Case Opened on 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• SirFozzie ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Giano II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Geogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by SirFozzie

Timeline

Recently, Giano II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for three hours for a violation of his civility parole (placed on him from the IRC Arbitration case). [1] was the comment by Giano that led to the block.

notification of block by William M. Connolley

Giano did not respond well to the notice that he was blocked, and amongst the edits he made after this block, was this comment, [2], which William M. Connolley then extended his own block from 3 hours to 24 hours.

At this point, Giano told William exactly what he thought of him [3], at which point, William extended the block to 48 hours. [4].

To try to give some cool down time, MZMcBride ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) full protected Giano's talk page. [5].

At this point, Geogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) came in and made things exponentially worse. Without consensus, discussion, or even a notification, he undid the page protection with an incindary attack [6] and unblocked Giano (claiming to change the duration in his unblock message, but saying "Block overturned" on Giano's talk page)

[7] Geogre's announcing that he overturned the block.

16:06, 1 July 2008 Geogre (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (unblock to change duration)

Another user changed the duration to 1 hour (since two of the three hours had expired on the original block)

At 16:21, William M Connoley then reblocked Giano for the original 48 hours (turning it into a 50 hour block, and announced he had done so on Giano's talk page [8]

What needs to happen

At this point, I am calling for both Geogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to either resign their status as administrators, or to have their administrator status removed by the Arbitration Committee for gross misjudgements and abuse of their administrative tools.

William M. Connolley repeatedly blocked Giano for incivility, which is an option, but the way he did it was HIGHLY aggressive. (Block someone, wait for them to reply incivilly as you know they will, and then announce that the block has been extended). The last block, for incivility, was particularly egregious, as the rules are that you never block for incivility aimed at yourself.

To make things worse, William M. Connolley wheel-warred the block back in after having it removed, without discussion or consensus. No matter how egregious the behavior of Geogre (which I will get to shortly), you do NOT get full rights to wheel-war because someone undid your actions.

Geogre came into a situation that was already bad, thanks to the vicious circle established by the three blocks in less then an hour's time by William M Connolley, and made things worse. While the progressive blocks by Connolley were bad, they were not so egregious that a unilateral unblock should be made by ANYONE without discussion at all, ESPECIALLY by someone who is generally known to be friends with Giano. This is the 2nd time that Geogre has unilaterally undone a block on Giano.

From Giano's block log:

09:40, 16 June 2007 Thebainer (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (incivility, despite exhortations to avoid being uncivil)

09:53, 16 June 2007 Geogre (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (No "exhortations" anywhere and not "incivil" comment, either)

Also, to undo the protection of the page in this case by a neutral administrator who was trying to lessen, or at least postpone the inevitable drama to try to let cooler heads prevail was a spectacularly unhelpful move.

I call on the Arbitration Committee to immediately remove the adminstrator status of Geogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), or at least open a case involving these two administrators, and suspend their administrator status until such time as the case is resolved. SirFozzie ( talk) 23:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Reply to statements

I can understand why folks want the ArbCom to focus on current issues instead of this, which is why I hesitated to file this. But there is a bright line here, almost biblical "Thou shalt not wheel-war". The only reason Giano is a party, is because he is the fulcrum that this whole issue revolves around (his blocks and unblocks, protection/unprotection of his page, etcetera). Ok, let's make things clear. Giano has been incivil. But I am not placing him as an involved party because I think he deserves further sanctions/restrictions (I don't). I am listing him as an involved party, because, yes, he was an involved party in this whole thing. He was the planet that the moons (WMC, Geogre) revolved around. The first (short) block had consensus on WP:AE, the escalation/wheel-war blocks were not discussed to the best of my knowledge, except on Giano's page.

I also note that just because ArbCom is going through a period of upheaval, that does not mean that various misbehaviors, such as the ones detailed in this statement should be allowed to stand. SirFozzie ( talk) 00:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Statement by William M. Connolley

All this (and I mean, this and the arbcomm workload and priorities) seems pretty weird to me. Important cases are left sitting on the shelf gaining little attention (do I need to name them?); you have the FT2 mess to sort out; but people can find time to vote on accepting/rejecting this before I even get a chance to make a statement in reply. You are in too much of a hurry and your priorities are wrong, folks (well, some of you). But Guettarda has already said that.

