Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Closed at the Committee's request, motions 1, 3A, and 4 passing. Others rendered moot by 3A. — Coren (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remedy 1 amended by successful motion. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modified by motion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: re SlimVirgin

Initiated by FT2 (Talk | email) at 19:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

SlimVirgin (and noting explanation).

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1/ Other venues are unlikely to resolve the issue. 2/ Relates to disruption of Arbitration process.

Statement by FT2

This case relates to a serious misuse of administrator access by user:SlimVirgin, who improperly overturned a case on the Arbitration Enforcement page. It is likely that the community will be best served by motion, and not full case, since the matter is relatively simple, is already an Arbitration matter, does not need extensive evidence or citations, and the community will benefit from a quick decision.

  • permanent link to relevant Arbitration Enforcement page

A user (we know who, not relevant here) was blocked at Arbitration Enforcement for multiple well-documented breaches of an arbitration ruling. They had previously been warned by multiple administrators, the conduct was egregious, and wilful, and ongoing.

Due to the risk of mishandling by administrators, the block notice ended with a clear restatement of the header at Arbitration Enforcement. These are the exact same conditions that apply to every other case that reaches AE [emphasis in original]:

Other administrators should note as stated on the page header:
"ArbCom has already decided that certain types of behavior are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur. The question here is whether that prohibition was breached."

It also reminded administrators [emphasis in original]:

This page is not to open any question of past rulings, but purely to consider whether the Arbitration restriction is breached:
"Should [the user] make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, [the user] may be blocked"

The majority, and probably all, of the above diffs appear to me to be uncivil, personal attacks, or bad faith made by [the user]. This thread is in case any administrator feels that the above posts are not uncivil, do not show bad faith, or that [the user] was not warned and previously aware. That is the sole question for this page.

After some discussion, SlimVirgin (who has not participated in the dialog to that point) unilaterally unblocked stating: I've unblocked in part because this is more of the humourless self-importance that caused the previous block, and in part because these IRC blocks of [user] have to stop.

Arbitration enforcement:

Arbitration enforcement is not a matter of "dispute resolution", as stated on the page nutshell itself. ("It is not part of dispute resolution... It is... purely to compare a user's actions to any ruling that may apply to them...") It is an integral part of the arbitration process that a decision is already made, and the only issue for debate is to determine if there was a violation.

Arbitration Enforcement is consensus driven only to the extent of deciding whether the user violated their ruling. The view that it had been violated and the resulting block, were endorsed by a wide range of users/administrators. Three administrators had seen fit independently to warn beforehand over the past 48 hours of likely violations (Georgewilliamherbert [1], Elonka [2], Fred Bauder [3]). Afterwards, endorsement was posted by LessHeard vanU [4], Tznkai [5], Will Beback [6], Jayron32 [7], and arbitrators Jdforrester and Deskana. The unblock was met with apparent disapproval or surprise by CBM [8][9], and re-explained by arbitrator Newyorkbrad [10]. It does not seem to me that those opposing the decision showed it was unreasonable for an administrator to decide there had been a violation of the ruling.

SlimVirgin:

SlimVirgin made no visible attempt to consider whether the conduct showed repeated violation, no attempt to discuss the matter at AE, and no attempt to consider that multiple other administrators had given prior warning to the same point. SlimVirgin did not even as for any other block, discuss with the blocking administrator. SlimVirgin did not participate before or respond to concerns after her action. SlimVirgin instead assumed an insulting standard of bad faith, and used the weight of administrative access to disrupt accepted process, then vanished from any ensuing discussion.

SlimVirgin has been repeatedly warned, cautioned, or admonished at Arbitration for conduct unsuitable for an administrator in at least four separate cases:

  • RFAR/Lyndon LaRouche 2 - cautioned about personal attacks
  • RFAR/Israeli apartheid - one of five users "reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures" in the face of disagreements.
  • RFAR/C68-FM-SV - "when involved in disputes, [SlimVirgin] excessively stressed other editors' involvement in unrelated issues... rather than the merits of the particular issue under discussion" and was admonished, instructed and directed to avoid "unsupported allegations of bad faith" and to avoid "unnecessary involvement in... administrator actions as to which [SlimVirgin] may be unable to remain... professional". The Lyndon LaRouche 2 was also noted as salient.
  • RFAR/SlimVirgin-Lar - found that SlimVirgin was quick to make unwarranted accusations, and yet again reminded to use proper process (dispute resolution) rather than other courses of action.
Other norms applicable:
  • WP:ADMIN - "Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator... Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools... Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner... may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: Repeated/consistent poor judgment, Breach of basic policies..."
  • WP:AE - "[Arbitration Enforcement] is not part of dispute resolution... It is... purely to compare a user's actions to any ruling that may apply to them"
Effects of disruption:

As a result of SlimVirgin's actions it is likely that the user concerned, who is well aware of their actions and experienced at "envelope pushing", will have been given the impression they can act as they wish with impunity even if well documented and restricted, a further source of harm to the community. It is also likely to undermine other handling at AE, which is the final place for a wide range of frustrated users who have seen a problem editor through arbitration, such as in the nationalism edit wars. AE is rightly an enforcement page not a dispute resolution page.

SlimVirgin was well aware of the correct use of AE, and the block notice stated these again, to be sure it was well understood. Whether measured against the rquirements of AE itself, or against consensus - SlimVirgin had neither, and bad faith and unilateral action against established standards is not sufficient grounds for a serious misuse of administrative access in relation to an arbitration matter.


Arbitration is the final fallback for serious disruption. Interference with its proper processes is never a minor matter. Administrative tools are granted to be used appropriately.

FT2 (Talk | email) 19:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


FT2 response to SlimVirgin's statement

This is in astoundingly bad faith. The requirement at Arbitration Enforcement is the same on all users. Essentially the rationale given, point by point, is:

  1. Admin has a conflict because the subject of the sanction doesn't like where the admin visits. ("Unblock - blocking admin posts at ED, WR, Myspace, or is friends with X, and the subject of the block has bad blood with that venue" - sorry, no.)
  2. Subject of the sanction is a renowned content editor, so ignoring concerns of others (reflected in their warnings and support) or overriding other communal views and norms, both Arbcom and at AE, becomes acceptable.
  3. Decided the community wouldn't like it, so unblocked to save them the trouble of discussing. (In fact there was no pending consensus that the requirement of AE had been met nor even any consensus supporting the action; in terms of discussion, this seems to be mostly an "unblock because I want to". It cannot even claim to be mere bad judgement given the well-publicized nature of AE criteria and SV's awareness.)
  4. More bad faith ("I believed the block... was intended only to increase drama around the time Giano might decide to stand for ArbCom")
  5. Blocking admin is on the same mailing list as someone else the subject of the block doesn't like. (Subject of block has fallen out with someone else on Arbcom's mailing list.)
  6. More inaccurate IRC claims (for example David Gerard has had zero involvement in IRC for a year or more, it was agreed he would patrol it for a time, as I've agreed to do as at 2008; someone else will follow me in doing so eventually. Complete irrelevancy for this, either way.)
  7. Inaccurate real life allegations/claims (in itself Not A Good Thing To Try And Do)
  8. A comment on an actual diff - SlimVirgin is welcome to post her view on this diff, as others have done. However, note that the diff SV endorses, got complaints from other users, so that view is contended.
  9. Agreement that other diffs were inappropriate. (Also a view that by itself insufficient for a block, although it was not actually "by itself", nor was that view anything like consensus). Buried in the middle of the statement.
  10. Assertion "I didn't wheel war!" (not mentioned by myself)
  11. Assertion that "any admin can unblock" (No - Arbitration enforcement is an exception, there are stricter critieria for AE matters and 1/ SV knows them, 2/ it's in the header at AE, a page she knows well, 3/ it was in the block notice.)
  12. Another repeat of "visits a venue the user doesn't like"
  13. Mis-reports "would like to consider recusal" as "reluctant to recuse".
  14. Another repeat of inaccuracies related to David Gerard.

  15. Incredible bad faith. Revenge fantasies, the works. Sorry SV. Arbitration Enforcement is where all Arbcom sanctions go for enforcement or discussion (unless they go to RFAR itself). Cross reference the earlier block of the same user, some 8 months ago, which I also posted at AE [11]. Was Rubenstein/Matthews a factor there? Unlikely. So this was posted to the identical venue that the previous block was posted to in March, which is in fact the correct venue for all such matters.

    Likewise why it's at RFAR not RFC is common sense and exactly textbook, too. Cases that are 1/ possibly unusually urgent, 2/ unusually divisive between admins, 3/ involve factors such as admin tool misuse (or even wheel warring as some may feel it, evident by your own need to assert it isn't), and especially, 4/ involve arbitration processes themselves (AE) or 5/ where the actions are similar to past Arbitration cases where the remedy has not been not sufficient to resolve the problem (SlimVirgin has had sanctions broadly related to bad faith and poor rationale, with irrelevant faux justifications, in an exceptional 4 cases now, which has not only not ceased, but now being used to justify improper use of tools and disrupting AE)... these are all exact reasons why a matter goes directly to Arbitration. You know RFAR norms, so this shouldn't be a surprise at all.

  16. Describes this as a "high drama block", but omits to observe that this was a remarkably calm and well mannered discussion and well within AE norms at the time until her own action [12]. (You don't get to override a reasonable discussion, then assert that as a cause for unilaterally picking a decision you want.) Debates around a topic only become drama if the participants wish it. In this debate, up to SV overriding it, none had really done so, and this is a change from the unblock reason given at the time [13].

In brief, a mix of 1/ repeated and at times egregious bad faith, and 2/ unsupported, tenuous or irrelevant allegations. This is exactly the findings in prior cases, dating back a long time, so it's fairly clear it's not just "new today". What is striking about the statement is the following:

  1. Does not address that other users had also seen a concern and there were multiple prior admin warnings
  2. Does not substantively address the edits themselves. To the extent that they are discussed, admits some were inappropriate, and a view (contended by others) that one of the several listed was not offensive.
  3. Does not address that a good level of "best practice" was followed in the handling. (Textbook case handling of RFAR sanction breach)
  4. Poor reasons for disrupting all norms of Arbitration Enforcement.
  5. Poor or no reasons for blatantly inappropriate WP:SNOW close to an active debate in which significant concerns were stated and where her view was not in any way consensus.
  6. Poor judgement in unblocking a user who had acted disruptively or (per own admission) inappropriately, and who would be greatly encouraged to repeat by her untoward action when this was not a foregone conclusion.
  7. Sidelines all statement issues in favor of a comment that once the original block is reviewed, That's the matter dealt with as far as I'm concerned. This dismissive treatment suggests SV's own personal conduct does not strike her as maybe needing any review.
  8. Focusses heavily on bad faith interpretation to justify, and tries to make a case that simply doesn't stand up.
  9. Does not take note that part of the case statement, references SlimVirgin's repeated past Arbitration case findings including repeated bad faith, and that here of all places SV's conduct is on display. Instead, repeats it all again. ("Don't moon the jury" is a long standing warning at Arbitration.) This makes concerns about poor judgement even more pointed - if SV cannot even restrain basing her statement on previously criticized grounds here, and lacks the judgement to avoid doing so, then those cases suddenly come far more into the foreground and become far more significant.

FT2 (Talk | email) 08:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 response to CharlotteWebb (1)

In a way, user:CharlotteWebb has actually got it right (a "blank check" in a literal sense is a request made to trusted others, to fill in whatever they consider appropriate). Arbitrators have to be very careful what they say and support (example). I'm presenting the problem and my view on the principles and issues. It semed better not to specify an exact requirement, and let ArbCom decide as it felt fit. However if I'm asked by other users what I'm looking for:

1) The integrity of Arbitration Enforcement (which is both tightly defined and long-standing), to be enforced and restated in a way that actually counts. Specifically, users to be made aware generally, via motion or remedy, that there will be serious consequences in future to poorly judged and egregious disruption of Arbitration processes even on a first incident, at least until a better way to handle serious cases is developed and agreed. For those who don't engage in editing on heated topics and don't understand what AE does for editors, a large range of difficult disputes now use Arbitration Enforcement as a back-stop. If a contributor isn't blocked/banned because there's a lesser remedy available under some restriction, that's where the restrictions will be assessed. AE is not part of dispute resolution, it is created as part of Arbitration process to answer one specific kind of question, whether a sanction is violated. That was completely overridden in this case. Like it or not, until we have a better way to handle difficult disputes, AE backs up all Arbitrated topic and page restrictions, all the cases where ArbCom has been able to avoid telling a user "you're banned" when it is only specific behaviors that are a problem, all general sanctions in the nationalism edit wars, and a wide range of other matters. The wider community brought these to Arbitration in the first place precisely because administrators, ANI and usual processes could not handle them. This is why Arbitration Enforcement has a very tight definition and strict requirements. The wider community is invited at AE to help with the enforcing of Arbitration decisions. While different people may have personal opinions on a case, egregious "I don't care" or "doing what I feel like", or closing a section for any but appropriate reasons, is almost never okay, and actions like this are exceptionally harmful in derailing the project's ability to handle disruption in a nuanced manner. Such actions may result in the enforcement of Arbitration ceasing to be as open to the community, if it starts to be too much of a battleground where "any admin can ignore" or "most strident voice wins". SlimVirgin's action sends a signal that is how the page works. From a long standing administrator, especially, that is an unacceptable signal. It needs rebutting very firmly and very strongly. Given that, AE will likely operate better in other cases too.

2) Revisiting of past arbitration case concerns about User:SlimVirgin in light of this case. There have been a multitude of cases, over a long time-frame, in which the same message was drawn: "SlimVirgin has behaved significantly substandard for an Administrator, enough for an Arbcom Finding or Remedy". Considering most users see no arbitration cases as a party at fault, or at most one, this is very exceptional. The community has repeatedly said it wants administrators to be held accountable and to higher standards. There isn't picking and choosing in such a goal, one doesn't get to say "but not for this person because (I like them / they write X type of content, etc)". I pushed for higher standards on all admin matters, to protect users from poor adminship. And to show non-bias, I also pushed for Arbitrator standards in the updated Arbitration policy proposal [14] -- in fact I am the only Arbitrator, and sole administrator, to explicitly do so. High standards matter and without apology I push for them on behalf of the community from within Arbcom. With this many users, we need to be able to rely on administrators acting within reason and fair judgement, and not egregiously going "off the rails" and doing whatever they feel like, however badly it might be against norms. I feel there may be a need to consider whether the track record shows a concern of this type with SlimVirgin, that should now be addressed. If we do then the remedy would be "whatever Arbitrators feel prevents and addresses it going forward", like all arbitration. It's an Arbitration matter that was breached, and the concerns and decisions of previous Arbcom findings and remedies that were ignored. So it comes back to Arbcom to reconsider, like any other Arbcom remedy that has proven insufficient to address the problem behavior.

3) A view whether the unblock was properly/improperly founded. (But no reinstatement pursuant to that.)

FT2 (Talk | email) 09:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 response to FayssalF
  1. For once, this isn't about the user who was the subject of that block. If others wish to add him to the case I can't stop them, but I have made strenuous efforts to avoid doing so, and feel it's unproductive to drag in a user who has no need to be here and must be fed up of this page.

  2. I refute any element other than deterrence. It was as light as could be done (given past blocks and activities) and still credibly feel it might be taken on board as a seriously intentioned and possibly effective deterrent of the ongoing, and very likely future, violations. The block was exceptionally reasonable, and carefully explained.

    For details why the block was decided at 55 hours, see the original block notice. Although some users did not agree with blocking, of those that did, not one said that 55 hours was inappropriate. Administrators and non-administrators who spoke up to support it either explicitly, or implicitly: Tznkai, Will Beback, jayron32, Jdforrester, Sticky Parkin, Apoc2400, Elonka, Fred Bauder, LessHeard vanU.


