Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Giano/The day the Arbcom trashed the civility policy in order to shaft Eric Corbett

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Kept. Further discussion seems unlikely to accomplish anything productive. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Giano/The day the Arbcom trashed the civility policy in order to shaft Eric Corbett


Per this policy page, " ... keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate." This page was originally a copy of a rejected RFAR, but has turned in to Giano keeping a log of every diff at all related to the rejected RFAR that he disagrees with.

I don't think this is a productive or policy compliant use of userspace. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kevin Gorman. Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, whilst not per se an attack page, the title and certainly the fact this is available at RFAR means this really isn't appropriate or necessary. Blethering  Scot  22:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's not an attack page, what's your rationale for deleting it?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and assume good faith. There's no way to divine that the purpose of this is "primarily to disparage or threaten."  This is what a draft RfC/U or ARBCOM case looks like and  shouldn't be required to explain.  And the nominator might consider the wisdom of WP:STICK.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not what a draft RFAR or RFCU look like, and seems to be pretty explicitly covered by the policy quote above. I'm not holding a stick; I noticed the page after Giano editwarred on my talkpage and then added the diffs to the page I've nommed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Nominator should read WP:HOUND, and desist from engaging in such activities. The page in question is not an attack page; it is a copy of a RFAR, which is not a policy violation. Adding addition diffs is not a policy violation. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, WP:Hound doesn't cover MfD'ing pages that I noticed after someone editwarred on my talk page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, your reply is utter bollocks, and you know it. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you going to tell Giano to stop hounding Kevin? Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between keeping something in your own userspace like this, and then actively going after someone and trying to get it deleted. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 06:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per both User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and User:Lukeno94. Ripberger (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep..... This isn't an attack page ... It's simply copied off of WP:ARB/R!, If Giano wants it kept so be it, No harm in keeping!. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  23:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * if you had finished reading the nomination, Giano has continued to add diffs, clearly putting this in the realm of a page "meant only to disparage its subject". Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UP. "" Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Question: Given that this particular request for arbitration was opened, closed, reopened, motions made, closed again without ever actually being accepted, a request for clarification made, and additional fallout here and there in various places, how many people voting to delete this could, in a matter of minutes, put all this together?  I ask this because I *was* on Arbcom for five years, and no matter the archiving system, it was always a royal pain to pull all these pieces together, and that was if anyone remembered the existence of all the disparate bits and pieces.  I can see an argument for some pruning or a better way to structure the information without all the editorializing (I agree that's unnecessary and excessive), and it needs to be no-indexed. Risker (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the basics of it are fairly easy to put together from the relevant arb pages or the talk page archives of participants. It is certainly slightly more complicated than an average bunch of pages to put a full picture together of, but isn't super hard - it was pretty much just an RFAR and a half, a clarification request, a couple relevant ANI's, some stuff on my talk, and some stuff on Eric's talk.  The whole structure could be constructed probably 6 or 7 diffs.  Diffs like this one, where Giano jumped in to a section of my talk page where someone else was asking for advice about how to go about approaching a likely sock to hound me about why I hadn't blocked Kaldari are just not really relevant to index anywhere in relation to this mess, yet alone on-wiki. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Kevin, since you're directly involved in some of this, I'd expect that you'd be able to quickly put your finger to much of it. The question is directed to people who aren't following everything related to this matter.  You're too involved to be able to answer that question disinterestedly or impartially. Risker (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Kevin's being just a teeny bit economical with the truth there - the diff he posts above was atually the last part of a very valid discussion . However, where valid discussions are concerned, Kevin likes to remove posts in no particular order and without archiving and generally muddy the waters for anyone trying to asses his actions. This further proves how necessary it is to keep an independent set of diffs where Kevin is concerned. In short, Kevin demands that his page is whiter than white - this is probably going to become a common serious problem now that editors are receiving remuneration from outside the project for their posts. Giano    (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to rather badly confused about when the first paid WiR positions started, but I guess that's besides the point. I removed your posts because I saw little reason to continue a discussion started by someone aggressively trying to hijack a different discussion on my talk page (note that that's certainly not Giano's heading in the diff he links.) Would someone mind restoring the MfD notice to the page in question?  Giano removed up from the page using the summary "Rv alians from my user space."  (He also removed something else interesting with that revert: apparently he doesn't care about keeping an accurate record of his own actions, given that 'silly' is not what he called GorillaWarfare.