The Corbett Report

[Triptych]

Just noting here that the title of this thread really jumps the shark.

No, it fell in and got eaten by it.

I can't believe you people that dismiss the gravity of the character attack that Gorman handed out to Corbett.

[EricBarbour]

I can't believe you people that dismiss the gravity of the character attack that Gorman handed out to Corbett.

It's the cynicism. The longterm members have seen so many knives in so many backs, they no longer even attempt to keep track.

[Anroth]

Just noting here that the title of this thread really jumps the shark.

No, it fell in and got eaten by it.

I can't believe you people that dismiss the gravity of the character attack that Gorman handed out to Corbett.

That would require me to think he has character to attack..

[neved]

Some new developments.
Clarification request: BLP special enforcement
and AGK comes out swinging

While I cannot claim to be "sensible", I was an "arb on holiday" during the original RFAR. I disagree with the committee's decision to decline the case request, and agree action ought to have been taken against Kevin Gorman.

A couple of arbitrators deployed a shocking piece of casuistry which wormed its way into the rationale for a number of other decline votes: that we should not act due to the nature of the incident giving rise to the dispute. The case could have been easily handled without further exposing the original incident. Moreover, these arbitrators were implying, deliberately or unthinkingly, that the rest of us who would have acted on the request demonstrated a lack of respect for the victim. This appalled me. Those particular arbitrators know who they are, so I will merely say that this line of the committee's thinking at the RFAR was completely unsound. The other major line of thinking was that Kevin's action was a one-off mistake unlikely to be repeated. This ignores the danger posed to the project when an administrator illegitimately claims special enforcement protection for a wrong action. The committee cannot overlook such a breach of policy, even if the administrator himself promises it was a one-off mistake.

These were the two major lines of thinking in last week's RFAR; both appear unsound, and ideally the decision would be overturned. However, the moment for action may now have passed, and the good we could do may be outweighed by the drama/confusion overturning the decision to decline might generate. Also, if we overturn last week's decision, Kevin Gorman could accuse us of acting capriciously (with some justification). As none of this changes the fact that real damage could be done to the project if last week's decision stands, I am nonetheless willing to open a case. AGK [•] 00:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

[Zoloft]

Some new developments.
Clarification request: BLP special enforcement
and AGK comes out swinging

While I cannot claim to be "sensible", I was an "arb on holiday" during the original RFAR. I disagree with the committee's decision to decline the case request, and agree action ought to have been taken against Kevin Gorman.

A couple of arbitrators deployed a shocking piece of casuistry which wormed its way into the rationale for a number of other decline votes: that we should not act due to the nature of the incident giving rise to the dispute. The case could have been easily handled without further exposing the original incident. Moreover, these arbitrators were implying, deliberately or unthinkingly, that the rest of us who would have acted on the request demonstrated a lack of respect for the victim. This appalled me. Those particular arbitrators know who they are, so I will merely say that this line of the committee's thinking at the RFAR was completely unsound. The other major line of thinking was that Kevin's action was a one-off mistake unlikely to be repeated. This ignores the danger posed to the project when an administrator illegitimately claims special enforcement protection for a wrong action. The committee cannot overlook such a breach of policy, even if the administrator himself promises it was a one-off mistake.

These were the two major lines of thinking in last week's RFAR; both appear unsound, and ideally the decision would be overturned. However, the moment for action may now have passed, and the good we could do may be outweighed by the drama/confusion overturning the decision to decline might generate. Also, if we overturn last week's decision, Kevin Gorman could accuse us of acting capriciously (with some justification). As none of this changes the fact that real damage could be done to the project if last week's decision stands, I am nonetheless willing to open a case. AGK [•] 00:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of AGK (T-C-L), but he sees the danger to ARBCOM's reputation and that of the project. 10 points to Hufflepuff.

[neved]

I'm not a big fan of AGK (T-C-L), but he sees the danger to ARBCOM's reputation and that of the project. 10 points to Hufflepuff.

Oh, please... AGK is good a friend of HJ Mitchell who submitted the request, and besides most arbitrators vote not the way they think is fair, but the way the most loud members of their community thinks it is fair. They all are cowards.
It will be very interesting to see how Newyorkbrad would vote for the motions to sanction Kevin Gorman if any.

HJ claims he submitted the request to find out what are the bounds of BLP special enforcement
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on_request

FYI: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: BLP special enforcement (permalink). For what it's worth, while I think your actions were monumentally stupid, I disagree with many people that you acted with malicious intent; I'm more interested in getting ArbCom to clarify the bounds of BLP special enforcement than I am in getting you sanctioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I think his statement is disingenuous, and here's why:
*In a few places Kevin has admitted he made a mistake citing BLP, and promised not to do it again.
*No arbitrator claimed Kevin was right to cite BLP.
*Everybody knows what are the bounds of BLP special enforcement.

Two weeks ago Eric Corbett said that Wikipedia is encyclopedia and not a psychiatric hospice, and for two weeks that followed dozens of users on dozens of pages successfully proved him wrong: Wikipedia is a psychiatric hospice (or should I say "inmates run asylum") , anything but encyclopedia.

[Triptych]

Some new developments.
Clarification request: BLP special enforcement
and AGK comes out swinging

While I cannot claim to be "sensible", I was an "arb on holiday" during the original RFAR. I disagree with the committee's decision to decline the case request, and agree action ought to have been taken against Kevin Gorman.

A couple of arbitrators deployed a shocking piece of casuistry...

I'm not a big fan of AGK (T-C-L), but he sees the danger to ARBCOM's reputation and that of the project. 10 points to Hufflepuff.

His actions in the Kiefer-Keyes debacle were part of why I considered AGK the trained mouse in Timotheus Canens' pocket, but yes Zoloft he's cogently and coherently critiquing the weaknesses of the positions taken by Newyorkbrad and the rest of the Inferior Five (h/t Poetlister). Plus using words, correctly, like "casuistry" that lowly me has to go and look up. So yeah, AGK deserves some credit for coming out guns ablaze and well-targeted.

Meanwhile, the young Gorillawarfare falls prey to the feigned sincerity of Kevin Gorman:

I think declining the case was the correct decision, and I would have voted accordingly had I been able to finish looking through it before the case was closed. I believe that Gorman was truly acting in an effort to protect the subject of the discussion, which I respect. He definitely stepped over the line when he tried to apply BLP special enforcement to the issue, and I am also convinced that he knows that. I don't think a formal admonishment is necessary to drill that in further, and I have no concerns that people will forget this issue should Gorman make a similar misstep in the future. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

She linked to his statement here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =595081344). He still doesn't acknowledge wrongdoing in *what he did* and offers only that he "fucked up" in *how he did it*. He figures that people won't see the difference, and goes on to once more refuse to acknowledge he was wrong to accuse Eric Corbett of gravedancing a suicide. Gorman's statement includes a lot of syrupy sweet words to mask and obscure his true sentiment, which hasn't changed since the original insult, but revealingly at the end he's unable to resist going after Corbett once again, saying he was "uncivil" and then, unbearably condescendingly, that he's a fine contributor yada-yada-yada and "I sincerely hope he comes back with altered behavioral habits." Gorillawarfare in my view just doesn't have the benefit of enough years and experience to be able to recognize the evasiveness, mealymouthedness, and insincerity of Gorman's statement with a critical and necessarily cynical eye. He thus successfully fools her.

Lfaraone says, case closed or not, admonishment is warranted and let's "fix this now." Okay, hurrah.

Carcharoth defends Gorman and introduces the oxymoronic concept of a "private admonishment." He says Gorman has been "privately admonished" so the community can just go back to looking for those droids elsewhere.

Roger Davies says basically "let's do some motions," and Timotheus Canens says basically "no case, but okay let's do some motions."

So where does it go from here? It looks like any arb can just propose motions on the "Clarifications and Amendments" page where bless him Harry Mitchell took the initiative and his time to say "hey wait a second" about this case. Alternately, if one of them actually wants to reopen the case, Timotheus has pointed a way: "the Clerks should not have been directed to remove the request as declined, as Salvio's decline vote, necessary to make acceptance mathematically impossible, was implicitly conditioned on a motion being proposed." It's only been a day or so, so Rockfang's removal of the arbitration request could be reverted (I'd say by arb or other clerk only) as improper, couldn't it?

[neved]

The request for arbitration is back http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ic_Corbett

and Roger Davies writes:

Procedural Accept in order to Decline and resolve by motion. I've gone active on this as it is the community's interests for as many arbitrators to participate as possible. NOTE: I shall be proposing motions shortly both here and on the clarification request shortly, Roger Davies talk 15:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"Procedural Accept in order to Decline"?

[Zoloft]

Never more germane, trust me.

[EricBarbour]

Procedural Accept in order to Decline and resolve by motion. I've gone active on this as it is the community's interests for as many arbitrators to participate as possible. NOTE: I shall be proposing motions shortly both here and on the clarification request shortly, Roger Davies talk 15:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre

[Zoloft]

Here we get to watch the smooth, well-oiled machinery of the mighty Arbitration Committee spring into action! Something or other will be served.

[Triptych]

The case request page section concerning the matter of Gorman attacking Corbett on allegation of grave-dancing a suicide and following up with a warning he'd BLP block him now contains a "strong admonishment" of Gorman that passed 6 to 2. All other arbs recused or abstained.

Motion (Kevin Gorman)

For this motion there are 8 active arbitrators, not counting 6 who have abstained or recused, so 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

i. The committee notes that it is not in dispute that User:Kevin Gorman has acted out of process and in a manner which is incompatible with the standards to which administrators are held.
ii. The committee notes and accepts Kevin Gorman's assurances that he has learned by his mistakes and will not repeat them.
iii. Kevin Gorman is strongly admonished.
iv. The request shall be filed as "Kevin Gorman".
v. The request for a full case is declined.

Support

1) See also the companion motion at Requests for Clarification, Roger Davies talk 17:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
2) LFaraone 17:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
3) Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
4) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
5) Not entirely happy with various aspects of this ... but since we are here and motions have been proposed, I am prepared to support. Carcharoth (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
6) With the thinking in my comments elsewhere. AGK [•] 21:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1) GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
2) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Read it for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _Gorman.29. It was Roger Davies that authored and proposed the motion.

EDIT: Twice, or maybe this is three, but only to remove my own "appears to." It was little import here, but I am going to start smacking myself each time I write "appears to" or "seems to" without really having to.

[Vigilant]

Hilarious. They declined the case but went ahead and had a case with a motion anyway.

If you're going to sanction someone, they usually get to rise to their own defense.

Edit: Oh look, they did it again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... se#Toddst1

Aren't you supposed to accept a case before you come up with a penalty?
ARBCOM: wikipedia's own right wing death squad.

[Triptych]

Hilarious. They declined the case but went ahead and had a case with a motion anyway. If you're going to sanction someone, they usually get to rise to their own defense.

Oh, Kevin Gorman had plenty of opportunity to defend himself and did so verbosely and repeatedly and no doubt the arbitrators read that. I gather that motions are like a mini-case, where the evidence is visible and the fact set easy enough to inform one's opinion, so instead of going through all the process and requirements and review and further community commentary and scheduling and formal phases of a full case, they just decline and proceed to motions. I think it is sensible. It probably wouldn't have worked in Kiefer-Keyes for example which was complex with outrageous statements, some hidden, from IRC and the like. It probably wouldn't have worked well in the case that resulted in Kww's admonishment because there was the weighty issue of his clash with a WMF figure and potentially copyright infringement and so forth. Contrast to this stuff in which the evidence is all on the table, except for Gorman's irrelevancy excuse about being confused by some secret "conversation" as he put it that now appears to have been a Facebook chat with somebody named Cullen-something. I thought he had been alluding to IRC but there's now a comment that says it was Facebook.

EDIT: Cullen328, if anyone cares: "Kevin approached me on February 11 to discuss the matter off-wiki, through a Facebook private message, and I advised him to take it easy and not escalate matters." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _Cullen328.)

[Kelly Martin]

I'm not terribly bothered by the ArbCom "deciding" cases like this. In a responsible voluntary society, disciplinary actions are conducted in private, with the disciplinary committee making only such public statements as are absolutely necessary, without going into details. Members of the society, but not the public, may privately review the proceedings of the disciplinary committee, but the details of the deliberation are not public to protect the reputation of the parties. The purpose of a disciplinary committee of a voluntary society is not to adjudicate competing claims of rectitude, but instead to determine if a member has acted contrary to the interests and goals of the society, and when this does happen, impose such sanctions as will ensure that the member will cease to do so, or in the alternative eject the member from the society. Such a proceeding is not a legal proceeding, and giving it the trappings of one leads to the application of improper standards, standards that make sense in a legal context but not in the context of the disciplinary committee of a voluntary society.

The Wikipedia practice of having a spectacle for every matter is largely the doings of James Forrester, who wanted to create a mock High Court. There is no good reason, and many bad reasons, for having drawn out public trials. Wikipedians, of course, love them because they produce much drama and provide endless opportunities to bully and harangue. Wikipedia has a further problem in that it does not recognize that it is a voluntary society, and has no coherent definition of "member".

[Vigilant]

That's what you would expect in a reasonable society.

ARBCOM is, theoretically, the ARBitration COMmittee.
You don't do punishment after declining a case in normal arbitration.

They just threw a ton of precedence out the window.
Who's to know what will happen next.
They're making it up as they go along.

[Hex]

Something or other will be served.

Snacks?

A couple of arbitrators deployed a shocking piece of casuistry... Those particular arbitrators know who they are...

What is this, middle school? Grow a spine and offer opinions like an adult.

[neved]

AGK is a power-hungry troll. Last night he trolled Giano, and got what he asked for

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =597050690

@AGK. No, you have not "gotten" across your point (you know what's said about those who assume); when I see gross errors and incompetence, I shall always correct them. Now, I suggest you pull yourself together and admit your mistakes, stop trolling here and find a manual on how to function as an Arb. Please don't return her unless you have something sensible and pertinent to say. Giano 10:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Newyorbrad is a coward

My initial reaction to this request was that the tragedy underlying the entire discussion made it undesirable as a subject of an arbitration proceeding. While I respect greatly the several editors who have disagreed with me, I still wish the situation had been handled in a different fashion (and I reject the assertion of "casuistry" that has been made in the related thread). That being said, I am concerned that my opposing this motion could be misunderstood as approving or accepting Kevin Gorman's statements and actions, which I certainly do not (nor, I am sure, do my colleagues who are voting to oppose) and which must never be repeated. So with the hope that lessons have been learned and we can put this behind us, I wind up here. As a postscript, the motion might have stated, and I hope that Kevin Gorman will readily agree, that Kevin must not take any further administrator actions regarding Eric Corbett. (See also my comments on the clarifications-and-amendments motion.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

and somebody else noticed this too:

@Newyorkbrad: I'm generally on board with your logic in arb discussions, but I'm confused. If that's the only thing holding you back, why wouldn't you oppose and just say "this should not be read as an endorsement of Kevin's actions"? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ed, Newyorkbrad did not oppose because he's a coward.

Worm That Turned is an idiot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =597036302

oh what fun I've missed.

"Fun"? The case involves the comments made about a young man who committed suicide, Worm That Turned!

[Triptych]

AGK is a power-hungry troll. Newyorbrad is a coward. Worm That Turned is an idiot.

(Explanatory diffs clipped.)

I won't argue those points Neved (acknowledging you mean Brad's abstaining is *morally* cowardly, not that he'd run from a fistfight). I think it's time to look on the bright side though: this is a positive outcome. Kevin Gorman was running around frantically as the motion votes stacked up, personally appealing to Carcharoth and others. He says the motion doesn't signify anything or matter at all, so why do it? Yes, it does signify something. It stands for the groundbreaking proposition that any administrator may not character attack and push around any content contributor with utter impugnity and the previously unspoken but understood assurance that he or she is in an elite untouchable club.

