Arbitration enforcement archives .mw-parser-output .hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul{margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt,.mw-parser-output .hlist li{margin:0;display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ul{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist .mw-empty-li{display:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dt::after{content:": "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li::after{content:" · ";font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li:last-child::after{content:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:first-child::before{content:" (";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:last-child::after{content:")";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol{counter-reset:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li{counter-increment:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li::before{content:" "counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li ol>li:first-child::before{content:" ("counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 171819 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330

Rjecina (talk · contribs)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

I have recieved advice by administrator Fut.Perf. to give here demand for reverting his WP:ARBMAC decision with which he has put me under a revert parole of max. 1rv/48h for 3 months. Reason for his decision has been "my" POV editing and edit warring against nationalistic SPA account [1]. In my thinking he has commited mistake because I have not done for what he has accused me [2] but only protected version of article writen by established users against SPA account. My defense is that I have not writen any word in article [3] and in the end I have recieved penalty for being POV editor ?? All in all 3 editors has protected that article against SPA account.

Is is not honest that user which is protecting article (with other users) against nationalistic SPA account recive 3 months ban when this other editor has recieved 24 hours ban for sending me to hell [4] during time when he has been banned, using multiple accounts [5] to edit article and edit warring [6]

It is not honest that user is blocked because of POV edits when he has not made any edits but reverted SPA account which has made changes in controversial articles without even 1 time explaining reason changes on talk page.

For me decision of Fut.Perf. is POV without any question and because of that I am here so that this decision can be reverted.

Like it is possible to see from my edit history in last period I am more vandal police for Croatia related articles of anything other else. It is important to notice I am good in discovering nationalistic SPA accounts and banning them (user:Stagalj, user:Standshown, user:Smerdyakoff) or blocking POV edits. I will this night revert changes made by puppets of this 2 banned users and .... --Rjecina (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My reasons for the restriction explained Revert warring|here and here. The other guy involved in the edit war is Mike Babic (talk · contribs), see block comments on his talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have forget to point how I have never recieved edit warring warning in 3 years on wikipedia and this is needed before blocking or banning actions. I know that because administrators have always wanted to see this warning on talk page before blocking on my request.--Rjecina (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now even Fut.Perf. has recognized that I am guilty only of overlooking sneaked addings of another user during "heat of battle" with SPA account [7] . I will take editorial break between early hours of 21 March and 29 March and in my thinking this will be enough for this problem.

To tell the truth I am making great problem of this story because I have never been accused by established editors or administrators for making POV changes.--Rjecina (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response A one revert per 48 hour period is an extremely generous sanction compared to the possibilities available under the Arbitration case, such as topic bans and editing blocks. It is even milder than the typical Arbitration remedy of a one revert per week limitation. Reversion is not endorsed as an editing technique no matter whether it happens 4 times in a day or once a week. I see no reason to question Fut. Perf.'s discretion or judgement. Thatcher 22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alexander the Great (disambiguation)[edit]

Withdrawn as a sign of good faith and a step to resolving the conflict at handRealtycoon (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grandy Grandy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

As per below. Thatcher 14:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:ARBMAC I banned Grandy Grandy (talk · contribs) from editing Bosnian mujahideen for a month. The account The Dragon of Bosnia (talk · contribs) immediately took up the torch, and checkuser Confirmed that The Dragon of Bosnia and Geographer X (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy. I have blocked all three accounts indefinitely. The question is whether to consider the block of Grandy Grandy as a ban or to reblock with a definite expiry and consider it a warning block/second chance. Thatcher 01:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My notes and thoughts:

The block log for The Dragon of Bosnia doesn't show your block Thatcher. Nor does the log of blocks you issued show anyone else it might be. I suggest you confirm that that block took.
The editor was put on notice of the case by Stifle in December, as evidenced by his talk page.
I note a mediation cabal case where 2 of these accounts were on the same side of a 4-2 editing division before the case opened. The problematic use goes back to at least late November. There is a later mediation cabal case about this specific article where these two are the same side of a 2-1 editing division as the case opens.
I see evidence of the accounts talking to each other in order to create the appearance of being different users (e.g. "I just came back from vacation. What happened with the Bosnian Genocide? I think we should make an effort to improve it. Do you agree? Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)" [8].

All in all, it seems clear that there is a longstanding (months) pattern of using these accounts on that article. I'm not sure I'd go for a ban at this time, as I don't at an immediate glance see evidence of issues unrelated to this article. But the block should not be particularly short either, for behavior that is a months long pattern, with intent to deceive other editors. Given the topic ban on Osli73, and the handful of other editors with any to that article in the past few months (none of them particularly demonstrating a sustained interest), I'd say the block needs to last for at least a few weeks just to give the article a chance. GRBerry 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I blocked all the accounts; oh well, that's fixed now. Thatcher 06:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is long term pattern. I can support indef but could also live with a minimum of one month. I suggest waiting a month and see if other socks appear, then decide. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the ban should be indefinite (or at least for a year) on any Balkans related articles. This is not a slight transgression but the deliberate actions of someone who has a very specific POV in this area and has been willing to push it using two accounts to make it appear that the user had more support than they actually had. This is not a case of using a sock puppet to occasionally support a particular POV in the odd straw poll, but using it to attempt to force through a particular POV on the page by by using accounts to avoid the 3RR [9]. During late January and early February while this editor was taking a Wiki-break and therefore not editing the Bosnian Genocide page those editors left were able to work out a compromise version which had proved impossible while this editor was involved during which time there had been RfCs and 3 attempts at mediation. However twice since the compromise was agreed, this editor had tried to revert the page to a version they liked although no other editor editing the page agrees. [10],[11] So it looks as if this editor will revert to a version (s)he prefers even after an absence of a month and even if the consensus among other editors of the page is for a different version. BTW it seems that The Dragon of Bosnia is th the olders account and the oterh two are sock puppets.

The Dragon of Bosnia is an older account created at 1:34 on 20 February 2007
Grandy Grandy first edit was at 05:38 on 27 September 2007. Almost immediately the account was used to edit war on Bosnian Genocide.
Geographer X first edit at 14:34 on 13 October 2007

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given Philip's finding that The Dragon is the oldest account, that might be the right one to let back if and when the time comes to do so. But if the editor expresses a different preference on one of their talk pages, let them choose their account. I did also spot some problematic false appearance of consensus editing by Geographer X, but with far fewer contributions that account is a sideshow. I think Rlevse's idea of a one month block while checking for new socks is a good idea, followed by an article editing ban for a similar period (with talk page discussion or formal mediation allowed). I'm wondering if the editing restriction on Osli73 should be adjusted; he obviously can't engage in formal mediation with this editor while this editor is blocked. GRBerry 03:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to leave all the accounts indef-blocked at this point, but adding the condition that any one of the accounts may ask to be unblocked in a month, rather than making the unblock automatic. I note that none of the accounts has made a talk page comment on the block so far, and I half expect he will start making new sockpuppets before the month is over, although I hope to be proved wrong. And maybe change Osli73's topic ban to a 1RR per week limit. Thatcher 06:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have achived group think. While commuting to work this morning I concluded that some form of 1RR seemed right for Osli73. GRBerry 13:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:J Greb[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Skyelarke's restrictions extended by 30 days, to May 8. --El on ka 05:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help! - I requested a rfc that involves the discussion of image use :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema

and User:J Greb quite simply up and deleted the images -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASkyelarke&diff=199878289&oldid=199833125

I tried to explain that they were being used in a rfc,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Greb#Image_deletions

to no avail - and this seems to have caused another User:Mecu to make an uninformed, uncivil intervention.

to do this in the middle of an rfc, which after all is meant to resolve the problem, is highly disruptive to the process. (Even though User:J Greb wasn't sanctioned in the arbitration case, he was named as someone involved - plus as he's administrator - I'm worried that he's taking innapropriate policy enforcement measures in an article that he's directly involved in. Help with this is situation is appreciated, as I don't see how people can comment on image usage if they can't see them.

--Skyelarke (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were not intended to be uncivil, and I apologize if they are taken that way. I was merely trying to warn them that the actions taken as I saw them were not appropriate and in violation with policy (non-free content). I am not familiar (thus the uninformed statement above is accurate) with the arbcom case or any further actions other than what I read and saw in the image description page and image history (deletion history). MECU≈talk 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - no hard feelings. --Skyelarke (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The images that Skylarke is wanting to see retained include 7 images, 6 of which are:

Image:Lbal6b.jpg
Image:Roy rogerscomic.jpg
Image:Crimefighters4p5.png
Image:Sinbadpage17.jpg
Image:Love39.jpg
Image:AvengerslithoBIG.jpg

All of which have not been part of the article he's concerned about for many months, prior to the current RfC he has called for. The removal of them was part and parcel of a previous RfC. Further, they have all been removed as orphaned after they were removed from an archive his preferred version of that article which he is retaining in user space. The notice of why these were removed from his user space, and previous comments on his removing proper tags from orphaned images is here. This was after the ArbCom closed but before anyRfC calling for the reinsertion of these images had been called.

These six were also tagged as orphaned after the most recent upload, but Skylarke deleted the tag without addressing the issue of not actually using the images. All 6 were deleted based on:

Previous removal as unused. They have not been used in article space since June 2007, making the insisted retention on Wikipedia unreasonable, even in light of the contentious history of John Buscema.
The original tagging of this round of uploads.

Warnings regarding both aspects were left on Skylarke's talk which have since been removed.

The seventh image, Image:Blackbusc.jpg, was put up for speedy based on the same reasons the other 6 were remove — re-load of previously removed material, intentional being left orphaned, and using Wikipedia as image file storage. The 2nd warning for conduct related to this deletion was placed by MECU and, as with the previous one, deleted by Skylare. [12]

- J Greb (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

I just realized where this was posted to. And to say I find it odd is an understatement.

To the best of my understanding, though I've participated in a few ArbCom cases as an editor providing either evidence or comment, I've never been the subject of one, let alone one where I an subject to enforcement criteria when the case was closed.

The only case that I can see intersecting my involvement above is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema. That case placed very specific remedies on both Skylarke and Tenebrae, and only those two editors. Two of those clauses now seem relevant to this posting:

The two named editors were banned from editing the Buscema article for three months. A period that is still in effect.
While there is no direct editing of the article, the problem here stems from a "preferred" version of the article Skylarke had been keeping here: User:Skyelarke/Buscema draft. As of March 18, it appears this page is being converted into a sole author article to replace the stub at Al Williamson.
The ban can be extended, in either duration or scope of articles or pages, for either editor by uninvolved admins if either, or both editors engage in any form of disruptive editing. Such an extension being possible even after the initial 3 months elapse.

At this point, I believe Skylarke's actions constitute disruptive conduct:

Removing maintenance tags, specifically "Orphaned", from images long since removed from the John Buscema article and with no immediate likelihood of being used else where.
Re-uploading the same images, multiple times in most cases, and leaving them unused. And then removing the same maintenance tags when they were applied to the new uploads.
Bringing what amounts to a spurious request here when he is the editor under restriction from, as far as I can tell, the only applicable ArbCom case.

To my mind, even prior to Skylarke initiating this, I was involved as having posted evidence to and having be used as evidence in the ArbCom case. Unless I am misreading that and the remedies of the case, I'm not in a position to take an further actions beyond what I have. I would ask though that someone else take a look ans see if any further sanction need be applied regarding the above-mentioned ArbCom case.

- J Greb (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - part 2

Now we have Skylarke deciding to rework comments made by others in response to this.[13]

As well he has re-loaded all of the images that precipitated this without placing them in use. He has also re-loaded without use in article space the following, which were as with the above images deleted as orphaned as well:

Image:Ozbuscema.jpg‎
Image:Htdctmw2.jpg
Image:ConanMovieSpecial.jpg‎
Image:Breakdownavengers.jpg‎
Image:Galactusdevourer6.jpg‎

This has gotten to the point where Skylarke is engaging in disruptive actions by deliberatly misusing Wikipedia to store unused, non-free images. At this point I formally request that the ArbCom restrictions he is under be extended to cover the uploading of material, and the duration, at the least with respect to upload, be extended beyond the current expiry date of April 8, 2008.

- J Greb (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my (Elonka's) uninvolved opinion on the matter:

J Greb's summary above seems pretty good (though it could use more diffs)
Since this is the Arbitration Enforcement page, we're only concerned here with enforcing arbitration rulings. The relevant ruling, though never mentioned by Skyelarke in the opening of this thread, appears to be at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema. The ruling does not mention anything about images, but does say:
- Remedy #1: Tenebrae (talk · contribs) and Skyelarke (talk · contribs) are banned from editing John Buscema for three months. They are welcome to edit the talk page.
- Remedy #3: Any uninvolved administrator may ban Skyelarke or Tenebrae from editing John Buscema or any related article or page for a reasonable period of time, either before or after three months have expired, if either engages in any form of disruptive editing, edit-warring, or editing against an established consensus.
My uninvolved interpretation of the ruling, is that Skyelarke and Tenebrae are banned from editing the John Buscema (and related) pages until April 8. Images count as related pages.
There is no mention of any other editors in the ruling
That Skyelarke is complaining about J Greb (talk · contribs) seems odd, since there's no ruling about J Greb in the ArbCom case.
- It is true, however, that J Greb was a participant in the case, and offered evidence[14]
Skyelarke, though he hasn't been editing the John Buscema article in particular, has been uploading related images, as listed above.
- The uploading of these "fair use" images is problematic, since they are not currently being used in an actual article.
When challenged about this, Skyelarke reacted by deleting the warning, with an edit summary of "please leave me alone"[15] and "calm down guys"[16]
When J Greb deleted the images, Skyelarke just re-uploaded them, saying that they were needed for an RfC at the John Buscema talkpage
- The RfC does not specifically use the images, but does have a link to a historical version of the article. Skyelarke seems to want the images available so that the old version looks right, as well as the Buscema subpage in his userspace
I agree with J Greb that the images are not needed, and that it was disruptive for Skyelarke to re-upload them even after they had been deleted.

I have comments on both Skyelarke's actions here, and J Greb's

J Greb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Administrator J Greb has not violated ArbCom sanctions.
However, it was possibly questionable for him to have used his admin tools to delete the Buscema-related images, since he had been previously involved in the case, and is heavily involved as an editor in this topic area. Better would have been to speedy tag them, and let another admin handle it.
Then again, deleting problematic images is not necessarily a "controversial admin action". It's borderline
Reviewing WP:ADMIN#Misuse of tools, I see no evidence that J Greb was using his access to advance his own position, nor any need for any action against J Greb

Skyelarke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Skyelarke has violated his sanctions by being disruptive on a Buscema-related matter, while his ArbCom restriction is still in force. Specifically:
- Uploading and edit-warring on unusable "fair use" images
- Uncivil edit summaries
- Posting a somewhat frivolous enforcement request on an editor who is not subject to sanctions

As an uninvolved admin, I have extended Skyelarke's restrictions by 30 days, to May 8, and if he violates the restrictions by further edit-warring with tags or images or disruptive behavior on any Buscema-related pages during that time, I am recommending that he be blocked, in order to prevent further disruption. --El on ka 05:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Giovanni33[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Closed without action. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has previously been blocked for breaking his parole. He has again broken his 1 revert a week parole on the State terrorism and the United States article.

Reverts:

I did do Giovanni the favour of not reporting him for a similar incident a while ago, and left him a message on his talk page encouraging him not to edit on the article without establishing complete consensus. But he hasn't taken this on board and seems to believe he can keep reverting anyway. He has been let off the hook more than once here, yet he seems to keep pushing the limits of his parole on a regular basis.

Giovanni will claim he was reverting a "malfunctioning" bot, but I believe it accurately picked up a case of vandalism. For reference, User:Ssb3342 is a blocked sockpuppet of User:Hkelkar.