TenOfAllTrades has noticed some subtleties missed by others in the rush.

But people may miss them, so here is my timeline: G's original block was for simple incivility. After that, A complained it was too short and pointed me to the restrictions. I read the ANI close, and said ah well its too late now. Then I reviewed G's talk and discovered further gross incivility - several examples - directed at A (not me). So I extended the block to 24 h (whether that was under the parole or not is moot; the block would have been justified regardless). To which G went mad, and I extended the block further. I don't think its acceptable to be grossly rude on "your" own talk page. Apart from anything else (all together now...) its *not* your talk page; they are all wiki pages. As to wheel warring; Ge unblocked, I re-blocked. That seems like a very short wheel war to me, and its over. Is that worth the arbcomms time? If you had a clear slate, maybe. But you don't, you have a backlog.

It seems clear to me that G has a great many friends who will condone almost any level of rudeness on his part. "Condone" in the sense of do their best to overturn any sanctions imposed; naturally, they will say "ah he shouldn't do that"; but that is hollow.

William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/2/1/0)

• Accept. This behavior by experienced users and administrators is beyond the pale and wholly unacceptable. Accept to examine the conduct of ALL participants. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 23:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Sheesh. Someone get the trout. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Been down this road too many times already. Wheel wars, especially block wheel wars, sent a very confusing message to the blocked editor, as well as being extremely uncollaborative. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC) On reflection, Recuse. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Accept to consider the behavior of everyone involved. Kirill ^{( prof)} 00:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Decline. Paul August ☎ 01:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Decline. No chance of any result which would not involve a riot which would outweigh any benefit. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Accept. -- bainer ( talk) 01:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Reluctant accept. I don't often say "I told you so", but this entirely avoidable case would not have happened had the 'special enforcement' amendment passed. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 08:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Charles Matthews ( talk) 11:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Temporary injunction

1) For the duration of this proceeding, Giano II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not to be blocked, or unblocked, by any administrator, other than by consent of a member of the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC).

Final decision Information

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Administrators

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Passed 11 to 0, 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Wheel warring

2) In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion.

Passed 11 to 0, 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Use of administrative tools in a dispute

3) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a dispute.

Passed 11 to 0, 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

DefendEachOther

4) In non-emergency situations, administrators should not issue blocks in response to personal attacks or incivility directed at themselves.

Passed 7 to 0 (with two abstentions), 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Decorum

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 10 to 0, 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Standard of debate

6) As Wikipedia and its editorial community continue to grow, it is inevitable that philosophical differences among the participants will result in disputes over questions regarding project policy and governance. Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders.

Nevertheless, the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engaging in unbridled criticism across all available forums. It is unacceptable for editors to engage in vituperative rhetoric and public attacks in order to harass perceived adversaries.

Passed 10 to 0, 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

William M. Connolley

1) On 1 July, William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) inappropriately extended a block that he had made, because of incivility directed at himself. Connolley later inappropriately reapplied his block after it was reversed by Geogre.

Passed 10 to 0 (with one abstention), 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Geogre

2) On 1 July, Geogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reversed a block placed by William M. Connolley, without first discussing the block either with William M. Connolley or other administrators, instead merely announcing that he disagreed with the block. Geogre also reversed page protection applied by MZMcBride ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) apparently intended to cool the dispute, without first discussing the protection either with MZMcBride or other administrators.

Passed 10 to 0 (with one abstention), 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Giano in Arbitration

3) Giano II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been the subject of several remedies passed by the Committee:

• "Giano... is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat." ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano, October 2006)
• "Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors. The Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions." ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova, December 2007)
• "Giano... is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked...." ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC, February 2008)

Passed 7 to 2 (with one abstention), 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Giano's comments

4) Giano II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in public attacks against fellow editors—chiefly administrators, participants in IRC, and members of the Committee—whom he considers to be his adversaries:

• "The block was bad, it was orchestrated on IRC, IRC must now be reformed or closed. I am compleytely resolved. Closed would be best. 1=2 and his sidekick need to be sent packing for a start. Many many editors now feel this, and that is whayt is going to happen, so all the whining form the IRV inhabitants on this page is not going to break my resolve to see that chatroom sorted. FT2 need to be dismissed as an Arb, for lying when he said there were no problems on the channel." ( [9])
• "Contrary to the lies and falsehood that FT2 tell us that there are no problems on IRC, there are huge problems. The whole place is an ungoverned rabble that is a liability to the project." ( [10])
• "It was not incompetence it was deliberate, they knew there would bve no aproval for it here, as there was not. That's why they need de-sysoping and banning from that scurrilous and filthy chatroom." ( [11])
• "OH no, those daft little admins have trolled for this, they want to see some trouble well now they bloody well can, they have made one bad block too many in that chatroom. The Arbs can either sanction them and that ridiculous chatroom, or have a revolt from the editors who are sick of that nasty little chatroom." ( [12])
• "My enemies don't need an opening they need firing! Most intelligent editors now completely dismiss "the committee" - or at least the "Gang of 7." They are regarded as people not to be trusted or admired. In short, the 7 should be sent packing. It is not only that the decision was plain wrong, the case should never have been accepted in he first place, whether it was the "Gang of 7's" agenda to be rid of me, or just plain toadying to Fred Bauder I neither know nor care. However, most people accept it was one of the other. So if the committee are too cowardly to do anything about it, then others must - that is why I edited those pages. Why should we have to look at evidence of these incompetents spite and malevolence. So untrustworthy are they, I would not want to see them judging a singing canary. We see this so called arbitration committee making mistake after mistake and no one lifts a finger about it. They strut about receiving just about enough support from the few remaining fools and henchmen on IRC to remain in power - while most of the serious editors just ring their hands in despair or simply disappear. It is like watching the antics of a deluded self serving third world junta in the final days before an implosion. The "Gang of 7" wanted rid of me, and they may get their wish. Thanks to their efforts, I no longer see the point of editing, but I won't be going quietly. Wikipedia deserves and needs better than these sad, but vicious apologies for Arbs. How many more have to be driven off just to protect their cosy little nests and egos. They don't need me editing their decisions they need firing!" ( [13])
• "Oh please Carcharoth just ignore them - they are not worth it. There is little to choose between the lot of them. We shall have Florence of Arabia, her sidekick on the horse and that man with his his organ here soon, all full of wronged righteousness. The Arbcom is now surplus to requirements, ignore them - I do." ( [14])
• "What on earth has IRC to do with this? Are there no limits to what you and IRC can come up with Ryan, in your ever increasing thirst for power, Ryan" ( [15])
• "Oh well he spends half his life on IRC chatting away, always popping up here, there and everywhere, being important - too hard to AGF with him." ( [16])
• "Complete rubbish! The liars on the arbcom accepted a case they had no business accepting, they intended it purely to try and "get me", and they failed. Their position is untenable, they are a walking disgrace to the project. Morally they are no better than Daniel Brandt! - at least one knows what side he is on! So take your block and stick it where the sun don't shine!God what a project! The lying bastards can't even do their own dirty work!" ( [17])
• "Carch, you are rather missing the point, the sanction is there to allow me to be blocked the second I ever start posting the truth - that is how it works and why the whole daft case was cooked up and accepted. The problem is everyone now knows that is how it works, so each time I am blocked the Arbcom appears more ridiculous than the last - everyone except the Arbcom can see that - which rather proves my point. If they weren't so devious one would pity them. Like some third world Junta. Probably planning to have me bumped off as we speak - buried in concrete or something." ( [18])
• "Oh here we go again - The Arbcom fucks up! So it must be Giano trolling or Giano is paranoid. Well done Thatcher - which one of them wrote that? The Arbcom are a bunch of failing cowards and liars - take your pick which is which." ( [19])
• "My only wish is that the community see the true colours of its disreputable, lying and disgraceful Arbcom. What it chooses to do with them is up to the community. To me, they are people of no consequence, they are as ants on the pavement and about as much use." ( [20])
• "Rv 1=2 who is performing his usual attention seking trolling, in matters which have nothing to do with him" ( [21])
• "Just be a little darling and show some intersest in content (than none of these busy admins seem to have time for) and revert here" ( [22])

Passed 6 to 2 (with two abstentions), 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

William M. Connolley & Geogre prohibited

1) Both William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) & Geogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are indefinitely prohibited from taking any administrative action with respect to Giano II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or edit wars in which Giano II is an involved party.

Passed 7 to 0 (with one abstention), 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC).