Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

=Statements from uninvolved users=

Note by GRBerry
There was a brief discussion of the initial 3 hour block at WP:AE. Here is the closing multi-diff (all 3 edits by Avraham). I don't know if any of the involved parties had seen that. The quick review there was that 3 hours seemed oddly short, but nobody felt that it was worth doing anything different. This closed before the reblock. GRBerry 23:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Having now read Giano's talk page and the ANI discussion, it is clear that Giano had seen it, and WMC should have. It isn't clear if George would have seen it.  If this case is accepted, I strongly encourage the ArbComm to eliminate the restriction imposed on Giano in the IRC case; it has repeatedly proven counter-productive.  The 3 hour block was a bad idea, but explicitly encouraged by that restriction.  The 24 and 48 hour expansions were even worse ideas, see Requests for arbitration/Tango for the relevant principle, passed just a month and a half ago.  George was mistaken in his actions, and WMC was even more mistaken in wheel warring.  However, unless the committee is prepared to admit its mistake in that IRC case and reverse it, this isn't worth a case.  GRBerry 00:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WMC has stepped somewhat back from the brink; shortening Giano's block back to the 24 hour length (+/- a few minutes).

Statement by brenneman
Aww, FFS. Here are two admins I respect, acting like total idiots. What are we to do? Deadmin-ing is incredible overkill. Let's balance out the effect on the encycopledia of this event (microscopic) with the net good that these two having sysop rights provides (considerable). Serious trout slapping all around will be enough, methinks. Everyone go back to what they were doing, and lets avoid another round of enabling drahma. brenneman 23:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Geogre - Don't unlbock Mr. G. Even if he should have been unblocked, you shouldn't have done it.
 * WMC - What were you thinking? The first block I can support, but the others were out of line.  What's the real harm of someone firing off on thier talk page, anyway?
 * Comment on the request for arbitration itself
 * There may be cultural bias here, as I see "Utter horse flop: we don't DO that. Don't watch shows that you don't like." to be something less than incindary [sic]. - brenneman  23:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * General comment on the role of ArbCom
 * I'm dismayed to see that there has already been an "accept" vote for this non-event. If ArbCom wants to remain at all viable, they need to start choosing their "battles" more wisely.  Nothing happened here that had any impact on the functioning of the encyclopedia (strangely like the last two Giano cases, in fact.)  So, with the greatest possible respect to those who opened the case and any arb who's inclined to accept, please consider: Is this worth your time?  Is it worth ours?  Please stop futzing around with this kind of pettifoggery. -  brenneman  23:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, Earth to ArbCom! Are you reading the comments here?  Do you have nothing better to do with your time?  How about you get off your collective arse and finish Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision before taking on this pointless noise-fest? -  brenneman  00:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And while I'm sinking the boot in, how's the progress on Requests_for_arbitration/IRC going? Can we at least get you to do somehting productive there before we rinse-repeat? -  brenneman  00:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lar
I turned up here to support opening a case, but you know what? Brenny's right. How about Geogre and WMC take this as a very serious warning to not do this any more and we move on. Send them to their rooms, no milk and cookies. urge rejection... This time. ++Lar: t/c 23:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth
The other possibility is that all parties concerned can acknowledge that mistakes were made, apologise to each other, and just move on from this storm in a tea cup. However, if the arbitration committee do accept this case, I have to agree with what Sir Fozzie has said here. It does look bad for both William and Geogre. I would suggest that User:Giano II is removed as a party to the case. This case should not morph into another Giano case. The matter of Giano's incivility and his block has been dealt with. One more point - I would ask that any non-arbitrators on the arbitration mailing list who are closely involved or sympathetic towards any of the parties, should recuse themselves from discussions on the list. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * An addendum in response to Sam Blacketer's comment, and following up a post I made at William M. Connolley's user talk page: I think pointing people towards that "failed" amendment (it was at 3/0/0/0 when it was archived) might help. It got filed under the IRC case after the amendment stalled (there is quite a bit of history here). See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC (that link might fail if another set of proposed motions and voting gets archived there - scroll down to 'Special enforcement'). Something that might not be clear from what was filed there is that the proposal may have stalled when Giano refused to acknowledge it (see here). It took me a while to track that down, because it was in the page history for the brief time that the clarifications section was moved to its own page. It took me even longer to see that a clerk "fixed" things here (removing Giano's comment while also fixing other parts of the clarification request). Thus what was eventually filed ( and ) by another clerk did not include Giano's comment. It is possible that the first clerk (User:Daniel, who I've asked to comment here) was asked to make that "fix", either by Giano or the arbitrators. I would hope people don't make too much of Giano's comment, and focus instead on the fact that three arbitrators had supported the following: "'The Committee shall name up to five administrators who, together with the sitting members of the Committee, shall act as special enforcers for this restriction. Only these special enforcers shall be authorized to determine whether a violation of the restriction has occurred, and to issue blocks if one has.'" Of course, William would have still been free to block outside the restriction (though reflecting on this, I'm no longer sure about that), but it is arbitrary and "in the eye of the beholder" enforcement of the "civility" restriction that tends to cause drama. Restricting enforcement to those who have knowledge of the background and can help calm matters instead of escalating things, and can help protect the editor under the enforcement, as well be a sounding board for those who feel the restriction needs to be enforced. I would urge the three arbitrators who supported the amendment, and the rest of the committee, to revisit it as soon as possible. I will file a new and separate request for clarification if that will help, but will wait for some responses first. Carcharoth (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC) My comment about Daniel's edit summary has been clarified following a discussion at his talk page, and I apologise for the unintentional misrepresentation there. One thing I would like to make clear is that it was not at all clear where that comment by Giano (which I clearly remembered) had gone. I was looking through edit summaries to try and find a "removed comment" edit summary, but failed, and eventually had to iterate through the history of two separate pages to find where the removal was, and seeing it under an edit summary of "fix" was annoying, to say the least. Carcharoth (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by R. Baley
Not sure what all the hubbub is about. William made a block, Geogre (once again) used his admin bit inapproprately with respect to Giano stuff (I'm sure you guys remember the case. . .something about IRC wasn't it?). William simply restored the block to its original state. Unblocking without discussion with the blocking admin (or consensus) is not on (reminds me of another unblocking. . . apparently we're not supposed to do that. "Not to any admin" -Jimbo Wales, Oct. 2007).


 * I concur with this comment --BozMo talk 11:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick suggestion by Irpen
This certainly is a non-emergency matter but a usual piece of wiki-drama in a certain corner of wikipedia that seems to be settling anyway. Nothing extraordinary. However, the Wikipedia is still rocking for several days now as a result of the matters related to FT2 and other things effectively putting the credibility of an entire ArbCom under cloud. We have heard that arbitrators are busy discussing this and they also have real lives, etc. Until that matter remains unaddressed by this ArbCom I suggest it does not take any non-urgent tasks. --Irpen 23:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite correct. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
Agree wholeheartedly that, barring clear evidence of Giano soliciting an unblock from Geogre, he should not necessarily be a party to this. Having said that, also agree with Brenneman and Lar above that this case does not necessarily require ArbCom intervention, if the parties involved take this effective warning very seriously and do not repeat such actions in the future. John Carter (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "...agree with Lar..." ?!? how come he always gets the credit, dammit, even when he's copying me? -  brenneman  00:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Cause I'm way handsomer, and funnier too. Plus it's knowing who to copy and when that gets you the big bucks around here, not original wit... Hope that helps. Clerks, feel free to torch this witticism, as well as what it is in reply to! ++Lar: t/c 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN
I find this sentence by SirFozzie disturbing, "Block someone, wait for them to reply incivilly as you know they will, and then announce that the block has been extended". Since when do we expect editors to be uncivil? As a completely uninvolved party, and just a "regular" editor on Wikipedia, it seems to me that for some reason the fact that WP:CIVIL is policy here is being forgotten. Not a guideline, not an essay, but policy. If an editor continually breaks it then I do not see why their block should be undone without a damn good reason and the appropriate discussion taking place. Sorry if I'm saying the obvious here but going against these community rules just wastes everyone's time and fosters unnecessary drama. --NeilN  talk ♦ contribs  00:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Weighted Companion Cube
Connolley wheel warred. Geogre did not. Seems open and shut. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova
Giano was blocked for incivility and he subsequently compounded the incivility. One of the people he was uncivil toward was myself. I take no offense at his initial statement and tried to offer an olive branch, yet before I had time to post that he added a second and more serious instance (which fits into a pattern of problematic behavior he has directed toward other people). I have requested that he strikethrough part of his second statement; so far he has not done so. If he withdraws it I would gladly withdraw this statement, and if he and the other person mend fences then this arbitration request can be examined as a straightforward wheel war with fewer parties. At this point, however, the conduct of all parties does merit examination. I express this not so much for my own part as from concerns about the larger pattern. If he demonstrates willingness to step back and withdraw injudicious comments, then I'd take that in the best faith as a positive sign of improvement. With respect toward all,  Durova Charge! 00:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone commented at my user talk that Giano is currently blocked. So to clarify, the second instance of incivility occurred on his user talk page where he is capable of withdrawing it.  I hope he does.  Durova  Charge! 00:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration it's become necessary to restate in clearer terms: I do not ask Giano to apologize; I do not seek to humble his pride. All I ask for is a retraction.  Durova  Charge! 07:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades
From what I gather, there may be some inadvertent errors in SirFozzie's interpretation of events.