To recap, for once this isn't about the user blocked. It isn't even about the failure to discuss the block. It's about the judgement, actions, tool use, and rationale of SlimVirgin, in undertaking a disruptive and damaging intervention in Arbitration Enforcement, an improper unblock, and sub-standard adminship and judgement despite numerous past RFARs. Specifically:

  • flagrant breach of multiple wiki policies, norms and Arbitration processes that are used to protect editors from arbcom-restricted behaviors by others,
  • an attempt to damagingly disrupt the backstop of arbitration, its enforcement process, which is heavily used and tightly demarcated, in a sensitive case, without appropriate cause or even consensus,
  • exceptional poor judgement, with a mishmash of spurious or extreme bad faith (a type of problem which the admin has been found at fault in not one, but 4 separate Arbitration cases),
  • objected to by multiple users (two other credible users wanted to file an RFAR or drafted one; details by email on request to avoid retaliation/backlash against them).

And that when asked to justify it, the admin's response was apparently to:

  • move attention away from their actions,
  • decline to discuss seriously the concerns raised by others,
  • repeat the same conduct here as warned in the same prior cases, namely bad faith and spurious assertions in lieu ("mooning the jury") and
  • skipping past the point that by Arbcom Enforcement page criteria and norms (and their own tacit admission, I think), the edits were in fact in violation -- in which case they were being appropriately handled at AE.
  • probably also, to express a hope that this will not be counted as "wheel warring" as well.

Separate and arguably more important than SlimVirgin herself, there is a need to reassert in the wake of this, the fact that Arbitration Enforcement, at least until it is replaced, is part of the Arbitration process, and is tightly defined in its purpose and handling.

FT2 (Talk | email) 15:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 response to CharlotteWebb (2)

Sorry, the words are to give precision. In difficult cases there can be nuances that need careful explaining. Its also a habit. Quick answers then:

  1. The comparison is exact. Arbitration is the end point of dispute resolution. At that point, all that remains is the one question "has there been a violation". That's deliberate, the decision's made. It's done that way to prevent endless re-gaming by tenacious edit and POV warriors, harassers and personal attackers, and users who have habitually and significantly breached communal norms. Here's the thing: SV decides none of this matters and unblocks a user anyhow today. Tomorrow guess what tendency will start to become more pervasive in other disputes. And yes it does work that way. I don't think that any of the editors on East Europe, Northern Ireland, pseudoscience, Albania-Azerbaijan, Israel-Palestine, and dozens of other individual and topic area cases will thank us for letting their problem users have this means opened to game the system.
  2. Admins are expected to have fairly good judgement, and act to good standards as a role model. At worst, to slip infrequently. SV has slipped a lot -- and the present case evidences little to show of change. That is a problem, and that's the past case relevance. That the latest matter includes tool misuse and badly founded disruption to Arbitration matters, is an aggravating factor in the case of "why this user needs to be reconsidered by the Committee". Bluntly, the past repeated remedies to keep basic standards, have failed.
  3. I'm not discussing the other 4 users. If five users are told something, then it's reasonable to assume each of the 5 is told it.
  4. It's likely that repeated unblocks on poor grounds, do encourage users to repeat. It seems fairly common experience in disruptive conduct handling.
  5. The "does not need extensive evidence or citations" is because most cases need diffs from a wide range of matters to be collated. This one can all be understood by anyone reasonably familiar with the history, by reviewing posts in one thread on one page. I have no objection to it being moved to a full case if that's what's felt best, but I have proposed it in this form for reasons I explained to SlimVirgin [15].

FT2 (Talk | email) 16:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 response to CharlotteWebb (3)

You still haven't got what I said. At this point, I'm making just a case there's a problem. If I haven't suggested a solution at this point, then it's that simple: I haven't suggested a solution at this point.

You also need to re-read my comment above (response #2) which explains in a short simple paragraph why it matters and what the connection is (it's not "Giano" vs. "other random users", if that's what you thought then re-read). Re-read the description above. It's clearly worded, and makes clear what the issue is.

SlimVirgin has made mistakes. We agree on that. As it happens, some of the most serious mistakes an administrator can make: persistent breach of rock bottom wiki basics, and (for admins) the higher level expected in their standards. SlimVirgin has been trusted with the mop. The term "role model" has been used in numerous cases, up to and including desysop I think; I didn't decide to put the term there but it is a good definition of what is expected from users given the mop. SlimVirgin has been told on an exceptional four cases now (most of which other users took her to Arbcom to have her told this) that her standards in some key areas are unacceptably and persistently low and improper.

I have a strong view that all users, admins, arbitrators, should have broadly high standards. We may possibly have to disagree on that. SlimVirgin's aren't and haven't habitually been for a long time, and all the good she may do, doesn't change that. It's very relevant, when her standards are concerning, to note she's been found to have similar standards problems in numerous other cases as well. So I've noted it, and noted the same issues are visible in this case, today, as were noted months or years ago in other cases.

She may fervently believe the conducts others criticize her for are really good ones and benefit the project. If so, she is very badly mistaken, and has failed to listen to many people telling her so. Personally I don't care what flags she has, so long as she acts appropriately holding them. In this case, she could frankly be "any admin". I'm looking at "an admins conduct", not "SV". The name or label is not relevant in assessing that.

Bottom line: we may have to respectfully agree to differ, if it does not make sense that

  1. Persistent or serious substandard adminship is not okay, and better interactional and editing conduct standards will filter down positively over time to everyone: content creators, editors, wikignomes, people facing edit/pov warriors, difficult topic areas, admins, and readers, alike
  2. Well evidenced substandard conduct by an admin is a serious concern in the project (Disclosure: I've also torn a fairly ruthless strip off other admins and so-called "high ups" for past standards-related lapses too, when they have happened, on behalf of the community, and listened to others' views on my own compliance; let nobody be immune), and
  3. Other users, including past Arbcoms, may not fully share your view that SlimVirgin has upheld an appropriate minimum of conduct in the areas an admin is expected to hold high standards.

FT2 (Talk | email) 01:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, I think, striking, the number of times SV has been sanctioned. I had forgotten the old LaRouche case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 response to FayssalF (2)

1) The reason for 55 hours and not 54 or 56 as you asked, is not arcane or random. It's very straightforward -- because the standard options for blocking a user (via Special:BlockIP) are listed as 3,12, 24, 31, 48, 55, 72... hours. You can enter any duration of your choosing, but for exactly the reason you give, most blocks are one of the many standard lengths. I explained why 55 rather than 48 hours in the block notice, and 72 hours felt unnecessarily long.

2) This request for motion is nothing to do with Giano, and everything to do with preventing harmful disruption of the backbone of a large number of nuanced sanctions, while it's at a fixable stage, in the name of one high profile dispute. The matters brought to WP:AE implicitely relate to complaints about conduct that have already gone via dispute resolution to Arbitration. They are already topics that have been argued and gamed to death, in many cases, and finally a decision has been made. The sole question is if that decision is violated. It's that simple. Any user disagreeing with this analysis, imagine a change such that any 'strong enough' admin may overturn at whim any RFAR based page bans, topic bans, general sanctions, and the like -- nationalism, pseudoscience. Any admin would become able to claim that blocking a given user is "drama" even if there is none visible, claim the right to unblock on personal whim, or claim it's "consensus" when none exists. AE isn't there to discuss anything but "is there a violation", which prevents many closed cases from spiralling back to ANI/RFC. We have dozens of such cases which are "back-stopped" at AE, and in some edit wars hundreds of possible participants. Until we find a better way to handle them, this is the best tool we have "got working" to date. That is what SlimVirgin's action (due to its high prominence) was undermining, whether in fact she knew it, or cared, or not. Ensuring we don't end up back with the "old days" where the only effective remedy in a hundred edit wars is a formal ban, and nuanced remedies are impractical, is the priority here.

SlimVirgin herself as a user is secondary. She's only one user. I would expect high standards to be expected. If not obtained, and visibly the problems continue and the admin seems not to even recognize the problem or the need to change, then there clearly must be a question mark.

FT2 (Talk | email) 02:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 response to SlimVirgin (2)

Quick comments:

  1. To reiterate: this decision to block wasn't in any way related to or connected with any other matter whatsoever. (Per RFAR/C68-FM-SV - SlimVirgin was found to have "excessively stressed... unrelated issues... rather than the merits of the particular issue under discussion" and "unsupported allegations of bad faith". Little change.)

  2. I see some "bottom of the barrel" scraping. Not impressed, SV. Giano wasn't "in pursuit" on anything. This has been a bugbear of a banned user since long before Giano knew of it, and that banned user was not inclined to let accuracy spoil a good story. I ignored it when that user was doing his utmost to engage in a defamation campaign too. "DAMIAN CLAIMS OVERSIGHTED EDITS" was first brought to my attention over 4 months ago [16]. He'd apparently been saying this months before then as well. It's not exactly breaking news, and it's irrelevant in determining whether or not SV acted within acceptable strict requirements of Arbitration Enforcement and appropriate standards of an admin. Acid test: 1/ SV's own tacit agreement that edits were "inappropriate", and 2/ if the block had been horribly unjustified, there wouldn't have been the range of support (including 2 prior formal warnings and 2 other users proposing RFAR/SlimVirgin) that we did.

    I also abstained when not strictly needed at RFAR and where other unrelated evidence was presented [17]. (So much for any "reluctant to recuse" claims.) In the same case, far from endorsing the proposed sanction of Geogre, the administrator-friend of Giano's, I expressed early concerns on the proposed remedy ([18] line 262). Geogre is often a supporter of Giano's who has used tools in Giano's favor in several cases of admin action. I abstained for neutrality on one, and abstained due to concerns on the other. Giano has also repeatedly left personal attacks on my talk page and elsewhere; so long as they are not attacking others, so be it, other than to comment or explain at times.

    Giano can possibly be a little too receptive for his own benefit, when it comes to causes celebres, and possibly not quite critical enough of views expressed around him. He also has a vivid and heated sense of conspiracy and carries various grudges. But that's neither here nor there, and that's his issue. He certainly hasn't imposed if Damian's issues are a concern of his; neither had he expressed any significant involvement or more than passing interest at the time of the block that I'm aware of either. Either way Giano isn't the party at fault for the banned user's actions. He's just not much of an issue here. AE and SV by contrast, are.

FT2 (Talk | email) 02:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 comment on motions

I refrained from proposing or commenting (in private or on-wiki) on any motions. Some people were confused why a case was presented but nothing asked for.

That was for integrity of decision. What mattered here was, "here's a problem, please fix it". But had I not stayed completely silent (in private and on-wiki), it might have been claimed that any decision how to achieve that, was decided because it was proposed by a fellow arbitrator proposing it. That risk is now over, the motions and voting are substantively done, and I can now say what I would have suggested, had I been "active". These would have been my proposals, for comparison:

  1. [Insert here a measure that will effectively address concerns over the conduct of SlimVirgin]
  2. The unblock of Giano II by SlimVirgin is determined to have been [proper/improper]. [And possibly: "There is evidence that other blocks of Giano have been reversed which were reasonably placed", if that is the case.]
  3. SlimVirgin is prohibited from changing or overturning any sanction at Arbitration Enforcement for a period of 6 months ["following resysopping" if applicable]. Thereafter should SlimVirgin change or overturn any sanction at Arbitration Enforcement without proper grounds, the change may be reversed and SlimVirgin may be restricted by any administrator from participation at Arbitration Enforcement for a period of one month, rising to a year after the third incident. All actions and restrictions under this motion may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee.

  4. The community is reminded that Arbitration Enforcement is part of the Arbitration process and is not part of usual dispute resolution. Sanctions may be overturned only on the strict condition of there being sufficient time for consensus to form, and clear consensus that there is not evidence that the Arbitration ruling has been violated. Disruptive conduct and off-topic matters posted on the Enforcement noticeboard may be reverted or addressed in line with usual norms by any uninvolved administrator, and enforced with reasonable use of administrative tools.

    Administrators are cautioned that while reasonable overturns are acceptable, discussion, neutrality, and close attention to the criteria and aims of Arbitration Enforcement are expected. Egregious and visibly poor overturn of matters brought for enforcement, or disruption of Arbitration Enforcement by an administrator (whether or not tools are used), may lead to a strong level of response, including restriction or loss of administrative access even for a first time incident.

I would ask the Committee to consider adding #2 and #4 in particular, the former to give closure and avoid gaming either way on this block if used as evidence of anything in future; the latter as a better way to ensure the integrity of AE than current motions.

I would also strenuously argue that no special changes to matters related to Giano, nor special changes to AE, are needed. This case shows that in fact, all that's needed to address both is for usualy AE criteria to be made more strictly enforced. The civility sanction worked well; the use of AE worked well; if it came up again it is likely that people would then be much more wary of improper action, and hence there would be good discussion before action was decided. That's probably all that's needed.

My experience is that it's far better to use Arbcom's role and standing to "harden" its processes against gaming and improper breach, and then let the community handle it in future. The actual block was being handled fine by the wider community, exactly as AE should be used. I think the point is now amply made that when there is good cause (and if AE is less easily undermined), Giano's requirement will be enforced, and when there isn't he will be unblocked. That's how it should be.

FT2 (Talk | email) 02:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

Fred Bauder and I have discussed this by e-mail. I've assured him that I won't reverse any block of his (I had no intention of reversing more than once, and I wouldn't have reversed even once had the first block been made by an uninvolved admin). Fred intends to study the diffs FT2 provided over the next few days and decide whether to reinstate the block. That's the matter dealt with as far as I'm concerned.

The reason I unblocked is that it was a block of an excellent editor by a prominent IRC admin, where there has been considerable bad blood between that editor and IRC in the past. I believed the block had no hope of standing, and was intended only to increase drama around the time Giano might decide to stand for ArbCom.

Admins associated with the so-called IRC cabal (of which FT2 is a prominent member) are, rightly or wrongly, viewed as having hounded and bullied Giano for the last two years. The reason Giano was upset over the last couple of days was because David Gerard, another prominent IRC-er who has been in conflict with Giano for a long time, had blocked and checkusered Giano, and had indefblocked another of his accounts. David Gerard and FT2 are closely involved with one another, through the ArbCom mailing list, through their involvement in IRC, and through Wikimedia UK, which they both played leading roles in until its collapse. FT2 turning up to block Giano because he was uncivil after being upset by a David Gerard block showed very poor judgment on FT2's part, at best. FT2 and David blocking Giano would be a bit like me blocking Cla68.

FT2 also exaggerated some of the things Giano had said that supposedly prompted the block. For example, FT2 said Giano told a woman admin she should be ashamed of her sex, and that men don't like women who have opinions. [19]

In fact, Giano (as Lady C) had told Elonka:

What a silly question, are you ashamed of your sex? Well I am ashamed of you, for thinking such a thing. What a charming study Mr Hochman has just uploaded of Miss Reighly, it reminds me of myself, just after my cosmetic dental surgery. - As for you Ms Elonka, I would change that attitude if I were you, men don't like a woman with an opinion you don't want to stay on the shelf for ever do you? [20]

It's clear that this is satire.

The one thing I did agree was inappropriate was calling Will Beback a troll, but in and of itself, it's not worth a block given the context of Giano being upset by David Gerard's block.

Overturning a block once is not wheel-warring. By the ArbCom's own definition, wheel warring is the repeated overturning of an admin action. There is also no obligation for admins to discuss blocks before overturning them, especially when they feel the block is clearly wrong. All attempts (including by myself) to change WP:BLOCK to prohibit unblocking without discussion have failed — admins want to retain the right to overturn a block immediately, where they feel in good faith that it cannot be justified.

I feel that any block of Giano by prominent IRC-ers, for any reason, is highly inappropriate, given the bad blood that exists between them, and that it's important to overturn such blocks without delay. If an admin not heavily involved with IRC had performed the block, I would have disagreed with it, but I wouldn't have overturned it. I think it's safe to say that I'm known for not overturning admin actions without discussion; this was one of the rare occasions when I felt it was not only justifiable, but important that the block be undone quickly.

I want to draw the ArbCom's attention to FT2's reluctance to recuse. He wrote that he wasn't convinced he was involved enough in this case to have to recuse, and needed time to think about it — despite his involvement with David Gerard, despite his involvement with IRC and the alleged IRC feud with Giano, despite the fact that it was FT2's block I'd overturned, and despite the fact that it was FT2 himself who filed this RfAr. In spite of all that, he was considering overseeing this case as an arbitrator. [21] I find that sense of entitlement quite disturbing in a member of the ArbCom. It's the same attitude that made him think his block of Giano was appropriate in the first place.

I also want to add something about certain admins feeling their blocks must never be overturned just because they sit on the ArbCom. Charles Matthews recently filed an RfC against Slrubenstein for undoing a block of Charles's without discussion, and hinted heavily that he felt Slrubenstein ought to be desysopped over it. Although the community agreed it would have been better if Slrubenstein had talked to Charles first, it firmly rejected the view that Charles's blocks were in any way special because he sits on ArbCom. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII.

It seems the above made FT2 realize there was no point in going the RfC route, so he's trying to get the ArbCom — where he feels he wields considerable influence — to exact revenge on his behalf, even though no other form of dispute resolution was even attempted. FT2, who argues that talking is always important, didn't even e-mail me to object to the unblock.

To avoid these high-drama blocks in future, I suggest the ArbCom appoint six uninvolved admins with no links to IRC to enforce the civility parole against Giano from now on, and that these admins be the only ones allowed to issue blocks against him under that provision. SlimVirgin talk|edits 06:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Fayssal

Fayssal, you said in your response that you'd appreciate an assurance that "this" will never happen again, [22] which I may be able to give, depending on what you mean exactly. Could you clarify? SlimVirgin talk|edits 23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for all the arbitrators

None of you have addressed what I feel is the central point, and the reason I undid the block, namely that both David Gerard and FT2 stand in a conflict of interest in relation to Giano, given the long-term disputes both have had with him. David shouldn't have blocked and checkusered Giano in the first place, and FT2 shouldn't have followed up with a civility block triggered by Giano's being upset by David's block.

As I said earlier, this is like me blocking Cla68, then getting a wikifriend to block him again because he became uncivil following the first block. Such blocks would be overturned immediately, and rightly so.

There is now a claim that David oversighted some of FT2's Zoophilia edits to help him get elected to ArbCom last year (and not because they may have identified him), and that Giano has known about this for some time, and was trying to find evidence. I have no idea whether this is true, or whether David and FT2 knew that Giano was in pursuit, but Fred Bauder has publicly confirmed that the oversighting took place as described. I hope the ArbCom will ask David and FT2 not to take admin action against Giano again, or ask others to.

I suggest that from now on admins not on the ArbCom enforce ArbCom decisions on the AE noticeboard. There's too much disquiet about a small number of arbitrators who are acting as judge, jury, and enforcers, attempting to silence (or desysop) anyone who disagrees with them. FT2's efforts to have blocks declared on the AE noticeboard regarded as sacrosanct are part of that effort, in my view. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to John Vandenberg

John, thanks for recognizing that I acted in good faith. Regarding your suggestion, [23] I think I'd be reluctant to give up the tools voluntarily for six months, for a number of reasons, particularly the concern over whether I'd get them back. But I'd certainly undertake not to use them for six months if that would clear the way to focusing on IRC, Giano, and the civility parole. SlimVirgin talk|edits 05:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Reply to Fayssal

Fayssal, in response to your questions below, [24] I can promise not to initiate any unnecessary drama, and I'd be happy for you to e-mail me if you think at any point that I'm doing so.

Forgive the length of this, please, but I would like to answer in full.

I'd ask you first to be sure that I'm actually the cause of the drama in whichever cases you're thinking of, and not just the target of it. I've been targeted a few times e.g. because I started the stub — a perfectly neutral and legitimate stub — on Daniel Brandt (which led to me being Slashdotted for working for MI5); or because I identified Poetlister as one middle-aged man rather than half a dozen young women (which led to him trying to out me and place me at the center of multiple conspiracy theories over a period of nearly three years); or because WordBomb decided I was actively protecting people who were promoting Naked Short Selling (which led to more conspiracy theories). So I hope you'll focus on issues that I have definitely caused.

Most of my time on Wikipedia has been spent contributing content, including the creation of articles, some of which gained FA status. When I do involve myself in the politics, I've tended to work behind the scenes, rather than commenting in public. I see this now as a mistake, because what it invariably led to was that the immediate issue was dealt with, but the principle behind the issue wasn't i.e. no lessons were learned. It also meant that people couldn't see what I was doing, which in turn meant I faced criticism in some cases where I couldn't defend myself, because it would have meant betraying confidences etc.

I'll give you two examples. First, I learned in the December 2005 or 2006 ArbCom election that one of the candidates was the person behind Wikitruth and was running at least two admin accounts, and that he was separately trying to obtain access to checkuser using a false name. I didn't say anything about this in public, but I made sure that people who needed to know were told about it.

Although this ensured that that particular person didn't gain access to the ArbCom or checkuser, it made no difference (that I know of) to the steps the Foundation takes to make sure that people producing documents in a certain name really are that person, and that they haven't forged a driver's licence (easy to do if you only have to fax it), or borrowed a friend's ID. So we currently have a situation where people have access to sensitive information about Wikipedians, with no one knowing for sure who some of them are, and that they're fit people to hold that responsibility (and those are two separate issues).

Second example: I was heavily criticized for not having tried to deal with Mantanmoreland, and his alleged conflict of interest and sockpuppetry. In fact, I did try to deal with it, but quietly, by e-mail, with a number of people, including him. In the end, when it all became public, I had no posts I could point to, no public efforts I'd made to deal with it, very little I could use to defend myself. In addition, there's no doubt the issues would have been sorted out more efficiently if they'd been dealt with in public earlier.

For these reasons, I'm coming increasingly to believe that discretion on Wikipedia is not always wise. That's why, for example, I've been questioning Charles Matthews in public [25] on why he reported someone to a newspaper, after that person had appeared before the ArbCom at Charles's request. I believe this was unethical and unkind, but I'd previously asked him about it only by e-mail, which meant he didn't have to take it on board as a serious issue.

Similarly, I believe it was obviously wrong of FT2 and David to block Giano, given the long history of conflict between the three of them. If they were good blocks, someone else would have carried them out. I am very certain the FT2 block would not have stood i.e. that someone was bound to overturn it. I'm equally certain that no amount of discussion would have caused him to agree to a reversal. Although he was acting only as an admin, and not on behalf of ArbCom, he seems to take the view that his blocks (and his edits) matter more than anyone else's simply because he's on the ArbCom, and that's a position I strongly disagree with — and a position I feel should be publicly opposed and refuted. That is why I undid the block. In the almost four years I've been an admin, I can think of only four or five occasions where I've undone another admin's actions without discussion, and two of those were when I was a very new admin. I don't do it lightly.

So, to answer your question, I will commit to staying out of unnecessary drama. I've also told John Vandenberg that I'll refrain from using the tools for six months if that'll help. But I can't commit to not commenting on issues that I see as important, and I hope you wouldn't ask me to. SlimVirgin talk|edits 07:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Privatemusings

FT, you're considering whether or not to recuse? That's pretty weak, my friend. Please recuse. Privatemusings (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stephan Schulz

I have no strong opinion on the appropriateness of the original block, or SlimVirgin's reversal. But I do consider FT2's behavior deeply troubling. I would have expected the OrangeMarlin debacle to have taught him to be more careful and to avoid throwing his weight around. I would have expected basic common sense and decency to cause anybody involved in a case like he is in this to recuse himself. The mere fact that he initiates the case should be enough to cause recusal.

I'm also less than thrilled by statements like Interference with its proper processes is never a minor matter that seem to put process above community consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions after the FT2 response
  • I appreciate that FT2 now recuses himself.
  • 500 words or less?
  • Which textbook?

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment

Will somebody please enforce the "500 word or less" rule (on all involved) or move this into a full case where discussion can happen without wildly scrolling from "first reply" to "second reconsideration" and back again? "This is not a discussion page - no matter if the discussion is within one section, or drawn and quartered all over the page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Conti

FT2, it was your block that was overturned, and it was you who filed this "motion" (or request), so I cannot possibly see a way in which you could also be active as an arbitrator here. Please recuse, and let the other arbitrators deal with this. --Conti|✉ 20:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim

This is, in a manner of speaking, a political struggle, and none of us should be naive about this. And it won't do any good either to try pretending that wikipedia has a legal system. Wikipedia has a series of policies and guidelines (including IAR), but this is not quite a legal system (and if it were it would be embarassing, honestly). Seeking to rubber-stamp political achievements of certain groups in some pretend court makes wikipedia look like some backward hole in the earth country. I suppose something has to give. Giano's sanctions have to be lifted as they are completely counter-productive, and their WP:AGF intention obviously far from ever being realized has been confounded by multiplying drama and community division many fold.

Obviously, whatever happens, "punishing" SlimVirgin would be random and capricious, as she is but the latest of many admins to perform an unblock on Giano. While normally admins are of course expected to consult before performing a controversial block or unblock, no reasonable person with knowledge of this case could expect consensus to be obtainable either way. That's something the policies, guidelines and wikiethics don't say anything clear on, so let's not pretend they do just for the sake of judgmentalism.

I'd agree ArbCom enforcement needs reformed. This is already mentioned in the Piotrus 2 case. Enforcing admins obviously need to be protected against recrimination, and enforcement needs to be resolved by something a little more morally credible than the "how many armed friends turn up at the hearing" means common both to wikipedia and to early medieval courts. On the other hand, the community clearly needs to be protected from the ArbCom. Declaring an admin free-for-all against any user, especially high profile prominent users like Giano with many admin enemies, is truly messed up and I would really like to know what was going through the head of the person that thought of that. Creative chaos?

I'd like to add, we are still flying through "legal" design space here on wikipedia. While considering this, consider also that this is an encyclopedia and that quality content production and maintenance is our aim. Design of all arb findings should be according to this and all things underlying and supporting it as they support it, overriding all matters incidental and parasitical. When certain rules cause so much pointless social disorder, responsible people seek to make the rules better, not continue to enforce them. That's incidentally a decent historical lesson available for us all to draw upon without having to pay any tuition by learning it separately from our predecessors. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question and comment from User:S. Dean Jameson

How can FT2, in good conscience, bring this motion? While SV may have faults, this unblock was not improper. A block from an arbitrator carries no more weight than a block from a normal administrator. Considering removal of her tools for this is simply and patently absurd. S.D.D.J.Jameson 20:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What the block policy says, and how it is practiced are two different things. I've read the policy, and I've seen it practiced. Unblocks are performed all the time with little or no discussion with the blocking admin. I've never seen such action result in an arbitration motion. Should SV have talked it out first? Yes. Was undoing an ill-conceived block in itself improper? I don't think so, which was my point. The only difference between this and the multitude of other cases where blocks were overturned without adequate discussion is that in this case, an arbitrator was the initial blocking admin. S.D.D.J.Jameson 21:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite simply, the leap from being a "bad idea" to being worthy of deadminning is quite a large one. In my view, the initial block by FT2 was a "bad idea", and the initial block by Gerard that precipitated all this nonsense was horrendously bad. Yet Gerard is let off with simply a promise to be good, while an arbitrator requests removal of SV's tools. I fail to understand the dichotomy. S.D.D.J.Jameson 22:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief response to Fassayl: While Giano's tone and tenor are often unreasonable, it was Gerard's odd CU/block of him that precipitated this drama. FT2's equally odd--and quite punitive--55-hour block exacerbated the situation. Giano's behavior is a symptom of the problem, not the root. One must deal with the root of the problem before the symptoms of it will go away. S.D.D.J.Jameson 14:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to the Arbitration Committee's Crafting New Policy: I concur in full with User:Risker's concerns about the committee's attempts to craft new policy. As this is outside the scope of their mandate, any votes taken upon such a crafting would seem to be null. Both users in this case seem to have issues. SlimVirgin appears to be a well-scarred veteran of many WikiFights, as does Giano. Both seem to have been out-of-line at various points. None of these concerns allow the Arbitration Committee to step outside their scope and craft new policy as to how blocks and unblocks are enacted. Please reconsider these rash actions. S.D.D.J.Jameson 15:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mr.Z-man

In reply to S. Dean Jameson above, you may want to actually read the blocking policy and other relevant polices. Unblocking a user, regardless of who the user is or who made the original block, without discussing with the blocking admin or involving oneself in the active discussion about the block on the relevant noticeboard first, is, if not explicitly forbidden, extremely inappropriate. Saying that its "not improper" could not be farther from the truth. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to know the last time someone unilaterally undid a block that was being actively discussed, and the community and arbcom were perfectly fine with it. I really fail to see how completely ignoring the community is fine.
(from above)"The only difference between this and the multitude of other cases where blocks were overturned without adequate discussion is that in this case, an arbitrator was the initial blocking admin."
And it was a block of a controversial user. And it was being actively discussed on an admin noticeboard. And there was significant (though not overwhelming) support for the block. And it was in relation to an arbcom remedy. And the blocking policy says unblocking without discussion is a bad idea. All of that put together and unilaterally unblocking and issuing a giant SCREW YOU to the community, policy, established process, and arbcom, is perfectly fine? Mr.Z-man 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to SV's post:
SlimVirgin's response pretty much confirms my worst fears about the situation. SlimVirgin's statement shows nothing but contempt and disrespect for the community and established norms. Assuming bad faith on the part of dozens of users, including arbcom members, stewards, WMF staff and WMF board members, solely because they use a particular communication medium is frankly, disgusting (since SV sees no problem with assuming bad faith of me, I see no reason to assume good faith of her). I really don't see what Giano being "upset" really has to do with anything. Probably dozens of AN and ANI threads (likely Arbcom decisions as well) have established that being upset, whether rightly or wrongly, is not an excuse for incivility.
"There is also no obligation for admins to discuss blocks before overturning them"
This is coming from an admin? My god. I'm not sure whether to believe SlimVirgin is really this out of touch with the established community norms or just made something up to avoid admitting poor judgment.
It should be really clear at this point that SV does not have the community trust, respect for the community, norms, or anyone outside of her own personal group, or good judgment that we expect from administrators (or anyone for that matter), so, why is she still an admin? Mr.Z-man 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above statement and comment by SirFozzie

Undoing another administrator's action without discussion with that administrator, or seeking consensus from uninvolved editors first, is a very improper thing. No matter what my thoughts on this block in this action (I'm not going to say my personal opinions here, as it's not the focus of things), there is no record that SlimVirgin sought either. I certainly hope that there are extenuating circumstances. As regards for FT2's recusal. I think, as the proposer of the motion, FT2 should recuse on this issue. The fact that this motion is necessary, should be all the "vote" that is needed, I think. SirFozzie (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the post by SV, I think we need to formally enshrine in WP:WHEEL that undoing another administrator's actions without seeking discussion or consensus is in fact wheel-warring. I've thought that for a while, because every time an administrative action is undone without either, things get really bad really quick. This case is no different. SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved user PhilSandifer

Although I have, in the past, supported SlimVirgin, and generally have been inclined to support her as an admin, I find the climate of automatic unblocks in this situation particularly toxic, and feel that they have undermined not only the arbcom's ruling in this case, but the basic concepts of civility. It is unfortunate that SV should be made an example of in this case, but the fact of the matter is, her unblock is truly egregious and ill-advised. Reluctantly, I support this motion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, I think that the ruling against Giano has been ineffective due to the willingness people have to unblock regardless of whether Giano's actions have been of the sort the arbcom sanctioned him for. As it stands, this has effectively undone the remedy such that Giano is under no restrictions at all.

