User talk:David D./Sandbox

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiano_II&diff=291253904&oldid=290769784

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&oldid=291294279

Some thoughts and rationale re: my unblocking of GianoII. I think I said everything at the time but I will add some rationale for you too. Whatever becomes of the case it might be useful as you try and codify a "standard" protocol. I will add that since each case is likely to be different it might be hard to find a protocol that is general enough.

Prolog I was involved in a discussion on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard related to plagiarism by an successful RfA candiadate. I made posts at 19:46, 20:21 and 21:04. During that time there was a related flare up between Xeno and Giano that led to the 3 week long block from Prodego.

'''20:14, 20 May 2009 Prodego blocked Giano II (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 weeks _ (Repeated personal attacks and incivility, multiple prior blocks. It'a a collaberative project Giano.)

Subsequently I followed the related discussion at AN/I and commented on the role Xeno had played leading to the block:
 * 03:55, 21 May 2009 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents _ (_Xeno)
 * "Provoking an attack is worse than the attack in my opinion. The outcome of was blindingly obvious."

Things began to heat up on AN/I. There appeared to be two factions forming those that endorsed the block and those that did not. Personally, I saw this escalating and at this point (about 8 hours into the block) Giano had already left the building. Ironically, Xeno was also calling for Giano to be unblocked. From my perspective a significant turn of events was when Xeno self blocked.

'''04:43, 21 May 2009 Xeno blocked Xeno (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2009-06-10T20:14:14Z _ (Poking bears)

This was an attempt by Xeno to bring some parity to what many thought was an unjust situation; simply put, non-admin blocked (Giano), admin not blocked (xeno). This was a turn for the worse, in my opinion, as probably we should have separated them early (my preference) or at most given both of them a short cooling off block. My feeling now was that to de-escalate a hot debate the best solution might be to unblock them both. My hope was that this would cause the parity critics to back off and the NPA message was still clear. My goal was not to absolve any party but to cool off the debate. I felt that an 8 hr block was more than enough given the circumstances.

'''04:58, 21 May 2009 David D. unblocked "Giano II " _ (baited and good reason to be frustrated with a broken system (RfA). Both xeno and giano should have been sent to the corner. Both were wrong but blocking every wrong move never solves problems. This block was just, the civility was inexcusable, however th)

The crux of your (Arb Com) follow up discussion should be the key point of why did I not contact Prodego before unblocking Giano or discuss the unblock on the AN/I board. First, I will present my explanative edits following the unblocking of Giano and attempted unblocking of Xeno (someone else had already unblocked him).


 * 05:03, 21 May 2009 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents _ (_Xeno: unblocked)
 * "After very much consideration I have unblocked giano. I know this will be unpopular, I know this is out of process but I also consider myself uninvolved. I have read all above but given the circumstances of the RfA and xeno following to a new article I feel the block is already more than enough." Note: I accidently posted this in the wrong subsection, "Xeno" intead of "Break" so the reference to material "above" also refers to much of the discussion in subsection "break" prior to my edit (possibly I missed a couple of posts while I composed my own message).


 * 05:11, 21 May 2009 User talk:Xeno _ (_unblock: new section)
 * "I was just about to unblock you too. In my opinion neither of you should have been blocked. A cooling off period would have been preferable, but unfortunately that chance was lost. I hope this is a lesson learned for all that blocks just lead us to a melt down and an even worse situation."


 * 05:16, 21 May 2009 User talk:Giano II _ (complete edit summary)
 * "Unblocked with edit summary of "baited and good reason to be frustrated with a broken system (RfA). Both xeno and giano should have been sent to the corner. Both were wrong but blocking every wrong move never solves problems. This block was just, the civility was inexcusable, however th". The message got cut off, apparently there is a limit. The last bit was to say that, "however these were exceptional circumstances, IMO."


 * 05:20, 21 May 2009 User talk:Prodego _ (_Please unblock)
 * "I owe you an apology for reversing your block. In the edit summary I did try to make it clear it was a 'just' block. I did not discuss this with you as a feared it would just ignite yet more discussion and drama. I hope this will now end and we can get back to being prodcutive."


 * 05:25, 21 May 2009 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents _ (_Break)
 * "I'm not trying to wheel war. Why prolong this beyond its shelf life? If anyone wants to revert my action they are free to do so. I will not have any more to do with this discussion."


 * 05:50, 21 May 2009 User talk:David D. _ (_Giano)
 * "I did read the full discussion. This war on productive editors is not helping the encyclopedia quality improve. Endless, very long discussions are wasting huge numbers of hours. This all started due to flagrant plagiarism, something that most RfA contributors either didn't take time to see or chose not to see. That scenario was an exceptional circumstance, and it is understandable why tensions were already high. But instead we want to go the route of many more lost writers hours? I don't want to play that game and I don't think the admins should be playing that game. Talk people of the ledge and persuade people to move to different corners. That is always preferable to using blocks. It should be a last resort. Many will say I ignored consensus but I did read the opinions and I weighed the arguments. I have no horse in this race but it is clear that many others do. Personally, I think that history causes many to wish for punitive admin decisions when that is not always the best for the encyclopedia. If this was really the last straw for many with regard to giano then it might be everyone is too close to the back story."

'''09:12, 21 May 2009 Sandstein blocked Giano II (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 20 days _ (Reinstating previous block with the same rationale in accordance with prevailing opinion at ANI and after David D. has indicated that he does not object to a reversal of the unblock.)


 * 11:36, 21 May 2009 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents _ (_Reblock: not ww)
 * "Not in the purest form as I purposefully added the revert disclaimer to be used if the community felt strongly enough. I had hoped it would stop the fighting and be seen as an opportunity to move on. I'm sorry that is not the case but I will support Sandsteins decision."

'''12:20, 21 May 2009 Moni3 changed block settings for Giano II with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) _ (Decreasing unjust and excessively punitive block)