When WMC blocked Giano for the first time, WMC was completely unaware of the provisions of Requests for arbitration/IRC, including Giano's civility parole (see WMC's comment). WMC also didn't know that there was an ongoing discussion about several recent incivil posts made by Giano in the last couple of days going on at WP:AE. In other words, WMC's original (brief) block was based on incomplete knowledge about Giano's history and editing restrictions, and his block had nothing whatsoever to do with Giano's civility parole.

At this point, Giano perhaps would have been best to cut his losses. The folks at WP:AE appeared content to let the three-hour block stand (despite having issued much longer blocks to Giano in previous instances of incivility). Instead, he decided to launch a number of further attacks, leading to a lengthening of the original block out to 48 hours. Given the provisions of the IRC Arbitration, this block length is neither unreasonable nor unexpected (the remedy provides for block durations up to one week, and the preceding blocks had been for 31 and 48 hours).

The calls for WMC's resignation seem out of place. He applied a block that was explicitly provided for in an Arbitration remedy, the length of the block was in line with previous such blocks applied by other administrators, and he had no conflict of interest. I am concerned about Geogre's use of his buttons, however, given his involvement in the IRC Arbitration.

(Full disclosure: I was one among several of the targets of Giano's incivility as reported at WP:AE. Like WMC, I too was unaware of both Giano's parole and the WP:AE reports until well after WMC's initial block of Giano.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: It apppears that any blocks on, or related to, Giano are extraordinarily polarizing&mdash;his two most recent blocks have been met by various accusations of impropriety and conflict of interest, along with demands for immediate desysopping(!) Per Sam and Carcharoth, I too would encourage (re)consideration of the 'Special enforcement' provision. I would rather not continue on the present course, where enforcement of the existing remedies leads to Arbitration. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jenny
I would have recommended non-acceptance in the circumstances (there is ongoing bad behavior but there are also other, arguably just as important, fish to fry).

But as it looks like the Committee is about to step up to the plate with this, I suggest that it might be addressed by open motion in the IRC case. User:William M. Connolley is not, to my knowledge, a previously involved admin, he had never blocked Giano before, but his conduct here as an administrator did not do him credit. He surely cannot have been unaware that his personal reblocking of Giano, under whatever provocation, was likely to make tempers worse and not better. Geogre is under the formal "all parties" caution from the IRC case (as am I, for that matter). Giano is subject to a restriction which doesn't seem to be working well.

On the face of it, there are no new matters here that cannot be handled as part of the earlier case. It may well be just a matter for revisiting the remedies and maybe adding a few participants.

Alternatively, if the Committee feels bold enough, it might be an opportunity to make provisions in this case, resembling in form the BLP special enforcement provision from the Footnoted quotes arbitration, making it quite clear that reversing or modifying an administrative action explicitly taken under any arbitration remedy (not solely in the present case) is not to be performed without community consensus following a discussion on WP:AE, or failing that a direct appeal to arbcom. Jenny (Tony Sidaway) 01:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Uncle Uncle Uncle
Was the arbitration committee really set up to rule on insignificant cases of editor-editor incivility on user talk pages even if blocking is involved?

Is the community itself unable to discuss the matter without running to a "higher authority"?

The Arbitration Committee is a panel of experienced users that exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve, and to consider certain cases where exceptional factors such as privacy preclude a public hearing.

Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process–it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed. Try other steps first, including discussion between disputants and, where appropriate, mediation. The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious disputes and cases of rule-breaking.

This case appears to be none of the above - it's just a bunch of kerfluffle by silly monkeys on a tuesday afternoon.

