Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Majorly

Initiated by Majorly ^talk at 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Majorly (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
  • 82.23.84.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Aillema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Redrocketboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Iloveengland2much (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Used to troll an RFA)
  • Al tally (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jennavecia (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Jennavecia
• Any interested person, on the talk page of my Request for comments

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Majorly‎
• There are several diffs on the above page that shows instances where attempted resolution took place.

Statement by Majorly

I'm bringing myself here (I must be crazy) because there's a looming threat of someone else doing it (whose name I've put as the other party), so it's inevitably going to happen. However, I'm going to be rather busy in real life over the next few weeks, and this ongoing for so long is causing me stress. Basically, I'd like for ArbCom to decide, in a fair and neutral fashion, whether I should be desysopped, or whether I should continue. My self-RfC has failed to give me any indicator of this, other than a large bunch of people, who mostly have past disputes with me, who are saying I should lose the bit. I don't agree that it's a fair assessment of me, and several users have disagreed with the so-called problems. I'd be prepared to change my ways, but if it's agreed I be desysopped, so be it. The problems are all on the RfC. I'd respectfully like any arbitrators or clerks who are my friends, or who have had issues with me in the past to recuse, so I get a fair hearing. Cheers, Majorly ^talk 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've requested desysopping on Meta. Apologies for wasting everyone's time. I suggest this be speedily rejected, as it's moot now. Unless arbcom wants to do anything about other behaviour of course. Majorly ^talk 20:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this is "under a cloud" and have to go through RfA (not that I ever will, but yeah...) Majorly ^talk 21:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

Given Majorly has brought this here himself, I'd urge the committee to expediately accept the case and act as a neutral party to review the RfC, and any further evidence that is brought up during the case. It's true that a lot of the participants of the RfC have beef with Majorly for various reasons, and whether or not their views represent a neutral communal view I'm not sure. Given Majorly's vocal nature at RfA, his RfC was always going to be brutal, and I think the only way to put this to bed once and for all is for the committee to make a binding decision about Majorly. As always, I'd like the committee to review the actions of all people involved, and not just concentrate on Majorly. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Users that support this statement:

• I support the thrust of Ryan's statement. Not sure about extending review beyond Majorly and others named as involved parties. The RfC/U contains sufficient evidence to merit a case. HG | Talk 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply by Jennavecia

I am, indeed, working to build a case, as I told Majorly. Just as he did with the RFC, he's creating it to prevent me from finishing the work-in-progress. The RFC within an RFC placed by Giggy was not ready when it was added, but it was rushed. I will not be rushed on this one. I've been working on the RFAR for a whole day before Majorly runs here himself. I urge the committee to reject this case, considering Majorly isn't filing evidence against himself, and allow those of us who actually have a case to build the time we need to put it together properly and present it when we are ready. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re FloNight. If this case is accepted, I should have all evidence ready to be presented within a week or so. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Per AGK's well-worded advice, and that of Flow and Morven, I have struck my earlier request and now urge acceptance. While most of my evidence is present in the RFC, I am trimming it, expanding the details on those more specific examples, formatting more clearly, as well as updating with diffs of misbehavior since the RFC was opened. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering he resigned his adminship, my desire to pursue the issues with his behavior have been squelched. For the purposes of RFAR, that was my sole goal. Therefore, I agree that this request should be rejected. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 02:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

Please accept and desysop, particularly after his recent temper tantrum on AN. Evidence will be forthcoming - I was going to file this case tomorrow anyway, but Majorly seems to have jumped the gun. Moreschi (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This should have an AC note attached that Majorly is resigning under a cloud, and cannot get his tools back except via RFA - I assume he understands this already. Moreschi (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Balloonman

I agree with Moreschi and Jenna. Majorly is responding from a friendly joke, here. Where I told him that he should hijack the process and he agreed. I thought my </friendly jab> would be an indicator that I was clearly joking. This is just another example IMHO of his trying to control/undermine the process. I think this should be rejected until one of the people who is actually preparing a complaint can compile the request.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman I've made a call for him to step down, but everybody who has spoken against him he has discarded.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In light of his stepping down, I propose this be closed with no further action.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. This should be closed. Nothing to see here, move along to the next drama-fest. Let's all drink beer. Keeper ǀ 76 21:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we need to keep this open? Can't we go ahead and kill it? All of the parties who had stake in it, have called for it to be closed. Five arb's have rejected it per the actions taken since this began, it may not be a majority, but there is nobody calling for it to continue---including the party that brought it forth. Let's kill it now, no need to keep it open for formalities sake.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The community should have the chance to work this out via discussion, with the help of 'crats if they will agree to render an opinion. If the matter becomes hopelessly deadlocked, then the Committee can take it up. ArbCom should not involve itself until community processes have been tried and failed.

Majorly, I recommend that you post a notice to the bureaucrat's noticeboard and ask for a volunteer bureaucrat to read the RFC comments and advise you on consider whether there is a consensus for you to continue being and admin, or not. If there isn't, you should either step down or request a new RFA. If you are in fact being hounded by a bunch of grudge bearers, having an independent party say so may help. It is better to do the honorable thing than to be de-adminned by ArbCom.

I have not looked into the substance of the complaints against Majorly yet. Jehochman ^Talk 19:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Morven, I think that the community may be able, in a substantial portion of cases, to express its opinion in a way that the sysop in question will voluntarily give up access. It is always better to do things by agreement rather than by force. I think bureaucrats could be helpful for their ability to distill a large discussion into a concise statement of consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 19:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious to me that is not happening in this situation or Majorly wouldn't have closed the RFC, had it re-opened by other users, only to have Majorly file this case. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look. It seems like Giggy's view has a lot of evidence and support (as do some of the other critical views). Are we sure that a friendly, uninvolved party couldn't convince Majorly of the need to resign? To me it seems like this is a done deal already. I don't see how Majorly can continue under the circumstances. Jehochman ^Talk 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Resign, just to ask for the tools back again later? Again? What would that be likely to achieve? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No chance to ask for them back without RFA, I think. With a very negative RFC going and an active request for arbitration, that would be resigning under a cloud. Jehochman ^Talk 20:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your faith in the system is obviously greater than mine. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a proud optimist. I have just asked Majorly to spare us this drama.[1] Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

he seems to have accepted Jehochman's proposition to step down. Keeper ǀ 76 21:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Physchim62 (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How long before he asks for the tools back again, and is just handed them back? This solves nothing, and sets a poor example. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No bureaucrat would ever, ever promote me without an RfA... why, are there any you think that would, after all this? Majorly ^talk 21:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) as he gave them up "under a cloud" he would have to get Arbcom and/or RfA before getting them back.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But as I suggested above to Jehochman, I have no great faith in the system. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from AGK

As both a statement of personal opinion, and a reply to Jehochman (#above), I don't agree that this request should be rejected in favour of having the community attempt to handle the matter.