~~Furthermore Giovanni did not explain either of his reversions on the article talk page.~~ John Smith's (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it looks like he did use the talk page: the 19 March edit summary says "see talk", and he did in fact leave a talk-page note discussing the revert immediately before making it ([17]). The 16 March revert looks for all the world like he was undoing what appeared to be a false-positive by ClueBot. At the time he made the revert, Ssb3342 (talk · contribs) had not yet been identified as an Hkelkar sock - that happened hours later. I'm not inclined to see this as a revert in the context of his 1RR, as it appears to have been a good-faith attempt to correct an apparently mistaken bot rather than participation in an edit war. Therefore I'm inclined to close without action, though I'd welcome other admin opinions. MastCell ^Talk 23:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for that. Though the fact the sock was identified by the bot suggests it was vandalism. Furthermore, as has been explained in the past, one revert a week isn't a right. He has repeatedly removed content from the page even when it is subsequently restored. That's edit warring and it doesn't help gain consensus on what is already a controversial page. John Smith's (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot picked it up due to the amount of content removed. A common vandalism pattern is blanking all or large sections of articles. Ssb3342 was reverting a single large addition to the article, so the bot's pickup was indeed a mistake. That the editor who reverted the large addition was themselves a sock doesn't make the bot correct and has no impact on whether Giovanni33 was right to correct the bot. It is known that the bot is inherently imperfect and will always suffer from some false positives. Giovanni's edit on the 16th is fine. MastCell is correct in evaluating the edit on the 19th. I agree this should be closed without action. GRBerry 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I thought that removing a section of an article without explanation is vandalism. Why was removing just one large addition not vandalism? John Smith's (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot should not have made an edit in this situation. Giovani33 corrected the bot. Bots should not intervene in an edit war; but we don't know how to teach a bot to recognize an edit war. The earlier participants in that edit war quite likely merited 3RR blocks, but doing anything about that 6 days later would be ridiculous. GRBerry 16:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest you do anything about the previous infractions - I was reporting on Giovanni's parole, which is examined on a weekly basis. As I said, I interpreted Ssb's edit as being vandalism because he blanked a section without an explanation. Are you suggesting that it wasn't vandalism because there was an edit war surrounding it? If Ssb had been taking part in the discussion or more generally the page editing, sure that wouldn't have been vandalism. But to pop up and delete a lot of content without comment surely is vandalism. If Ssb hadn't been vandalising, why did the bot only revert his edit?

Furthermore I didn't say Giovanni had committed vandalism as you suggested in your edit summary. John Smith's (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Ssb's edit is vandalism - and in context I can't really call it that, the bot should not have reverted it. It was about the 8th or 10th revert in a multi-editor series. At that point, bots should not be involved. Giovanni only undid the bot. Since I conclude that the bot should not have edited, I also conclude that reverting the bot is fine. In short, I don't consider that revert by Giovanni to be the sort of revert the ruling is intended to address. Had he reverted one of the human editors, it would be the sort of revert the restriction is intended to address. The restriction is intended to address edit warring with other humans instead of seeking consensus. Cleaning up after bot false positives is not edit warring with humans. GRBerry 16:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understand now. I thought that it was vandalism and as such it was right at any point for a bot to revert it. But if you're suggesting that it should not have made the change because of the on-going dispute then I understand quite perfectly. Please close this report - retracted. John Smith's (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:PHG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

PHG has been blocked for 60 hours. AGK § 19:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is under recent ArbCom restrictions from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Specifically:

He is banned from editing articles related to medieval or ancient history
He is only allowed to participate at article talkpages, if he can do so in a civil and non-disruptive manner
He is supposed to respect consensus instead of continuing to bring up the same old arguments

He was already blocked on March 16, 2008 for violating restrictions.[18] Through the block, and the case, PHG continues to deny any wrongdoing.[19][20] [21](See also User talk:PHG#Block)

Some of the history-related subpages in his userspace were deleted (over PHG's strong objections)[22][23] yesterday via MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles. The community consensus at MfD was clear that the subpages needed to go.

Today, PHG has again violated multiple restrictions:

He re-created one of the pages that had been deleted via MfD: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) (Note: has since been re-deleted)
He started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on medieval history within the article)
He is not respecting consensus at article talkpages, and is instead effectively copy/pasting his old arguments and continuing to disagree. Examples:
- Talk:Louis IX of France [24][25]
- Talk:Edward I of England [26]
- Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis [27][28][29][30] [31][32] [33][34]
- Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance [35][36][37] such as about involvement of the Knights Templar[38][39] and the whereabouts of Bohemond VI[40]

I am requesting that sanctions be enforced. His last block of 48 hours did not seem to get through to him that he needs to let this go, and go work on something else for awhile. As I mentioned three days ago in the current request for amendment, it is my opinion[41] that he needs to be permanently blocked until he is able to acknowledge that he understands what he did wrong, and until he indicates that he is interested in reforming his behavior. Since I know that perm-blocks seem to give people the screaming hives though, I would be willing to settle for a one-week block instead. Whatever is done, PHG's disruption must be stopped. He has already wasted the time of too many good editors. At some point we just need to be able to say, "Enough. He does not appear to be working in a cooperative fashion with other editors, and he just needs to be asked to leave, so that other editors can get back to work. Wikipedia is not the right place for him." --El on ka 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no involvement with the original content dispute, and no opinion about the prior behavior of PHG, nor have I reviewed all details of current behavior of PHG; however, the MfD mentioned at the beginning of this section was graced with serious misrepresentation of the ArbComm decision, which did not suggest the deletion of the files that were the subject of the MfD, did not prohibit PHG from working on the articles in question, merely from doing so directly through article edits. He was explicitly encouraged to continue his contributions through civil suggestions in Talk. He was not condemned for his prior participation, and if he continues to participate in a civil fashion, no sanctions were prescribed. He was blocked briefly (and possibly correctly) for what would ordinarily be a minor breach of civility. But the claims above about his continued behavior do not appear to be warranted, and it would seem that opinions about him are being colored by past conflicts. ArbComm did not require public humiliation and "self-criticism" as any condition for continued work here.

He has not only been allowed to do what Elonka is complaining about, he was actually encouraged, none of it violates the ArbComm decision (beyond the incivility already reported and sactioned, and which has not continued). I would suggest that the campaign to inhibit his continued work is disruptive, and should begin to attract attention as such.

To those users upset by his allegedly repetitive arguments in Talk, "not respecting consensus," arguing against the majority or even a large majority is not disruptive if civil, and my suggestion is that if his arguments are irrelevant or useless, don't read them and certainly don't respond to them. It is not necessary to answer those arguments unless another user takes them up and uses them to edit. It's an old rule: don't debate a motion that has not been seconded. Interfering with his right to make civil suggestions is chilling to Wikipedia process. It should cease.

As to PHG, I would suggest that he avoid, to the extent possible without serious harm to his contributions, provocative actions, even if they are technically permissible and within his rights. --Abd (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making a further review of PHG's block, cited above, which I previously described as warranted, based on having seen a single edit with problematic language, I have become concerned that it may have been unfair and unwarranted. PHG has complained about certain aspects of the arbitration and the results, and he has a right to do so, provided that he does not do so disruptively. Subsequent events seem to be confirming, in fact, at least some elements of his complaints. When I reviewed the ArbComm decision, I found the issues extraordinarily complex; ArbComm, investigating the claims with more than ordinary diligence, came up with a precisely crafted decision that specifically asserted that it continued to assume good faith on the part of PHG, at the same time as it found that "some" sources had been misrepresented. It's easy for those deeply opposed to his work to read this, casually, as "falsification of sources." He was not found to have done that, but rather, to have misrepresented the balance of opinion in the field and in the sources, a far more subtle error, and one that is actually quite common. The remedy recognized the value of his voluminous contributions and set up conditions where his errors would not harm the articles, because, presumably, any other editor taking up his suggestions from Talk would first confirm the sources, and the existence of so many editors highly suspicious of his work would surely prevent harm; indeed, the present hazard is that genuine and usable work would be disregarded, not that sloppy work would be incorporated. The attacks on him and his work should stop. Now.--Abd (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think you're very mistaken.

Firstly, as the blocking admin, I'm fairly sure the block was about 110% appropriate and supported in every way going. Secondly, statements such as "arguing... is not disruptive if civil" are deeply in error. We have a large number of civil edit warriors; indeed the entire case of RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 was the statement by multiple users that "This would be a welcome improvement to address the fact that these editors have learnt to edit war civilly" [42].

The aim of these remedies was specifically that PHG was to act from now on, in a way that respects the consensus of others on matters, rather than constantly cause editorial problems by not heeding others. One factor in this was that the approaches he advocated were worryingly often unhelpful - they frequently misrepresented sources, were non-neutral, or were unheeding of others' concerns, for example. Although well meaning, they were problematic. Thus he was given as one of his remedies, that he was required (not just 'asked') to "remember" that Wikipedia is collaborative... that it is "essential that all editors work towards compromise"... that when most editors have reached agreement, "it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument" and he should "move to other debates"... and that change of consensus generally requires new information, new voices, or passage of time.

Those were passed as remedies, meaning, any administrator who feels they are not being complied with in PHG's editing, in any manner, may enforce them.

The question here is not what happened at MFD. The decision at MFD was a consensus made by an independent administrator based upon wide discussion, and following Wikipedia:USER#Copies_of_other_pages. if PHG objects then the correct route is deletion review which is collaborative and usual, not out-and-out ignoring of the MFD consensus and communal view. That is exactly what the remedy is attempting to address - the strong tendency to ignore a consensus or view not wished for. Also known as tendentious editing.

The issue here is not whether he is "right" or "wrong" either, nor whether he likes the arbitration decision (or you would decide otherwise), but whether he has respected a consensus once one has formed.

Arbitration rulings are bright lines. They are the end of the line in dispute resolution. The only question relevant on this page is, does the evidence presented speak of their breach. If so, then this is Arbitration enforcement, and they will be enforced. If not then he won't, or he may be warned. It's that simple. The time for debating such matters was long, long before arbitration... unfortunately the evidence at Arbitration suggests that this was not an option that was well followed. Hence this.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that FT2 not extrapolate from what I've written to an unwarranted criticism that I did not make. First of all, to my knowledge, there has been no section opened at WP:DRV. Nor has any challenge been mounted against his block of PHG, only a mention of some concern about it, based on an incomplete review. I could do one or both of these, if I did not hold the opinion that there are less disruptive remedies, starting with doing nothing but responding to active situations, such as this enforcement section.

My opinion is that the deletion could be challenged and that it was incorrect, not because there were no problems with the pages, but because the problems were remediable, easily, without the likelihood of any disruptive process. As I am sure FT2 knows, sometimes closing administrators do not address substantive arguments raised in deletion process, and simply "get the damn thing closed." This is often good enough. But where substantive arguments are raised, and, in particular, where the process was abused by an immediate misrepresentation of the ArbComm PHG decision, it would have been better, and less disruptive, if the closing admin had explained his decision, addressing the arguments raised.

There are what I consider numerous errors as to understanding of policy in FT2's comment above, but what is of most concern to me is that in the name of "enforcing" the ArbComm decision, this administrator is actually subverting it and claiming that it was defective, i.e., that the option of resolving "such matters" was not well followed. However, the parties involved did request clarification from ArbComm, specifically inviting the stronger interpretations which some have been making (which are so deviant from the decision that they hardly justify the word "interpretation"), and ARbComm has, so far, declined to review it. Which leaves us with my opinion that the ruling was clear, as is, very clear, and it permits PHG to do what he has done, if done civilly. Contrary to that, FT2 raises the specter of edit warring from other cases. It is extremely clear: if PHG edit wars in this area, he's quickly blocked. But expressing an opinion on a Talk page is not edit warring. Period. No matter how many editors don't like it. Because it is impossible to crisply define trolling that does not close the matter, but WP:TROLL is a dangerous tool. Suffice it to say that the offense in trolling is an intention to create outraged response, it is not based merely in expressing opinion about an article topic.

We use the word "consensus" loosely, but the word has a history, and in its history, it means complete agreement. Including PHG. For practical necessity, the term then becomes loosely expanded to refer to a general agreement, but Wikipedia rarely devotes the very substantial resources necessary to determine that; so what we have are ad-hoc expressions of some kind of local consensus. If that local consensus becomes an excuse to suppress dissent, the whole system breaks down. You cannot have NPOV if dissent is repressed. That does *not* mean that it must spill over into articles, and that is one reason why we have Talk. It is, in fact, a place to express dissent. I have not reviewed the specific behavior of PHG in Talk, so my comments must be taken solely as a response to FT2's comment ahead. The ArbComm decision is indeed a bright line. Don't claim that a user has crossed it who has not.

1) I would love to know what can be wrong with just putting a small link in User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) to an old version of the article so that at least people who arrive on this page know where to look for the full version (this page is linked to from many discussion pages [43]). The full 200k page had specifically been deleted on the ground that "old disputed pages should not be archived", and that it took unnecessary user space on Wikipedia, which are reasons I am respecting. This is why instead of the 200k article, I have just inserted the small link:

"Long version here".

Of course some user has deleted the page and is now claiming that "I re-created the page", which is untrue: I just left a link so that people can still consult the long version (this page is linked from many different places). Such misrepresentation and claims are akin to harassment as User:Abd kindly mentions above. Let me also remind that I am not at all restricted from editing my own User Pages.

2) Elonka is claiming that an article I am preparing User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) has some mention of Medieval History in it. This is untrue and rather funny by the way: the earliest date mentionned is the 16th century, which is after Medieval times. The earliest contacts between Japan and the West started in 1545, which is Renaissance, certainly not Medieval. As far as I known, but Elonka apparently doesn't (or doesn't want to), "Medieval" ends in 1492. Anyway, and independently of this, as far as I known the Arbcom decision allows me to write about Medieval or Ancient History on my User:Page if I ever wished to.

3) Regarding Talk:Page edits: I am simply using my right to contribute on Talk Pages. I am not especially "fighting against consensus":

On "Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)" we are actually four users complaining about the introduction of false unreferenced statements by User:Elonka. I understand she must dislike it, but on Wikipedia untrue statements have to go.
On Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, we are only discussing about particular representations of the involvement of the Franks, a discussion which is appropriate and we never really had in the past (as recognized by User:Shell Kinney "This is a step in the right direction and I think its worth fairly assessing each point to ensure we haven't over looked any usable parts." here).
On Edward I of England, all content about the contacts between this king and the Mongols has been deleted [44], without any discussion, so that it is only normal that I challenge this on the Talk Page, and other users are supporting my point there.

I am obviously being harassed by Elonka, and I ask everyone to understand the situation and help restrain such practices which are certainly not justified by the Arbcom ruling, which again, I am willing to follow even if I dispute it (I am a dedicated Wikipedian after all). PHG (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree that the level of action against this user amounts to harassment. However, having said that, PHG is incorrect about an important thing, and the error is a serious one, and it could explain much of what has transpired. He wrote on Wikipedia untrue statements have to go. No, they don't have to go. This, indeed, would be the argument of PHG's opponents. What we do on Wikipedia is to exclude, in the presence of controversy, unsourced text from articles. They can be made on Talk, and the remedy is not deletion of them, but of, if considered warranted, response and balance. Untrue statements are made in Talk all the time, and if I responded to all of them because they "have to go," I'd have no time to eat or sleep. In the other direction, if PHG makes an untrue statement in Talk, there is no necessity of response. He is not going to then put this in the article. I would suggest a minimal response to those who disagree with him. Attempting to repress him from a civil expression of his opinions and observations is, in fact, the soul of disruption, this kind of censorship then breeds incivility and outraged response, often dragging in otherwise uninvolved editors on one side or the other. Like me. It should stop. Respect the ArbComm decision, all of you. --Abd (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Abd. Actually, the statement that "has to go" is not at all a Talk Page statement (no big issues with that), but an untrue and totally unreferenced statement in the Viam agnoscere veritatis article that "Viam Agnoscere Veritatis may refer to three letters, Cum non solum, Dei patris immensa, Viam agnoscere veritatis". This point is important to clarify as it was used unfairly as a justification to attack me extensively when I created the article and during the Arbcom case. Regards PHG (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG continues to violate his restrictions. Today, he created France-Japan relations (19th century). I have tagged it for speedy-deletion, and again request that PHG be blocked. I know it seems odd to delete something that looks like a "real" article, but let me assure you, it is not. PHG is just very talented at formatting and copy/pasting. What he is doing is creating a coatrack article to push specific biases about medieval history. He adds the information he wants to add, and then copy/pastes in information from other sources to pad it out. I can go into more detail if needed, but it tends to just cloud the issue. The bottom line is that we've already thoroughly investigated this via ArbCom, that ArbCom decided unanimously that PHG is restricted from working on history articles, and yet PHG continues to work on history articles. The ArbCom sanctions need to be enforced, and PHG needs to be blocked to prevent further damage to Wikipedia. --El on ka 15:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same behavior we've seen before - note that PHG says that regardless of the MfD outcome, he should be in the clear because instead of a copy of his preferred version, there was only a link to his preferred version - come on now, is anyone really going to buy the idea that its acceptable because its technically different? This is the kind of wikilawyering and hair-splitting that led to the ArbCom making collaboration a remedy instead of a finding.