I think that drawing a firm line that undoing civility blocks on Giano is not acceptable is necessary to salvage that remedy. Should the arbcom be unwilling to do this, I am prepared to file a new case regarding Giano's conduct since the parole to demonstrate its ineffectiveness. I do not think that such a case would be pleasant, although it would certainly not be lacking for evidence.

I think, however, that salvaging the existing remedy is far preferable to a new case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would the arbcom be willing to clarify whether their suspension of the civility parole amounts to a lifting of restrictions on Giano, or if it is a preliminary step towards imposing a more effective remedy? Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved JodyB

Without question the Arbitration Committee is imperfect. Nevertheless it is the needed system to help a large and diverse community deal with problems. It cannot be discounted or ignored at will. The unblock by SlimVirgin is without excuse and should be reviewed immediately. This is not an attack on FT2 but an attack more broadly on ArbCom. Apart from a thorough and convincing explanation from SlimVirgin a full case should be initiated. The review requested by FT2 should only be to clarify the conditions of FT2's block and to reinstate that block. ArbCom ignores this action at its on peril. JodyB talk 21:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to SlimVirgin
Potential conflicts of interest, real or apparent, are serious considerations in any proceeding. But when, in retrospect, the action is appropriate although a COI existed, we may reasonably discount the COI. In this case, one may argue there was a COI existing with FT2 (I do not make such a claim). However, Giano's actions were a violation of the ArbCom ruling and FT2 acted within those guidelines. Therefore, the continued assertion of COI is unhelpful here. FT2 simply did nothing wrong with this block and any alleged COI is without impact. Any baiting of Giano is wrong but ought be dealt with apart from this proceeding. Giano is a valued, experienced editor here which tells me he has an adequate vocabulary and needs not stoop to the kind of comments has has made. In my judgment, you made a grievous error which far outstrips anything else that has happened. The singular issue here is your actions and the disdain it shows for all of ArbCom. Let's remain focused. JodyB talk 00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved IronDuke

This should be speedily rejected; where is the dispute resolution? "Other venues are unlikely to resolve the issue." I don't see why that should be the case. This seems like a perfect opportunity to use mediation first, and see if that works. IronDuke 22:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Charles Matthews by User:Tombomp

What are you supporting, exactly? There doesn't appear to actually be any indication in FT2's statement as to the desired outcome. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See blank cheque. — CharlotteWebb 22:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CharlotteWebb

FT2, I agree with the two comments above.

  • "Other venues are unlikely to resolve the issue" is a greater assumption of bad faith than anything you have attributed to Slim.
  • Although your laundry list of complaints unsurprisingly exceeds the "500 words" guideline, you have failed to propose any actual remedy. I've read it twice, but other people are less patient. Could you refactor this perhaps, cut to the chase, so that the other arbitrators know what the heck they are voting to support, rather than having to make an educated guess? (I figured they would have learned a lesson or two about assumptions by now…)

To be fair they probably already know through other channels, but that's irrelevant. If desysopping Slim (and/or banning Giano) is what you want, could you kindly say so in short, plain English? Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 22:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied above. And no, they don't (or didn't until posted). FT2 (Talk | email) 09:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We might not be on the same page. I believe the "figurative or metaphoric" sense is more apt. Your request appears open-ended, vague, and subject to abuse (not unlike Giano's original "civility parole" but that's another matter), yet it has already attracted signatories, and that is the source of my worry.

Since your statement is remarkably verbose I'm certain that most readers will ignore most of it. I know that given a choice I would ignore certain parts of it:

  • Both of your attempts to compare the gravity of Giano's behavior and knee-jerk "civility parole" enforcement to "nationalism edit wars" and arbcom sanctions related to such. Unless arbcom has recently formed its own micronation (Whatthefuckistan perhaps) I don't see the relevance of this analogy.
  • Your citation of the four (4, cuatro, vier, čtyřka) previous arbitration cases in which Slim was involved, omitting the important detail that not one of these contains a finding of fact related to Slim's use of administrator tools or otherwise supports your statement that Slim "has behaved significantly substandard for an Administrator". Whose words are these? You imply that her judgment as an administrator was "[poor] enough for an Arbcom Finding or Remedy". You should explicitly qualify this as personal speculation as the four cases in question contain no language supporting it.
  • Your cut-up quotation from the C68-FM-SV-JZG-VHF-XYZ-PDQ-TPS-RJ45-U571-B52-C3PO case. You stated that Slim has been either warned, cautioned, or admonished (ostensibly by name) to
    "unnecessary involvement in... administrator actions as to which [SlimVirgin] may be unable to remain... professional".
    First, you fail to explain the context of this remedy, in which five users were hastily and irresponsibly painted with the same brush. Next you skip forward to the phrase which you assert to be salient "administrator actions". Then you insert the username "[SlimVirgin]" in place of the words "a party" which, in context clearly refers to any of five users, without regard to the suitability of the remedy for any particular user. I believe this is intended to imply that "SlimVirgin was cited for poor administrator actions" in this case, which simply isn't true. The case did contain some findings of inappropriate administrator conduct, but only for three of the users—none for Cla68 who is not an admin anyway, and none for Slim—so at best your argument relies on guilt by association.
  • Your statement that Giano, by being unblocked, would be "would be greatly encouraged to repeat" whatever he did to earn a block. I doubt he is the fool you take him for, but if you believe that you should put your cards on the table and request a ban, or a desysopping for Slim, or whatever it is you hope to achieve.

(Should I continue?)

I certainly do not believe that the "community will benefit from a quick decision" (any more than it benefited from your previous quick decision) because after examining portions of your statement I do not think it can be taken at face value. While you did preface this by saying that the decision (whichever decision that is, that is) "does not need extensive evidence or citations", but since you chose to provide it anyway it is only fair to note the portions of it which are is misleading.

If any decision is going to be made here I believe the arguments being presented here require the scrutiny of a full arbitration case. Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 15:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply for you. And as said openly to SV, a full case differs more in expectation of speed, than in statements, process, etc. I have no objection if the Committee decides it's best suited to a full case, and said this up front. Half of this case is revisiting failed sanctions (and additional conduct issues) of a party in previous RFAR cases, and the other half is Arbitration process related; both are commonly suited to motions. Hence why it's initially a request for a motion. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are trying to make a case for desysopping (to my knowledge you haven't confirmed this) there is in fact a third half, plus I'm not seeing the urgency you speak of. You should have requested a fully deliberated case from the start rather than a fast one.
I'm still not convinced there is any merit to comparing this to intense but randomly chosen content disputes which Giano has nothing to do with. Maybe you are suggesting that the acknowledging the fallibility of one arbcom ruling will have some kind of chilling effect on the credibility of other arbcom rulings. Even if this is true it surely would not always be a bad thing. Surely decisions which don't stand up to even casual scrutiny should be revisited, modified, or reverted. I suspect that the events you refer to as happening "tomorrow" are actually a slippery slope fallacy, or FUD at the very least.
SlimVirgin has made several previous mistakes, yes, I know this for a fact. However you have yet to establish that any of them involved abuse of administrator privileges, and I am yet to be convinced that the current "mistake" unblocking Giano was actually a mistake.
The polyadmonition remedy is akin to ticketing five people for reckless driving when actual evidence shows three drivers, one passenger, and one pedestrian. Of course it's invalid!
Do you really think we'll see another patently absurd (but mostly harmless) sock account named after a Jane Austen character, from Giano or anyone else? (don't answer that)
— CharlotteWebb 17:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replied (3rd response). FT2 (Talk | email) 02:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kristen Eriksen

It's not helpful to bring what amounts to a request to desysop one of Wikipedia's most respected administrators to the arbcom over a single disputed unblock. No prior dispute resolution, no showing that this was anything more than an isolated instance of what may be wheel warring, nothing other a few isolated cases in which SlimVirgin was cautioned over unrelated activities. Controversial blocks (blocking Giano for any reason will be controversial) need to be discussed, and consensus reached, before they are performed to avoid serious disruption. Most importantly, though, we need to avoid the corrosive effects of acrimonious conflicts between good-faith users, which substantially impairs our mission of producing a high-quality reference work. Rather than calling for severe sanctions against SlimVirgin, Giano, FT2, or David Gerard, I would ask everyone here to calm down, step back, and recognize that our common interests are far more important than this conflict. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Hans Adler

The first section of WP:BLOCK contains a big green box that says:

Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.

It was added a year ago after a talk page discussion. (For some reason I am sure that FT2 knows this passage.)

Unless and until Arbcom explicitly expresses its desire to override this important detail of blocking policy, it does not seem reasonable to interpret a predictably highly controversial block of Giano that has no chance of changing his behaviour as authorised by Giano's civility parole and the enforcement clause it refers to.

In addition, any hypothetical chance of an educational effect of this block was undermined by a sloppy rationale that exposed bias in the blocking admin.

Under these circumstances a fast unblock was the only option that promised a potential reduction in disruption. In principle, SlimVirgin should have discussed with FT2 first. Before the background of various recent events it was a reasonable decision not to do that. In the recent past, FT2 has been consistent in showing an appalling lack of judgement. (E.g.: Delivering the verdict of the "Orangemarlin case" as if this was plausibly a reasonable Arbcom action. An apparent complete failure to understand how serious procedural errors can potentially lead to incorrect findings in the Matthew Hoffman vacation case. Considering "whether recusal is appropriate" in the present case.) Just as FT2 found it appropriate to state that "Other venues are unlikely to resolve the issue" he has with SlimVirgins's unblock, SlimVirgin had no reason to believe that anything but prolonged drama would result from contacting FT2.

This motion should either be rejected or accepted with the understanding that the behaviour of all involved parties is examined, including that of current Arbcom members. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been my understanding that Arbcom is not in the business of handing out punishment. After this recent comment of FT2 I am no longer sure there is a consensus on that. If Arbcom does in fact see fit to hand out punishment independently of any individual beneficial effects this should be better advertised in the community, to avoid such misunderstandings in the future. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another point that needs to be clarified now that the Arbcom's authority is so low: Does it work as a catalyst that helps the community make up its mind and find consensus (the one prepared by the committee)? Or is it willing to enforce its judgements against strong resistance from a sizable and influential part of the community? That this question has arisen now, forcing us to choose between an impotent Arbcom and a dictatorial Arbcom, may actually be an important root of this conflict. Unfortunately, WP:AP does not help to answer either this question or the previous one. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I found the answer to my first question at WP:AE#Enforcement:
ArbCom decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals.
(This passage is about as old as the AE page itself, from early 2006.) "Gaming the system" seems to be a good description for what happened here when/after Arbcom rejected a case involving an apparent privacy violation by a former member. Since this was not technically a violation of the Mediawiki privacy policy, there is no chance of this being rectified by the ombudsman commission. The predictable fury of a well-known choleric editor who found himself completely helpless was taken as a pretext for a punitive act. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elonka

I was about to post a note to SlimVirgin's talkpage, that I strongly disagreed with her actions in overturning Giano's block. But then I saw the link to this motion, so I'll post here instead. In my opinion, when SlimVirgin overturned FT2's block without consultation, it was a serious abuse of administrator tools. ArbCom sanctions are not placed in a frivolous manner. They are placed after extensive deliberation, by a group of our most trusted editors. Sure, individual arbitrators and decisions may not be perfect, but overall the restrictions that come out of arbitration cases are produced via a careful process, and should be respected. If we as a community don't like the decisions that the Arbitration Committee makes, we have procedures to deal with them. But what is not appropriate is for an admin to simply unilaterally decide that they are going to use their tools to overturn enforcement of ArbCom decisions. I realize that the name "Giano" tends to stir strong emotions in many members of the community. However, when I look at the situation as an uninvolved admin (who has a certain amount of experience with arbitration enforcement), things look pretty clear to me: A user who was under an ArbCom civility restriction, was repeatedly violating that restriction. An admin, FT2, enforced the restriction with a block. A second admin, SlimVirgin, overturned that block, without discussion, without consensus, without even a courtesy note to the blocking admin. They did not discuss, they did not find a consensus, they did not do a single part of it right. That's an extremely clearcut case of "bad unblock", and if the Arbitration Committee chose to de-sysop SlimVirgin over this, I would support that decision. Admins need to have some expectation that when they make a block, that other admins will treat their decisions with respect. And ArbCom restrictions have to be enforceable, otherwise why bother making them at all? --Elonka 00:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(followup) Concerning the proposed motions as listed below, I support motions 1, 2, and 3. I do not support motion #4, as I still feel that uninvolved administrators should be allowed to enforce arbitration sanctions in the usual way. However, I do realize that this is not my call, so I will honor the final decision of the Arbitration Committee, whatever it turns out to be. --Elonka 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetorical questions from MastCell

Where is Wikipedia going? And why are we in this handbasket? MastCell Talk 05:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer by Jehochman

I disapprove of civility restrictions as ineffective and prone to drama, and I disagree with the original block; however, the way to remedy faulty sanctions or blocks is through discussion, not unilateral action. The unblock was an egregious misuse of sysop tools. ArbCom must make sure this does not happen again, preferably by obtaining a pledge from SlimVirgin, or else by removal of her sysop access. Jehochman Talk 05:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree very much with what User:FayssalF has said. Jehochman Talk 14:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need discussion and consensus prior to overturning a bad decision which did not have discussion or consensus? This sort of misplaced burden creates an unseemly first-mover advantage. See you on election day. — CharlotteWebb 15:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the kind of person who is easily intimidated by a comment like "See you on election day." That is needlessly inflammatory and a violation of decorum. The decision was an arbitration case enforcement. There was a huge discussion that, for better or for worse, resulted in an arbitration finding that explicitly authorized blocking by any administrator. FT2 is an administrator and is allowed to place blocks. Those who disagreed needed to have a conversation and get a rough consensus that the block was bad. By the way, I agree the block was bad, but I do not agree that it was so hellfire urgent to unblock that SlimVirgin could not have posted at WP:AE and waited a few hours to get a consensus to overturn. Jehochman Talk 16:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a relief because I'm not trying to intimidate you. What I really mean is I wish you the best of luck. — CharlotteWebb 17:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did mean to add "not", I hope :) FT2 (Talk | email) 01:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for noticing this and assuming good faith. Corrected above. — CharlotteWebb 14:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I suspect that most members of the Committee might feel that "best of luck" means not "winning". ;-) Jehochman Talk 14:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should not worry, most members of the Committee probably won't even consider the statement? All the best and best of luck are commonly used to wish someone luck before exams, tests, elections, games etc. Probably doesn't even need to be explained, majority of us just use it at appropriate times.— Ѕandahl ♥ 16:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For absolute clarity, I think that a majority of the Committee would now feel that being appointed was not "winning". More likely they feel that the election was like being sentenced to hard time. Jehochman Talk 16:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting observation, that thought may scare some some candidates away.— Ѕandahl ♥ 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be nice for members of the community to assume good faith with respect to arbitrators too. The constant darts fired at them must grow wearisome. We have happier, better arbitrators if we did not flog them constantly. Jehochman Talk 19:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does seem arbitrators have a difficult job. Therefore we must be careful who we choose to be arbitrators. Should our fate as an an editor have to be decided here hopefully it would be by impartial, intelligent, informed, fair individuals.-- Ѕandahl ♥ 19:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved L'Aquatique

To avoid these high-drama blocks in future, I suggest the ArbCom appoint six uninvolved admins with no links to IRC to enforce the civility parole against Giano from now on, and that these admins be the only ones allowed to issue blocks against him under that provision.