The Arbitration Committee continues to be the sole body for handling matters concerning misuse of administrator tools, or poor conduct by an administrator. The community has no process in place to handle such matter.

Having Majorly sit a second RfA may be an option, but that he has not pursued that course of action to date (note: this is a long-running matter; there has been plenty of opportunities for him to do so) suggests to me that deferring a hearing by the committee in the hope that he may open a "self-re-confirmation RfA" on himself is unlikely. Furthermore, it's probably not appropriate: this matter has now reached the stage where by it is having a profound negative impact on the community's smooth operation; it's time for the committee to step in here and settle the matter.

At Jennavecia: I think there is a sufficient volume of evidence available to date (for reference: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Majorly‎, with which you have of course already been involved) to warrant the Committee hearing this case. Rejecting this request at this point in time wouldn't make sense. This matter won't be rushed: there will be plenty of time, and more, for the presentation and consideration of evidence on Majorly.

Recommending acceptance, Anthøny ✉ 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The main issue here seems to be with Majorly's fitness (specifically, suggested lack of) to operate as an administrator, rather than with editorial conduct. Further to his resignation as an administrator (request, removal log), these issues are naturally moot.

The remaining issue is whether the committee sees it necessary to accept this case to hear the matter of complaints regarding Majorly's conduct, or to clarify any issues over his resigning "under a cloud." I'm inclined to say that a case is not necessary: there are no conduct issues which warrant a committee hearing (as the concerns are solely over editorial status, and not regarding administrator conduct, the committee is no longer the sole forum for addressing the concerns; as such, the community should now tackle them). Furthermore, it would be more practical to simply reject this case, with a note from the arbitrators clarifying that Majorly resigned "under a cloud." This should be sufficient clarification for future reference.

Recommending rejection, Anthøny ✉ 21:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• For MBisanz: remember, the committee is not (in theory) bound by precedent. Citing previous cases as justifications for statements such as "Majorly's improper block of X is unacceptable per <previous arbitration case>" is not how arbitration is (supposed to) operate; we take things on a case-by-case basis, and decide for that case only whether the behaviour in question is a "net harm" to the project. Just a reminder, Anthøny ✉ 21:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rdsmith4

I think I can speak for the bureaucrats (though I'd certainly be interested to hear from any who disagree with me) when I say that we are not at the moment willing to render an opinion as to whether the community wants someone to be desysopped. Until a formal procedure, analogous to RFA, exists for fairly and openly gathering opinions over a fixed period of time, we will have no clear way of figuring out what the community thinks, and so any decisions we might make will be speculative at best. For the moment, this is a matter for the Arbitration Committee to consider.

I would, however, be very pleased to see the Arbitration Committee interpret the results of this RFC, which would be a step towards making RFC useful. It might even make RFC a way for members of the community to request that someone be desysopped. — Dan | talk 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by D.M.N.

I'll have a quick say. Most of the diffs presented at the RFC looked worrying for an editor of this stature, with worrying behaviour spanning over several months in several different areas on Wikipedia. Majorly seems to disrupt Wikipedia via a range of techniques even if it is not his full intention, whether it's edit-warring or whether it's getting off-topic at RfA. "Why are bananas yellow" will not affect how a user is an administrator, and thus, I believe, questions like that are there to disrupt the RfA. Some of the opposes at RfA also look incredibly bitey and seem like a point is trying to be made. I would also be happy to see ArbCom take action here. D.M.N. (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Moot now. D.M.N. (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

I would urge the Committee to accept this matter, for several reason. First, my viewpoint at RfC, which failed to demand Majorly step down has received less support than many of the other viewpoints which do call for him to stand down, despite it being one of the earlier viewpoints filed. While this may not be clear and convincing evidence in and of itself, it still shows to me a strongly discernible movement of the community's view.

Additionally, as the allegations at RfC have rather conclusively shown behavior similar to that which has led to prior desysoppings, namely the release of East718's private data from deleted contributions (RFAR/Everyking), the improper block of Badger Drink (RFAR/Tango, RFAR/Matthew Hoffman, RFAR/R. fiend), and operating several undisclosed alternate accounts and IP addresses in a deceptive manner (RFAR/Husnock, RFAR/Eyrian, RFAR/NSLE, RFAR/Archtransit, RFAR/JoshuaZ, RFAR/Runcorn), and given Majorly's highly questionable behavior (attempting to close the RfC early, the continued tendentious editing, etc), I believe it is now the proper time for the Arbitration Committee to become involved in the matter. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In light of Majorly's updated statement, and pending the actual removal by the Stewards, I suggest the matter is resolved and that intervention by the Arbitration Committee is no longer required. MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

<Sigh> by Thatcher

From filing to desysopping in less time than it took me to drink a diet coke. Was all this hullabaloo really necessary? Thatcher 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, and I apologised above for wasting people's time. Majorly ^talk 21:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

<Sigh> by Sticky

Honestly, not more drawing attention to oneself. If it wasn't so easy to respond, everyone should probably just ignore and let Majorly get down to Heaven, hit the dancefloor or whatever he needs to do to truly fulfill himself and get what he needs. Sticky Parkin 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry, just come back from a meal out. I'm sorry to hear Majorly's said he'll resign his bit, that wasn't needed for the best outcome IMHO, but then I feel like I remember the old Majorly. Sticky Parkin 22:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse, due to prior involvement with Majorly and the matter of Majorly's conduct. Anthøny ✉ 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/5/0/0)

• Accept, I think the Committee can help sort out this matter. I think that it would be extremely problematic to have two groups of users (ArbCom and 'crats) deciding whether of not to do desyops for the same situation. ArbCom is the appropriate venue. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no need to rush. And given the Committtee's recent pace, rushing is unlikely. But I would like to accept the case and get the ball rolling about whether a desysop or other sanctions are needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Having a single 'crat read consensus to desysop an admin is not a good approach. Jehochman, please reconsider pushing this approach in this instance. I'm open to changing the process, but doing so during an active situation will make it more about the individual admin rather than making best policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Majorly now requests a desysop with the understanding that it was "under a cloud" and a RFA is needed, then no case is needed at this time so reject. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Accept, but as per FloNight no need to rush things; plenty of time for others to submit evidence. Jehochman: there's currently no way for the community to desysop anyone. If people are seriously questioning someone's adminship, it has to come to us eventually, unless the individual in question voluntarily requests desysop on themselves. That being said, if further community processes can be helpful I'd like to see them continue. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• In the light of Majorly voluntarily relinquishing the status of administrator, there is no issue to arbitrate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Decline as moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. Moot. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Decline, per above. After Majorly stepped back, he understands this is "under a cloud" and have to go through RfA if he wishes to apply for adminship. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Georgewilliamherbert

Initiated by Moreschi (talk) at 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• arguably Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[2] [3] [4]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[5]

Statement by Moreschi

As you can see from the ANI thread, Georgewilliamherbert made an appalling, awful block of Giano for a comment that had I made, no one would blink an eyelid. Even from Giano, no one apart from George did blink an eyelid. All Giano said was "Stifle is trolling", which was arguably correct, and even if not so, hardly incivil. Massive community consensus to overturn the block, and what does George do? Puts some massive self-justifying screed on ANI (and Giano's talk) about how he's right while the rest of us humble peons are wrong.

Given that GWH has spotty history with the block button [6] [7] [8] and [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] I think this merits a couple of months off from the admin buttons. Think of it as relaxing vacation so he can re-evaluate his performance. He's not a bad guy, just seems to be a bit out of touch. Moreschi (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, RFC would be useless for temporary desysopping, arbcom being the only body that can do this, and I think it would be useless anyway, seeing as everyone's already told him he's wrong at ANI and he didn't listen. And he's still not listening. I see no need to open a full case: the evidence is not complex. A simple vote on this page should suffice. Moreschi (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anything drastic. Just a couple months away from the tools to think about things, because he is making bad blocks while not making really very many blocks. Moreschi (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Another particularly bad civility block seems to be the block of Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one comment, not directed at any one individual made in response to clear baiting at, [15]. Why that one was not overturned I don't know. All of these are comparatively recent, too. The ANI thread for this one is linked to above. Moreschi (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• As a further note: I'd be surprised if there's really a need for a Stifle RFAR, although I actually overturned (to which Stifle, to his credit, did not object) a very dodgy "personal attacks" block of Paul Barlow (talk · contribs) he made recently. There are two issues here, only one of which is for arbcom to resolve: "incivility blocks" and GWH's judgment. The latter is within your purview, guys - the former is more important, but that we will simply have to sort out ourselves. Essentially, WP:CIVIL needs to be rewritten, but that's the community's task. Moreschi (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've written up an alternative at User:Moreschi/Alternative Civility Policy. Share and enjoy. Moreschi (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

I believe that this is premature, as ANI and talk page discussion is still active and (in my opinion) fruitful for all parties, but will respond for the record.

My comment on ANI this morning was this one.

I stand by that statement . Before blocking, I reviewed Giano's complete contributions in that thread, other contributions recently, and the thread context on AN ( [16] ) regarding Stifle's block of Peter Damian.

This revolves around three issues:

1. Giano making uncivil edits.
2. Giano is under prior Arbcom sanction and warnings for incivility and personal attacks (IRC case, Geogre/Wm Connelly case, older cases).
3. Giano is a longstandinding but controverisal member of the community.

My review of the situation before blocking indicated that, in my opinion, Giano was being uncivil and making personal attacks in thread. I also believe that Giano was more uncivil in that thread than the other participants by a noticeable degree. A number of administrators have chimed in that he was not uncivil, or not particularly uncivil, or it was uncivil but the discussion was generally somewhat uncivil and it was not outstandingly so. I reviewed it this morning and I still believe that it was uncivil (and not merely strongly worded opinion), was particularly uncivil and was sustained over time, and was noticably worse than the other commenters.

There was some comment that I might be attempting to restrict Giano's contributions in the thread on Stifle's use of the administrator tools. For the record, I had not participated in the discussion or formed an opinion on the issues previously, and in the course of reviewing his contributions last night I formed an opinion. That opinion is that I agree with Giano's basic premise that there was a mistaken use of the tools on Stifle's part. I concluded that his contributions were uncivil despite agreeing with them in principle.

I was reluctant to do this block, because anything touching Giano has been consistently highly dramatic over time. However, I have a strong opinion that the level of incivility in some forums is highly unhelpful to the project, and I have been working to try and minimize that, using all the appropriate and available tools (polite requests, warnings, and some blocks). I reluctantly concluded that Giano has been adequately asked and warned, and that per his extensive prior history he tends to escalate uncivil behavior once it gets started in a particular thread. I blocked to prevent that, for a short period of time, and tried to engage him on his talk page in a discussion about the ongoing corrosive effects that his incivility has on the project.

Moreschi is correct that I have been critical of many other admins on the ANI thread, though I hope it's been civil. We all need to take incivility seriously. It's horrendously bad for the project - it drives nonconfrontational editors away from pages, away from policymaking, away from participation in the community at all. Giano is, unfortunately, both a longstanding extremely positive contributor to the project, and with about 1% of his edits the poster child for incivility on Wikipedia. I believe that politely but firmly confronting this is both appropriate and regrettably necessary.

I would urge that the ANI and talk page threads be allowed to run for a while before this case is taken up. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(addendum) I have reviewed Jehochman and MastCell's comments on ANI in thread, and Jehochman's below, that civility paroles and blocks may simply not work, and I am troubled by the possibility that they might be correct. I think that this is an important point to have discussed in detail (somewhere - ANI, wherever). If they don't work they should not be part of the standard administrator toolkit of responses... and if they don't work in specific cases with specific offenders, they should be taken off the table explicitly. I am not convinced, but concerned on the point... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(addendum 2) Responding to a couple of the comments below - regarding the particulars of what I did here"

1. I was not on IRC (and as a rule am not, my current workplace has a firewall which doesn't pass the traffic out) and not part of the group of people who are usually involved there, as far as I know. If there are lingering issues with the IRC / administrator interactions that's fine, but please keep that separate from what happened here.
2. I wasn't involved in (and hadn't previously read) the AN thread which I blocked over, and wasn't trying to goad or encourage followup sanctions, both because that's rude and abusive and because I read the most recent prior arbcom case decision and am aware that that sort of behavior is currently appropriately a focus of attention. I did civilly try to discuss the events with Giano (after the block) and had no intention of continuing to engage if it was just provoking things.