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Kevin, you really are a spiteful person, who never does his research before attacking (yet again); had you bothere to look, you would see tha I corrected that error hours and hours ago . Do try and keep up. Giano    (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There's absolutely nothing here that isn't available elsewhere on-wiki with a free licence to re-use. Per WP:UP: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." This premature nomination is simply a bad-faith attempt by a disgruntled editor to continue their campaign of harassment against Giano. --RexxS (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per alf, Luke, and RexxS. (But credit where it's due. Gorman has confounded expectations. I'd thought he could sink no lower than the persistent malign misrepresentations and harassment of Eric Corbett.) Writegeist (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I appreciate that it must be embarrassing and worrying for a paid editor such as kevin Gorman to have negative posts about him for his employers to see; and indeed he does remove anything negative from his user talk page. However, this is my user page and I strongly suspect this case is far from done and dusted and I would like to have all the difs at my finger tips. This was also not the Arbcom's finest hour (they will I'm sure agree on that) therefore it's good to have these things where they can be seen, so that we can live and learn. I'm sorry Kevin, but you are not running Wikipedia yet.  Giano    (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's not a "list of enemies", but a copy of licensed material that is not so easily accessible elsewhere, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is not an attack page. As far as I can see there is no cherry picking of information to distort this into giving a poor reflection of certain editor(s); it is simply a respected editor collating publicly accessible material in one place.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  09:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The policy referenced by the OP describes pages targeting an individual. The compilation here is of a process. The compiling editor clearly feels the process went awry and side-lined values important for a healthy WP editing community. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * IHTS: could you explain how Giano hijacking discussion sections on my talk about completely unrelated subjects weeks after the initial RFAR closed is documenting 'part of a process'? Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Kevin, that was not hijacking: you asked a relevant question pertaining to a view you expressed. You are not an autocratic admin in Soviet Russia, as am Admin, you may be questioned Giano    (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes sorry, "process" was inept word. I don't know what the series of events describes exactly--a struggle of values within an organizational structure inadequate for the job!? (Perhaps an anthropologist would be needed to figure it out. But it's not an attack page on you.) Floq is right, all snark needs to be removed from the events and supplanted by complete neutrality. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Petty request with no real merit. It's time to drop this nonsense and get back to the task at hand.  -- John Reaves 13:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The name of the page was attack-ish, but Giano has now moved it to User:Giano/ Once upon a time in 2014.. The content never was. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep. Agree with the few comments directly above me. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 16:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. They probably are aware anyway, but given the content and nature of discussion is heavily related to Arbcom especially the title Im pinging them here so they are definitely aware and can reply as appropriate or not. Blethering   Scot  17:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Especially the title? Blethering Scot, did you notice my comment above, that the title has been changed to User:Giano/ Once upon a time in 2014.? I.e, nothing to do with Arbcom currently. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Oh dear, we are getting desperate. Giano    (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We are aware, although I wouldn't characterize that ping as desperate. I'd be inclined to say this should be kept. NativeForeigner Talk 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to say that any comment from an arb here is their opinion as an individual and that the committee as whole will not be involving itself in a deletion discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that is my personal opinion only. NativeForeigner Talk 18:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Giano your accusation of being desperate shows your character as a whole, i personally couldn't give a flying F*** whether this gets deleted or not, my main concern was that your title was deliberately placed against arbcom's members and its only correct that they are fully aware and notified. Its up to them whether they are interested personally or as a whole, and i clearly said as such in my edit summary. Yes the page move solves the issue, it doesn't solve its purpose and the goal of it especially in the case of the name you deliberately chose for it. Your talk page comments also indicate you haven't or a are unlikely to stop your accusations and attacks, particular against Kevin. Personally i find myself more on eric's side in that matter, unusual but i do. You cannot however justify your continued behaviour against Kevin and arbcom, which is no longer justified or even sensible, at some point its only going to end one way. Blethering  Scot  18:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And I have no issues with the content whatsoever, its pointless given its available elsewhere but it causes 0 harm. However new name aside the old one, redirect or not shouldn't be allowed to stand. Its was clearly deliberately chosen and has an attack like purpose. Blethering   Scot  18:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Scott, were I an admin, I would be closing this page now as 'snow keep' because it's in danger of becoming a famous Wikipedia shit storm. Fortunately, my calm and generous nature prevents that, but the soliciting-pinging and off-wiki activity of Kevin's supporters are sorely testing that generous nature. If I wish to collect diffs in order to write a Wikipedia essay, that is entirely a matter for me. I suppose the moral of the story is; if you don't wish to be quoted - don't say it.  