He's now doing the same thing in the article space, trying to hedge the line and find articles he can continue his behavior on without technically violating the restrictions - note that he's now arguing what years of history he may edit or that creating an article on a medieval historian (who is one of the sources he greatly misrepresents) also technically doesn't violate the restriction. There's no attempt to follow the spirit of the rulings here.

Since he brought it up, I did suggest that we make sure we've responded to each of his points once. I reviewed each of his arguments and gave each a separate section -- the one he's chosen to argue has had 8 different sections across two talk pages and the total discussion has been more than four times the size of the article. I linked to each discussion, summarized and indicated that unless there was something new, there was no point in beating the poor horse anymore -- yet he continues the same arguments.

Its the same at Viam agnoscere veritatis, we've shown one reference, the one he originally used to confuse the letters and yet even now, a month later, he's still arguing the exact same point. Everyone else has discussed it and moved on.

PHG appears to have no intention of respecting the ArbCom's rulings; I would also request that the restrictions be enforced and agree with Elonka that while a block until he agrees to stop would be preferable, escalation would seem to point to a week long block at this juncture. Shell ^babelfish 15:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has become clear that PHG is continuing to defy the ruling passed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance, despite repeated warnings and recent blocks. Further to the evidence presented by Elonka and the Committee's provisions at Franci-Mongol alliance, I have blocked PHG's account for 60 hours. AGK § 19:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:J Greb[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Skyelarke's restrictions extended by 30 days, to May 8. --El on ka 05:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help! - I requested a rfc that involves the discussion of image use :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema

and User:J Greb quite simply up and deleted the images -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASkyelarke&diff=199878289&oldid=199833125

I tried to explain that they were being used in a rfc,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Greb#Image_deletions

to no avail - and this seems to have caused another User:Mecu to make an uninformed, uncivil intervention.

--Skyelarke (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - no hard feelings. --Skyelarke (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The images that Skylarke is wanting to see retained include 7 images, 6 of which are:

Image:Lbal6b.jpg
Image:Roy rogerscomic.jpg
Image:Crimefighters4p5.png
Image:Sinbadpage17.jpg
Image:Love39.jpg
Image:AvengerslithoBIG.jpg

These six were also tagged as orphaned after the most recent upload, but Skylarke deleted the tag without addressing the issue of not actually using the images. All 6 were deleted based on:

Previous removal as unused. They have not been used in article space since June 2007, making the insisted retention on Wikipedia unreasonable, even in light of the contentious history of John Buscema.
The original tagging of this round of uploads.

Warnings regarding both aspects were left on Skylarke's talk which have since been removed.

- J Greb (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

I just realized where this was posted to. And to say I find it odd is an understatement.

The two named editors were banned from editing the Buscema article for three months. A period that is still in effect.
While there is no direct editing of the article, the problem here stems from a "preferred" version of the article Skylarke had been keeping here: User:Skyelarke/Buscema draft. As of March 18, it appears this page is being converted into a sole author article to replace the stub at Al Williamson.
The ban can be extended, in either duration or scope of articles or pages, for either editor by uninvolved admins if either, or both editors engage in any form of disruptive editing. Such an extension being possible even after the initial 3 months elapse.

At this point, I believe Skylarke's actions constitute disruptive conduct:

Removing maintenance tags, specifically "Orphaned", from images long since removed from the John Buscema article and with no immediate likelihood of being used else where.
Re-uploading the same images, multiple times in most cases, and leaving them unused. And then removing the same maintenance tags when they were applied to the new uploads.
Bringing what amounts to a spurious request here when he is the editor under restriction from, as far as I can tell, the only applicable ArbCom case.

- J Greb (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - part 2

Now we have Skylarke deciding to rework comments made by others in response to this.[46]

Image:Ozbuscema.jpg‎
Image:Htdctmw2.jpg
Image:ConanMovieSpecial.jpg‎
Image:Breakdownavengers.jpg‎
Image:Galactusdevourer6.jpg‎

- J Greb (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my (Elonka's) uninvolved opinion on the matter:

J Greb's summary above seems pretty good (though it could use more diffs)
Since this is the Arbitration Enforcement page, we're only concerned here with enforcing arbitration rulings. The relevant ruling, though never mentioned by Skyelarke in the opening of this thread, appears to be at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema. The ruling does not mention anything about images, but does say:
- Remedy #1: Tenebrae (talk · contribs) and Skyelarke (talk · contribs) are banned from editing John Buscema for three months. They are welcome to edit the talk page.
- Remedy #3: Any uninvolved administrator may ban Skyelarke or Tenebrae from editing John Buscema or any related article or page for a reasonable period of time, either before or after three months have expired, if either engages in any form of disruptive editing, edit-warring, or editing against an established consensus.
My uninvolved interpretation of the ruling, is that Skyelarke and Tenebrae are banned from editing the John Buscema (and related) pages until April 8. Images count as related pages.
There is no mention of any other editors in the ruling
That Skyelarke is complaining about J Greb (talk · contribs) seems odd, since there's no ruling about J Greb in the ArbCom case.
- It is true, however, that J Greb was a participant in the case, and offered evidence[47]
Skyelarke, though he hasn't been editing the John Buscema article in particular, has been uploading related images, as listed above.
- The uploading of these "fair use" images is problematic, since they are not currently being used in an actual article.
When challenged about this, Skyelarke reacted by deleting the warning, with an edit summary of "please leave me alone"[48] and "calm down guys"[49]
When J Greb deleted the images, Skyelarke just re-uploaded them, saying that they were needed for an RfC at the John Buscema talkpage
- The RfC does not specifically use the images, but does have a link to a historical version of the article. Skyelarke seems to want the images available so that the old version looks right, as well as the Buscema subpage in his userspace
I agree with J Greb that the images are not needed, and that it was disruptive for Skyelarke to re-upload them even after they had been deleted.

I have comments on both Skyelarke's actions here, and J Greb's

J Greb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Administrator J Greb has not violated ArbCom sanctions.
However, it was possibly questionable for him to have used his admin tools to delete the Buscema-related images, since he had been previously involved in the case, and is heavily involved as an editor in this topic area. Better would have been to speedy tag them, and let another admin handle it.
Then again, deleting problematic images is not necessarily a "controversial admin action". It's borderline
Reviewing WP:ADMIN#Misuse of tools, I see no evidence that J Greb was using his access to advance his own position, nor any need for any action against J Greb

Skyelarke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Skyelarke has violated his sanctions by being disruptive on a Buscema-related matter, while his ArbCom restriction is still in force. Specifically:
- Uploading and edit-warring on unusable "fair use" images
- Uncivil edit summaries
- Posting a somewhat frivolous enforcement request on an editor who is not subject to sanctions

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Giovanni33[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Closed without action. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts:

Giovanni will claim he was reverting a "malfunctioning" bot, but I believe it accurately picked up a case of vandalism. For reference, User:Ssb3342 is a blocked sockpuppet of User:Hkelkar.

~~Furthermore Giovanni did not explain either of his reversions on the article talk page.~~ John Smith's (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it looks like he did use the talk page: the 19 March edit summary says "see talk", and he did in fact leave a talk-page note discussing the revert immediately before making it ([50]). The 16 March revert looks for all the world like he was undoing what appeared to be a false-positive by ClueBot. At the time he made the revert, Ssb3342 (talk · contribs) had not yet been identified as an Hkelkar sock - that happened hours later. I'm not inclined to see this as a revert in the context of his 1RR, as it appears to have been a good-faith attempt to correct an apparently mistaken bot rather than participation in an edit war. Therefore I'm inclined to close without action, though I'd welcome other admin opinions. MastCell ^Talk 23:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot picked it up due to the amount of content removed. A common vandalism pattern is blanking all or large sections of articles. Ssb3342 was reverting a single large addition to the article, so the bot's pickup was indeed a mistake. That the editor who reverted the large addition was themselves a sock doesn't make the bot correct and has no impact on whether Giovanni33 was right to correct the bot. It is known that the bot is inherently imperfect and will always suffer from some false positives. Giovanni's edit on the 16th is fine. MastCell is correct in evaluating the edit on the 19th. I agree this should be closed without action. GRBerry 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I didn't say Giovanni had committed vandalism as you suggested in your edit summary. John Smith's (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:PHG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

PHG has been blocked for 60 hours. AGK § 19:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is under recent ArbCom restrictions from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Specifically:

He is banned from editing articles related to medieval or ancient history
He is only allowed to participate at article talkpages, if he can do so in a civil and non-disruptive manner
He is supposed to respect consensus instead of continuing to bring up the same old arguments

He was already blocked on March 16, 2008 for violating restrictions.[51] Through the block, and the case, PHG continues to deny any wrongdoing.[52][53] [54](See also User talk:PHG#Block)

Some of the history-related subpages in his userspace were deleted (over PHG's strong objections)[55][56] yesterday via MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles. The community consensus at MfD was clear that the subpages needed to go.

Today, PHG has again violated multiple restrictions:

He re-created one of the pages that had been deleted via MfD: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) (Note: has since been re-deleted)
He started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on medieval history within the article)
He is not respecting consensus at article talkpages, and is instead effectively copy/pasting his old arguments and continuing to disagree. Examples:
- Talk:Louis IX of France [57][58]
- Talk:Edward I of England [59]
- Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis [60][61][62][63] [64][65] [66][67]
- Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance [68][69][70] such as about involvement of the Knights Templar[71][72] and the whereabouts of Bohemond VI[73]

I am requesting that sanctions be enforced. His last block of 48 hours did not seem to get through to him that he needs to let this go, and go work on something else for awhile. As I mentioned three days ago in the current request for amendment, it is my opinion[74] that he needs to be permanently blocked until he is able to acknowledge that he understands what he did wrong, and until he indicates that he is interested in reforming his behavior. Since I know that perm-blocks seem to give people the screaming hives though, I would be willing to settle for a one-week block instead. Whatever is done, PHG's disruption must be stopped. He has already wasted the time of too many good editors. At some point we just need to be able to say, "Enough. He does not appear to be working in a cooperative fashion with other editors, and he just needs to be asked to leave, so that other editors can get back to work. Wikipedia is not the right place for him." --El on ka 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think you're very mistaken.

Those were passed as remedies, meaning, any administrator who feels they are not being complied with in PHG's editing, in any manner, may enforce them.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I would love to know what can be wrong with just putting a small link in User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) to an old version of the article so that at least people who arrive on this page know where to look for the full version (this page is linked to from many discussion pages [76]). The full 200k page had specifically been deleted on the ground that "old disputed pages should not be archived", and that it took unnecessary user space on Wikipedia, which are reasons I am respecting. This is why instead of the 200k article, I have just inserted the small link:

"Long version here".

3) Regarding Talk:Page edits: I am simply using my right to contribute on Talk Pages. I am not especially "fighting against consensus":

On "Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)" we are actually four users complaining about the introduction of false unreferenced statements by User:Elonka. I understand she must dislike it, but on Wikipedia untrue statements have to go.
On Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, we are only discussing about particular representations of the involvement of the Franks, a discussion which is appropriate and we never really had in the past (as recognized by User:Shell Kinney "This is a step in the right direction and I think its worth fairly assessing each point to ensure we haven't over looked any usable parts." here).
On Edward I of England, all content about the contacts between this king and the Mongols has been deleted [77], without any discussion, so that it is only normal that I challenge this on the Talk Page, and other users are supporting my point there.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Giano II[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Sorry, but if Giano tells you to go do something obscene with yourself, that would be one thing, but expressing the opinion that Arbcom is incompetent is hardly actionable (nor is he alone in that opinion, if you read the talk pages of the IRC and Mantanmoreland cases, for example). Closed no action. Thatcher 00:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC#Civility:_Giano, Giano II is subject to the following remedy:

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

On 19:26, 23 March 2008, Giano II made an edit in violation of this restriction, after a series of many similar previous violations [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]. I therefore request that Giano II's account be blocked for a period of time consistent with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC#Enforcement_by_block. John254 19:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feh, if people stop prodding him with a stick he'll stop grouching back at them. I don't think there's anything actionable in there at this point. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cited diff by Giano seems fairly mild. I don't think any enforcement by block is needed in this particular instance. krimpet ✽ 23:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No action needs to be taken here. SirFozzie (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note the summary in this edit. John254 00:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little user John requested desist from further iteration of charming specialty today. Please consider contributing to actual project, or Zilla make user hair curl. bishzilla _ROARR!! 00:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:DreamGuy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

No action taken. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has previously been placed on ArbCom behavioral restriction for civility etc. as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2

"DreamGuy is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

He was blocked for gaming and anon-sockpuppeting (to avoid ArbCom restrictions) on January 11, 2008 (discussion here), and his restrictions then amended/extended on February 18 to prevent further such behavior.