It's clear that this incident has inadvertently held up a mirror and a lot of things look uglier than we want them to. If there's a decision to examine those issues then that makes sense - I just don't want anyone under a misaprehension that this particular thing happened because of an IRC clique or because I was stalking Giano and trying to goad him or something crazy like that. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

This case is premature to say the least. Yup, GWH made a big mistake today, and has done on a couple of occasions when using the block button, but he's had no opportunity for real communal feedback into the use of his tools. I'd go as far to say that an RfC would even be premature at this point in time. George has had his feedback for the day in a large AN/I thread. Compared to some other admins, George's misconduct has been extremely minor, and the only reason why there's any aura about this is because the recipitent of the block was Giano. GWH has no hostory of blocks of Giano, and made a good faith mistake when blocking - if there's more evidence than Moreschi has already provided then perhaps an RfC would be the right way to go, but certainly they don't need escalating to this level at the minute - remember, arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, not the first. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jehochman

I respectfully request the Committee to review the use of Civility restriction type editing restrictions. In my experience these remedies do not create the desired result, but perhaps a scientific review of past cases may reflect otherwise. Perhaps a different approach would be more fruitful. The present case illustrates the problem that editors under civility restriction become second class citizens, and are subject to improper blocks which make their civility challenges worse, rather than better. The net result is harm to the encyclopedia. I am thinking about User:Giano II, User:ScienceApologist and User:DreamGuy as recent examples of productive contributors who have been turned into virtual punching bags.

Civility is subjective. With 1000+ admins, if an editor makes a critical statement, at least a few admins will see some sort of incivility. The fact that we have editors from around the world, many who do not speak English as their first language, many from different cultures that have different norms of civility, only makes the problem harder. If a statement has a purpose that is connected with improving the encyclopedia, we should assume good faith and read the statement in a favorable light, if possible. These civility restrictions appear to be a license for assuming bad faith. This situation needs to be reviewed, across the board.

The problem is not the civility policy; it may be that ArbCom has placed sanctions that severely alter the policy by making borderline incivility a blockable offense. Consider removing these sanctions, and letting the community deal with all users the same way. For incivility, except in egregious cases, blocking is normally the wrong response and is not tolerated by the community.

ArbCom would do well to inform administrators that it is not okay to block and then let the community decide if the block is acceptable. Users are real people with feelings who should not be experimented upon. Unless an administrator is confident that a block is proper and will withstand scrutiny, they should not do it. When in doubt, ask for comments first. Borderline incivility is less of a problem than trigger-happy sysops blocking good faith users. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Durova

Procedurally inadequate RFAR: no attempt at formal dispute resolution, not an emergency situation. Durova^Charge! 21:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Coren

First, a point of fact: Stifle did not block Peter Damian, I did.

Secondly, I don't think this is anywhere near the purview of the Committee; this is little but a stubbornness dispute that has not degenerated into wheel warring and does not require emergency intervention. — Coren ^(talk) 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John254

I would suggest that this case be accepted to examine Stifle's egregiously inappropriate and premature AFD nomination of Epistemic theory of miracles, which resulted in Peter Damian (talk · contribs) leaving the project in disgust, as described at [17], and precipitated this conflict. Despite the fact that serious concerns regarding the AFD were raised at WP:AN, Stifle has maintained the legitimacy of the nomination, refuses to promise to refrain from further nominations of this nature, and indeed blames Peter Damian for starting an article in the main namespace [18]! While there may be no prior formal dispute resolution with respect to this matter, how many valuable content contributors should Stifle be permitted to drive off the project before his behavior is examined by this committee? John254 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Bishonen

Civility parole does not mean "not permitted to state opinions on ANI" as far as I know. Giano's comments were not uncivil, they were strongly worded, which was appropriate to the subject of Stifle's actions (which as John254 points out, actually were "horrendously bad for the project"). Dear me. Georgewilliamherbert insists that everybody must speak the same way—namely, as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouths—or else be blocked. That's an outlandish view of our interaction here. At the very, very least he should have taken it to WP:AE for discussion before pushing the button. Disband the civility police now! To the committee: this is to be expected when you institute a remedy that says any admin gets to block the supposed "poster child for incivility". Bishonen | talk 21:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC).

Comment from JzG

It is time to summon the cabal. All those here who are interested in this case, we need to get together and come up with a civility guideline that actually works. Continually blocking Giano is becoming farcical - and also rather binary, since either the admin openly invites review (in which case it's speedily reversed) or they don't, in which case we have another drawn-out dramafest.

I have said this before. If we cannot write a guideline that Giano, whose commitment to the project is beyond question, can agree to and get behind then we should simply forget the whole concept as unworkable. There appears to be no proper attempt to mentor, no intervention with others who may not understand that Giano is not only not American but does not have English as a first language (which is remarkable given the quality of his writing but is an important consideration in the context of informal speech). All we have is an endless spectacle of people making fools of themselves and Bish running interference for Giano. We need a better way than the block-unblock-drama cycle. And to e clear I don't blame GWH here, it could have been any of several dozen others and I think it was a block made in good faith based on a poorly worded or poorly conceived policy.

So: a working party with the interested individuals here, and the Geogre, and anyone else who feels strongly about it, to propose something that might (unlike the current endless iterations of GAAAAAHHHHH!) work. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, just to be clear here: when I say "running interference" I mean that in the sense of a fighter escort, heading off those who would prevent Giano from dropping his payload of encyclopaedic content on the heart of Wikipedia, striking another blow for free content. Or something. I am crap at metaphors, sorry. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Mr. IP

I would "respectfully request" that the Arbitration Committee summarily remove the civility restrictions on Giano and abandon the practice of fettering useful editors with vague and troublesome sanctions. These civility impositions have been nothing but a drama sink, and it's clear they do nothing but waste all our time. I refuse to believe that Giano's persistent low-level sauciness, always aimed at established users who should be able to handle it, is some kind of threat to the project. This whole affair has been by turns silly and sad. It is no wonder that the ArbCom so frequently finds itself a victim of his barbs — I mean, what's next, house arrest? We need to learn from this mistake and adopt better practices forthwith. "Civility restrictions" have been a joke in every instance. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved Horologium