This is, imho, absolutely ridiculous. While I can't speak to the existence or absence of an IRC cabal (full disclosure though- I do use IRC although for no other reason than to speed up communications) the idea of only allowing admins who have no links to IRC to block him stinks of assumption of bad faith. IRC admins are capable of making neutral blocks the same way as anyone else- merely using a software does not automatically mean they are incapable of good judgement. If a block made by anyone is not supported by evidence, it should be undone. L'Aquatique[talk] 07:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by amused KimvdLinde

So, here we are, again, for the so-manyest time (10+?), with a RFAr involving SlimVirgin. She is one of the major drama magnets at wikipedia, who for too long was able to act above the tribal laws that govern Wikipedia. As FT2 is correctly observing, her statement as usual is a mix of framing, insinuations and bad faith. What is even more worrisome is that she thinks she can decide who actually would be allowed to judge Giano's edits (Fred, herself), and who not (FT2, any IRC-cabal admin). I hope that the ArbCom finally will put an end to this prolonged and repeated ritual dance involving RFAr's against SlimVirgin for misuse of her tools by ensuring that she cannot misuse those tools any more by lack of access to them. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • SlimVirgin's promise to stay out of "unnecessary drama" is as hollow as it comes, because her definition of unnecessary drama is not the same as that of most editors. Just her repeating that the current action was NOT unnecessary drama proves that point. A 6 month desysop is not enough, but better than another teethless slap on the wrist. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CBM

This is not the first unblock from SlimVirgin that has seemed questionable to me. On 2008-4-13, she unblocked MONGO with what I felt was a questionable rationale (her statement). It appears from her comment there that she did not wish to wait for the original blocking admin to come back online to respond to her assertion that he had a conflict of interest [26]. At the time of the unblock, there was not a consensus for an unblock in the ANI discussion, but a compromise to change the block to 29 hours had been worked out.[27]. Earlier, on 2007-02-21, SlimVirgin unblocked MONGO after a block of 21 minutes (!) with the rationale "there seems to be a consensus that this block isn't justified, and the blocking admin seems to have gone offline". — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ramdrake

I haven't interacted that often with SlimVirgin, and the few times I have, we've mostly been on opposite ends of an argument. This was for disclosure. Now, as relates to this request for Arbitration, it is little but an accumulation of rather obvious procedural errors: already mentioned were the fact that no prior resolution of this dispute has been attempted, and that there is no motion tangibly under discussion. Either of these errors should be enough to get this RfAr thrown out, so a pertinent question is: why hasn't it been? (with all due respect to all parties). Next, reading through this request and the companion thread at WP:AE, it seems obvious that there are sound reasons to call this block controversial: its possibly punitive nature, the possible involvement of the blocking admin, and the relative grievousness of the offense. Valid points have been made on both sides, let's be clear about it. So, I wouldn't say it's a bad block (or a good block for that matter), just a controversial one.

Now, about the unblock. Yes, an admin should consult with the blocking admin before unblocking. That's best practice. It's that an absolute requirement as per policy? No. It's just highly recommended, and those wh don't do it should have good reasons to act this way. Does unblocking this way constitute wheel warring? Not according to policy either, just like reverting someone's edit once is not considered edit warring. This is in good part a rehash of the RfC on Slrubenstein. Now, should the block have a special status because it is backed by an ArbCom ruling so should be considered ArbCom enforcement? Not according to several here, including ArbCom members. Should it then have special statut because it was placed by a sitting member of ArbCom? That would defeat the philosophy of this wiki where no one admin is supposed to be considered to have special status over the others.

SlimVirgin makes a point which I find interesting: that this action may be within the scope of WP:IAR. Based on the evidence offered so far, I don't see that it isn't. There is also the matter of Giano's offense. Yes, the choice of language was poor, and can even be considered uncivil and taunting. In this case, if the intent was to get Giano to think over his behaviour and force him to consider his actions and vouch to amend his ways, why a 55-hour block and not an indef-block which could be lifted after some commitment from Giano's part?

All in all, I see a very controversial situation, where one could successfully argue that either the block or the unblock was logical. However, I fail to see this as any kind of grievous abuse on either side. What I find most grievous is to take what should rightly be considered a minor matter (a single instance of unblocking someone) and blow the dispute all the way to the highest level without any intervening steps. It wasn't that bad a block, or that bad an unblock, but it is a bad ArbCom case.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by HiDrNick

In a wonderful world, the Arbitration Committee would consider a motion barring sitting arbiters from acting under the auspices of Arbitration Enforcement. The impropriety of this all-too-common action continues to astound. HiDrNick! 14:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Alecmconroy

In brief:

  • In the C68-FM-SV case, SV was given a final warning.
  • In late October, SV began edit-warring on an arbitration page. She persisted in this behavior despite multiple direct warnings from the Arbs.
  • I filed a motion requesting harsher sanctions against SV. Althought I was not personally involved, I wanted to avoid the awkward situation FT2 finds himself in here-- an Arb having to assume the role of "plaintiff". I also object to what I see as a something of a double-standard on the project.
  • When it was suggested my concerns would be better handled at some future date, I voluntarily withdrew the motion. In doing so, however, SV received "final 'final warning'".
  • Now SV has again exhibited controversial behavior, and the committee must again decide whether to act on it, or whether to give SV a fifth "final warning".
  • Therefore, (since it's not archived), I thought I should repost my older motion regarding the October events. For the benefit of those already familiar with the incident, the statment has been placed in the collapsed box below.

--Alecmconroy (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October Motion regarding SV edit-warring on Arbcom Pages

Request to amend prior case C68-FM-SV

Regrettably, circumstance lead me to request the committee consider reviewing its decision in this case, with an eye toward issuing stronger sanctions against one of the parties.

In as brief as possible:

  • In September, SV (as a party in this case) was strongly admonished in what I interpreted as a "final warning" to alter her behavior.
  • Since that time, Arbcom has been privately considering the allegations SV made against Lar and Mackenson. In that case, SV has continually refused to "provide the Committee with a clear and substantive statement of complaint" regarding her allegations against Lar and Mackenson, despite numerous requests to do so from the committee. At the same time, she did not offer any retraction of her earlier public allegations.
  • By 20 Oct, in the SV-LAR proposed decision, seven arbs had endorsed another warning to SV in the form of finding which said:
"SlimVirgin's choice of a forum of discussion was unhelpful, in the sense that magnification and further drama were the likely result. Given the sensitivity of the concerns, it would have been far preferable to have raised them privately with the Committee or with the Wikimedia Ombudsmen rather than in extensive public discussion—an approach that left the CheckUsers unable to fully respond and created risks to the privacy of third parties."
  • Despite the numerous warnings to conduct the case in private, on 20 Oct, SV again made a public statement in which she re-iterated her allegations against Lar and Mackenson. diff redacted for privacy
  • In response, NYB again warned against further public discussion. An arbcom clerk archived the discussion, and another clerk then blanked SV's statement from the archive. The committee stated that
"Parties are instructed to make no further posts to this page pending further input from arbitrators. Other editors are urged to do the same."
  • In response to these warnings, On 21 Oct, SV again violated Arbcom's request-- posting on the talk page despite instruction not to do so.[28].
  • A clerk removed the comment and again warned SV that Arbcom had instructed parties not to post on the page.
  • Again on 21 Oct, SV immediately re-inserted it, again directly violating the request not to post on the page.

In short, SV was warned about her behavior in the C68-FM-SV decision. She was again warned by the proposed decision which had been endorsed by seven arbs. She was yet again warned by NYB and the arbcom statement not to post. She was still yet again warned by a clerk. Despite these multitude of warnings, SV yet again persisted in the violating the warnings and editing disruptively.

In the remedy "Further Review and Sanctions", the Committee promised that they would "impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations"

When the C68-FM-SV sanctions were being discussed, I defended letting SV off with a warning, and I argued she would likely change her behavior after so strongly-worded a warning. The span of 34 days has, regrettably, shown her behavior to be unchanged. If anything, the behavior appears to have worsened.

This cannot be allowed to persist. In addition to the direct harm caused by bad behavior, there is an inherently corrosive effect in allowing one individual to completely ignore so many repeated warnings without consequence. For these reasons, I humbly request Arbcom consider some further sanction against SV. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Alecmconroy (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response / supplement

If we're at the point where somebody can overturn an arbcom enforcement, without consultation, and get off scott-free-- then really arbcom is acting more as a sideshow than a final step in dispute resolution. That the user who took it upon herself to over-rule arbcom is on quadruple final-warning non-secret probation just underscores the fact.

This probably seems like an anti-SV tirade, but it's not. SV is just doing her best to do what she thinks is right. The cog in the system that's failing is Arbcom, which is supposed to prevent repeat-offenders from repeatedly causing drama. I hope it doesn't fail again.

For I do declare, if no sanctions with teeth come out of _this_ incident, well, fiddlesticks:

<facetiousness> Maybe we really should redirect WP:WHEEL to Clown and WP:RFAr to Circus.</facetiousness> :)

--Alecmconroy (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to SV's reply to John Vandenberg

I'm very encouraged by John's comments and Slim's response. It may sound like obvious or empty platitudes, but it true and it bears repeating-- SV is a good person, doing her best to improve the project in the way she see's best.

If her actions are harming the project, it's up to US to convince her, through reason or through consequence, that she need to change. In a very real sense, we have failed her in the regard.

I think a temporary desysopping-- six months is the limit being suggested, would go a long way to resolving things. It would be a step up from a empty warnings issues thus far, but it wouldn't be such a "nuclear" option as blocking her or permanently desysop her.

I think this is an excellent direction for conversation to be taking. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Tznkai

Since I've been cited as approving the block implicitly, I wish to clarify on my opinion on the matter.

On the block of User:Giano II

I did not fully review the block, and did not intend to. What I did want to say is this: assuming that FT2's posted reasoning is in good faith and expressed what his intent was, the block was valid under blocking policy. Deterrence of bad behavior by block is an accepted way of doing things on Wikipedia, and likely will remain so. As to the actual block itself, I have a few thoughts: I feel now, as I felt and expressed a few times when the AE thread popped up, that the edits by CdB, while in my opinion were in poor taste, were not the crux of the matter, and not really worth discussing. The block reasoning was valid, that is that if the evidence held up, the block was sound, both on general principle, and the low tolerance implied by Civility paroles. I do not express opinion on the evidence, I have not reviewed it, and as soon as this business flared up to the point where arbitration was incoming, I made an effort to limit my investigations of specifics, and focus on generalities and principles. My position on the block in summary: Assuming good faith, FT2 acted within blocking policy and reasonable discretion to block Giano II as proscribed by the Arbitration remedy'

On the subsequent unblock by SlimVirgin

If SlimVirgin's unblock was based on the reasoning that she in her discretion, or the community has overturned or otherwise invalidated an arbitration remedy, or civility policy in general, then that is an example of poor judgment and likely abuse of admin tools. I believe that no reasonable editor with sound judgment would believe that SlimVirgin had the consensus of the community to unblock on those grounds.

On Giano-related debacles in general

I restate here what I stated on WP:AE to little effect:

I think it should be apparent by now that there is not a clear community will on this at all. I'd wager most of the community is sick of our collective shenanigans. This whole Giano episode is destroying the cohesion and credibility of everyone involved, no matter which side they're on. We have got to get our collective act together, not use tools, admin noticeboards, empty rhetoric and Giano to fight a proxy battle over philosophical and political issues. There is nothing more damaging in these melodramas than our inability to discuss with the mutual assumption of good faith, except perhaps the near wheel wars that break out. Everyone should stop claiming that the "community" is on their side, cause I'd bet all my privileges and all the money in my pockets that they just want us to collectively figure it out --Tznkai (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the motions

The proposed restriction on how arbitration enforcement operates is unfortunate, because it represents a complete and comprehensive failure by the community to act with adequate sense and caution. The effect will be to solemnize arbitration created restrictions, placing them further away from wiki-like decision making process, and further into law. For example, as read now, no administrator could overturn a genuinely bad block, one done by mistake, misinformation, or suspected compromised account. While those may appear to control gaming, it runs risk of both malicious tampering and well-intentioned bumbling by administrators and complainants. Even if some provision is made for these circumstances, administrator discretion will be curtailed. This means, in short, that arbitration created restrictions become a major hinderance to a restricted editor, above and beyond the text of the restriction. If the committee wishes to do this, extra care must be taken in creating and actively reviewing restrictions past and present, keeping in mind that the safety-valve is gone.

My regret is my part in the community wide failures of abuse and distrust that has brought us here. I particularly single out myself and my fellow administrators for having abused our tools and our discretion. We, together, bear the cross for the poisonous atmosphere of distrust. For my part in it, I sincerely apologize.

--Tznkai (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Bucketsofg

I've not been much active recently, but this case caught my notice. A quick review suggests to me that there are four important facts.

  1. Giano was on civility restriction
    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.
  2. Arbcomm has notice of the restriction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested, where Arbcomm seems to draw a line in the sand:
    Administrators are not required to enforce these rulings but they are required not to stop those who do.
  3. Giano was blocked for violating this restriction
  4. His unblocking is preventing the enforcement of the Arbcomm ruling.

It seems to me that the unblocking was very poorly considered. I was active, for a time, at WP:AE, a job that is pretty unpleasant at the best of times. I can't imagine what it would be like, however, if attempts to enforce Arbcomm restrictions were as easily over-turnable as this case suggests. Bucketsofg 22:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Who would be an arbitrator? I reluctantly agree that a motion is needed here. To send a clear message to admins that arbitrarily mucking around with arbitration enforcement without discussion is not acceptable. --TS 22:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to echo Slrubenstein's comments about Slim Virgin. She has been unfairly targetted and then blamed where she has been innocent. However where I disagree is summarised in my first comment above. This was an egregious exhibition of bad judgement and if left to lie the consequences for the community and therefore the encyclopedia will be a persistent confusion which will continue to dog us. Arbitration enforcement must be credible. --TS 00:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Slrubenstein

Since I agree with S. Dean Jameson, CharloteWebb, Hans Adler, I have little to say about the specifics of this case. I agree entirely with Mastcell and given the brevity of his/her remarks do want to add this: there is something important at stake for ArbCom: do the current members of ArbCom see their task primarily in resolving conflicts among editors in order to facilitate the creation of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit at anytime, or do the members of ArbCom wish to cultivate a political hierarchy, placing themselves above others? I view these two possibilities to be entirely antagonistic. ArbCom plays a very important role at Wikipedia. I know members of ArbCom work very hard; I appreciate and value the hard work they do. But with power comes the risk of the abuse of power, and any power must have checks. The greatest check against abuse is written into the software and name of this project, it is a wikipedia. In articles, all other editors act as checks on any one editor, and can right a wrong with a simple revert. The same should apply to administrators. Administrators have the power to block, but it is one we should use cautiously because blockng someone from editing is the absolutely most sever exercise of power an administrator can exercise at an encyclopedia that anyone is supposed to be able to edit anytime.

It is true that this built-in check can itself be abused, that the ability to revert can turn against the creativity of the project itself. That is why we have a 3RR for editors. WHEEL creates an even stricter standard for admins, essentially a 1RR since an admin cannot repeat an action. I think this makes sense, but clearly, SV has not violated WHEEL.

Most of the statements supporting FT2 take one of two lines that I have heard all too many times: (1) SV is a drama queen who attracts controversy. Given the Poetlister scandal I would think that any sane and decent person would resist this line of argument. SV has fought for the integrity of several articles and has been harassed as a result. This makes her a victim, not a dramaqueen. As for this little conflict, well, it is FT2 who filed the motion, not SV, so I would hardly call SV the drama queen here.

(2) An act by an administrator should not be reverted without due deference to the administrator; a fortiori an act by a member of ArbCom should be near inviolable. These views, in various forms and developed in different ways, boil down to a call to respect hierarchy at Wikipedia. As I said, I view this as antagonistic to the mission of Wikipedia. ArbCom has certain necessary powers that risk being abused; the community, especially community of all administrators, forms a necessary check against their power. Administrators have powers and the community of administrators has to act as a constant check against abuse. Now, here people who agree with me thus far may reach a point of disagreement. It seems to me that Slim Virgin was using good judgment to overturn a hasty abuse of power. I realize some people will flat out disagree with me. The solution to this impass iw WP:WHEEL: SV can revert another admin only once. SV cannot repeat the act. SV has not repeated the act. SV has not violated WHEEL. The system seems to be working.

