it's hard to argue that rules about handling secrets can still apply, if they ever should have. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to Spartaz, I guess what I am proposing here is that if there is a formal recognition (through a new motion on a prior arbitration case) that Giano has been incivil, it would make sense to also formally recognise that Giano might have been baited. Baiting someone is pure trolling behaviour, and if it is happening, needs to stop. In effect, this makes my proposal a more formal version of Doc Glasgow's (Doc g's) proposal above under "a call for some creative thinking". Carcharoth 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)