Giano    (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's make it very clear then, I'm not one of Kevin's supporters, neither am i one of yours. If i was you, and as you say you are calm and of a generous nature, and you want to avoid drama you would self nominate the redirect for deletion. After all if it is just a place to collect diffs then that title seems a strange one for you to choose. Blethering  Scot  19:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, for Wikipedia, you are not me. Giano    (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I would say the opposite, fortunately for content creators I am not You. You've clearly defeated your point, if you were only interested in collecting diffs, you would have no problem in deleting what you intended to be a specific attack on arbcom and in a wider sense Kevin, which is in turn is an attack on the community. You also clearly do not have a calm and generous nature, its obvious from your talk page you have the intention of being neither and this proves it. Your bluff fools no one. Blethering  Scot  19:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 5 No Trumps. Giano    (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per Risker's question above. Gorman seems almost to be making a career out of trying to have everything critical of him deleted from WP, while promoting everything complimentary or supportive. Not exactly even handed. Eric   Corbett  19:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note. I've restored the MfD template to the page (yes, Bishzilla dares edit Giano's space, but I wouldn't advise just anybody to follow suit). However, obviously it's a redlink, now that the page has been moved to a new name — nobody can find this discussion from it. I'm not sure what to do about that; perhaps the OP or somebody else would like to consider redirecting this MfD to one named after the page as it is now? But I dunno, it all seems very complicated. Presumably that complication is the reason it says in the template that one shouldn't move the page while the discussion is in progress. However, I don't believe Giano can be faulted for moving it during the discussion, considering the criticism the original name received in the discussion. (I didn't like it, for one.) Moving it was surely a good thing to do, and well-intentioned. Well.. and if I did the wrong thing in putting back the MfD template, I'll just remove it again. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Some complete genius fixed it for y'all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid reason for deletion. Nick (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt keeping this will help parties involved move on, much less help the encyclopedia in any way, but deletion would be even worse, as it would inflame things even further. So there we are, then. Keep. Jonathunder (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - No valid reason for deletion. It was Barbara Streisand that famously covered "Feelings." Just sayin'... Carrite (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is another exercise in badger-poking, in my estimation. The lessons are slow in being absorbed... Carrite (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. Giano, whether or not they delete this, you are welcome to transcribe it to the Wikipediocracy Wiki and maintain it there. I will give you a wiki user account myself. &rarr;  Stani Stani  02:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have problems with copies like this being used to express opinions within reason, or for Giano to use it to work out where he wants to take this next, but he should ensure it is a complete and accurate record, and he should aim to end up somewhere productive with this (criticism for criticism's sake only goes so far). As it currently stands, the arbitration committee's official records (it is trivial to pull up the details from the page history by following the diff provided at the declined requests page) are more accurate. The difference between the two is that Giano is selectively quoting from the point where the request was removed for the first time. A complete record will include the changes made after he (Giano) restored the request, including the motions, various additional comments, and one particular change I made (I struck out the instructions I gave to clerks to archive the request, and entered an apology). It is a minor point, but it can give a misleading impression if changes like that are left out. There may be a case for including a diff on the declined requests page pointing to the request as it stood when removed for the first time. The other point is where will this stop? What happens if other people make similar copies in their userspaces and add their own commentary? If I did that in my userspace and it got deleted, would I get an account on the Wikipediocracy Wiki? I would add a smiley there, but given what started this all off, that wouldn't be appropriate. Kevin, I gave you advice on my talk page to move on from this. I believe I asked Giano to do the same, but he, like you, seems to find that difficult. It would have been better for you (Kevin) to ignore Giano's userspace page. In the interests of you both moving on, would you please consider withdrawing this MfD request? Carcharoth (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If Giano refrains from trolling on my talk page (and yes, an aggressively framed question on an unrelated thread asking why I haven't taken administrative action that goes directly against established community consensus is most certainly trolling) then I both have no problem with the MfD being withdrawn (since it's going to close as a keep anyway,) and no desire to actively try to engage with Giano. This wasn't an MfD started while randomly trawling through his contribs for shits and giggles. (This is, FWIW, the first time I've looked at this page in several days, or I would've answered sooner.) For that matter, even if he doesn't refrain from trolling on my talk page, might as well consider the MfD withdrawn since it will, itself, serve as a useful example of his behavior. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And of course it also serves as a useful example of your own behaviour. Eric   Corbett  03:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, although Carcharoth's comments above that this should be updated to ensure it is a complete record and not selectively edited to push a particular agenda should be noted. With that said, I think it was incredibly poor judgement on Kevin Gorman's part to MFD this himself, which was a sure recipe for more judgement.  I think the entire community would really appreciate it if those involved in this whole ugly affair could just stop picking at the scab, resolve to do their best to avoid crossing each other's paths, and get on with building the encyclopaedia.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC).
 * I'm starting to think an interaction ban is going to be necessary to drag Kevin and Giano apart before the situation deteriorates further, but the thought of an interaction ban involving an administrator makes me feel incredibly uneasy. Nick (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's an easy solution to that. Eric   Corbett  16:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Eric, you took the words out of my mouth. An interaction bann will not be necessary providing, in future, Kevin checks his facts and Wikipedia policy before opening his mouth. Many of his comments even when researched seem to lack consistency. I still suspect Kevin has not a clue of how offensive his thoughtless attacks on Eric were - his half-hearted, copypasted apology certainly confirms that view. He even seemed to regard his official admonishment as needless clutter on his page. He needs to change that attitude. I intend to have no further interaction with him, but I shall watch his progress with interest because before long he will be in the thick of another mess of his own making, and I suspect all of this will rear its head again. Giano    (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think the change to the title has shaved the pointy point down to a mild nub, thus no longer running afoul of Attack page. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Not seeing any reason not to let someone keep a copy of an ArbCom request in userspace. It's not against the rules and certainly not a "list of enemies".  Kevin Gorman, if you're going to be an admin you need to understand that you and your actions are going to be subject to criticism from the community.  Looking at the ArbCom request it seems to be a huge chunk of drama that I somehow totally missed, but my overall impression is that you are not suited to adminship here at this time. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Risker makes good points about the archival nature of this, and with the title change it's not especially "attack-y." Like others, though, I am becoming concerned about Kevin Gorman's suitability for adminship. This smacks a bit too much of hounding or a vendetta and not enough of reasoned understanding and application of policy. Intothatdarkness 15:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ITD: I don't think most people would consider a set of interactions started when Person A hijacked a section of Person B's talk page with an aggressively worded and irrelevant question to be an example of Person B hounding Person A. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know Kevin, I am sick to the back teeth of you! You push people to the limits of human endurance. Even now after all the trouble you've caused, you still don't get it do you? How on earth you got to be an Admin God only knows - you are completely clueless. No one hijacked your page any more than anyone asked to you to to go running around insulting Eric because you were either too stupid or too lazy to look up the facts properly. We have all been pussy-footing around you trying not to be too rude or blunt, but you really leave no option because there seems to be no other way of getting through to your brain. Now for God's sake shut the F up and let somebody archive this ridiculous miscellany for deletion and allow me and all other intelligent editors never to have to cross you misinformed path again. I have no doubt you will soon be desysopped for complete incompetence. Giano    (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Kevin and Giano, for the good of the project, please voluntarily avoid each other going forward. If not, I don't doubt an involuntary one will be forthcoming. Jonathunder (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So long as his incompetent ignorance, ridiculous actions and ill informed comment is kept well away from me, I don't care how that's achieved; he has exhausted my patience. I just cannot imagine how anyone could be so idiotic as to vote for him to be an Admin in the first place. Giano    (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Gorman's modus operandi, on vivid display here and elsewhere over the last few weeks, has made it obvious what action he should take for the good for the project. Writegeist (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons why all admins need to hold themselves to higher standards is that an interaction ban precludes an important part of WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.". It would be intolerable for a situation to exist where an ordinary user could not raise a legitimate concern about an admin's conduct or use of their tools; hence interaction bans do not sit well with adminship. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * True. There's an obvious solution to that though. --John (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the policy, being an admin myself. However, I don't see any reason they can't both voluntarily drop the stick and walk away from each other. If they don't interact, there won't be any justifications needed. Jonathunder (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So who started this then? Why don't you look at taking Kevin Gorman's stick away from him? Eric   Corbett  18:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care who started it and I'm not asserting any admin authority to "finish it". Everyone here is an adult on a website where we all volunteer. Let's just, voluntarily, move on. That's all I suggest. Jonathunder (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you should care who started it. And don't patronise me: I'm perfectly aware of who is an admin here, although following your veiled threat of "an involuntary" interaction ban, I didn't even have to check your status. Do you still maintain that an involuntary IB was a good idea, given what I've explained to you about ADMINACCT? --RexxS (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Kevin, you are of course free to think what you wish. Nothing you've presented here changes my thoughts on the matter, though. Intothatdarkness 17:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.