Despite these precautions, DreamGuy has again been disruptive by edit-warring (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

Further examples of incivility:

"I say we utterly disregard those editors, like yourself, who knowingly pretend no specifics were given to try to justify their own bad behavior" (1)
(edit summary)"removing bit from person who still can't coun t and is only posting to be harassing" (2)
(edit summary)"removing false accusation from person who can't count, apparently" (3
"And you should know by now that Colin is one of the worst people to ask these sorts of things... well, at least you would if you knew enough about the topic to know his lack of knowledge on the topic" (4)
"He has real ownership problems on the article, which is especially bad because he admits to knowing nothing about the case and thinking that anyone who has studied it at all shouldn't be allowed to post there. I encourage you to go back and remove the paragraph you took out, and I will support the action. Maybe eventually the guy will get the hint" (5)
"If you'd bothered to look at the talk page of the article in question, or my talk page where I already directly answered your question the last time you asked, you would already know." (6), which prompted the user's withdrawal from the article
"removing harassing comments from longterm problem editor who uses threats and false accusations instead of good faith" 7
"removing whole section...don't need someone knowingly putting up false license tags lecturing me" 8
"Considering your long history of wikistalking...you know you shouldn't be getting involved here. But then you never seem to care."9
"comment (#9, cited immediately prior to this) was perfectly civil, and these ever-expanding blocks for supposed incivility are just ridiculous... even the news media knows about it happening all the time" 10

Another example of a violation of his restrictions - and an excellent view into how he perceives his ArbCom restrictions and recent blocks - can be seen right at the top of his usertalk page, in bold letters, added February 27, 2008, where he says:

"If you have a demonstrated history of personal harassment, your posts are not welcome here. (This includes certain "admins" who only got their position through sucking up.') 7

DreamGuy's recent behavior would be unacceptable from any Wikipedian, but is of special concern, since he is in clear violation of already-specified, clearly-noted restrictions designed to improve his behavior. To show that the Wikipedia community will no longer tolerate this kind of antagonistic and recalcitrant behavior, I am requesting that the sanctions be enforced. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I can add my bit to the discussion, I come here to help write an encyclopedia. When I contribute to any article related to Jack the Ripper (and I have personally started nine of them), I dread the comeback that I know will follow from DreamGuy. On several occasions I've felt the hassle isn't worth it and have considered leaving Wiki. I try to avoid contributing to 'Ripper' related articles as I am unhappy about the negative attention I will inevitably receive from DG. I'm not doubting that he knows the subject incredibly well, but he uses that knowledge like a weapon. Jack1956 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get constant, monotonous, bad-mouthing from Dreamguy due to my temerity in editing the Jack the Ripper article. It's been a drip-drip-drip of calculated black propaganda going on for over a year now. But its not just me. All those who oppose his edits in that article get the same treatment. According to Dreamguy we are part of some great Conspiracy against him. I think he hopes that if he insults us enough we will go away and leave the article as his personal property. He has been through several wikipedia disciplinary hearings in the past 4 years but is always saved by the same admins who seemingly cannot see any wrong in him and even launch counter accusations and bitter personal attacks against those who have the audacity to bring the matter up. My guess is that they will intervene once again to save Dreamguy's bacon. Colin4C (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For that reason an independent admin is required who has not been prevously involved with DG. Jack1956 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that has already been blocked once for violating this, looks like a second block may be in order. Since I participated in the case I can't do it. Wizardman 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to record the strange experience of editing with Dreamguy. He is routinely abusive to any editor who does not agree with him and will not abide by any concensus or make the smallest concession on anything. Every edit he makes seems to be sacrosanct, whether it is an addition or (more often) a deletion. To restore his edits he is prepared to engage in revert wars for weeks or even months and to blind revert several intervening edits. He has a dual pronged strategy of relentless reversion combined with continual abuse. Apart from the one or two admins who, suspiciously, always turn up here to defend him (they will be here soon) Dreamguy will abuse any admin who looks into his case, making them party to the dispute. Once he has goaded them into antagonism he then claims they are part of the vast Conspiracy against him. But as I said these disciplinary proceedings are always scuppered by the same one or two admins whom I presume he contacts by personal e-mail to save him from the most flagrant abuse of the wikipedia I have ever seen. Colin4C (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am an admin, I too have history with DreamGuy and cannot use my tools involving him. But I agree that he seems to be in clear violation of his ArbCom sanctions regarding civility, and would support a block. Looking at the duration of previous blocks,[84] I would say that a duration of one week seems appropriate at this time. --El on ka 17:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the fact that a group on known problem editors have learned that they can whine and complain, make false accusations, totally ignore policies and try to get me blocked instead of making a good faith effort to resolve complaints shows that the problem here is not one editor's behavior... Arcayne and Colin4C have systematically blind reverted all of my edits to the Jack the Ripper article every time I make any -- for them to try to use my frustration (while bending over backwards to remain polite to them) as proof of "uncivil behavior" while they are being extremely uncivil and not demonstrating good faith in the slightest is just nonsense. They know that they come complain here and they can drudge up an admin from years back who was cyberstalking me (and got banned for it at the time) and similar other people violating policy (Jack1956 has repreatedly also blind reverted my edits, including a delete tag on a copyright-violating image he uploaded with knowingly false license on it) and pretend I am a bad guy. It's just wikilawyering and gaming the system. Editors who make dgood faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia and follow policies don't have issues with me, it's just people who know they don't have to and then can run off and say their feeling were hurt when I edited out something they wanted. DreamGuy (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations leveled against you are not false. The diffs listed above more than show that your behavior has violated the ArbCom sanctions. Furthermore, Arcayne and I both requested that you participate in the discussion at Jack the Ripper to reach a compromise. Your response to me was certainly not what I'd call polite. You did make an appearance at the article talk page, which was a start, but your most recent edits have gone undiscussed, which is a big problem. --clpo13_(talk) 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far as DGs accusation against me goes, I told him repeatedly that he was wrong concerning UK copyright law, but he reverted my edits on two pages more than three times! He just kept cancelling my explanations and comments. See here[85] and here [86] Jack1956 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that image has now been deleted, which would appear to confirm that Dreamguy was correct to nominate it. Furthermore, according to Dreamguy's edit summaries, you uploaded an image under a different name which had previously been deleted, which suggests it is you rather than Dreamguy who is disregarding policy. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that Dreamguy has made a considerable effort to improve in regards to civility. The complainants here appear to be a group with whom Dreamguy has clashed many times in the past, and with whom there is already a long established acrimonious relationship, so perhaps expecting impeccable manners in this context is a little unrealistic.

Furthermore, I note that user Arcayne is restoring ludicrous "references" like this one, which demonstrates either remarkably poor judgement on his part about what constitutes a reliable source, or else a deliberate attempt to aggravate Dreamguy in hopes perhaps of getting him blocked or banned. If this is a typical example of the way Arcayne and others are responding to Dreamguy's edits, then it suggests to me that there is a campaign of harassment going on here. Gatoclass (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Openshaw image has not been deleted (except by DG - wrongly - see the attached copyright tag), and it was previously deleted at my own request rather than get into a revert war with DG. See the article's talk page. I don't believe he even looked at my edit summaries - just kept blind reverting. I didn't even know DG existed until I added something to a JTR article- then I found out very quickly, and how! There is no campaign going on here - we just want to be able to edit in peace without fear of harassment. Jack1956 (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you got that copyright tag from, but it isn't listed on the "All image copyright tags" page and it appears to contradict some other tags. So I would question its validity. But even if it is correct, you haven't provided a source for where you got the image, so there's no way of knowing where you got it from. Gatoclass (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some complainants have clashed with Dreamguy in the past and some are new. Editors do not sign up with wikipedia hoping to join in a Conspiracy against Dreamguy. What happens is that they get sucked into the havoc he creates. Due to his efforts a lot leave the wikipedia. That is his aim. By relentless reversion and badmouthing he wants to drive out the editors who disagree with him out. If you take a look at his editing history you will see countless examples of editors who have left the wikipedia rather than be abused by him. Dreamguy was being disciplined by the wikipedia years before I arrived. His behaviour is the common factor, not some ludicrous Agatha Christie type Conspiracy against him. The wikipedia is losing a lot of good editors - often experts in their field - due to his behaviour in making sure that certain articles are 'no-go' areas for other editors. For instance with regard to the various articles connected with Jack the Ripper he acts like a Dog in the manger or slum landlord, not improving them himself, at the same time as forbidding other editors, by dint of continual blind reverts and abuse, from improving them. Thus a lot of these articles remain in a very shoddy state. As for Dreamguy's 'improved behavior' when did that happen? Is his accusation of editor Elonka wikistalking him: "Considering your long history of wikistalking me, Elonka, you know you shouldn't be getting involved here. But then you never seem to care." at 21:47, 22 March 2008 (yesterday) evidence that his behaviour has improved? Or are you saying that anything is permitted and is even 'understandable', no matter how outrageous the allegations, if you get into a dispute with another editor on the content of wikipedia articles? Colin4C (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had a chance to go through the article history page and the talk page and the short version is that it just strengthens my initial impression that this is a case of two or three editors trying to goad an editor they dislike into some intemperate comments so they can drag him before AE and get rid of him. Seems to me that Dreamguy is editing in good faith and certain editors are restoring junk and other material that clearly violates policy just to spite him. I really can't imagine, for example, why anyone with the most rudimentary grasp of policy would want to restore this Polly Wolly Doodle nonsense unless they were doing it to frustrate the user trying to remove it.

I note that on the talk page Dreamguy's attempts to reason have been ignored while his protagonists have assaulted him with a continuous barrage of taunts, patronizing comments and personal attacks. Perhaps Dreamguy may have been badly behaved in the past, I don't know, but I know who comes off worse in the exchanges on this talk page and it isn't Dreamguy. I think maybe it's time for some of these editors to get a grip on themselves, stop responding with such hostility and maybe give Dreamguy some credit for actually trying to improve the article. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you seem to be throwing around a fair lack of good faith for someone who isn't a member of ArbCom, or even an admin. Forgive me if I fail to give your (incorrect) assertions and evaluations the weight you wish them to have.

Your assertions that I allowed "ludicrous edits" in is incorrect, Gatoclass. In fact, I would suggest that you actually read the edit summaries for any of my edits, which essentially reiterated the necessity of DG discussing his edits, which he simply refused to do, instead insisting that 'it had been stated before' with nor hint as to when if ever it had appeared. The edit wasn't the problem; the failure to discuss the edit was. The insistence that discussion was somehow beneath him was unacceptable.

With respect, I am not sure you are reading the same discussion page (or ArbCom complaint, or multiple RfCs) that a half-dozen other, more experienced editors are reading. No one has "assaulted him with a continuous barrage of personal attacks, etc.". However, if you feel there are some, I would welcome you to take a moment to perhaps cite some of that "barrage". I am guessing that you aren't going to be able to provide any recent occurrences, because there simply isn't any. He has been treated fairly (I myself gave him multiple opportunities to grow beyond the incivility), but his behavior over the past two years has been unremittingly rude, unprofessional and confrontational.

I say unremittingly on purpose because this complaint is but one in a long list of complaints. Had his behavior improved over time (as you propose, which seems an odd sort of statement, as your account is less than a month old), the complaints would have tapered off or ended. That these complaints have not is not an indication of some grand cabal to have DreamGuy removed (much as he would like to think so, as it lifts the onus of responsibility for his actions from his shoulders, making it always someone else's fault) but instead that an ever-widening gyre of people are finding him to be a deleterious influence in Wikipedia. Many of the editors commenting in this ArbCom complaint have never commented before in a complaint against DreamGuy and were not invited to comment here. With the exception of El_C and Elonka (who advised me that this was the proper place to file the complaint), I have told no one else of this complaint. So that whole conspiracy argument is pretty much ludicrous on its face.

Being brand-spanking new to this problem user, you might be looking at DreamGuy and thinking, 'okay, so he's a little abrupt and maybe a bit uncivil; what's the big deal?' Being new to this problem, you probably haven't read the ArbCom restrictions that have been applied to DreamGuy (and extended, after he began sock-puppeting to avoid them). He is enjoined to act more civilly. He hasn't. His behavior in two years has not changed at all. He is aware that he can be blocked for it now, but as his base editorial view is confrontational, the stick (and not the carrot) is turning out to be the better tool by which to protect the Project. Too many people refuse to edit anywhere he is present, and at least one has withdrawn from the Project because of him. In itself, that is cause for extreme concern. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you figured my account is "a month old" since I've been editing for two years and have 10,000 edits and over 200 articles to my name, as my user page clearly shows. But that's a side issue.

No one has "assaulted him with a continuous barrage of personal attacks, etc.". However, if you feel there are some, I would welcome you to take a moment to perhaps cite some of that "barrage".

You must have been reading a different talk page to me, because this is your very first response to him on the talk page in question (my comments in square brackets).

Sorry, I just got here. I was out blind-reverting lotsa articles and misinterpreting Wiki policy to a bunch of reporters while running over a busload of nuns and cute little puppies. Gosh, destroying Wikipedia single-handedly is hard work. :P [Sarcasm]

I have no problem with DG editing in this article, so long as he somehow learns the value and rules of seeking consensus with his edits. [patronising] Deleting information with but a speculative edit summary does not constitute discussion. [Falsehood. DG's immediately preceding post detailed his concerns]. Deleting precisely the same information after it has been restored less than two weeks later is another example of seeming contempt for his editors (or admins, if his User Talk page is to be considered a true viewing of his unhappiness). In short, it is unreasonable to expect editors to tolerate edits from someone who has all the social graces of someone raised by wolves. [Blatant personal attack]. Therefore, discussion is key. It doesn't matter if he is the DaVinci of the subject, his weight of contribution is going to always be weighed against his ability to work well with others. Its a community; if he wants to be a luminary, he needs to seek another venue. [more sarcasm and patronizing comments].

The Jack-the-Ripper.org site is not a spam site. DG's seeming disallowance of this particular site seems less than genuine, [bad faith assumption] especially when one considers that he admins a JTR site, and we neither have no way to know if the site in question takes away visitors to his site nor do we know if he personally endorses hs own site. In fact, we do not know what site he admns for; that said, it would seem prudent for him to recuse himself on matters concerning external JTR links, unless he is willing and prepared to disclose what site he actually admins on. He doesn't have to do it here. As Kbthompson is in fact an admn, he needs only disclose it to him, and Kbt can evaluate the legitimacy of DG's contention with the contested site. [whole paragraph a suggestion of impropriety].

I note also that you completely failed to address any of the concerns raised by Dreamguy in the previous post. In effect this entire post of yours is nothing more than a tirade against Dreamguy and an attack on his character. The fact that Dreamguy resisted the temptation to respond to you in kind showed a remarkable degree of forbearance in my view, particularly since you continue in this tone for the entire length of the page.

So really, I think maybe it's time you stopped blaming Dreamguy for all the problems, stepped back and took an objective look at your own behaviour. Then perhaps you will be able to acknowledge at the very least that the unhelpful attitude is by no means all on the one side. Gatoclass (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we are again: "Alice Through the Looking Glass" by Franz Kafka Junior. I give up. Colin4C (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Gatoclass, even if a cursory examination of the issue reveals less-than-productive edits by the editors complaining about DreamGuy, that doesn't rule out a civility problem (especially since you appear to be looking solely at the patronizing and sarcastic comments made by editors other than DreamGuy). DreamGuy is a good editor, however, he has a major attitude problem, as many editors can tell you. If there is a long-standing feud between DreamGuy and a cabal of editors, that's because his behavior has not changed. At any rate, I think everyone here would appreciate it if a uninvolved member of the ArbCom would take a look at the matter. --clpo13_(talk) 21:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that his behaviour has not changed. It seems to me that for the most part he is bending over backwards to remain civil on the talk page, in the face of considerable provocation.

It's easy to take a few diffs out of context and try to make a case out of them, and unfortunately it's something that occurs a great deal on this project. But I don't think a user's behaviour can be judged in isolation from that of other involved parties, AE sanctions or not. I think it's unrealistic and unfair to expect exemplary behaviour from one party whilst the other gets off scot free from scrutiny. All parties are obligated to play by the rules, not just one, and users seeking sanction against one party should not be allowed to take advantage of AE sanctions imposed on that party when their own behaviour has failed to meet appropriate standards. Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to sound pessimistic, but if he sounds more civil now, it's because of the ArbCom sanctions against him. At any rate, it is unrealistic to expect one uncivil party to go unpunished while another uncivil party suffers penalties, but the fact still remains that multiple editors have--both in the past and currently--judged DreamGuy's behavior to be less than civil. And even if DreamGuy is being goaded, he still has a duty to be civil. Being attacked does not give anyone the right to attack back. While I do think that DreamGuy is being more civil than he has in the past, I still think his behavior now leaves much to be desired. Take, for instance, his against-consensus reversions at Jack the Ripper. While he has participated in the discussion on that page, he mostly expresses the sentiment that discussion is unnecessary, since he has already given reasons why his edits are correct (the reasons he gives, however, are merely links to policies, but I cannot find any reasoning as to why and how those policies apply). Also take a look at the recent section started by myself at his talk page, where his first response is a case study in assumption of bad faith: "Can't really compromise with a group of people who violate policy and gang revert things for no reason."

In my defense, I may have gotten off on the wrong foot with DreamGuy, but I have tried to make amends. From his exchanges with me, I get the feeling DreamGuy thinks I'm still out to get him, though I can truly say I'm not. --clpo13_(talk) 06:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, just curious, as you seem to be arguing pretty vehemently in DreamGuy's defense, and accusing everyone else of "goading" him to rudeness, what is your opinion of DreamGuy's comment on my talkpage here.[87] Could you please supply, with a diff, some recent edit of mine which you felt merited that type of reaction from him? Also, could you please explain why you feel that DreamGuy is justified to have that all bolded message at the top of his talkpage?[88] Is it your opinion that that message lends to a positive atmosphere, in a spirit of civility and good faith? Because my feeling is that it is uncivil, antagonistic, confrontational, and a violation of his ArbCom sanctions all by itself. If DreamGuy genuinely wants to turn over a new leaf and show that he's able to get along with other editors, I'd see it as a positive step if he made that banner go away. --El on ka 07:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at DG's talk page indicates that you two have a long history of antagonism, "recent edits" or not. But that's a side issue.