Also - why does the red box at the top of the page say: "This is not a page for discussion." while most of the Statements including mine appear to be discussion?

Uncle uncle uncle 01:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Messedrocker
Giano is clearly a special case in which the standard rules for civility must be reconsidered, as standard procedure is no good in the face of special case. From what I have gleamed, Giano is prone to getting pissed off. I mean this with the most respect possible, Giano, as I see where you're coming from. You have all this BS thrown at you and it's a bitch to just shrug it off and take it with stride -- you want things to be rectified! I think the same way.

In any case, while Giano continues to be of considerable value to our encyclopedia (something many, many administrators cannot claim), I think people should just try to not get offended by what Giano says. Let me put it this way. If Giano's comments is directed at Person A, only Person A is entitled to complain, and even then, Person A ought to try shrugging it off with the idea that Giano is just pissed off and needs to vent. If the comment is just too flagrant or Person A is easily upset, Person A states something along the lines of "Giano, sir, your recent comment leaves me quite offended; I would greatly appreciate it if you would apologize and refactor your comment." Then ideally, Giano does such, or otherwise he gets blocked.

None of this civility blocking on behalf of others, because I know if Giano called me a smelly retard, I wouldn't care.

MessedRocker (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Húsönd
I don't know if it's more worrisome that this was brought to the Arbcom at the speed of light, or that it was accepted at the speed of light. Contention, reflection and mediation seem to be rather volatile concepts these days. Hús ö  nd  02:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Guettarda
There's nothing here the community can't handle. The committee needs to sort out it's own problems before it takes on any more work. Guettarda (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * strongly concur. I think it beggars belief actually. Privatemusings (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. There seems to be rather a backlog already. . dave souza, talk 04:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Dragon695
I saw this happening in real time. Giano really doesn't need to be a party to this, he got his deserved block and is living with it. In my mind, the undoing of Giano's block was not a great idea and should be examined. However, it was unacceptable for WMC to go on Giano's talk page and basically bait him into violating his civility parole even more. Even worse, when a neutral third party, Avi, tried to remedy the unblock situation, WMC WP:WHEEL warred his earlier blocks back into place. WMC obviously was too involved by this point and should have sought community input at AN/I. I made note of it being not a good idea to wheel war in the hopes that he might reconsider his actions, but that didn't seem to register. I urge ArbCom to take this up, obviously a serious breakdown in process happened here. Blocks should not be used to scold editors like they are naughty children, that is very condescending and will only make them more angry. You really need to limit that remedy on Giano to a small subset of trusted, neutral administrators. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Franamax
We have here an instance of incivility from Giano which resulted in a 3-hour block by WMC. Now, within a matter of minutes, Giano describes the poster whose original comment resulted in his block, regarding other posts the poster made, on subjects well known to Giano, as variously silly, sarcastic, stupid and idiot, albeit on his own talk page. Pretty dumb, but still just steam-venting within the first ten minutes of a block.

Now it gets a little wild. Five minutes later Giano mentions that the OP got some "other fool" to block him, then seven minutes later says that "anyone making an edit such as this to me...is either very stupid or knows exactly what they are doing" (not directed at a specific person, note) and refers to "stupid Admin". Then, in the process of modifying that to "stupid Admins" (which we're all allowed to say, right?), WMC enacts a 24-hour block. Giano responds on his talk page with wording on the lines of "naive, stupid and ridiculuous", directed at the blocking admin, who responds with "Oh well, make it 48h then". Beyond the original block of three hours, the further blocks seem to be retaliatory, and an escalation of sanctions designed to convey to the user an intent to "win the war". Note also the advice to walk away from the computer a.k.a cool-down block.

Getting even better, Geogre now comes along and overturns the block without notice anywhere other than Giano's talk page. Geogre doesn't re-establish the block to its original end-point, possibly due to an overtaking re-block by Avraham. Geogre may have some basis here to overturn a bad block (i.e. the lengthened block) but has no justification for failing to make at least a post-facto notice to any of the blocking admin, an admin noticeboard, or perhaps the sandbox.

Putting the cherry on top of the cone, WMC now unequivocally wheel-wars to re-establish the original lengthy block, now with the extra bonus of being extended some number of minutes.