I consider it bizarrly disproportionate that FT2 has taken this to ArbCom to seek to desysop someone who has been tireless in her improving articles, building up important policies, and struggling against petty injustices. ArbCom ought to be a mechanism for resolving disputes among editors of articles - this is why it was created. It should also be a mechanism of last resort. So what other mechanisms has FT2 sought to resolve his dispute with SV, before taking it to the mechanism of "last resort?" Did he file an RfC? Seek mediation?

FT2 may argue that this is not about a dispute between FT2 and SV, it is a matter of enforcing a rule. But .... Wikipedia has no rules. Its policies are not laws, they are descriptive, not prescriptive or proscriptive. The very idea of wikipedia is to create an Open Society where people are free to write great articles, constrained principally by the fact that every other member of the community is an equal, with the same powers. This breaks down when two or more editors end up in a serious conflict. And so we have conflict resolution mechanisms. ArbCom being the last resort. That is how things ought to work. The only supplement to this is an admin's ability to block someone to cool down a dispute. This conflict between FT2 and SV purports to be over an unblock. Was the block meant to cool off a dispute? Did SV's unblock fuel the dispute? Is progress on an article disrupted by all this? If so, well, perhaps these really are matters for ArbCom's attention.

As far as I can tell, GianoII was not even disrupting progress on an article - heis incivility was that he (gasp) criticized an administrator. And now Tony Sidaway is arguing that we can't let any take issue with admin, especially not another admin? There are limits, but I think if anything we should encourage criticism of people with power as long as it doesn't interfere with the writing of good articles, and so far I have seen no evidence of this.

But let us keep our eye on the ball: this is not about respecting or honoring someone's ego or presumption to power. This is about an encyclopedia that anyone can edit at anytime, and the need for some mechanisms to make sure that conflicts among editors do not disrupt this process. Only this latter issue in my mind warrants ArbCom's attention, certainly not the former. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cyde Weys

In brief: This incident strikes directly at the Arbitration Committee's legitimacy, and if not dealt with properly, will effectively leave the Arbitration Committee powerless to deal with a certain class of "high stakes" disputes in the future. Seeing as how these kinds of disputes were exactly the reason the Arbitration Committee was created in the first place, it needs to man up, exert its power, and strike down the challengers it is currently facing. --Cyde Weys 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fred Bauder

Any infraction by SlimVirgin should not be an excuse to bar appropriate enforcement of reasonable sanctions to protect Wikipedia against further depredations by Giano. His aggressive and continued incivility needs to be addressed. I would respect your guidance, but not a blanket bar to enforcement of a decision your committee made. Fred Talk 02:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Questions for Kirill/Arbitrators

Shouldn't 1 include one more exception: or if explicitly authorized by admin who took the action? I think a lot of decisions would be affected if all remedies are basically subject to the same terms of appeal as blpban.

I don't think 4 is quite fair on one level. Why not specify a number of arbitrators (eg; 4) as opposed to the entire Committee agreeing? Might as well remove the sanction altogether because by the time the Committee agree (if it happens), some might suggest that there's no point enforcing as it would be punitive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want that to happen either, re: motion 1. However, I'm still concerned that this isn't broad enough and going to cause a headache. There are occasions where an admin says "I can't look at this further for reason X (eg; emergency IRL). You're welcome to review and make modification if you feel it's in order, or to handle any appeals - I trust your opinion." Some will be howling that this isn't within the explicitly written terms of that motion, that this isn't an actual request to overturn the action as a mere matter of proxy but a situation where admin has no objection to unblock in principle. In reality, although there is no community discussion, the sanctioning admin has transferred his status to another, and overturning an action with that status should be allowed/sufficient. That's why I'd like this clarified in the motion itself if possible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment from Risker with respect to motion

I have not been following this matter as I have been dealing with real life and didn't need the drama. However, the first motion listed below is the Arbitration Committee making policy. Given the history of blocks and unblocks related, not just to Giano but to many other editors subject to sanctions, there is plenty of evidence to say that administrators are as likely to make an error in judgment in enforcement of arbcom sanctions as they are about anything else. The option of the original administrator agreeing to permit someone else to review or overturn the action is not included in the reasoning. In fact, under this motion, an administrator cannot revisit his or her own decision and rescind it. I have long said that Giano blocks lead to actions that are excessive and completely out of proportion to the situation, and once again we see that. It is NOT appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to make such a drastic change in policy without extensive input from the community, and as a kneejerk reaction to this week's episode of As the Wiki Turns. We all need to think about the implications of what is proposed, and understand the reasonably foreseeable problems it will cause. I have nothing to add about the block, the unblock, or the actions of any of the players in this situation. I just want to make sure everyone knows that the Committee is making a significant policy change well outside of their scope. Risker (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Arbitrators' comments re Motions

The Committee has failed to make a case that administrative actions taken under the proviso of the "any admin may" sections of general or specific sanctions should be inviolate. The community 'norm' is that administrators are personally responsible for their administrative actions, and that incorrect administrative actions can be quickly corrected. That's the proviso under which administrators are granted access to the tools. There is nothing special about an administrative action taken under an arbitration enforcement sanction; it is taken under a different set of circumstances than other administrative actions authorised by policy, but it is still the same action being taken by the same administrator and must meet the same standards. In trying to address Giano-drama, you are tying the hands of editors and administrators dealing with a vast number of situations in which arbitration enforcement sanctions have been applied; many of these situations are fine tuned amongst a small group of individuals that would not come close to the broad consensus you imply would be required to make any refinements or changes in the application of sanctions to specific articles, topics or editors. Hard cases make bad law. Risker (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation of my position

As it turns out, I was asked to explain the position I was outlining above as a question on my candidate page, with full response here. It seems that there are those who felt I was advocating for certain actions relating to SlimVirgin. As noted above, I offer no opinion on what is to be done about any of the players involved in this; my comments are strictly related to the way the committee is seeking to make policy. It seems that Thatcher agrees with me on this point in his comments below. Risker (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noo! Comment from Sticky Parkin

Oh well, it looks like it will pass, but more action is needed, not less, against the already sacresanct Giano. Now arbcom are rubber-stamping his sacresanct-ness and ensuring no-one can easily act to stop him, no matter what he does. This when he has made more comments about people in the mean time. And he goes on about arbcom being against him. Sticky Parkin 15:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Durova

So five arbitrators consider it a wise move to create a situation in which a man who has long accused the Committee of conspiring against him can only be blocked by their own consensus. What are the odds you can summon a majority before any block becomes 'stale' and therefore punitive? And if a majority of you ever scurry to the computer so quickly, wouldn't that be prima facie evidence of conspiracy? DurovaCharge! 16:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others. - Ambrose Bierce

Follow-up: since several others have invoked Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII, not all of us who were active there are of one mind. There isn't enough in this single incident to hang the weight of a pattern of behaviors by one individual upon another person. Although for the good of the project it would be best if the Committee members--singly and as a whole--took proactive steps to prevent such matters from becoming political footballs. The trust and respect of the community is essential to the Committee's effectiveness. DurovaCharge! 19:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lar

While I have little direct involvement in this (apart from Giano turning up on my talk early in this as he did elsewhere), obviously I've had exposure to this whole mess for some time so I won't be styling myself "uninvolved".

Arbitration Enforcement, like all actions on en:wp, is carried out by volunteers. Apart from Cary, no one is paid to do the admin work they do (or at least, so we hope, although some conspiracy theorists will say that the CIA or Mossad, or the ACLU, or the KGB, or IBM, or whoeever, has paid operatives here... :) ). So everything is a voluntary action. If a particular sanction goes unenforced... why then, by the fact that not ONE admin would enforce it, it's fairly clear there is no consensus for it. But once it IS enforced... once an admin HAS acted, undoing it is going against the will of the Committee, which we have put in place (defacto or dejure) as the final dispute resolution mechanism, and thus against the will of the community. It requires that a a pretty clear consensus be developed to undo it.

Pointing this out is not a new policy development, it's an implication of existing policy.

SlimVirgin acted in a way that directly contravenes the sanctions placed by the committee. She did so without first developing a consensus in the community to do so. If she felt the sanction was wrong, she should have argued against it. If she felt the particular application of it was wrong, she should have argued that the application was wrong, that the evaluation of the situation did not fit the sanction as written. Made that argument, and carried it, and then with the force of a clear consensus behind her, undid the block.

She did not do that. She unblocked FIRST, before explaining why, before raising any issues, before seeking any consensus. Directly in contravention of an arbitration enforcement provision.

Instead of working with the community, SlimVirgin has, as she has done so many times before, acted as the epitome of the vested contributor. Acted as a law unto herself.

How many cases so far has she been warned about her behavior? How many more final chances do you arbitrators plan to give her?

Enough. It is time that SlimVirgin is told that she is not a law unto herself. Time, and past time. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wkdewey, uninvolved lurker who needs to find better things to do with his time

(full disclosure:I've basically abandoned this account, I don't have another. But I do some IP editing and made a comment on WT:WHEEL about the effect of that policy on blocked users, inspired by this case). For the longest time, the sanctions against Giano have been de facto unenforceable. Community consensus was usually against admins that blocked himt. Civility blocks in general seemed to be deprecated, especially outside of Arbitration Enforcement. Now all of a sudden the community wants to enforce the sanctions against Giano. Fine, there may now be a case for removing the special rules that apply to him. But the community wants to punish an admin for unblocking him, which so many other admins had done with impunity up till now. I don't know if SlimVirgin had good enough reason for the unblock, but there is no way she could have expected this reaction--she could reasonably expect to have consesnsus on her side based on past history (though it turns out that wasn't the case). I doubt there would be this reaction if a more popular admin had performed the unblock. (See Moreschi reversing a block on Giano made by Tznkai in October, I guess Tznkai didn't say the magic words WP:AE. No one wanted to sanction Moreschi, but a couple people wanted to desysop Tznkai for a bad block) If you want to desysop SlimVirgin, you should desysop every admin who has ever unblocked Giano, at least since the IRC case. After all, official policy has been the same all along. Wkdewey (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BirgitteSB

I have read through this a few times and I can't understand why in the world this is being taken on. Frankly I am speechless that this incident is even being considered by arbcom. I have tried to express this a in few different drafts but I am inadequate to articulate my speechlessness. Nearly everyone here and certainly all arbs and principals have lost sight of the big picture. NYB maybe sees it a little, and maybe that is why he is trying the think of something better. NYB: the better thought is simply to walk away. Arcom can accomplish nothing worthwhile on top of the shaky foundation of this particular incident. Do none of you see the way these problems are perpetuated by responding to incidents like this? Frankly this is all pointless arguing about pointless make-work and I am sorry to be even commenting on it.--BirgitteSB 22:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Apoc2400

If the Arbitration committee decides that "John is banned for six months" then an administrator will enforce the ban with a block, and no other admin would even dream of undoing it. An outright ban is very severe and often makes the project lose a valuable contributor. Therefore ArbCom started handing out paroles, of which civility parole is only one kind. There, the offending editor is allowed to continue editing, but if they repeat the offense they will be sanctioned quickly. This has worked very well in the conflicts that originate from articles rather than wiki-drama. With no more wiggle-room many offenders will return to good editing.

Parole enforcement is not as straight forward as enforcing an ArbCom ban, because it involves deciding if the parole was violated or not. However, if arbitration parole enforcement is subject to the same momentary consensus and opinions of the administrators who show up as normal blocks, then it becomes meaningless. ArbCom would have to go back to more direct bans and we would lose good editors and administrators because of single heated disputes.

Regarding Giano, I wish that instead of putting out fires ArbCom would help the community come up with a compromise that would be acceptable to his friends, his detractors and all the editors that are just tired of this endless drama hindering community progress. If not in this case then on the committees own initiative or in the next case. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Vandenberg

Echoing BirgitteSB, arbitration is not the solution. Why in goodness sakes is there no Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Giano II? That is what this is all about!

I personally fully support FT2's block of Giano II, based on the reasons he gave to WP:AE, however it was a summary block without discussion. FT2 posted to WP:AE at the same time as he blocked[29]. This approach has not worked before (i.e. Orangemarlin); it perpetuated the belief that it is an "IRC block" and not a communal decision after necessary review. SlimVirgins action is undeniably perpetuating the battle, and I dont buy a lot of her reasons, but I dont doubt that she also thinks that this is about "IRC" and "anti-Giano", and that she believes her unblock is a principled action. It was the wrong action, as she should also have been seeking to find a communal means of reviewing this situation - instead she pressed on towards the abyss, no doubt egged on by a large segment of the community willing to tear this place apart if need be in order to rebuild it to their liking, for good or ill.

This isnt about SlimVirgin; it is about Giano II's conduct, and his supporters and detractors, and it is about IRC. The community needs to work on these two problems, rulings by the committee have not helped yet, and it is rich to think that a speedy case without Evidence and a Workshop is going to magically fix it. There is no way the arbitrators can quickly pass a few motions to resolve this. Writing more remedies is going to result in more enforcement, and it will only end when everyone is fallen.

SlimVirgin, you made a principled move. I think you should make one more. Voluntarily hand in your tools for six months so we can focus on the "Giano II problem" (I am referring to the battle, rather than the person). If you can do that now, you also clearly indicate how strongly you believed you did the right thing, and you regain any respect you may have lost by doing this block. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, actions speak louder than words. The best way to undertake this is to put down your tools. It will do you a world of good, and it will not hurt the wiki. While you have access to the tools, you will use them when the need arises - that is what principled people do - and we will be here again soon enough. If you dont have the tools, others will need to take your load, and there are enough good people around you who can do that.

A voluntary desysop demonstrates your commitment to your last action, which supports a valued Wikipedian, and brings to a head well known issues that are being dodged even now. You can hold you head high, and turn your focus to the underlying problems that you mentioned.

Regarding obtaining your tools again, you need to trust that the 'crats will do the right thing for the wiki, and you have six months to demonstrate that the break has rejuvenated you, which should be sufficient to sway the opinions of people who are elected to make the call: the 'crats.Your tools are better in their hands than in the hands of Arbcom or the community. When (hopefully not "If") they do restore your tools, it will be a strong signal to the broader community that you're seen as a permanent member of the admin team; you've just been on the bench for a bit. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Alex Bakharev (talk)

It appears that we have a permanent reason for disruptions related to Giano. A part of the community believes that an evil conspiracy of power hungry IRCers is gaming the AE trying to unjustly block Giano, another part of the community believes that an evil conspiracy of power hungry nonamed conspirators is trying to halt the just punishment for Giano's incivility so to undermine the authority of arbcom and to seed chaos. With these believes every block or unblock of Giano becomes a source of drama and disruption. I think the proposal of SV is excellent: lets appoint a number of administrators who do not belong to either of the alleged cabals and give them the monopoly to enforce the civility restriction on Giano. Among of six or more active administrators at least one would be surely present at any time, thus the conflict resolution will be quite swift if necessary. Proposed remedy 4 is another solution of the same problem. It would be a second choice for me. Firstly, obtaining written consensus of Arbcom is a slow process. Usually civility blocks are only effective within minutes of the violation afterwords they do not much good. I doubt that it is possible to get Arbcom vote in such quick time frame. Secondly, some of the arbcom members are often considered to be a part of the alleged anti-Giano conspiracy. Their participation would not be helpful and I do not sure they have enough sense to recuse. Still remedy 4 is much better than the "any admin" hunting license we have now.