Hmmmm, once again we have a perceived civility issue with Giano on Wikipedia space pages. I'm unwilling to trawl through the rather impressive block log to check, but if I am not mistaken, Giano's blocks are all related to Wikipedia space, not article space (or templates, or userspace, or images). Obviously the civility restriction is not working, and I don't think anyone wants Giano to leave, but I'd like to make a suggestion that Giano consider reducing his involvement in project space, where his interaction with editors with whom he disagrees tends to be contentious. By now, I think just about everyone is aware that Giano does not like IRC or the Arbitration committee, but neither of those institutions are likely to go away, and if Giano directed his expenditures arguing against them to creating the featured content he has consistently demonstrated he is capable of creating, Wikipedia will be the better for it. Horologium (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved S. Dean Jameson

This is my last post before my wikibreak. I was concerned about Gwh's block of Giano even simply on its face. It was a patently bad block, based on evidence that couldn't even really be described as thready. After seeing Gwh's complete unwillingness to admit it was a terrible block, and discovering his track record of making quite awful blocks, I think this may well rise to the level of needing attention from the arbitration committee. We need less drama, not more, and Gwh is fostering drama with his bad blocks. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 01:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Tom harrison

Come on, do we have to keep doing this? I urge arbcom to take the case and simply issue a finding that no one may block Giano. Maybe we can get the developers to write it into the software. Whatever, let's move on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I can think of at least 2 recent occasions where I've growled (or wanted to growl) at George for his admin actions. But instead of coming here as a first resort, it should've been looked into and then taken to RFC so he has a chance (he does appear to have acted in good faith - which can be infuriating - and was for myself). There's no case.

Civility parole can work so it shouldn't be abandoned as a remedy - it's just not going to work in certain cases like this one. But Horologium does have a point, and it is a strange irony that a lot of poor decisions are made (even by myself in the past) when it comes to Giano's conduct on Wikipedia space, or attempting to discuss Giano's conduct. (And until now, I could not think of any alternative to civility parole.)

It comes back to a thought the the Committee really need to consider & possibly work on themselves - so far proscriptive measures have been tried and failed. Per Guy, this is an occasion where the time should be taken to make something more prescriptive. This is also an occasion where NYB (and even FT2) could really help, and where I'd support that sort of writing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved Chillum

I don't think enough effort in regards to dispute resolution has been taken to justify arbcom at this point. It was a judgment call, policy does not require that a personal attack reach a certain level of egregiousness before a block can be placed but rather focuses on prevention. It says "A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks", in this case I would say this was relevant. While people may have disagreed with the block after the fact, it was not contrary to policy and was within the realm of discretion. Policy makes a clear statement that ongoing personal attacks(rather than just egregious) can lead to a block because that is what the community wants. Chillum 03:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Giano

Seeing as Ryan, Chillum and the usual "uninvolveds" have already picked up their knitting and settled themselves into their front seats in the peanut gallery up above, I may as well make a statement too.

In February of this year a group of Arbs namely (FloNight, Deskana, UninvitedCompany, Kirill Lokshin,Sam Blacketer, Morven and Jpgordon) placed this sanction [19] upon me. This was not because I had been hurtling about referring to other editors as "Bastard bitches from hell" "Fucking bastards" etc and other choice expressions used by some of my peers, but because I had become widely known for pointing out the shortcomings of the project - and most worryingly to the Arbcom, I seemed to have quite a lot of editors who supported my views - and still do. The Arbcom knew at the time of passing the motion that certain admins would use the sanction to ensure Wikipedia censorship - in fact, there is no alternative explanation, but to believe this was the Arbcom's intention - it has undeniably been the result, and as a consequence , "civility" is now used as a weapon by those in authority for silencing dissent. This is a bad state of affairs, and those members of the Arbcom who passed the sanction upon me have to shoulder some responsibility for this deplorable state of affairs. I think those that chose to become Arbs have to expect some criticism and take it on the chin, and not exact personal vengeance.[20]

While as usual (when I am within a mile of a case) the Arbs are voting before half the statements have been made, I don't much care what happens to Georgewilliamherbert, to pursue one bad admin and ignore the hundred of others seems rather a waste of valuable time, which could be spent addressing the real issues here - namely the use of "civility" as a weapon and the Arbcom's role in creating this situation. Towards that subject, some Admins, I am particularly thinking of those such as Stifle would do well to remember that civility isn't just what you say, it's what you do.

I seldom use the word troll, for the reasons explained here [21] so when I do use it - it is with the correct form and meaning. That is not being uncivil - it is using it for the good of the project. Giano (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Stifle

For the record:

• On new page patrol, I prodded an article that I thought should be deleted
• Peter Damian deprodded the article
• I nominated it for AFD
• Peter Damian repeatedly removed the AFD notice, which is not the correct procedure. I readded it, stopping before I breached 3RR
• I left some warnings on Peter Daniel's page
• Peter Damian became increasingly uncivil, an AN thread was opened, and I asked for an uninvolved administrator to review whether Peter Damian should be blocked for WP:NPA
• Coren blocked Peter Damian for 31 hours, before reducing the block to time served after 8 hours arising from the AN discussion.

As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed.

I think that I remained civil at all times and I don't think I was trolling, and while I didn't think I was wrong to make the AFD nomination, it appears that the community feels otherwise, and I accept that decision and apologize that my actions led to this. I also don't care about being called a troll. Regarding the overall issue, someone blocked Giano (as many, including I, have done), someone unblocked him (as many have done), and we've been through the mill on this very recently. An RFAR here would really not improve anything and I hope the ArbCom declines the request. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just read over the AN thread (which I thought had closed and was not following) and wish to strengthen the above. I apologize for my actions in this matter and will try to be less short-sighted in future. Hopefully we can move on. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and mine offered also in return. Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I will volunteer to work on the NPP discussion contemplated by Newyorkbrad below. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Physchim62

Come on everyone, summer's over, time to get back to work, let's not be silly here. I suggest trouts at dawn for WMH and Moreschi as an appropriate remedy for their respective actions. What right have administrators to expect other users to use dispute resolution if they are (both of them in this case) taking such knee-jerk reactions to bypass it? Physchim62 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved Mayalld

This looks like drama for the sake of drama!

Was the block bad?

No, I don't believe that is was bad

Was it borderline?

Yes, I believe that it was borderline, but it was a good faith action, and doesn't show any serious lack of judgement, merely a "grey area" view.

GWH blocked, and invited overturning, which happened. He has explained his views, not to argue for the block to be re-instated, but to explain why he did what he did, and his response merely emphasises in my mind that this was a good faith action in a grey area. I urge that Arbcom reject it withour further ado. Mayalld (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

I note John254's statement about Stifle's attempt to delete Epistemic theory of miracles. This is a battle I fought several times back in the day when I used to participate at AfD. I had seen several potentially good articles tagged for CSD within minutes, sometimes seconds, of their creation. If the CSD was declined, the article was tagged for prod or AfD, often when it had been live less than an hour. I asked, if an article does not meet standards after the first edit, why couldn't we check articles after 24 hours to see if they had been expanded? I was told that would be too inconvenient for the recent change patrol. Or I was told that people should write articles in user space and only move them when they were perfect. When I objected that new editors would not know this, and that trying to delete good faith attempts to write an article would drive them away, I was told that the editors were only here to write one article and would not stay anyway. I have seen Peter Damian in this case be criticized for not creating the article in user space first, and for using {{in use}} when he should have used {{under construction}}. This kind of aggressive behavior is why I don't hang out at DRV any more.

I took a course in college on the philosophy of science. One of the arguments was that miracles were, by definition, outside the laws of nature and hence not subject to scientific investigation. The epistemic theory of miracles is an interesting counterpoint to that, which I do not remember from class (although I did have senioritis and got a D) but find quite interesting. Here is the version of Epistemic theory of miracles that existed just before it was prodded. To get from there to here required failures at multiple points. I'm not sure it's fixable by arbcom, and I suppose things aren't necessarily worse than 2 years ago, but they obviously aren't better. Thatcher 14:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

One way to fix it would be the concept of trusted or 'established' editors or whatever, that RC patrol or whatever know not to bother. Any problems with the contribution of such editors would be addressed by different means. This method is already informally established here already (this is the first time I have been bothered by RC, but it is a growing menace). In a perfect world, I would abolish IP anon contributions. The principle of 'anyone can edit' has already long since been abandoned (in favour of 'no one can edit', it seems), so why not formally recognise that also. Then a large class of people working here can turn their skills to the real business of writing an encyclopedia. Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by involved Peter Damian

Stifle has apologised and I have apologised back, so that is the end of that particular incident. But the issue underlying it is not over. The community is tearing itself apart and we need to discuss and agree the reasons why that is happening, and think of practically addressing them. In summary, I would like a chance to think about this and comment here later. Is that possible? I am tied up with work for a few more days. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Except to say, for now, it would be grossly punitive to take this out on User:Stifle, or any of the participants in this particular incident. Now, back to creating an encyclopedia. Peter Damian (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Nsk92

I have no opinion on the Giano episode as I am not familiar with the prior history here. However, I think that the general issue of aggressive AfD tagging raised by John254 and by Thatcher is simply not suitable for arbitration. It is a matter needing a policy solution where no real consensus in the community appears to exist as yet (and where, in any case, it would not be appropriate for ArbCom to venture into the legislating arena). I'll comment on this issue, especially since Thatcher's statement was brought up by bainer as a reason to accept the case.

Personally, I share many of the frustrations expressed by John254 and Thatcher regarding NPP and a bit of a bloodsport atmosphere there where there seems to be a bit of a competition regarding who will CSD or AfD a new article first. I personally think that CSD criteria should be followed literally and conservatively and that an article should not be nominated for an AfD without doing a few quick google searches (googlebooks, googlescholar, googlenews) first to see if the subject is notable and if an article is salvageable. I have opposed people in RFAs for not doing that. Overly quick and aggressive CSD/AfD does drive away many new editors and does result in deletions of potentially valuable articles (especially if there is a tag on the article stating that it is undergoing a substantial revision). But, in all fairness, there is another side of the coin and ultimately more of the blame rests with somebody who creates an unreferenced WP:OR-filled article and leaves it in this form for others to clean up (which often means forever or for several years before an article is improved or deleted). We have thousands of articles like that and they do real harm to the project too. It is a perfectly sound advice not to use the WP mainspace as garage area and to develop a minimally passable (not perfect!) version of an article in one's user space first before posting it to mainspace. It is also true that the practical limitations of WP:NPP, with dozens of new WP articles being created every minute, are such that if an article is not tagged quickly, it will probably not be tagged for quite a long time even if the article does clearly deserve deletion. So we do have a difficult problem here that does not have easy solutions. There is real harm both in overly quick and aggressive AfD tagging and in allowing thousands of poorly written unreferenced articles slip past WP:NPP and then remain in a thoroughly unsatisfactory state for years; and it is not very clear which practice does more harm. At the moment neither practice is considered disruptive and both are tolerated by the de facto community consensus (although the latter, arguably, goes more against the existing policies than the former). Some kind of new ideas are needed here but it is not for ArbCom to do that. The community needs to get its act together and come up with some better solutions.

It could be that some small technological fixes can go a long way here. For example, when a new article is submitted, there is a warning displayed at the submit page which says that all the info must be verifiable and that otherwise it can be deleted or removed. Maybe one can make these warnings five times bigger and write them in huge flashing red letters so that even new editors would pay attention.

Maybe more draconian measures in terms of enforcing WP:V (which, at the moment, is interpreted and enforced rather liberally) are needed, such as, for example, creating a new CSD category for unreferenced articles or changing the deletion policy to list the absence of references a valid reason for an AfD nomination.

Or maybe, on the contrary, one could institute a rule that new articles are ineligible for an AfD listing for at least 24 hours from the time of their creation, unless they qualify for CSD tagging.

I don't know what is best here and I don't think there is any real consensus in the community for the moment on how to deal with this problem. It would not be appropriate for ArbCom to start punishing people in this regard or to try to find a policy solution of its own. Nsk92 (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Barneca

Suggest three courses of action:

• Void Giano's civility parole (and that of anyone else subjected to something similar) as not working and only making things worse. Instead of saying you won't do it in the future, if it isn't working, nuke it.
• Have Giano write a new WP:CIVIL. I'm dead serious. In addition to being extraordinarily excitable, he's also intellegent, a great writer, cares deeply about Wikipedia, and has been "exposed" to the current version of WP:CIVIL more than most. Have him come up with something that he would be happy to follow, and would be happy to have every other editor follow. Odds are that he'll find it harder than he thinks, but they're also fairly good that when he's done, it will be a good policy, and odds are really, really good that it will at least be better than the gameable thing we have now.
• On a cursory glance, there appear to be some valid concerns over a number of GWH's blocks. I'm unclear if the pattern behind these blocks has been pointed out to GWH before or not. If it has not, suggest declining an RFAR as premature for now, encouraging an RFC instead. It would be sporting if GWH voluntarily offered to avoid blocking anyone until the RFC was over. If, at the end of an RFC, the same concerns occur over any future block, then someone can file an RFAR. If the pattern has already been discussed with him before, suggest accepting. --barneca (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Protonk (talk)