Everyone here emerges covered in glory with their honour intact, each firmly defending the principles of the wiki as they see them. Rather than proceeding to ArbCom, I would suggest that Giano apologize for his belligerent language (just making a little joke there, but this is not the tree on which to hang Giano, he'll pick his own); Geogre should apologize for overturning the action of another admin without either prior or post notification in the right places; and WMC should apologize for escalating the situation without checking his actions first on a public noticeboard. A little personal ackowledgement sans "he made me do it" would go a long way here, and we could get back to our regularly scheduled program of "ArbCom is a witch! Burn it!" Oh yeah, I suggest ArbCom decline this case, so long as everyone does what I say. Franamax (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: If WMC intends to follow through on the full-duration block of Giano, after having unequivocally wheel-warred to reinstate a block of dubious severity, which his actions have now placed beyond the scope of normal review, then I would change my position to urge acceptance of this case, with particular attention to WMC's intransigence. Franamax (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:B
Regarding Guettarda/Privatemusings' comments, I'm not sure what action the community could take here. Giano's block log is an absolute embarassment. I don't know (or care) whether Giano ought to have been blocked or not, but I count 13 block/unblock pairs where the unblocking was done by someone other than the blocking admin. Something isn't right there and whether that something is that admins are too anxious to block Giano or too anxious to unblock, there is a problem that the community has been woefully unable to resolve here. This is the second time that Geogre has unblocked Giano and the first was a whopping 13 minutes after the block. William M. Connolley's decision to lengthen the block originally and to reinstitute it also left a lot to be desired. This is a mess and needs arbcom to step in as it's obvious that administrators have proven unable to handle the issue of Giano's blocks. --B (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Paul August, could you explain your reason for declining? Thebainer, have you considered recusing yourself since you have previously blocked Giano? --B (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * B's questions to arbiters

Statement by Thatcher
I have long felt that extending the block of an editor who is pissed off at a block and venting on his talk page is petty. I merely ignore the ranting unless it persists after the block expired. But that is a personal view.

On the subject of wheel warring, I would like to point out that Arbcom, by virtue of declining to hear at least two previous "wheel warring" cases, has rejected the view that reversing an admin action constitutes "wheel warring" so that only on the third and subsequent action does wheel warring occur. At the time I pointed out that this will always give the upper hand to the second admin, the reversing admin, by forcing the acting admin to prove or justify re-doing the original action but not requiring the same of the reversing admin. But there you are (diffs later if needed). So under that definition (Geogre's entirely predictable action nonetheless) only William Connolley wheel-warred. Thatcher 07:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by David Fuchs
Please please PLEASE ArbCom, you can only run this one of two ways, and trying to do both will be a mess. Either deal with only the admins (George and Will) or go back to Giano's inability to have long sanctions placed on him (which was totally glossed over at the IRC case, despite the imposition of said sanctions.) I would prefer the former (without teh dramaz.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 11:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by LessHeard vanU
The matter of Requests for arbitration/Tango was specifically brought to William M. Connolley's attention, with regard to the execution of sanctions by a previously involved admin where the subsequent violations might be considered as being directed at them. William M. Connolley evidently chose to ignore the notice, insofar that the block he executed is still in place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Rudget
I endorse the views expressed by Guettarda. I believe that nothing more than community intervention is needed to remedy this particular case. Both administrators should take this event as a point for reflection and memory, thus, hopefully, meaning we won't see another one of these situations arising once again. Giano has clearly demonstrated in the past that he is able to work exceedingly well with our content - we all know that - but his attitude is rarely out of scope with regards to the situation that is being discussed. (i.e. Person A accuses him of a particular 'violation' and he replies in the same respect.) This is not condoning his behaviour, because at times its difficult to interpret such a message without 'labelling' it as uncivil, but often people need to think about their reactions, possibly, the consequences. Rudget  ( logs ) 14:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Tex
Unbelievable. Don't the arbs have something better to do with their time? If not, I sure hope they are voting to accept this case so that they can undo their silly mistake of Giano's civility restriction. There are several people who should be blamed for this current mess and the arbcom is on that list. At this point, there are lots of people on Wikipedia that don't believe the arbcom has any standing in this community until it gets its own house in order. Count me in that camp. Do the right thing and reject this case and look at yourselves in the mirror before you go trout slapping. Tex (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Amerique
Bluntly, I don't have confidence in the committee to resolve disputes pending the outcome of Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee. Too many unresolved issues from the Orangemarlin case. I urge earnest participation in the RFC from all committee members, aimed at "helping the community" help improve arbitration process and procedure. Ameriquedialectics 17:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

=Discussion=