1 and 1a make sense but I would add a statement that the administrators with the conflict of interests should not be involved in the AE in the first place. Otherwise those rules would bring more bad things than the good ones. 2 and 3 go well beyond a motion on Giano case. I think we need an RfC or an Arbcom for such decision over one of the most respected administrators. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mackan79

I, for one, am uncomfortable with the current proposal of a unique type of 6 months desysop with automatic restoration. Certainly I see the basis for the remedy, as I am under the impression that most admins who undid a carefully articulated block without discussion would face a sharp remedy, even without multiple recent warnings. However, the continuing message here is in many ways one supporting the idea of the "vested contributor." Let me agree with one arbitrator: simplicity, please, not complex attempts at messaging. For that matter I'd be hard pressed to think of a remedy that could suggest adminship is more of a "big deal." Of course none of this is to suggest that any part of this is simple or easy. Mackan79 (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from MONGO

Above, CBM states that SlimVirgin previously unblocked myself without a consensus to do so...well, the main block he mentions that she reversed was, well long ago and that block she reversed apparently did have consensus for reversal in the long run anyway since Tango was desysopped and the catalyst for that arbcom action was due to his block of me which Slim had reversed. As far as I am concerned, we have two groups here...one that understands that Giano is outspoken and another who seem to get their knickers in a bind every time he makes a snide or nasty comment...get over it and get over yourselves for pete's sake. I'm getting fairly nauseated by those that wield the power here who think they must do something to get others to conform to their brand of "civility"...when the most urgent problems this enterprise faces is ongoing issues surrounding our BLP's and politically charged articles and issues that are being hijacked by partisan players who are little more than single purpose accounts. I have more to comment on this matter latter, but I firmly believe that desyopping SlimVirgin will be a negative for Wikipedia.--MONGO 12:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections on the proposed motions from Thatcher

Late to the party, I guess.

On Arbitration enforcement

It has been well and truly said that WP:AE is not to be used to re-argue the merits of the case or the (in)justice of the remedies, but to report violations for appropriate sanction. However, I do not feel that special rules for AE sanctions are wise or necessary. Like all admin actions, there is always scope for reflection or the consideration of new facts (baiting, for example, or even sincere apologies). The key thing with any admin action is to consult with the acting admin, or if unavailable, develop a consensus of other admins. All admin actions should be subject to this standard. This motion is the solution to the wrong problem.

On Admin reversals

For an admin to reverse another admin (mainly blocks but sometimes deletions and protections as well) without consultation is both discourteous and arrogant. Discourteous because the reversing admin is assuming either bad faith or bad judgement on the part of the first admin; arrogant because the reversing admin is stating that their judgement on the matter is so superior and so obviously correct that review and discussion are not needed. We don't tolerate admins calling each other idiots in words, we should not tolerate it in deeds.

I would like to see the committee move aggressively toward briefly desysopping admins who issue unblocks without discussion. Obviously many unblocks are non-controversial, but where there is a dispute between the blocking admin and the unblocking admin, where the unblocking admin ignored consensus or never sought it, and where the blocking and unblocking admin can not resolve their differences through discussion, I would like to see the unblocking admin desysopped for 24 hours. Being an admin is not like kidney dialysis; anyone who can't survive a 24 hour holiday needs to take a longer break anyway. Such brief desysoppings should be applied by the committee after in camera discussion and with as little drama as possible. This will send the message to all admins that it is a really bad idea to reverse another admin without discussion. Repeat offenders would be subject to longer desysoppings and eventually, permanent deadminning (although I think it is highly unlikely that anyone would let themselves get this far).

Unfortunately, the committee, by its actions over the last year, has set a dual precedent. Arbitration requests have been filed over blocks and unblocks involving ordinary admins, they have largely been rejected, with the committee adopting a "third rail" model (the reversal is not wheel warring, only the reblocking makes it a wheel war). However, when the matter involves a member of the upper echelon (FT2 vs SlimVirgin, Jimbo vs Zscout370, Shoemaker's Holiday vs Charles Matthews) the case is accepted and penalties assessed. I think this is a terrible development, which makes it look like the committee is placing the ordinary non-Arbcom-related judgement of its members above that of other admins. I hope this is not intentional.

You have previously put in place special rules for admins who might be tempted to reverse a BLP deletion, and are now poised to enact special rules for arbitration enforcement. Why not enforce the standards of conduct that all admins are expected to follow on all matters?

On SlimVirgin

If you really are considering the totality of SlimVirgin's behavior as an admin, shouldn't you have opened a full case? It seems that SlimVirgin has "volunteered" for a 6 month break, but it looks to me like a bridegroom volunteering at a shotgun wedding.

On Giano

You are about to enshrine Giano in a class all his own, Category:Wikipedia editors who can only be blocked by a vote of Arbcom. Giano can be an ass. But I have never seen him lash out over matters of content; if I did, I would block him and wheel-war until it stuck or until I got deadminned. But he only lashes out at members of the power structure when he believes he has a legitimate grievance. Sometimes he is wrong, but he is right a lot of the time. And sometimes in these grievances he really does cross the line and makes comments that deserve blocking. I think consistent application of 24 hour blocks that stick, along with consistent application of the admin reversal policy I suggest above, would have dealt with the problem a long time ago. The community would have been able to develop a consensus on what kind of comments really were blockable and which were tolerable acting out (without the discussion being short-circuited by automatic undiscussed unblocks) and Giano would have learned where the thin red line actually was. But. After adopting measures that were too narrow (Geogre prohibited, Gerard prohibited) and that did not address the real problem (admin disdain for each other) you have now made Giano untouchable. Epic win for Giano. Thatcher 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Tom Harrison

It's not appropriate for the arbcom to deal with this as a summary judgment or clarification. It's fundamentally unjust to assess this kind of penalty (and it's way out of proportion) through some kind of expedited process. The committee seems to be, on its own initiative, prosecuting an individual with whom many of them have a grudge. Tom Harrison Talk 16:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that we should ignore the latest injustice, or secrecy, or unaccountability, or arrogance, and get back to work, is increasingly not compelling. It invites a response in very direct, simple, and uncivil language. Tom Harrison Talk 17:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Giano

The findings of this case seems to be very odd indeed. It seems to me that SV is being punished for wounding FT2's pride. I see no other reasoning behind this, the civility sanction that she overturned was widely accepted, even by the Arbcom, as an error of creation. She was merely correcting that error. The bringing of this case has merely emphasised the errors and divisions by and amongst the Arbcom. FT2 feels wounded and affronted so SV has to be burned at the stake. Rather unpleasant really. Giano (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Moreschi: Why not see how much further Gerard and FT2 can push your proverbial envelope, or am I an easier target? Giano (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Moreschi: agreement with Thatcher

As usual, Thatcher is right. Clear thinking is needed here. I can see why SV is being temp desysopped here but really this is nothing more than what should have happened at the time of the Cla68/FM/SV case taking place on a fairly minor pretext (rather like how Everyking eventually lost the admin tools). Do it, but be clear and consistent in your application of rules in the future. If you want to set a universal standard of "no unblocks without discussion", fine, but make it universal. At the same time, if you do this it will be necessary to establish harsher penalties for bad mistakes made with the block button. Have no illusions about this: if blocks are not to be so lightly overturned in the future, admins making blocks will have to get it right more often, with penalties if they don't.

As regards the Giano situation, it will be a close-run thing if that does not eventually tear the community in half. Blocks like those made by David Gerard recently, and the subsequent necessary unblocked, have given Giano a sense that he can continue to push the envelope and get away with it. This is bad for discipline. We cannot have one set of rules for Giano and another for everyone else. The way forward it is clear. Admins who make egregiously bad civility (or indeed for any other type) blocks of Giano or other established users should get temp desysopped for short periods of time, as Thatcher proposes. If Giano continues to push the envelope he needs to properly sanctioned: by that, I mean banned. Unpleasant, but I can already sense Josh leaning in this direction. Above all, we cannot let the community rip itself apart here. That is is No.1 priority, and the danger is real. Moreschi (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Giano: I thought my taking David Gerard to RFAR showed that I do not regard pushing the envelope as acceptable from anyone. SlimVirgin too has been pushing the envelope for a very long time: it is no surprise that this little business has led to arbcom's patience snapping. All of you have taken actions and made statements detrimental to the community, and I say this as someone who has unblocked you - twice? Certainly more than once. You'd be much more effective if your valuable message did not come across in a perpetual tone of high-pitched, sometimes offensive aggressive complaint. See Thatcher for a fine example of how to get your point of view over clearly, forcefully and inoffensively. It's not so hard. Moreschi (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by fortunately uninvolved Kusma

The amazing amount of comments here show perhaps that some organized community involvement may be in order. As I just found out on the talk page, only Arbitrators may suggest Motions, as this is not a proper Case and therefore has no Workshop. As the matter at hand is not urgent (and perhaps not as "simple" as stated by FT2, although there are some contradicting simple explanations), I don't see why community wisdom can't be used, or why it hasn't been asked for earlier in a proper RfC. Kusma (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from uninvolved NuclearWarfare

Suggestion: Motion 3A is amended to say "During this period she will not be allowed to undo the administrative actions of any other administrator, without the explicit permission of the administrator in question, or a clear community consensus to reverse the action?" I don't know enough of the backstory, but this seems like a logical thing to add into the motion. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 20:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Jayjg

I'm not sure whether to be irritated or reassured by a number of the utterly predictable comments made so far. Rather than commenting on the situation itself, I would like to point out that the claim that the proposed remedy 3A is not a "unique type" of remedy, except as regards its extreme length. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins#Remedies; if any remedy of this sort is required, then the one used there seems far more appropriate. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GRBerry

Contrary to Thatcher's reflections, I see motion 4 to essentially end the civility parole on Giano II as a good, but inadequate step. It doesn't end the parole on Giano, just restricts it to being used by the ArbComm as a committee, which is merely a fig leaf over the fact that the original parole is ended. Be honest and end it. I'd prefer to see a motion immediately ending all existing civility paroles. We recently had another ArbComm case where one was under consideration, but upon repeated requests for an example of a civility parole that had actually worked, none could be found that had worked. If a tool doesn't ever work, don't ever use it. I am not certain if there are any others in effect currently; the only other one that comes immediately to my mind lapsed due to passage of time last week. GRBerry 05:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input from ElinorD/Wikitumnus

ArbCom is showing a breathtaking lack of integrity here. Yes, Slim is a thorn in their flesh; it would be much nicer for many of them if she disappeared. But when we voted you into power it wasn't so you could use a case to get rid of someone who annoys you.

To Charles Matthews You are currently involved in a hostile email exchange with Slim over your passing on Carl Hewitt information to a reporter. Why didn't you recuse from this?

To the arbitrator who wrote to me on 3 August 2007, after Slim had been Slashdotted, to say you had "remarkably little sympathy" for her, and who posted a taunting "cordially awaiting your response" sneer on the cyberstalking list on 31 August 2007, why didn't you have the integrity to recuse from this and from the Lar case?

To Deskana You're shocked we're "making a fuss about FT2 bringing this forward"? No, it's because FT2 was initially "fairly certain" he didn't need to to recuse.[30]. Even without blocking someone he's in dispute with, his not immediately knowing something so blindingly obvious places his judgment as an arb far below Slim's as an admin.

To FT2 You use against Slim that the Lar case found she was "quick to make unwarranted accusations, and yet again reminded to use proper process." Unless you personally believe she made unwarranted accusations, it's dishonest to use the ruling against her. So please, state exactly which of Slim's accusations YOU believe to be unwarranted? The accusation that Lar checked Wikitumnus as a Crum sock when there would have been no policy violation even if WT had been Crum? The accusation that Lar checked Crum on the pretext of WT being Crum AFTER discovering that I was? The accusation that Lar told his wife? The accusation that Lar was being dishonest in claiming that his wife had had a role in counselling me, and that I had previously made statements to both of them? Please state which of those accusations was unwarranted. Or how about my accusation that Lar lied on the private CU mailing list when, after receiving an e-mail from me saying I didn't see how the check could have been justified, he informed his fellow CUs that I had admitted to him that it was justified? As for her being reminded to use proper process, did you or did you not receive evidence that we had both tried to raise the concerns in private first, but got nowhere? Did you or did you not receive an e-mail from a CU proposing that if Slim made earlier attempts in private before going public, that should be noted in the findings? Please don't deny it. I was cc'd on the correspondence.

To all arbitrators I ask each of you to look into your hearts and see how well you can answer the question I've asked FT2. I also ask you to see how well you can answer the questions Slim asked FloNight.[31] ElinorD (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

If it is decided that a full RFAR hearing would be better, then this motion should be moved accordingly. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recuse - Disclosure: I have commented on the relevant AE thread and blocked Giano at the beginning of October. If any appropriate party asks for my recusal, I will comply.--Tznkai (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC) - Will be recusing anyway because of the above and possibly to make a statement later.--Tznkai (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: As Tznkai is recused in this matter and a number of the other Clerks are engaged with their candidacies to the December 2008 ArbCom Elections, I'll take over informal Clerking of this thread for the time being.
FT2: awaiting direction from the Committee as to whether this should be treated as a full Request for Arbitration or not. (I make no comment on the merits as I read them in that respect.)
AGK 22:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • On principle, I will be considering the level to which I am involved or otherwise, and whether I can consider myself acting neutrally in the case as a result, and whether recusal is appropriate. I am fairly sure I am not involved to that extent, but I would like to take a little time and consider carefully. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recusing. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting statements, particularly from SlimVirgin. Kirill (prof) 20:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't care about being thought either "humourless" or "self-important" in so doing. This is a provocation, stacked on top of another user's systematic use of provocation. The moment to switch from ignoring attention-seeking behaviour to doing something about it is a judgement call, naturally. But to think one's own judgement simply over-rides that of another is what we characterise as "wheel-warring". My views on the matter are known, and indeed were recently discussed by me directly with SlimVirgin. So, it will come as no surprise to her, at least, that I support. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Tombomp notes above, there's no specific motion to support at the moment, but I take Charles' comments as support for the concept that "some action should be taken." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, we should at least rule whether this is within the scope of WP:WHEEL and an appropriate use of the tools. Support for the approach of handling this quickly by motion, if you need detail. I not long ago was in a dispute resolved by RfC on unblocking. There people were saying that to cite the Connolley-Geogre case was somehow ArbCom imposing on the "rights" of admins (to do as they choose, it seems, without discussion). That, as you put it, was "deeply unsatisfactory". Or, as I put it in an email to SlimVirgin, was someone "playing silly buggers". Having slept on this, I see I could have been more explicit as to what I was supporting; but the approach of picking SlimVirgin up on this and making clear her exact responsibility (to communicate, to use the tools for the good of the project and not in a self-advertising gesture, and not to cut across ArbCom enforcement) is right and proper. In dealing with one swollen head, we have no need of another intervening and telling us "you are doing it all wrong". Charles Matthews (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply on "conflict of interest". SlimVirgin, you and I worked together to draft WP:COI from fragments, our one major interaction on the site, and a fortunate one. Nothing there of the sort, and rightly. We do not accept the argument that admins must be completely uninvolved in situations where they act. That, simply put, is not our system; and dispute resolution can deal effectively with this sort of accusation. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holding off on lengthy comments for now in the hope that Fred Bauder's intervention, described on WP:AE, may help resolve this issue insofar as SlimVirgin is concerned. As for the broader situation, every aspect of it has been deeply unsatisfactory. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of issues here. a) Giano's and Slim Virgin's actions are more than questionable and disruptive. a.1) Giano, what is the purpose of the existence of the Catherine de Burgh account? To be fair, there were times where Giano was being baited but there have been many other times where Giano's actions have been highly disruptive. We have already wasted many resources trying to find ways to solve this long-standing issue. Nothing seems to be working and both Giano and the people he disagrees with are responsible of this mess. But the time being wasted cannot be compensated with Giano's encyclopedic contributions. I would be satisfied if there's someone who can convince me of the opposite. a.2) Slim Virgin, do we consult with blocking admins before unblocking someone or not? Have you considered other possible and viable options before unblocking? You have been involved in many cases already and it was obvious that your unblocking without consulting would lead to something of this nature. b) We have the issue of IRC and AE. b.1) I must state that while I agree with the nature of the original block of Giano by David Gerard I disagree with it being performed by an IRC participant who may not be neutral in this case. I agree less with FT2's (55 hours?!) block since it -- technically -- looks punitive. And again, FT2 is one of the main participants on IRC. However, this does not necessarily mean that the block was discussed or planned off-wiki or on IRC before being implemented. b.2) As for AE, it should be noted that it is not ANI or AN... It is a page to discuss enforcement of ArbCom rulings. I agree much with Elonka's statement except for the fact that FT2 block was not considered as an ArbCom block or sanction. For the rest, this is a textbook of "wiki politics" and it is blatantly clear that everyone is totally fed up with it. In brief, this is an encyclopedia and not a political forum. Giano and Slim Virgin... Sincerely, with the many frequent questionable and problematic actions, do you really believe that you are still helping Wikipedia positively as you used to do a while ago? Anyway, I'll be waiting for more input from other arbitrators and community members before having a more consice opinion on this. I am not sure at all if it would be a positive one for Giano and Slim Virgin unless I get sure that this won't happen again (meaning never ever again). Is this hard to achieve? -- fayssal - wiki up® 13:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response added. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here. I see no aspect of either Giano's or SV's behavior here that is conducive to creating an encyclopedia, or to building a community that can better create an encyclopedia. Feh. Twittery. (See, I've cleaned up my language.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FT2, I disagree. It is about the user who was the subject of that block... The question is how much weight it carries on the whole issue. I personally believe that it carries sufficient weight enough to consider the issue of Giano and the unresolved IRC issue as an important -- but not the main -- element in this case. Giano's uncivility and the troubling unwillingness to restrain have solid roots dumped on that ground. Please note that I am not considering the blocks (that of David and yours) unjustified but I believe that they simply lack a 100% net legitimacy though I am unable to give a random figure for that. This doesn't differ much from an example of an admin who would issue a block on someone with whom s/he disagrees on article talk pages. I am answering here as well the Phil Sandifer's message on my talk page. The block was reasonable of course and I personally support it. However, blocks for random periods 55 hours (2 days, 7 hours and 0 minutes) got to have a different type of rationale. Otherwise, it could be just 54 or 56 hours. Slim Virgin, I appreciate your willingness to listen (shown above but pending this explanation). To answer your question: I am referring to the accumulation of your questionable actions. The AE unblock based on no consultation whatsoever is just one action among others. You have to accept that in most cases your acts carried more political hints than anything else. We don't do politics over here. We are an encyclopedia. Get rid of the battleground mentality immediately. Get rid immediately of User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate. Could you do that?! What's that for by the way?! Do you think that that page adds something positive to Wikipedia? I'd probably and partially base my judgement on your answer on that. It's a simple and plain question for you. According to you, that page is [your] account of the Poetlister affair, how it started, and the effect it had on [your] life. I am sorry that may have had an effect on your life but this is a community project and not a place for personal stories. You can spend less than that time (dedicated but wasted on that nonsense and unproductive page) helping the purpose of this project instead. We don't need people who spend their time in furthering, participating or expanding drama most of the time. Users who don't seem to understand that basic and simple principle of our project can only be shown the door. I'd exempt a two-week newbie from that but not users who have been here for years. Period. In brief, give me a sign of a change because I can't oppose your desysopping without a promissing word from you that this needs to end. -- fayssal - wiki up® 19:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments here. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree entirely with Jpgordon above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Phil's question above: the motion is an admission that the parole, as presently enforced, has proven utterly ineffective at reducing either incivility or drama, and therefore fails to accomplish what we intended in placing it. How we move forward in the long term is a broader question that will likely depend on (a) the outcome of the enforcement RFC after the Piotrus 2 case and (b) the ideas put forward by the newly appointed arbitrators; our objective here is merely to put out the fire in the short term. Kirill (prof) 13:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Ncmvocalist's questions:
    • Motion #1 is restricted to overturning actions by "another administrator" (emphasis mine); administrators are free to reverse their own decisions, and overturning a decision by request of the original admin is merely this process taking place by proxy. At the same time, I don't want decisions being overturned merely because the original admin happens to post something stating that, e.g. they would have no objection to an unblock in principle, but without an actual community consensus that the unblock should occur.
    • In motion #4, the agreement would be that of a majority of active members, rather than necessarily being unanimous. It's intended as a fairly short-term measure, in any case; I see no urgency that would necessitate four-arbitrator-approved blocks as opposed to a full vote. Kirill (prof) 01:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • People are making a fuss about FT2 bringing this forward. Since when have involved parties been unable to bring a matter before the Arbitration Committee? Never, otherwise we'd see a sharp decrease in the number of cases. I'm shocked that anyone would say such a thing. It can be seen that he hasn't voted on any of the sanctions here. That is as it should be. The community would expect no less of an Arbitrator, and rightly so. So why don't people lay off him and give him the same chance as anyone else to bring a matter before us. I can assure you all that FT2 isn't attempting to influence the decision making process here. --Deskana (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading my email inbox, the on site comments, reviewing old cases, and talking to some Committee members; yesterday evening I decided to propose a 6 month desysop of SlimVirgin with restrictions on reversing other admins after she receives access to the admin tools again. (I see that Deskana already added the first part.) I sincerely thank SlimVirgin for agreeing to the not use her tools for 6 months. Too eliminate ambiguity, I prefer to make it a formal restriction on use use of her tools for 6 months by having a desysop done at the resquest of arbcom. And I still want to include a provision against reversing the actions of another admin for an additional 6 months. It SlimVirgin follows this path, I feel that she will have satisfied the concerns of the Community and then can have the tools returned without restrictions. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin's decision making is flawed to the point that continued access to the tools does not benefit Wikipedia. It is my sincere hope that a break from admin duties will allow SlimVirgin to get back in touch with the goodness of Wikipedia. IMO, her view of Wikipedia is clouded by her frequent contact with the problematic areas of the project. Wikipedia is a wonderful enterprise with mostly fantastic editors. Regarding the Committee's decision to remove access without "another" full case about SV, I stand by the decision. It is not in the best interest of the Community to extend the length of the review by opening yet another case to discuss Giano and SlimVirgin. The facts are clear for the current situation, there has been ample comment by the Community now and in the near past, past cases are available for review, and the decision is within the discretion of the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions

Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity

1) Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or
(b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so.

Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

Modified by motion on March 15 2010:

The Arbitration Committee modifies the Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity as follows:

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or
(b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.

Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.

Clarifications:

The following two clarifications were added to this remedy on January 29, 2009 following a successful motion, which is archived on the talk page. Clarification (i) passed 8-0 with 2 abstentions, and Clarification (ii) passed 11-0.
(i) This restriction applies only to specific administrative actions applied to specific users. It does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors. This is a provisional measure, pending the resolution of the arbitration enforcement request for comment.
(ii) Administrators are normally expected to explain their actions, respond to feedback, and otherwise engage in normal discussion and dispute resolution. The restriction on arbitration enforcement activity provides no exception to this standard.
There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority.
Status:     Passing, to be enacted as a group once all motions are finalised. 23:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Support:
  1. Arbitration remedies mean nothing if any admin is free to simply undo anything they personally disagree with. Where enforcement is subject to community consensus, it must be demonstrated consensus, not merely individual defiance. Kirill (prof) 00:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Add comment:I see this motion as clarifying our current community norms. I don't see that we are adding anything new. AE noticeboard exists to discuss sanctions. Unless there is massive Community support for it, an admin action done to apply Arbitration sanctions should not be reversed. ArbCom cases usually happen because the Community can not agree on an issue. Our rulings are not going to change the mind of all people. If any single admin can undo a sanction without Community agreement, then we accomplish nothing with the case. Of course, WP:IAR still applies. So if an admin goes on a blocking binge in the name of a ruling, then it can be undone promptly. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It kinda should just be that way. Come on. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I honestly cannot believe that I feel the need to support this motion, given that it should be blindingly obvious to everyone. --Deskana (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too strong and categorical. Motion 1A proposed in lieu. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Guidelines for arbitration enforcement activity

1A) The committee appreciates the work of administrators who assist with enforcing its decisions, including by participating at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. The norm that one administrator should generally not overturn another's action without either consulting with the administrator who took the action or attaining an on-wiki consensus is especially applicable to arbitration enforcement actions. Therefore, an administrator should not reverse or substantially modify (except based on subsequent behavior) any action taken by another administrator under the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce the remedy, except:

(a) with the consent of the administrator who took the original action;
(b) based on a consensus of uninvolved administrators and editors on WP:AE or WP:ANI;
(c) with the approval of the Arbitration Committee; or
(d) where the action is taken solely to allow the editor in question to pursue arbitration.

Any administrator who overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority.
Support:
  1. Proposed. I believe the changes from Motion 1 are mostly self-explanatory. As a general matter, there remains uncertainty in policy and its application as to whether an administrator's single reversal of another's action (e.g., on an unblock review) is permissible, or put differently, how much back-and-forth is required before "wheel-warring" has taken place. I can accept at least arguendo the idea that we need especial clarity on this issue in the arbitration enforcement context. On the other hand, it certainly should be enough to overturn an enforcement action that a consensus to do so is reached (and am not sure exactly what is meant by a "clear, substantial, and active" consensus). I fear that the initial motion would lead to an unintended regime of "the action of the first administrator to react to a situation governs." There are intermediate alternatives available between chaos and ossification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Note: "(except based on subsequent behavior)" added per a comment received. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, equal preference. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prolix. I'm not going to vote for things being "pursuant". We aren't all native speakers of legalese, or even English. These things are case-by-case, anyway. Until such time as the community more clearly expresses its views, I think we should hold off defining things so closely. I see none of our cherished and concise principles (IAR, BOLD and so on) here, either. See what I had to say recently. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, "pursuant to" was in the original motion that you supported, which was drafted by somebody else, but I've changed it to "under." (I feel typecast here.) As for your other points, my motion was intended to be more flexible than the original, so while I take your substantive point, I don't see how it doesn't apply equally, if not more strongly, to the motion you supported. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, my reaction may have been unfair. On the substance, here's my take. Blocks protect the project. Some issues require protection because, basically, things once said cannot be unsaid. Therefore unblocking in matters that involve civility, harassment or disclosure of personal information is much more serious: most vandalism can be undone quickly, but we can lose editors who don't care that the words are gone. They now just hate the place. Therefore it is not only the protocol that matters. We need to take into account the bad judgement involved where admins misread the situation as to seriousness, in human terms. This is my "third dimension" of the wheel-war issue: assessment that a casual unblock could do harm, and lose us an editor just like that. (I can give an example.) Charles Matthews (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill's motion is simply writing down the general way that we've viewed the situation in the past. This seems to be introducing other elements. I support the simpler wording. We already planned to discuss AE changes with the Community so the details can be worked out then. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Keep it simple. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Deskana (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer 1) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
SlimVirgin restricted

2) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from reversing or otherwise interfering with any action taken to enforce an arbitration remedy.

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority.
Status:     In progress
Support:
  1. At a minimum. Kirill (prof) 00:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FloNight♥♥♥ 00:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Move to oppose now that 3A is passing since it covers. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Support struck in the light of later proposal. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice, prefer 2A. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deskana (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Josh, you then justify her or anyone "reversing or otherwise interfering"? I wonder where you stand on SlimVirgin as a "rogue" admin, since this whole motion is trying to define in what sense that is a fair description of where we are. My view is that this should now be referred, and shortly, back to the community. SlimVirgin is one of our most experienced admins, and there is hardly any point reiterating to her things she knows full well. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no need for a special case. My opinion of "any admin" sanctions is known; I think she acted stupidly; I think David acted stupidly; I think Giano acted stupidly; and I think increasing the number of people subject to specific restrictions would be acting stupidly. We're bit by bit extending a civic nightmare: some people who are privileged from being blocked for twittish behavior because of the fuss that gets generated is more damaging than the behavior itself; some people who are restricted from normal admin functions because the fuss that gets generated is more damaging than the behavior itself; some people who are banned from civic discussion because stupid utterances get dogpiled instead of ignored. I don't think it's a sustainable social or political structure. At this point, I'd be more likely to ban a whole bunch of people for being either excessively annoying or excessively annoyed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Change to oppose in preference to 3A.FloNight♥♥♥ 13:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 3A handles it. --Deskana (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
SlimVirgin restricted

2A) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from reversing or otherwise interfering with any action taken to enforce an arbitration remedy except where one of the circumstances described in motion 1A [or 1, whichever is adopted] clearly applies. SlimVirgin is cautioned that substantial sanctions, including suspension of administrator privileges or desysopping, are likely should she violate this restriction. SlimVirgin remains welcome to express her opinion of actual or proposed enforcement actions on WP:AE or other appropriate forums.

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority.
Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too limited. Does not address the underlying issues. Wikipedia is not a battleground. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Can't support this without knowing what exactly we're authorizing, since 1 and 1A are substantively different. I see no reason why it would be necessary to have SlimVirgin take any role at all here, in any case. Kirill (prof) 01:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deskana (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
SlimVirgin desysopped

3) Because of her disruption of the arbitration enforcement process, her continuing assumptions of bad faith towards her fellow administrators, and in light of numerous prior warnings related to conduct unbecoming an administrator, SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is desysopped. She may apply to regain her administrative status by request to the Committee, or through the usual means.

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority.
Support:
  1. This incident is the proverbial straw for the camel's back. Kirill (prof) 00:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. With right to reapply in 2009 through RfA. The community deserves its say here. The unblock was in the teeth of the enforcement procedures. It was a gratuitous act, and appears to have been to make a point, rather than for any other and valid reason. These are all good enough grounds. SlimVirgin has long expressed views on unblocks by others, and wide consultation before so doing. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are obviously other ways to handle this, also. I make this now my second choice. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Prefer 3A. Deskana (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Excessive, even despite previous issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think that 3A addresses the particular issues of this situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer 3A. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Due it being a single not repeated revert, I'm not sure I support a permanent desysop. Perhaps an one month with the above restrictions also. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per FloNight. This is a very serious single incident. It ought to have been obvious that an arbitrator who blocks in pursuance of an arbitration remedy should not be overturned. If SlimVirgin is to keep admin tools this must be an absolute final warning. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Switch to oppose. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin desysopped (2)

3A) Because of her disruption of the arbitration enforcement process, her continuing assumptions of bad faith towards her fellow administrators, and in light of numerous prior warnings related to conduct unbecoming an administrator, SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is desysopped for a period of six months. After six months, her administrator access will be automatically restored.

Upon regaining her administrator access, SlimVirgin will be restricted for six months. During this period she will not be allowed to undo the administrative actions of any other administrator, without the explicit permission of the administrator in question. Such permission must be given publically on-wiki, for transparency. Should SlimVirgin violate this restriction, the Arbitration Committee may remove her administrator access (either temporarily or permanently), or reset the time on her six month restriction.

There are eleven active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused and one who is abstaining), so six votes are a majority.
Status:     Passing, to be enacted as a group once all motions are finalised. 23:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Support:
  1. First choice. Deskana (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice now. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Kirill (prof) 14:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Despite concerns about some of SlimVirgin's conduct in recent months, I have significant reservations about this action and its timing. However, upon considerable reflection, and despite my usual willingness to wax grandiloquent, I fear that it would stoke the drama rather than promote dispute resolution for me to say much more here. Suffice it to say that my wish is for all parties and observers to return to productive editing forthwith. (Translation for dino-speaking readers: "Me not sure about this but for once me shut up.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restriction on further enforcement

4) Until further notice, no enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole shall be taken without the explicit written agreement of the Committee.

There are eleven active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused and one who is abstaining), so six votes are a majority.
Status:     Passing, to be enacted as a group once all motions are finalised. 23:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Support:
  1. A shame that this is necessary, but it seems that certain people are intent on throwing more fuel onto the fire with creative new sanctions. Kirill (prof) 00:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The "any admin" civility parole concept is a bad idea and should be discarded. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The situation is egregiously one with which all admins should help, not hinder. Consulting the ArbCom is a good idea, if someone cannot tell which is which. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A pity this was not done before. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Deskana (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I'm honestly not sure what should be done at this point, and am still thinking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 25 November 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin&oldid=1089266334"