I have started an RFC regarding some of the main questions raised by the ArbComm. It is available at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Civility restriction RFC. Hopefully this will allow the community, rather than the committee, to answer the policy questions and leave the conduct questions for the ArbComm. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from MastCell

You know, I actually feel sorry for Georgewilliamherbert. He was sort of entrapped, if you think about it. The Committee enacted a "civility parole": 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. GWH judged that Giano had made such an edit and applied the Committee's favored remedy. It's easy enough to lay into GWH, because he did make a poor decision, but it may be more productive to move past the assignment of individual blame and look at the root-cause systemic issue here: civility parole.

For the record, I think:

• Giano's comment was not especially uncivil and certainly not blockworthy;
• GWH has made several poor "civility" blocks recently, most or all of which were overturned;
• GWH specifically exercised poor judgement in this episode, in that this block was very predictably controversial yet he made it without prior discussion and immediately before logging off for the evening.

I also think:

• GWH is a thoughtful and well-meaning person who is reflecting on the fallout from this incident and may credibly be expected to learn from it without the Committee's intervention.

Civility parole (or "civility patrol", as one editor Freudianly termed it) creates a situation where people are on high alert and actually seek out incivility to report. Every time Giano, or another sanctioned editor, says anything remotely controversial, people are immediately screening it in their minds: was this "uncivil"? Should I report it? Should I block him? These are not the optimal trains of thought. ScienceApologist is another editor under civility parole. It has made ScienceApologist mad, because of the unavoidably arbitrary and capricious nature of decisions on which comments are "blockable" and which are not. It's made the targets of SA's incivility mad, because they see him occasionally "getting away" with incivility despite the parole. It's lengthened SA's block log and led to several incipient wheel wars. What it hasn't done is make SA more civil, or improve the editing environment in any noticeable way. Personally, I am on strike from "enforcing" any civility-based remedies, as I consider them actively harmful based on available evidence. Other WP:AE regulars haven't joined me on the picket line explicitly, but I do sense that many of them share my reluctance to enforce these remedies.

A wise man once distilled the complex practice of internal medicine into four universal laws:

1. If what you're doing is working, keep doing it.
2. If what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it.
3. If you don't know what to do, don't do anything at all.
4. Never allow a surgeon to make patient-management decisions.

The first three, at least, are widely applicable. Civility parole does not work, and we should stop doing it. Giano's civility parole should be lifted, and we should do nothing else until we figure out a better approach, if any is indeed necessary. I suspect, though I don't know, that removing the bullseye of civility parole from Giano's neck will actually improve the situation all around, because it will mean one less source of drama on Wikipedia. Look at the outcome of this particular contretemps: the "offended party", Stifle, made peace with Giano and moved on. If there were no civility parole, we could have gotten to that desirable endpoint without this most unfortunate detour. This is clear evidence of an instance where civility parole actively hindered effective dispute resolution.

I think that GWH will learn from this, and no one wants another Giano-focused ArbCom case - so if the Committee takes this case, it should be only for the purpose of removing Giano's civility parole and considering the utility of civility paroles in general. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse; peripherally involved. — Coren ^(talk) 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/3/0/3)

• Comment: Haven't decided whether to accept this yet -- would rather it were unnecessary. But regarding civility restrictions, I agree; I'll not be supporting civility "paroles" any more, as I believe they do more harm than good. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• There has been a major failure of common sense. Giano should have written his comments in a way which did not raise any questions about civility. Georgewilliamherbert should have gone to Giano's talk page and pointed that out rather than blocking. WP:TROUTs all round. No arbitration case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• I'm travelling over the holiday weekend and will not have an opportunity to carefully review and cast a vote until Wednesday. However, based on what I've seen so far, my tentative view is to decline in favor of the suggestion that an RfC be opened; I would ask those favoring a case now to explain why that course would be insufficient, if they haven't already addressed that question. I would also urge that blocks that will inherently be controversial, such as a block of an established contributor for a borderline civility infraction in a non-urgent situation, should be brought to a noticeboard for consensus attention before rather than after the block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see my further comments below (posted at bottom for continuity). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. The community has dealt with the specific case and arbitration isn't needed. There's a slight tendency at times by some (not naming any names) to seek desysopping or arbitration committee action (rather than "remedies") for what are in fact, not egregious misuses of the tools or are reasonably construed as good faith mistakes or divergent plausible viewpoints. Not a helpful trend to the community. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment on civility policy - The aim of the policy is to ensure a social contract that all can edit within, and in principle, it works and is a good one. Increasingly it's under strain in a number of high profile cases like this. The valid aims of civility policy are probably these:

1. We rely on volunteers, which requires creating a pleasant working space for them.
2. Users should be able to expect that other users will talk in a respectful manner to them if asked regardless of personal feelings. (Crossref political debates, where people are always referred to with an honorific even if one personally hates their guts.)
3. Users joining Wikipedia or exploring its community should see a standard of general conduct that reflects we are encyclopedists, not school-children having a squabble.
4. Whatever social baseline is chosen should involve mutuality and tend towards the conservative (less likely to offend more people), not just demanding "everyone must accept me however I act".
5. Experienced editors (whether admins or not) are broadly looked to for the crucial role of setting an example, and other editors are broadly expected to adopt it on-site.

Civility is an umbrella we use for these concepts. If the community can draft a successor to civility policy that can help achieve these things without such troublesome borderline cases, then please do. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Accept to review the administrators whose blocks were overturned in this situation. ArbCom is the correct venue for sanctioning administrators for improper use of admin tools. The blocks that were overturned were not newbie admin mistakes that will be easily corrected by input from the Community in a AN thread or a RFC. I would not accept this case unless there is a good likelihood that I would vote for sanctions. If Finding of fact establish repeated poor judgment by these administrators then they need to have sanctions. From my initial review of the incidents, I think that sanctions may be needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I happen to think that blocking these users was a serious misjudgment that should not be brushed aside. Over and over we see admin treating our editors as if they were vandals and blocking them instead of talking with them to hear their side of the situation. ArbCom needs to step in and make it clear that blocking is not an acceptable method of dispute resolution. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(If I may). This gets to the heart of the issue I am concerned with. But how are we going to deal with it? Peter Damian (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Accept, to review the entire chain of events (beginning with the deletion tag edit warring) and those involved. Normally I would reject this for the lack of prior dispute resolution, but I agree with FloNight's observations, and per Moreschi's statement, there may be more to this than the single incident, and it bears further consideration (whatever the final result). Moreover, the attitudes that, at first glance, appear to underly the actions taken here are extremely troubling, and that also warrants broader consideration than would be provided by narrower forms of dispute resolution. --bainer (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have just noticed Thatcher's statement, and I think it a good one. There are cultural issues underlying the actions here. --bainer (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Undecided yet on whether to take this. I agree that there are cultural and systemic issues at stake here, even more so than the conduct of individuals. I increasingly agree that civility restrictions are not working in many cases and we need to find a different way of handling these issues. That way, IMO, cannot involve us throwing our civility standards under the bus. A reasonable level of decorum is expected on Wikipedia, especially from those who have been around long enough to know what's expected. Giano, I don't accept your argument that your incivility is OK because you're only attacking experienced users who should be able to brush it off. It damages the general tone of discourse here, and inexperienced users reading such things won't be able to make the distinction that it's OK for established users to insult other established users, but they can't do it. What I do agree with is that (a) enforcement of civility restrictions is biased, and incivility is often goaded with the aim of getting someone blocked, and (b) much rude behavior from admins and others is tolerated because it doesn't breach our artificial civility rules, but the user getting angry at being so treated is then blocked. I've also long agreed that our deletion procedures and the way we treat new content and new contributors are awful, assume bad faith, and are exceptionally and needlessly aggressive. The excuse of 'Well, we have this firehose of crap to deal with, so we have to be rude to do the job' doesn't, IMO, hold up. There's absolutely no reason why we can't give people, via bot or something, a feed of 24-hour-old or week-old articles, and weed out the crap THEN after people have had the chance to fix it. Or at least, look immediately for the insults and obvious spam and the like and worry about the non-speedy-able stuff a day or a week later. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Georgewilliamherbert's block of Giano II was problematic but we generally do not take a case to review a particular short-term block that was quickly overturned. Here, however, the block raises broader issues about the threshold of civility blocks, particularly of users under related remedies based on decisions of this committee. (The fact that I dissented in part from the governing decision does not change my analysis.) I am persuaded, though not overwhelmingly so, that we should say something about this block, but the key facts appear to be before us without the need to develop a further evidentiary record over a week or more, and I do not believe that the so-called "drama" that would be associated with another case concerning a "Giano block" would be helpful. Separately from the validity of the block, several of the comments above, including those of Thatcher and Morven, raise an important issue but one that probably is not susceptible to resolution by a decision of this committee, save for a precatory one. Under the circumstances, in lieu of voting to accept a full-fledged, arbitration case, I offer a motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Decline as unlikely to produce any useful outcome. (For the inordinately curious, further comments at some length can be found below.) Kirill ^(prof) 01:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Accept. Some people are just being uncivil for no particular reason. It is not the case with Giano and Peter Damian. It seems clearly that their incivility issue is a result of some other more important issues. Civility can be nothing compared to those issues... IRC and some unwarranted admins' aggressive stance and style. This has probably nothing to do with Georgewilliamherbert who could have gone to Giano's talk page at least and see if he could fix the problem otherwise. Ok, now, Fuck both IRC and incivility (this is uncivil in my small village and I am just saying it here for the sake of argument)... Many troubles come from IRC. I personally do not recognize decisions being made there and consider that parasitism. In a nutshell, incivility is less a problem compared to some partisan decisions being made there or to some aggressive admin interventions. I suggest that the ArbCom keep the civility restrictions to counter unwarranted civility issues BUT rule out decisions made on IRC and address the admin way of intervening. Otherwise, the restrictions should be lifted. We cannot maintain civility paroles while closing our eyes when it comes to the roots of the problem. They serve for nothing but to worsen situations. Fortunately, the Peter Damian/Stifle incident has been solved in a very appropriate way but would that be enough? Not really. That is why I am accepting this case. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Motion

In lieu of opening a formal case relating to this request, it is resolved as follows:

(A) The Arbitration Committee finds that the block of Giano II by User:Georgewilliamherbert on September 1, 2008 was not substantially justified, either by Wikipedia's policies calling for civility and the avoidance of personal attacks, or in enforcement of this committee's decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC. Georgewilliamherbert is strongly urged to refrain from taking administrator actions relating to Giano II in the future.

(B) Administrators are reminded that when considering a block that is likely to be controversial, in the absence of emergency situations and particularly when the decision whether to block could be considered a close or "borderline" one, it will often be best to raise the matter for discussion on ANI or the arbitration enforcement noticeboard for discussion and consensus rather than to act unilaterally.

(C) The Arbitration Committee notes with concern comments that the newpage-patrol process has too often resulted in the deletion, or prodding or nomination for deletion, of newly created articles where the creator may not have had a full opportunity to finish creating the contemplated article or to ensure that it satisfies our criteria for notability and inclusion. The work of newpage patrollers and others participating in the review and deletion processes is valued, but this work should be performed in a fashion that does not deter further contributions, either by experienced editors and particularly by new ones. The committee recommends that a centralized discussion be convened to address how our performance can be improved in this area, taking into accounts the comments made in connection with this request.

As there are currently 12 active arbitrators, a majority is 7.

Support:

1. Proposed. See general comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Due to Georgewilliamherbert's comments on this request, I oppose since I do not think a warning is enough to get his attention. Blocking should rarely be used against Wikipedia editors. When users have a sanction against them, it is going to be one of the few instance when I think a block should be considered on users. But it always needs to be a last resort to stop a serious problem during an active incident. That simply was not the case in this situation. I do not see more harm coming from Giano's comments then others in the discussion. And in this incident, I'm at a loss to see how blocking Giano was going to do anything to help the Project. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
2. (B) basically guts our traditional "any administrator" model of sanctions; I don't think that's a useful step to take until we have something else to use. Kirill ^(prof) 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   We can put the question separately on the three sub-parts if desired. It looks like this request is going to be rejected as a full case under the "net 4" rule, and I would like to get at least some result out of the discussion, which has touched on some important points. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Unless IRC issues are included and addressed. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Clarifications and other requests

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.