There were basically only two points I wanted to make here. One is that I happen to think that DG's recent edits on the JTR page that are the current subject of dispute, are valid, and that there is little or no justification for reverting at least some of this material as some users have done. The second is that if DG's attitude on the talk page may at times have been less than exemplary, the same can be said for some of his accusers. DG has also given his reasons for removing said material and got very little constructive response.

These points taken together indicated to me a possible attempt to deliberately antagonize DG into making some intemperate comments which might then be used against him at AE. I have simply sought to draw attention to that possibility. I am not making any judgement about DG's behaviour in general, which I am not in a position to do, I am just trying to put this particular incident into context, so that DG's behaviour is not judged in isolation.

At this point then, I think I have said essentially what I wanted to say, and so I think perhaps it's time for me to step aside and let others have their say. Gatoclass (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to agree with Gatoclass here. Although I agree that some of DreamGuy's comments may indeed be strong-worded, I doubt they are "incivil" enough to warrant a block. It is normal that an embattled user will sometimes resort to stronger words, but I think proponents here are exagerrating the level of incivility involved, apparently to try to placate him by any means possible.

The solution is not to threaten or try to humiliate a user through Arbitration enforcement to get him to soften his language. Most of the time, discussion and warnings should be enough. Most of all, treating a user fairly and generously should be the key. Regarding his message that some Admins " only got their position through sucking up", why not simply ask him politely and with some respect to remove the statement? We are a community of benevolent contributors, there is no need to behave like a Political Police trying to corner a targetted user basically for anything he might utter.

Regarding Elonka's claim of incivility, this is an obvious misrepresentation. What is so incivil about DreamGuy calling Elonka a "Wikistalker" when she is indeed well-known to relentlessly attack users she dislikes? (I have a long experience of such occurences, and she has been blocked in the past for such behaviour).

Regards to all. PHG (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling an editor a 'wikistalker' is abuse and you know it. Your personal attack on editor Elonka here is utterly despicable and (to quote Gatoclass) 'a clear violation of wikipedia policies'. Colin4C (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly cool down, dear Colin4C? Saying that Elonka "relentlessly attacks users she dislikes" is just a fact, and I am a living proof of that. And she indeed has been blocked for harassment in the past. Best regards PHG (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)First of all, from noticing the situation in an MfD, I've been following PHG and noticing Elonka's behavior with respect to him. Without any comment on the history (perhaps PHG was truly a monster, or whatever), Elonka has indeed been taking it upon herself to closely monitor PHG's behavior and, it certainly appears, to attack him and it, exaggerating the ArbComm decision regarding PHG as if it were a weapon rather than an attempt to cool things down. Both parties have been what I would define as uncivil, but Wikipedia often has a looser definition than I. Absolutely, using a word like "wikistalking" is inflammatory; however, it is criticism of a user's alleged behavior and not a personal attack as such. From what I've seen over the last months, the number one problem on Wikipedia is incivility and AGF failure. It's infectious. There is a reason for the AGF policy; failure to follow it can create enormous disruption. When one user is incivil to another, we respect an ability of the target to restrain himself or herself, and we respect it precisely because we know it is difficult. AGF failure breeds more AGF failure as, then, others jump in to defend what they see as an unfairly attacked editor. And positions harden. At some point it has to stop. I'm not at all familiar with the DreamGuy situation, but I see incivility aplenty on just about all sides, above. I'm a parent with five grown children and two small ones, and it is common for sibilings to fight. When I come upon a "situation," it can be very easy to pin the blame on one of them, as being the one who, at the moment of discovery, was reacting (or attacking). But the roots of these spats go deep into past slights and offenses, and as a parent, I have to start with "Stop!" And I can be, even, severe, with those who will not stop. And then, "Now, what's happening?" And then I hear both of them, and in that process, they *are* allowed to complain about the behavior of the other, and, to the extent I can manage it, they are also required to listen to the other. "Can you understand how she felt when you said that? Yes, you are not actually a "poopy-head," but, after all, she is younger than you and hasn't yet learned how to direct say what she needs to say." I might say to one of them. When they can understand each other, they can also, sometimes, sympathize, and they can then begin to find out how they can cooperate, toward mutual goals, even when they don't always like each other.

From what I've seen, taking a situation to AN/I or AN/AE can be somewhat like tossing gas on a smoldering fire. It is not a stage in dispute resolution. It is, rather, more like calling the police. AN is the 911 of Wikipedia, and should properly be reserved for true, immediate emergencies. It encourages snap judgments, just like the police must make snap judgments. But we train police how to do that, how to avoid prejudice and personal involvement. In a situation I saw recently, a user was warned by an adminstrator to cease an activity. The user was rude in response, while, at the same time, clearly indicating that he would not continue. Very rude. The administrator blocked him. Was that proper? ArbComm has ruled, pretty clearly, not. An insult like that is incivility, not personal attack (unless explicitly so). (The incivility was placing an image of an upraised finger, which is a gesture that means "You cannot control me," it is almost never a precursor to violence in the real world *unless* the "target" responds violently. I.e., responds to incivility, one offense, with a personal attack, a more serious offense.) With the warning, the administrator was doing his job. Part of that job is to interrupt people from doing what they want to do. This is guaranteed to raise some anger, often. When people get angry, even when they are normally civil, they may be the opposite, they express their anger. But how they express it is crucial. For the administrator I mentioned to become angry at the rude image was understandable and no offense at all. But for him to block is quite equivalent to a police officer arresting a person because the person "gives him the finger." Do you know what happens to a police officer who does that, if there was no reasonable fear of a violation of law? (And it is not against the law, in the U.S., to be rude to a police officer in that manner, if not associated with violence or actual threat.) The officer would be reprimanded and could lose his job, if those facts could be shown.

The problem with AN/I and AN/AE is that admins tend to try to figure out who is "wrong" and stop that person; ostensibly this is the most efficient solution, but only short-term. In standard dispute resolution, however, a trained arbiter would ask them *all* to stop, not just the "bad guy." And then would either refer them to a proper venue for the dispute or other means of resolution. (A police officer would restrain and/or arrest any party who did not stop, not just the original offender.) ArbComm frequently places users on some sort of short leash with regard to incivility. When others are not on the same leash, it can create an imbalanced situation, where a user who has been uncivil in the past is essentially expected to rise above it all and be more restrained than average, and such users can be blocked for offenses that would hardly raise eyebrows when another commits them. I see loads of incivility above. From experience, folks, how likely is it that the parties other than DreamGuy and PHG will receive even a warning, much less a block, for it? This is why, in fact, these disputes often end in community bans. An impossible situation is created, requiring someone who is not a saint to act like more like one than most of us can manage. Addressing this problem is not easy, and it is not simple. But it would start with, at least, recognizing the problem. And, folks, including especially DreamGuy and PHG, my advice is to act like saints. In fact, we are required to assume good faith and only abandon it upon conclusive proof of other than that, and this is policy, not mere guideline. If we do so, we are, in fact, acting like saints, even if we feel like killing the )#$&Y)%, and maybe the world, including this corner of it, will start to function a little more smoothly. Or a lot more smoothly.--Abd (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are those among us who would love to see a restriction end in a ban. These are the true enemies of our community, and we need to be very, very careful about these people, or, more accurately, about these tendencies among us. Take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day and then at the edits of those IP addresses. Then notice how few objected to those edits, popping up in community discussions. A segment of users were angry with a particular user, and, hey, we really think the guy is a jerk, and so what if this IP editor pops in expressing what we feel? "Hehe, I like that!" was one user comment, or similar. Those IP edits were, essentially, lies intended to defame and inflame, and when we find ourselves agreeing with such, it is really time to hold up a mirror, we are in serious danger. This is destroying this community, one user at a time. --Abd (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am continually puzzled about how these hearings go. When proof positive is given of breach of the wikipedia rules we are treated to bizarre Conspiracy theories and then suggestions that in certain circumstances breaking the rules is 'understandable': "you threw a brick through his window, but that is totally understandable considering how he broke the rules of the rotary club by speaking out of turn. I think you have shown incredible restraint in the circumstances. In your place I would have fire-bombed the place and knocked the inhabitants on the head with a mallet as they fled the building" [Sarcasm]. Colin4C (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC

I read the charges at the beginning of this notice, and what I saw did not stick in my mind as clear violations of policy (I did not review the diffs, however, I'm writing about the civility issues.) However, I just looked at them again, and I have changed my mind, it was actually pretty bad. For example, "I say we utterly disregard those editors, like yourself, who knowingly pretend no specifics were given to try to justify their own bad behavior"." "Knowingly pretend" is a charge of bad faith, essentially lying. Looking at this edit in context, it was gratuitous. And there were others like that. So why did I not see this at first? Well, I was distracted by some of the personal attack against DreamGuy which followed, for various reasons that is what I saw first; further, when I did look, there were some of the quotations that were marginal and which might even have been specifically acceptable if circumstances warranted them. I've seen so much like that which evaporated when the context is known that, apparently, I'm starting to discount it. The original notice here was not uncivil at all, it did not make gratuitous imputations of motive or unnecessary charges of deception, etc. It was straight-on, and, we must note, it takes a lot of work to put together a document like that. It does not have to be perfect. My comments about the etiology of these problems remain. There is uncivil commentary here about and against DreamGuy, behavior that, were the writers under civility restrictions, would also likely get them blocked. DreamGuy responds in kind, which almost certainly will result in a block, I'd predict, and he may certainly, then, feel that it is unfair. How come they can attack him like that and if he "simply defends himself," which he might see it as, "standing up for his rights," he is the one blocked? Which situation started first? As I wrote, for starters, it does not matter. It has to stop, and one uses the remedies at hand.--Abd (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be plenty of incivility on both sides of this dispute (and possibly actually even more on the side which is attacking DreamGuy here), this looks more like a pugilate then the asymetrical situation you are depicting Colin4C. Both sides should probably just hold the blows, take a deep breath, and start to try outdoing each other in politeness. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy - arbitrary break[edit]

With respect, let's cut out the middlemen here and stop the blame shifting, please. It isn't about Elonka, or PHG, and I haven't the foggiest why Gatoclass decided to involve himself in the matter (and honestly, it doesn't really matter). It isn't as if the latter two are really being neutral in the matter, and them telling us to essentially cowboy up and ride out DG's behavior is not what the Project is about. It doesn't address the complaint, which is pretty c.f.b.

The initial complaint is about DreamGuy. Take an extended moment and look beyond all the subsequent responses and focus on the AE complaint. The problem - as I see it - is that users like PHG and Gatoclass are looking at DreamGuy as if he were some defenseless little kitten being ganged up upon by us loose cannon editors; this is simply not the case.

Were this complaint submitted on PHG or Gatoclass, it would likely only result in a warning or a very short block, and for one reason alone - neither one of these two users is under behavioral restriction to be more civil. DreamGuy is on something ery much like parole: when a felon is released from prison early, he has to follow a certain number of rules that those of us who are not felons do not have to follow. If they fail to follow them, the recourse determined for them is substantially more severe than it is for the person who isn't a felon. This is not to say that DreamGuy is a felon - far from it. The example is given to illustrate that DreamGuy is required by unanimous ArbCom decision to be more polite, and if he fails to do so, there are significant penalties for even minor infractions. As the complainant, I did not set the rules that ArbCom did, any more than I can "goad" DreamGuy into incivility, especially when he knows the penalty for displaying his own pattern of incivility. Indeed, had he truly felt that others had been uncivil, he was eminently free to submit a complaint in AN/I against any editor he felt was being uncivil to him. Yet, he did not do so. The truth is, others weren't being uncivil to him, and DreamGuy chose to lash out at anyone who opposed his edit-warring.

These are the facts:

DreamGuy is under behavioral restriction. He is required to be more civil or be blocked. To whit:

"If he makes 'any' edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below"

As the DIFFs above from the initial complaint clearly indicate, this was a restriction he chose not to heed.
As per his ArbCom restrictions, any incivility on his part is to be met with blocks. Note that there is no wiggle room for "somewhat" uncivil remarks, or "kinda" personal attacks, or "somewhat" assumptions of bad faith. ANY violations are subject to block. Please feel free to point out the utter and complete absence of any incivility whatsoever. Failing that, a block is required.
As Elonka pointed out, the block length should be in excess of three days (the period of his last block for this identical infraction).

DreamGuy willfully violated his restrictions for the third time, and the DIFFs indicate that clearly. While it is commendable to wish the best for DreamGuy intentions, AGF does not excuse bad behavior. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't too much trouble, would it be too much trouble for ArbCom members to weigh in, instead of editors who are trying to come across as arbiters? With respect for those coming to share their unpleasant experiences with DreamGuy (as well as those jumping to defend his actions without full awareness of his past), none of the folk weighing thus far have any ArbCom ability to resolve this matter. This complaint contains three parts: the initial complaint, the response from the subject of the complaint, and the ruling by ArbCom. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you this much - you shouldn't expect to see Arbcomm members here. What you should be asking for is uninvolved admins, who are the volunteers that actually tackle the task of enforcing ArbComm restrictions when appropriate. GRBerry 19:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closure[edit]

I'm closing this with no action. I largely agree with User:Gatoclass' evaluation of the matter--some users are attempting to provoke DreamGuy into bad behavior so that he can be removed from the scene. A particularly telling diff is [89], as is [90]. The ArbCom decision is not a magical license to poke DreamGuy with a stick until he's impolite, then try to get him blocked; that's gaming the system, and I have no sympathy for it.

As for the specific diffs listed in the original complaint, I don't find that they contravene our highly variable and inconsistently applied standards for civility. I would note, though, that civility is a policy that is supposed to apply to all editors, not just those with ArbCom decisions against them, and that if DreamGuy's edits listed above are uncivil, it would not be that difficult to go to Talk:Jack the Ripper and find edits by other editors that are equally so. If DreamGuy is to be blocked for his edits, I would have no trouble saying that some other editors in this situation ought to be as well. I strongly recommend that the editors involved in the dispute at Jack the Ripper find a way to work together, or seek mediation; trying to get DG blocked is not a constructive way of addressing the problems here.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I'll note that I've interacted with DG before at Tiamat, but I don't consider myself even remotely involved in this dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Matt Sanchez[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

You tube links removed, Eleemosynary and User:Benjiboi topic banned by JzG. Eleemosynary has also garnered a 24 hour block already at this point.GRBerry 14:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This fully protected article is under probation per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine. 7 inline citations that go to footnotes 1, 18, and 19 reference copyvio material hosted at YouTube, in violation of WP:BIO, WP:RS and Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. Footnote 19 is no longer even functional because the copyvio material has been removed from YouTube. Requesting that these links and the potentially defamatory claims that reference them be removed from the article. Durova^Charge! 23:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you can't use ((edit protected)) on the talk page like any other article? Thatcher 06:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Two editors consistently oppose, and are filling up the talk page AE thread with irrelevant comments that give passersby the mistaken impression that this is a content dispute. But this isn't a content issue; copyright is bright line policy. I am on the verge of filing a separate AE thread against one of those editors for tendentiousness, incivility, and disruption. Would prefer to avoid taking that step if possible. Durova^Charge! 06:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) be topic-banned for consistent failure to follow WP:BLP and the restrictions imposed by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine. Benjiboi gives an extremely strong appearance of engaging in activism, which is completely unacceptable on BLP articles and this one especially. Eleemosynary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is also of the opinion that insisting on rigorous sourcing is "suppression" (a red flag word in my experience) so I suspect this user, too, should be topic-banned. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Guy above. This entire area is sensitive. Failure to understand BLP... repeatedly, unfortunately, is not acceptable I don't think. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova's request appears sane as well. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both Benjiboi and Eleemosynary have refused my suggestions to seek impartial input at normal venues such as WP:RSN and WP:BLPN and have been responding sarcastically, basically stonewalling. It's very clear that their participation is highly partisan, and whether they deliberately ignore policies or not they're unwilling to pursue normal avenues to settle the issues. I cannot foresee scaling down full protection on this article while they both remain active at the page. Although I've done my best to avoid seeking remedies on either of them, I wouldn't object to an article ban. Durova^Charge! 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of problematic behavior:

Benjiboi accuses me of ulterior motives Let's get a grip people, does this article really deserve such attention? This over-vigilance suggests to me some other agenda than building an article[91] I suggest WP:RSN to settle the disagreement.[92] Benjiboi ignores the suggestion and continues to argue (which would be pointless if I actually did have a hidden agenda). Later in the thread I suggest WP:BLPN.[93] Benjiboi responds with sarcasm.[94]
After I suggest WP:BLPN for an independent review of a source, [95][96] Eleemosynary refuses to seek independent review and makes an uncivil bad-faith comment accusing me of game playing.[97] (If I actually were game playing, wouldn't third party review be the perfect way to short-circuit the problem?) Note that he also cross-posts the same link disruptively. First here, then cutting and pasting the entire post including the outdated time stamp to an unrelated thread,[98] and continues to follow up at the unrelated thread after I ask that the discussion continue at the original location.[99][100][101] Also note Eleemosynary's unprovoked insult to another editor Your tiresome habit of dismissing all reliable sources on Sanchez's prostitution history is an ongoing, bad faith fraud.[102]

Both of these editors simply refuse to discuss policy issues on their merits, or to use standard site mechanisms to settle differences of opinion. In good faith I supposed I had chosen a bad day when I first raised the YouTube citation problem in February, and I waited nearly a month for things to settle down in spite of the urgent BLP and copyright infringement issues. Time hasn't solved the problem. Durova^Charge! 21:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think that is sufficient. Notified, [103], [104]. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that immediately after this, Benjiboi became the target of classic homophobic attacks, exactly as Matt Sanchez did before.[105]. Lawrence § t/e 22:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to sprotect his talk page. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the subject of the article is the only one who seems to need the regular enforcement of his ban from all of wikipedia so, no I do not want my talk page semi'd as I find most of the anon postings are fine. I also want to contest and have overturned my topic ban as I have quite regularly and consistently worked at improving the article despite the subject's predictable homophobic taunts and personal attacks against myself and others. If I overstepped a line then simply point it out, I have demonstrated quite consistently that I am open to constructive dialog and my track record on that article and the voluminous talk page will attest that I have made many good faith efforts to keep improvements to the article as the focus. I will state I am more than a bit disturbed by what seems to me engineering or "gaming" Wikipedia's structure so that the subject of the article's past "adult entertainment" career is scrubbed down. I have continued to ask tough questions, for instance the ongoing photo drama that I actually help resolve by recruiting a trusted photo contributer; and challenge what I see as dubious edits by some admins, reverting an edit before fully protecting an article which others also felt was questionable. There are no winners here as it's an unfortunate COI case of a subject whose notoriety is tied to scandal that should have been handled better months earlier. Instead it dragged on until Sanchez was banned, but now the pendulum seems to be imbalanced effectively silencing dissent. I've stuck with this process as I feel it has taught me a lot about policy and how issues are resolved which has served me elsewhere but a topic ban seems heavy-handed, premature and unneeded. Benji boi 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the block on that IP address. Benjiboi has a substantial track record overall as an editor. If he declares a willingness to use regular processes (WP:DR, WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, etc.) and to participate in good faith then I'd have no objection to scaling down his topic ban to a warning. He's a Wikipedian, not an SPA. Durova^Charge! 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have regularly shown more than a willingness to abide by Wikipedia's policies and this suggests that I have even encouraged others to do the same even when my gut instinct suggests that something is a bit wonky. I have regularly worked to encourage dialog and coached others through many of the challenges of editing articles and see no reason to change. I would also like to see Eleemosynary's topic-ban lifted as they have consistently added clarity and balance on an article talk page. Although they may be a bit prickly at times I believe their aims are also on target to improving articles and standing up to what, at times, has seemed like abusive behaviors. It's a credit that many of those who have been abused as a by-product of that article, including both Eleemosynary and I, remain contributing. Benji boi 02:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're saying you think your conduct and Eleemosynary's has been fine, and that you intend to continue more of the same, then there's a problem. The article has been seriously at variance with a number of site policies despite the arbitration ruling and has been on extended full protection. Obviously that can't go on forever. What do you propose to do to normalize this situation? Durova^Charge! 02:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the AOL IP who trolled Benjiboi today cannot be Matt Sanchez. Matt Sanchez is not in the United States. Here's a link to a site that shows he was interviewed yesterday on French television.[106] He's in the center column. If you don't read French you can see his photograph. Durova^Charge! 02:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that user's contributions are some form of puppetry and I think the duck test would seem to point back to Sanchez. Benji boi 03:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think many editor's conduct in regards to the article has been less than stellar but also feel topic-ban is heavy-handed, premature and unneeded; all the editors there seem to be making good faith efforts at raising issues and addressing concerns towards improving the article. Since Sanchez's ban that talk page has greatly improved and real concerns addressed and corrected. Setting up both Eleemosynary and myself as somehow problematic for raising real concerns and keeping the article NPOV seems quite misplaced. If I made a remark, which frankly seemed, at the time at least, appropriate to your remark, that you felt was uncivil or otherwise problematic then address that. If the article is in violation of policies then address the content, not the contributors. We have a few admins more than willing to make changes and regularly editing there, raise the concern. My strongest objections have been problematic edits without dialog and removing content that should simply be improved, for semantics or in the case of your latest effort better sourcing. You feel that a YouTube posting of a broadcast is likely a violation of copyright but correctly point out that it should be sourced appropriately. Why not simply do that? Instead all the work that had been previously vetted is unraveled for others to piece back together. Some might see that as disruptive. You and I have differing views on the uses of new media, in particular blogs (of which Sanchez is a blogger) and vlogs (Sanchez is also a vlogger). I don't expect that we will quickly resolve this issue but on almost every other article this wouldn't be a concern as the sources were not asserting anything "exceptional", at all. The blog in question was, in part, a posting of Sanchez's own vlog so in that case the subject of the article was speaking for himself, and you have removed it from the article. here I suggested "I again assert that both the video of Sanchez doing what he says he does and the content which no one seems to dispute can be used and if semantics is an issue address those concerns." To answer your question "What do you propose to do to normalize this situation?" I say I'm not sure what you mean by normalize to start with as this article is well beyond the normal category. If you want me to apologize for addressing what I see as problems on the appropriate article talk page I'll have to disappoint that expectation. For my part I'll try to uphold wikipedia's policies and will continue to extend good faith towards you despite this time-suck which has kept me from editing constructively elsewhere to effectively wikilawyer which may be my least favorite wikipedia activity. I'm sorry you felt the need to take this route rather than other options and will simply chalk this up as another lesson learned. This whole thread effectively is about better sourcing, perhaps improving the sourcing seen as problematic would have been a less pointy way toward improving the article. Benji boi 03:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your insinuation is without merit. The IP that vandalised your user page is not consistent with Sanchez' current location, and Sanchez is, tio the best of my knowledge, currently restricting himself to email for communication in respect of his article. We may not, per WP:C, link to copyright violations. No consensus can overcome policy defined by Foundation on legal advice, which this is. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My contributions can be seen rather clearly in the talk archives, I suggest starting with the ones January 2008 as they discussions became more coherent then. I believe this demonstrates that I am far from "these editors simply refuse to discuss policy issues on their merits, or to use standard site mechanisms to settle differences of opinion". Benji boi 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking through my earlier support of Benjiboi's request. His participation at this board is tendentious and gives every indication of an intent to resume old contentions about WP:COPYRIGHT and other obvious policy issues. I do not understand why he continues to insist upon sourcing to copyvio YouTube videos instead of obtaining legitimate links or transcripts, but things need to move forward and his arguments are repetitive and have been amply rebutted.

Benjiboi has my sympathy for the trolling at his user talk today; those insults were abominable. Yet he reverses the burden of proof in continuing to attribute them to Matt Sanchez. As my link above demonstrates, Matt Sanchez is in France and unable to access AOL. Furthermore, I was lucky enough to catch him online tonight (it was the wee hours in France) and he was unaware that this noticeboard thread or the bans were taking place. If an uninvolved administrator wishes to review that chat log I will ask Matt for permission to forward it. The summary version is that he acted surprised and pleased to learn about these developments, but for the most part his attentions are elsewhere and he's moving on from the disputes at Wikipedia. As I stated to Benjiboi, I mentor Matt on Commons but do not proxy for him--I supported his siteban from Wikipedia, for instance. Benjiboi has offered no evidence to support his contention that the IP troll was a meatpuppet of Sanchez.

So this topic ban has had a fair chance at reconsideration. I have invited Benjiboi to post his concerns about the Matt Sanchez article at my user talk if he wishes, in addition to the other options already specified, and pledge to review anything he offers there neutrally. To reviewing administrators, please regard such posts as welcome and non-blockable, and if things move forward productively I will follow up at this noticeboard with a request that the page ban be lifted. Hopefully that will be soon. With respect toward all, Durova^Charge! 04:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Xenovatis[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Withdrawn by nominator and closed. Xenovatis has now been commendably positive in working to resolve this issue, so there is no further need for enforcement action. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia
Xenovatis (talk · contribs)
Macedonia naming dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent POV-pushing and deletion of references from Macedonia naming dispute. User has a personal disagreement with the author of a book published by a major US publishing house concerning the Greece-Macedonia dispute. After posting a vitriolic message about the author ([107]) he deleted the article's reference to that book, using a highly misleading edit summary ([108]). I have notified him of this arbitration and WP:CENSOR, but he has deleted this notification from his talk page ([109]). He has since repeatedly added highly POV comments concerning the author to the article in an obvious attempt at poisoning the well/discrediting the source ([110], [111]). The user's comments on my talk page ([112]) do not lead me to believe that he is likely to respect either the arbitration's requirements or Wikipedia's general policy standards. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the seriousness of the situation with Macedonian related issues until ChrisO warned me, and I'll try to be as constructive and as civil as possible in the future. I thought I was doing something beneficial for the article, because I have sources to support my argument (John Shea is in Newcastle,Only person name John Shea in Newcastle}. In any case, reverting twice (which would otherwise borderline normal editing), is understandably not acceptable in such contentious articles. I have also modified my comments to ChrisO's talkpage, to address the issue at hand, and not to personalize our quarrel.[113][114]Please note that my last comment in ChrisO's talk page as well as in the relevant article's talk were both sometime before this arbenf was posted.Thanks. Xenovatis (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update/feedback, this is a bit more constructive. I have to go to bed now but I'll pick this up tomorrow. In the meantime, I'd be grateful if this request for enforcement could be put on hold. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned Macedonia naming dispute to Xenovatis on his/her talk page at 12:45, 22 March 2008.

I would point you to this ARBCOM ruling Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. While this article does not fall directly under that remit -- because it is outside the Area of conflict -- it highlights the problems of that passionate nationalist feelings cause.

Luckily I saw the reference to this page that was on Xenovatis's talk page by ChrisO's before Xenovatis removed it,[115], so it was lucky that I am able to comment here and put the record strait. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philip Baird Shearer and myself are involved in a long running debate here [116] (also see here [117], here [118] and here[119]).WP:COI could be relevant to the above comment by PBS.Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which comment above? That I had already notified you of the ARBCOM ruling before you edited the "Macedonia naming dispute" article, or that it was lucky that I noticed the link to this page on your talk page before you deleted it? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above I was reffering to PBS's commenting here in the first place possibly falling under the remit of WP:COI since we are involved in a long-standing debate ([120],[121],[122],[123]). Further PBS's comment on my talk page did not indicate there was a 1 revert rule on Macedonia articles [124] (and I didn't follow the link to WP:ARBMAC) while the contested article's talk page did not idicate there was a 1 revert rule either[125] (as it does in some other subjects[126]). For further clarification please see my response to User:ChrisO above. Let me just reiterate however that I am now cognizant of WP:ARBMAC having read it thoroughly and I intend to be taking it very seriously in the future. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restriction violation (?) and insults[edit]

This user [127] seems to have broken this restriction [128] [129] , here [130]. Two reverts in one day. I've reported here [131]. The moderator suggest me to write here.

I just wrote to tell: 1) If I try to give a small contribute (right or wrong) in a respectful way, there is no reason to call me "frustrate" or "insignificant". 2) It's on you to judge if one user broke a restriction and if both users are members of a sort nationalistic wikipedian-club, as claimed by some people (just read around!!!). Regards. --217.202.86.126 (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make things easier on those looking into this: Demonstrating the first and second revert to his own version of Julian March. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher has previously said that "there are at least 5 edit warring editors on Dalmatia issues, they appear to work in groups, and only two of them are currently under Arbcom sanction." The original report here was made by an IP editor that has (based on NYBrad's talkpage) been getting different IPs at different times. Thatcher, can you tell if this is Giovanni Giove who has been community banned? I don't know this dispute area to even begin to answer that question. I think we should evaluate DIREKTOR's behavior independently of the answer to that question, but I don't think we should disregard it. I do see a violation of the 1RR limit, which occurred 3 days ago. I also see use of the talk page. I see no prior entries in the case log for this editor. So I'm inclined to think a short block is appropriate. GRBerry 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did revert twice in one day (my first violation in six months), but I perceived it as a revert of obvious vandalism by the sock IP. The very fact that this person knows of my restriction should indicate that he/she may very well be a sock of one of the blocked editors from the "Italian side" of the dispute, but this is irrelevant to the matter I suppose. There is a very large number of IPs vandalizing "fringe articles" such as Julian March and Serbs of Croatia on a daily basis, I merely reverted the stuff out of course. The edits were pretty radical, and that article is balanced and has been peaceful for quite a while. Considering the "club", I'll repeat that I am NOT part of any nor do I want to be. The fact of the matter is simply that I live in Dalmatia, and that other users that happen to come from around here are equally offended by these edits. (For example, the widespread use of Italian in stead of English names for Croatian/Slovenian coastal cities and regions.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the history of the article, and the contribs of DIREKTOR since the last block. I dont consider the changes by the anons to be "vandalism", and think DIREKTOR should be more careful when reverting, but this revert is out of character, and occurred while there was an edit war on the article Julian March. Those wishing to make radical changes should discuss the matter respectfully on the talk page if they wish to be taken seriously. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, meanwhile, did a further violation (revert) here.
- The article was not "vandalized" as he claims, but it had really few minor (and not "radical") edits.
- I did not edit wars, because I have discussed my edits (see talk page). I did a research about the problem of the name; the results are IMHO evident. But DIREKTOR and Viator Slovenicus refuse to face the evidence: they want to impose their own version.
- I've reviewed the history of DIR., he has a imposed his version in several articles, and he has changed several names without discussion.
- DIREKTOR claims to be the victim of Serbian and Italian groups, on the other side he denyes the esistence of a Croatian group.
- Even if DIREKTOR *deleted* his restriction from his talk page, it was quite easy to find it.--217.202.2.44 (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have seen the talk page, and you do not have consensus for your changes, so repeating those changes is considered to be edit warring. If you want more people to comment on a topic, notify a related noticeboards, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Italy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovenia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia. Do not continue to edit war. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon 217.202 IP, who seems to be trying to get DIREKTOR punished somehow for some perceived breach of Wiki rule or guideline, has been openly canvassing to influence the outcome of this discussion. [132] -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told the IP in the talkpage to discuss these kind of edits first. One cannot just pop by and remove references to a Julian March in the Julian March article before at least achieving some kind of consensus (indeed, that seemed to me so silly that I considered it vandalism). I did not claim to be a victim of any Serbian and/or Italian group, I merely stated that "fringe" articles are often radically altered by IP weekend editors that do not really care about discussion. And, once again, there is no organized "club" here. In this case this is particularly obvious: I do not even know User:Viator Slovenicus, I vaguely remember him making some edits on Slovenia-related articles but that's all. Two editors objecting to edits can hardly be called a "club". (I didn't delete my restriction from my userpage, I was simply notified of it via message and eventually archived that message, that's all.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Blocked 72 hours for this mostly, secondarily for the reported diff. That one is completely beyond the pale. GRBerry 17:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a civility parole per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted. On 14:28, 25 March 2008, ScienceApologist made an edit in violation of that restriction, after being blocked on many occasions for prior violations. I therefore request that ScienceApologist be blocked for an adequate period of time, consistent with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Enforcement_by_block. John254 23:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The incivil remarks are "John254's arguments are boneheaded." and "Done and dumb." I agree they are not perfectly civil, but the SA's intent was to discuss the content rather than the contributor. Not worth a block in my opinion. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally comment on SA's restrictions, but I disagree with your evaluation. There are many very clear ways to state that he disagree's without comments on the editors involved. The easiest is just to say "I disagree with John254's arguments" and then state why. I mostly agree with SA's views on content matters, but will almost never support his position in an arguement due to the bad faith he shows other users. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:AhmadinV[edit]

Copied for User talk:Thatcher

I suspect that this is a newly created sockpuppet of user:The Dragon of Bosnia see first edit to Bosnian mujahideen‎ with the comment "again" and compare it with the last edit of user:The Dragon of Bosnia to the same page. As I had just made some minor edits to that page, it would probably be better if you were to look into it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser evidence is inconclusive. The IP is in a different country but probably a proxy. You can post an enforcement request at WP:AE. Thatcher 02:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, I suspect that AhmadinV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a newly created sockpuppet of user:Grandy Grandy/user:The Dragon of Bosnia see first edit to Bosnian mujahideen‎ with the comment "again" and compare it with the last edit of user:The Dragon of Bosnia to the same page. user:The Dragon of Bosnia/user:Grandy Grandy has been banned from editing see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#March 2008 - May 2008. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False accusation. I write my suggestion in talk. I write "again" because I forgot to sign in first time [133] and after that, Clue Bot immidiately revert my edit: [134], so I created account to save my edit again:[135]. Ahmadin. [15:41, 23 March 2008]

Regardless of whether or not this user is a sockpuppet, he engages in edit warring. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:AhmadinV, as I had neglected to place any information about this section on your talk page how did you find out about it? You seem very familiar with the workings of Wikipedia both at how to edit a page and with Wikipedia procedures. How long and have been editing Wikipedia and have you used any other accounts? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read Wikipedia a long time ago. I am not stupid, I look at your contribution, by the way I am programmer in PHP/C/C++. I was administrator in a PHPBB2 forum, I need some practice in communicating and writing in English. I am interested in Arabs articles, because of my origin. Ahmadin.

See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AhmadinV. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AhmadinV put on notice for WP:ARBMAC. [136] [137]. I see that the SSP case regarding a differnet user as a sockpuppet of this one has been withdrawn by the filer. Evaluating The Dragon of Bosnia sockpuppetry, I would say it is likely but not (yet?) confirmed. Suspected - absolutely. GRBerry 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And five days later, AhmadinV has not returned to edit again. I'm going to tag as a suspected sockpuppet. GRBerry 15:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano II[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

While there were some concerns expressed, there is clear consensus that Giano breached his civility requirement and the block is correct and should stand. — Coren ^(talk) 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano II (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is under a civility ruling that reads:

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

and a second remedy:

"All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner..." (Remedy 13)

and rather specifically a third remedy about exactly this topic:

"All the involved editors ... are ... instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the 'admin' IRC channel." (Remedy 15)

Giano has been uncivil to FloNight before^[138] on March 6, in exactly the same context, and on the same page, since the above decision. At that time it was hoped the old behavior would end. It evidently has not. I take that as an aggravating factor since it seems to signify that Giano felt able to be uncivil, be ignored, which in turn has encouraged the belief that this incivility (which is more direct) will also be ignored. Several users presented evidence to this effect during the case^{[139][140][141][142]}.

Giano was also uncivil here^[143] on March 18.

At 19:05 March 25, Giano II engaged FloNight on her talk page about the admin IRC channel. In the course of that, Giano II made the following two posts, which I judge uncivil yet again: this and this.

The enforcement provision for the case reads:

"Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations." (Enforcement 1)

I have therefore blocked Giano II for 31 hours. The IRC case conclusion was overwhelmingly and repeatedly "be civil", and events since then show that Giano is back to his old habit of uncivil (and possibly in the eyes of some, snarky or bad faith) comments, and on more than one occasion.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I posted in the capacity of providing outside information and links which FloNight was likely unable to do. She had already told Giano that she was unfamiliar with the details ^[144], and Giano had expressed scorn or some similar view in reply ^[145]. As a result when Giano a second time addressed similar questions to her^[146], and FloNight's comment that he should instead ask me for information was rebuffed^[147] [148], I stepped in to make two posts, both outside information on where Giano might find the answers to his questions, and other relevant information. One corrected Giano's misperception of FloNight, which I judged was leading him to accuse her of evasiveness on information she did not in fact have and provided links and resources to work with^[149], and the other when Giano persisted in pressing FloNight for this despite the above, expanded on it^[150]. WP:ADMIN states that:

"An administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (ie in order to address a dispute, ... administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, ... and the like) ... is usually not considered prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them."

I am posting this at AE, in anticipation of discussion which is best held in the AE venue for a matter related to Arbitration Enforcement.

I support the block. I have reviewed Giano's interactions over the last month, and though his insight is often good, he does not appear to be respecting the ArbCom requirement that he be civil in how he presents his thoughts. Based on the diffs provided by FT2, as well as the diffs provided in the last AE request (WP:AE#Giano II 2, closed without action by Thatcher just a couple days ago), a block is appropriate to enforce sanctions. Hopefully upon his return, Giano will work harder to control his temper, and will set a better example of civility in his interactions with other Wikipedians. --El on ka 02:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to note that I filed a request for arbitration enforcement with respect to Giano II on 23 March 2008 [151] [152] which referenced at least one of the same diffs as the report above. After I filed this report, Giano II made the following edits on my talk page [153] [154] [155]. Furthermore, Doc glasgow, currently an administrator, implied that my account would be blocked if I filed any future reports with respect to Giano II [156] [157]. John254 02:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that my leniency of 2 days ago has only encouraged Giano to be even ruder. In the earlier complaint, he was poked on his own talk page by Damifb (talk · contribs) (since indef blocked for trolling) and responded by slagging off on Arbcom in general terms. Here, he (and to a lesser extent Irpen) have decided to make FloNight the focus of their complaints about IRC governance, even though Flo has made it clear on multiple occasions that she has not been involved in the relevant discussions and has repeatedly referred Giano to others more knowledgeable. Three people (including me) provided him with a link to the information he requested and he continued to pick on Flo. His comments are not directed at Arbcom in general and not restricted to his own talk page, but are directed at a specific user, and the final comments [158] [159] exceed even the generous bounds Giano has been allowed. Especially given the previous ball-chewing comment also directed against Flo, I support the block, and I can't help but wonder why Giano, who is so chivalrous toward female editors he likes, would continue to act in this manner toward the only female member of Arbcom. Thatcher 02:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 has the right to make his block but I doubt it is helpful. Giano has just left his grouching mode and started to write articles. Maybe we really should not distract him. Especially since he promised to greatly rewrite the Winter Palace article (Saint Petersburg is my home city). Oh well, it seems like the subordination is taking precedence over the content creation nowadays. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on the user's talk page - philosophy of Wikipedia is useful to discuss but not central to AE hence that's a better location.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, I am concerned that you have several conflicts of interest in making this block yourself. Not only were you directly involved in the discussion with Giano, but you sit on the committee responsible for reviewing blocks under this remedy. You have also been very involved in the reported IRC cleanup and are a chanop there. An administrator with three apparent conflicts of interest is normally encouraged to consult with peers, and I think you should have divorced yourself from action in this situation. We do have over a thousand administrators on this project, after all, and Giano should not be the only one expected to serve as a good example.

Giano had every reason to ask FloNight for this information: she had posted right in the IRC proposed decision talk page about her plans to address the IRC issue[160] and none of the sitting arbitrators contradicted her about this plan. Indeed, the Arbitration Committee had stated, as a remedy to this very case, that it would address the issues[161]. The Arbitration Committee, however, has given no indication that it has addressed the questions surrounding IRC. I note that you have done a lot of work involving IRC recently, but it is unclear if that is because you are an IRC chanop or if it is because you are a member of the Arbitration Committee. That it was being done exclusively within IRC, and without discussion or consultation of the broader community of concerned Wikipedia editors (including Giano, and several who volunteered to participate) suggests the former.

Our blocking policy states that it is recommended to post controversial or potentially controversial blocks to the Administrator's Noticeboard. I believe it would be appropriate to post a notice with a link to this block review. Please note that this is not an apologia for Giano; he's responsible for his own behaviour. I am simply pointing out that I expected you, FT2, to have acted in the same way we would expect any other involved party to act, and to post your request for sanction here on the AE board for disinterested and uninvolved users to assess the situation and, if indicated, to have made the block. Risker (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I considered these carefully. The conclusion was in fact none formed a conflict of interest. I spoke with Giano, but I had no "argument" with him or "debate". I gave him information which the person he was asking, had asked me to give, since she did not have it and knew I did. That was the limit of that interaction. That's far from a COI. Your second concern: As an arbitrator, I take part in decisions on many cases. A bit like an administrator does. An uninvolved administrator who takes a view that a user has acted wrongly, and says so, or even warns the user that they will be blocked if they do it again, is never, ever considered to acquire a conflict of interest by doing so. That would defeat commonsense. My role as an arbitrator was to hear a case, and decide upon evidence what measures and warnings might be needed to protect the project. Its a glorified admin role, and in principle identical to any warning any admin might give upon reviewing conduct of party/ies at someone elses request. Your third point is, being involved in formulating an internal channel code on IRC does not put me in conflict with someone critical of that code. We have never discussed that code, nor argued it, nor interacted in relation to it. many admins collaborated to work on that code, which Giano has not seen fit to raise as a personal issue with me, or I with him -- it simply has not come up. My work on IRC was exactly the same reason as any other work I do -- it needs doing, it crossed my desk, I felt I could beneficially do it, so I did it. Giano has never argued with me on that.

What Giano has done is been uncivil to FloNight and others in breach of an arbitration ruling, in a fairly unambiguous manner hard. He has the option to speak to anyone, to criticize, to do all these things. He does not have the right to do so uncivilly or in a bad faith, "snarky", or "personal attack" manner. This by any standard is not controversial, or potentially controversial, except in one way only -- the blocked user is one who many admins have stated is in practical terms hard to block and where it seems the user cannot (or will not) be blocked and sit out his term if he persists in incivility. That is the only controversial aspect of the matter - that he has not had this happen before, when others would have. This block, for these edits, are not controversial in the context, as others have opined above.

What you want to look for as an example on COI is my actions with PHG, and the care I take in to disclose if anything needs disclosure. There, I warned him, and was on the arbcom case related to him. I likewise issued his first block (48 hrs) ..... to which I note no objection whatsoever, but I then left the second one for others to consider... and that was deliberate, so that it would be clear if it was just one person's view, or a communal perception. If the block were fair, and the user problematic, others would have blocked, it would not necessarily need "the same person to". And indeed, others did, they discussed, and I did not involve myself in that, to avoid risk of bias or over-involvement. Now that a second block has confirmed the views on the user, I would not feel my future involvement would risk seeming to be "one person only", although I may choose to let others handle him from here on.

COI is an important issue, and if you look at arb cases (Mantanmoreland^[162], IRC^[163]) I have considered carefully, and in those two cases disclosed scrupulously. I did so in this case too - witness the inclusion of the relevant policy issue - and in fact was not in dispute with Giano. I had acted in an administrative capacity in deciding he needed to be civil in future, in a case brought by others at communal request. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments are obviously beyond the pale. Giano is clearly breaking the remedy, as he has many times before. Blocking is not controversial, and FT2 has taken care even in his initial report to be clear and have thought it through. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Risker, I understand what you're saying about a conflict of interest, but I have no trouble with a sitting arbitrator enforcing an agreed ArbCom remedy. Because of the high-profile cases that Giano has been involved with, it does become harder and harder to find a completely uninvolved admin. I feel that I'm fairly uninvolved with Giano myself, though if someone went digging, I'm sure that they could find a few pages where both Giano and I posted in the same discussion. I still support FT2's block. Arbitrators are a special class of editors on Wikipedia. They've gone through an extensive review and voting process, and are the most trusted members of our community. Further, no one here seems to be saying it's a bad block. Everyone agrees that Giano was uncivil, everyone agrees that he was under sanctions, everyone is aware that Giano just ignores them. If ArbCom remedies are not consistently enforced, they have no power. If someone as high profile as Giano ignores his sanctions, it undermines the process, and weakens everyone else's sanctions. And if anything, ArbCom is often criticized for being powerless, not for being too authoritarian. I say it's about time that we gave civility sanctions some teeth. --El on ka 06:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, the most important aspect of conflict of interest is that the person with the conflict of interest rarely perceives that he or she has one. You are a member of the committee appointed to be the last step in dispute resolution. Your actions, whether as an administrator or an arbitrator, reflect on the Arbitration Committee — a committee that already needs to rehabilitate its reputation with the community, after the leaked emails and the fallout from the Mantanmoreland case. Whether you perceive yourself to be just an admin who sits on Arbcom, the community — and the Foundation — sees things differently. Indeed, it seems that #en-admins sees things differently too, as Arbcom members regularly active in the channel have higher access levels than the overwhelming majority of IRC members. I am not trying to justify Giano's behaviour; he is responsible for his own actions. I simply cannot accept your justification of your actions. Elonka points out that Giano is "high profile" and thus must be made an example. If you do not perceive yourself as having a responsibility to act as an example to the community, to follow both the spirit and the word of our policies, then perhaps there are bigger concerns than just this block.

I really do question how you can feel that you were not in dispute with Giano. Giano asked FloNight a question, and she asked you for assistance in responding. Instead of answering the question being asked (how many non-admins have access to #admins IRC channel), you kept providing him with answers to questions he didn't ask. It's clear now that you did not (and probably still don't) know the answer to his question; it's unclear to me why you didn't just say so. Most people find that kind of non-response response to be quite provocative; this provocation, followed by your use of the power imbalance between you and Giano to sanction him for a situation that you had opportunity to prevent is what is most troubling. A dispute does not require raised voices on both sides of the table to be a dispute.

As I indicate, I am not defending Giano's behaviour, and defer to disinterested members of the community to come to their own conclusion. My questions are all about yours, FT2. I am really disappointed that you do not perceive the degree to which you had involvement in this situation. In response to Elonka, my concern is with an admin and sitting arbitrator who is involved in the situation that led to a block making the block; if it had been an uninvolved arbitrator - Sam Blacketer for example - this discussion would not be taking place. Risker (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, this AE section is about Giano's actions, and several admins have all nodded approval at the block. Any one of us would have done it once enough second opinions had landed here, but FT2 has done it, presumably to ensure that nobody can doubt that this is a block to enforce an arbcom remedy. If you want to discuss whether FT2 should have been the one to do it, please take that discussion to ANI or some other noticeboard. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me expand on that a little to be sure that there is no misunderstanding. The issue at this noticeboard is whether Giano has "make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil". Nobody has suggested otherwise. As a result, if the block by FT2 is reversed, there are other admins that will restore the block, myself included. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's at all unanimous among admins that this was an appropriate block. I question whether the comments were all that incivil, (how long is it appropriate to wait for answers before your questioning gets more pointed? The original talk of councils/committees/whatevers to discuss IRC was months ago but I see little actually happening... I further question whether it was appropriate for FT2 to give it out, and I question why 31 hours was used rather than a more conventional time. (We typically use 31 hours for school children so that it's not till the end of the next school day that the block expires. Giano is not exactly a school child, so I'm sure it was an inadvertant slight rather than a deliberate one). I think Giano is being held to rather a higher standard than we hold others, or at least that's the impression given. ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these have been answered elsewhere. 1/ Block length is here. 2a/ There is no rule how long to wait until ones questions get pointed, but it is likely that 12 minutes to a first serious stab at answering them should not be hard to endure. 2b/ Whilst there may be a limit where one gets "pointed", what time limit would one suggest for deciding to gratuitously attack the person who first tried completely to help, who lacked information, and who had therefore promptly referred you on, and you are now in dialog with the people referred to. (For me, there is a huge difference between a "pointed" question and an out-and-out uncivil one.) And 3/ Giano is on this occasion being held to the same standard I would hold anyone, with this ruling, and this circumstance and conduct issue record. No more, no less, and when this block is done it's over. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to put on the record that I have just received a short and undelightful email from Giano. The prior post on his talk page to the precise opposite effect compared to his emailed beliefs, seems to be ignored. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Risker -- I understand the concern you have. But your comment "the community sees things differently" seems not bourne out. Several have commented, but of those only one (yourself) sees this as a problematic decision. Your statement that it was, in fact brought comments from two commentators that they did not agree.

Similarly, your comment that Instead of answering the question being asked ... you kept providing him with answers to questions he didn't ask. It's clear now that you did not ... know the answer to his question; it's unclear to me why you didn't just say so" is also extremely inaccurate and misrepresentative. I made just two comments - it is hard to describe just two notes as "kept providing". Looking back, the first of them (asked to help by FloNight) stated exactly where information he had asked for could be found and how to get an up to date list that he could verifiably check. It also completely and without reserve answered his other main assumption about her "role as an arb". Those were visibly the exact two issues relevant to their discussion. The second when that wasn't felt helpful started by explicitly letting him know that "FloNight doesn't know a specific count, nor do I". It then answered the rest of his question with precision.

That's as far from "kept providing him with answers to questions he didnt ask" or "why didn't you say so" as it gets.

Lastly, it's not at all clear how my comments dated 25 March created Giano's cited incivilities prior to then. Further, the sequence of events of 25 March itself were that 1/ FloNight specifically told him she didn't know and to ask me. 2/ Giano ignored her words. 3/ I visited and answered as best I knew where such information could quickest be found. 4/ Giano asked me again, but snuck in an incivility to FloNight too. 5/ I clarified directly and immediately that no actual answer was known and this was how to work it out. 6/ Two other admins commented. 7/ Giano posted a second incivility/attack on FloNight in his response to the three of us, even though at that time he knew well he was talking to others and FloNight knew nothing and had bowed out of the dialog early on. That is just not a sequence that lends itself to the comments you make, that somehow he was "made" to act badly.

Giano II was in fact being attended to. He had been given full answers at that point to the best of everyone's ability. Despite this, he decided to pause to gratuitously attack an editor he knew had tried to help him, for (allegedly) having "clearly lost all mental and muscular capacity for communication". FloNight had already very calmly given her best attempt to help him (despite his prior incivility to her), she had told him she did not have answers, and had passed his questions to no less than three others who had been interacting and had themselves provided what any usual person would consider good-faith fair answers which fully aimed to help. And yet he paused in the middle of talking to them, to return to and attack her offensively again. This was not even slightly borderline incivility.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 feels that "full answers had been given" but uses the passive to cover the fact that FT2 was the one whose answer did not serve. Instead of realizing that he had evaded what Giano was asking, and specifically that it was not his to answer, he concluded that the continued asking meant "incivility." That's personal pique. I have no doubt that FT2 was annoyed, but that is not the same thing as incivility. We do not function that way. While we say, over and over again, that Wikipedia is not censored, and we allow any amount of vileness in images and articles, but when Giano asks a user why she thought something was a great idea and proposed it as a reason for concluding a case one day and then (using passive voice again) abandons that idea the next, and when she does not answer but others (perhaps the others meant by "there was opposition" to the ideas) do, that's something we must not allow? That hideously myopic and obviously personalized.

Personalizing is the heart of the breaking of civil discourse, and FT2 being the block agent for Giano not being happy with his own comments is to personalize it. The question Giano asked needed and needs an answer: If the case that resulting in his "civility patrol" restrictions could conclude with the idea that 1: there had been abuses on admins.irc, 2: there had been abuses in the page describing it in such laudatory terms, 3: Giano was mean in his talk, then the whole project needs to why #1 is allowed without remedy. FloNight apparently felt so, too, because she and others reasoned that there would be reform, and she had some ideas. Giano asked her (not you) why she abandoned this idea. Her answer "was opposed" begs the further question of "by whom, and why?" On that she has remained silent and, mysteriously, people are willing to block in order to not answer.

This block is illegitimate, as it is personal involvement and there has been no demonstration of what Giano said that was "incivil" and how it was incivil. Can anyone explain why a particular comment destroys the well regulated speech community of Wikipedia? Can anyone explain why something Giano said is likely to reduce editing? Can anyone explain why it will result in damage to the project equivalent to the loss of edits to Winter Palace and the increasing rancor of perhaps three hundred editors? Geogre (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What: [164][165][166][167]. How are those appropriate?

Why: they are clearly incivil, and they cause an immediate breakdown in communication patterns here on Wikipedia because they are barbs that destroy our ability to work together peacefully. Answers to questions can take time; respect for the volunteer nature of the community means that answers should be waited upon rather than demanded and hell brought to bear on anyone who cant provide them immediately. I am surprised this needs to be explained to serious member of our community. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews above should be clear. Maybe a point by point (Q&A) analysis will help:

[168] Giano asks how many non-admins have access to en-admins and what if any changes have taken place in the channel.
[169] FloNight says she will relay the question to me, since I was actively involved. She tells Giano, "as noted above.. FT2 is [the] best person to contact for information about the #admins channel".
[170] Ginao ignores this, asks FloNight "What is so difficult", states she "goes there" and "is an Arb", tells her "don't be evasive" (bad faith), and urges her to be keen to resolve the irc-related matters.
[171] I get and respond to FloNights message on my talk page.

- I clarify a major misunderstanding Giano seems to have (that FloNight going there + FloNight being an arb means she is there in a formal arb role or is involved in channel management).
- I tell Giano the exact wiki-page to look for, for a full list of all users, plus a method to create an updated list if he so wishes. I state that "most" of these can be tied back to wiki accounts allowing non-admin access to be determined.
- I note that there is no guarantee FloNight is interested in doing the work involved, and she is not really a "manager" per se.
- Finally for Giano's last point, I direct him to the page listing all changes, or from which changes are linked.

[172] Giano ignores the information given (it seems) and asks me how many non-admins there are, being gratuitously and completely unnecessarily uncivil to FloNight in passing, even though she has said to speak to me, Giano is responding to me, and I have visited quickly and drafted and posted the above at 19:48 - within 12 minutes of Giano's post (19:36) and within 4 mins of getting FloNight's request (19:44).

Returning for no good reason to FloNight though (!), he asks her instead (!!) whether any non-adnins are removed or any changes made. Thus completely ignoring the above where 1/ FloNight said she felt I could better help, 2/ I told Giano FloNight was not a "manager", and 3/ I posted Giano a complete link to all changes for him to read it, already.

[173] None the less I reply. I say it more plainly:

- FloNight doesn't have a specific count, nor do I; and old users were "grandfathered" in;
- The userlist is linked to above (said again) if he wants to identify information about non-admin access.
- Although I have already linked to the changes I also here summarize them for him as well, and finally
- Clarify the status of these changes.

[174] Edit conflict - Thatcher tells Giano the same, about where to look up non-admin access.

[175] Giano asks whether any arbcom members have implemented any changes "advocated as a sop at the end of the IRC case". When I later re-read this edit, I am completely unclear what he is asking. I have described the channel changes that have taken place, I am unaware what changes to the channel he feels were "advocated", sop or otherwise, and he himself has not explained.

[176] Ryan Postlethwaite tries to answer as best he can, I think. He restates that channel guidelines now exist, and links to them again (I have alreadty done so and indirectly so has Thatcher). He states particularly that action is taken with regard to a specific concern and cites his own view on its positive effects.

[no textual change - Irpen moves a section; Ryan P. reposts his last post]

[177] despite all the above, despite the fact he has been discussing with myself and latterly Ryan, despite FloNights repeated non-involvement... despite half a dozen reiterations of how to find non-admin names and count and a clear definitive statement that Flo doesn't know offhand and nor do I, Giano posts this:

"Seeing as Flo has clearly lost all mental and muscular capacity for communication will one of you please answer - how many ex or non-admins remain in the channel"

It is a second gratuitous incivility/attack on FloNight. Again, he knows repeatedly she is not aware or involved and is letting others handle it, as he has repeatedly been told by many people, as well as being told how to find out more.

[brief few more posts including Ryan going to the extent of trying to guess an answer for Giano: [178]]

I have tried to help Giano and show him he can both be honest about his views, without being uncivil. The offer is still there, unchanged. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I make a suggestion? For whatever reason, Giano listen to some people more than others. If something like this happens again, can I suggest, in all seriousness, that someone ask one of those people to have a quiet word with Giano, warn him if needed, or pour oil on troubled waters and make communication easier? That way we might actually make some progress without the hugely lengthy thread above. I know, Giano could handle himself better in the first place, but seriously, look past how he says things and actually reply to him and engage with him, and the mountain will become a molehill. There is no need to take offence at every instance of perceived incivility. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano is well aware of the restrictions even though he does not accept them. While the idea is interesting in the abstract, I know of no other arbitration remedy where enforcement is preceded by an extra warning from a someone the offender will listen to. Armenia-Azeri, Israel-Palestine, Macedonia, Irish Troubles--in none of these cases has it been suggested that violators should receive extra warnings or counseling to back down once an enforcement request is made. In addition this would amount to giving Giano a permanent get out of jail free card, assuming he actually backed down after each reported alleged violation. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, and enforcement of arbitration rulings is not meant to require debate, discussion, or further attempts at dispute resolution; that's why remedies say "any uninvolved admin" rather than "consensus on the noticeboard" or some such. And finally Giano has not been taken to task for "every instance of perceived incivility." See the prior report below on this very page, and my response above. In the prior case Giano was baited by a troll and he responded on his own talk page. I don't believe John254 had a legitimate reason to complain here, and I closed the report with no action. In this case Giano was repeatedly uncivil to FloNight even though he had been given the answer he was supposedly seeking by three other editors, and I still find it very strange that Giano has now repeatedly made the only female Arbitrator the target of his abuse. Thatcher 13:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, do you honestly think that saying something speculative like "I still find it very strange that Giano has now repeatedly made the only female Arbitrator the target of his abuse" is really going to help? I don't often ask people to retract things, but that was probably best left unsaid. I could say a lot more, but I think less is more here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good advice, and if it works then I would be glad. But the reality is, many people have tried, and the issue remains unabated. This was not the first time, nor "every instance" -- instances on March 6 and March 18 were ignored, and the net result is as Thatcher noted, is to encourage more. This of course is on top of numerous past instances over at least two years in which chances were given, unblocking for goodwill, no action to avoid upset, discussion, last chances, last-last chances, and even "last-last-last" chances (to the disgust of some). And no action was taken, people tried, and nothing happened.

The present remedies are being managed sensibly. Minor instances were ignored, not leaped upon, until it became obvious the issue was ongoing (predictably yet sadly), at which point that is not visibly proving a viable approach. A whole slew of offensive comments in January/February were overlooked. Many chances have been given. Whatever ability Giano has to listen to his confidantes, it may be that he now has to do so with rather more alacrity than has been his norm. The quid pro quo of waiver is evidence of change, and to date the deal has been that the community takes no action... and Giano makes no real change. If he does indeed listen to friends in this, and someone can explain my and others' numerous comments that he can have his views (however divergent), just express them appropriately, then that would be good, because he is a decent guy in many ways, and a good editor. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure. But I'm trying to de-escalate things, and you and Thatcher are responding defensively and justifying your actions. I'm not asking either of you to justify your actions, just to consider other options. A reasonable request doesn't have to have two long responses like this. It should be easy to justify things with a short response. Having to say a lot sometimes shows that maybe things weren't quite so clear. But I will repeat, the aim should be to get everyone talking again and interacting civilly. If that needs other people to get involved, than call them in. Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it wasn't intended to come across that way, and my apologies. For reference, my other options are in numerous posts (want links?)... and (I think?) also emails, where I've tried to explain, help, guide and inform. I hope that Giano will look at those some day and consider them, for I will always be glad to see him seek genuinely to work with others to a decent level, if it can be done by him. I've tried on multiple occasions -- the patience and re-explanation even here is a case in point. Because I am not naive I have to accept there is a chance it will not happen, and for that reason it cannot be the only option. But I am also patient and broadly hopeful/optimistic, so it remains one option. But it is a preferable one, and taking it is open to him all the time. I hope he will choose to, tentatively, but genuinely, do so, to a sufficient level. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those comparisons were completely inappropriate. SashaNein (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2's actions here are clearly outside the community norms. The community norms that are violated include 1) after arbitration, enforcement is left to administrators that are not arbitrators, 2) enforcement of arbitration decisions is left to uninvolved administrators, and 3) all blocks whether or not for arbitration enforcement are to be issued only by uninvolved administrators. Reviewing the history, FT2 was active in and participated in the case as an arbitrator. He also has been heavily involved in the processing of access requests for the channel, was involved in the stillborn RFC over the channel, and is a heavy user of the channel. As a clearly involved administrator, his block is a violation of the blocking policy. Apparently there are only around 500 users of the channel, so with 1500 admins there should be plenty around that are clearly uninvolved in even the broadest sense of the word and could have been called upon to use their judgment. As such, FT2 is clearly in the wrong here. As to the block, I consider this case so poorly considered and judged that there are no circumstances where I would act to enforce it myself. It is also quite frightening that when nine arbitrators pass a motion in the case making one of the remedies "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee." that the most we see as output is a nebulous statement that the arbitrators were unable to reach a decision and act on a particular suggestion. Giano is correct in his call for the committee to state what has occurred in this area, if not necessarilly in the manner in which that request was made. GRBerry 16:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what GRBerry said. Also, it appears to me that Giano was trying to have a conversation with Flonight on her talk page and everyone but Flonight was jumping in. Flonight is an administrator and an arbitrator. She can speak for herself. There was no need for everyone else to be jumping in. And I saw nothing that Giano said to be "incivil". What a crock. Tex (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, maybe you could file a request for clarification? Carcharoth (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a request myself. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't speak to the merits of the block (I could argue it either way) but to represent FT2 as in any way an involved administrator in this affair is incorrect. Giano has a general grouse against the arbitration committee but that doesn't mean that arbitrators are therefore involved parties. They have a mandate from the community to resolve disputes, and Giano's opinion on this doesn't dissolve that mandate.

In response to Tex, FloNight specifically told Giano that FT2 was the best person to ask [179] and invited FT2 to respond to Giano's queries on her talk page. [180]. Nothing there invited any untoward response from Giano. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the merits of the block and the circumstances surrounding it, the idea that you can expect an ArbCom member to have to rush off and find another uninvolved admin to perform a block seems to go against the grain of what we expect ArbCom members to be. This doesn't come into the same realms of involvement as, say, an admin blocking someone who they are in dispute with. Not remotely. Black Kite 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But really, if you are going to accord special judgement status to ArbCom members like that, what about when they forget to log their blocks at the case page. I don't see any sign that this block has been logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Log of blocks and bans. A common oversight, but ironic given your statement about what we "expect" of ArbCom members. They are human, after all. Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A common oversight indeed. Thanks for the nudge, Carcharoth. Now done. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted after close of case [181] [182])

This was a cowardly block by an arbitrator with a conflict of interest. It was executed to disguise the fact that the Arbcom had performed a complete U turn on one of their own passed resolutions. It is further evidence of this flawed and failing Arbcom. Giano (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit, and off topic. You were blocked because of your approach. If you want to the thorn in the side of arbcom, by all means to so, but if you want support you need to act appropriately. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need anyone point out the irony of swearing at someone to defend a civility block? Please temper your language. Risker (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block has expired. Giano's opinion is noted. This is now a closed issue. If it is necessary to further debate the matter, Giano's talk page or WT:RFAR would be more appropriate. Thatcher 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Thatcher the matter is far from closed, but your opinion is noted too. You will obviously be sanctioning your foul mouthed friend above, or does incivility only exist in the minds of certain Arbitrators. Thank you Giano (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of a persistent problem, and no arbitration sanctions in place, although under the circumstance I agree with Risker that the words were poorly chosen. Thatcher 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.