It's a good development and well warranted by the facts on record. I say more like this.

[Vigilant]

AGK is a power-hungry troll. Newyorbrad is a coward. Worm That Turned is an idiot.

(Explanatory diffs clipped.)

I won't argue those points Neved (acknowledging you mean Brad's abstaining is *morally* cowardly, not that he'd run from a fistfight). I think it's time to look on the bright side though: this is a positive outcome. Kevin Gorman was running around frantically as the motion votes stacked up, personally appealing to Carcharoth and others. He says the motion doesn't signify anything or matter at all, so why do it? Yes, it does signify something. It stands for the groundbreaking proposition that any administrator may not character attack and push around any content contributor with utter impugnity and the previously unspoken but understood assurance that he or she is in an elite untouchable club.

It's a good development and well warranted by the facts on record. I say more like this.

Crap.
It says that admins without big friends can't take action against jackasses with big friends.

[Kelly Martin]

It stands for the groundbreaking proposition that any administrator may not character attack and push around any content contributor with utter impugnity and the previously unspoken but understood assurance that he or she is in an elite untouchable club.

That might mean something if Wikipedia had any respect at all for the rule of law. But they don't. All disciplinary decisions at Wikipedia are determined almost entirely by political considerations, and the only thing that can be learned from any disciplinary action (or inaction) at Wikipedia is a glimpse at the current state of the political climate. There are no precedents, only the shifting tides of political favor.

[Triptych]

It stands for the groundbreaking proposition that any administrator may not character attack and push around any content contributor with utter impugnity and the previously unspoken but understood assurance that he or she is in an elite untouchable club.

That might mean something if Wikipedia had any respect at all for the rule of law. But they don't. All disciplinary decisions at Wikipedia are determined almost entirely by political considerations, and the only thing that can be learned from any disciplinary action (or inaction) at Wikipedia is a glimpse at the current state of the political climate. There are no precedents, only the shifting tides of political favor.

Can you name another Arbcom case pitting administrator against content creator in which Arbcom found in favor of the content creator?

[neved]

Yet another development
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... er%3AGiano

22:37, 25 February 2014 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked Giano (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. Do not unblock without ArbCom consent.)

[Zoloft]

Yet another development
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... er%3AGiano

22:37, 25 February 2014 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked Giano (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. Do not unblock without ArbCom consent.)

That'll teach the peasants to whine at their betters, eh wot?

[mac]

Yet another development
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... er%3AGiano

22:37, 25 February 2014 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked Giano (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. Do not unblock without ArbCom consent.)

What a twist.

Perhaps this thread could be retitled?

[Vigilant]

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

Lèse-majesté (T-H-L)

[EricBarbour]

Yet another development
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... er%3AGiano

22:37, 25 February 2014 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked Giano (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. Do not unblock without ArbCom consent.)

Ha ha. That won't last. Never did before.

[Kelly Martin]

Yet another development
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... er%3AGiano

22:37, 25 February 2014 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked Giano (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. Do not unblock without ArbCom consent.)

Ha ha. That won't last. Never did before.

Indeed, we should start a pool on how long it'll last, except that by the time we get it organized it will undoubtedly have been lifted.

[Vigilant]

I have high hopes that Bishonen or some other "tongue in Giano's ass" type person will get themselves desysopped over this and quit in a diva huff.

[Lukeno94]

The original block may have been justified. Dumping an indefinite block for no obvious reason, however, is just stupid.

[Malleus]

The original block may have been justified. Dumping an indefinite block for no obvious reason, however, is just stupid.

Stupid is what admins like the Gorilla do best.

[Lukeno94]

Talk page access was promptly removed as well for Giano. Another ingenius decision.

[Zoloft]

If Giano would like to come over here and vent, he's more than welcome.

He can have his own topic and all, and even use big words.

We have no 'bad words' filter, either.

[neved]

If Giano would like to come over here and vent, he's more than welcome.

He can have his own topic and all, and even use big words.

We have no 'bad words' filter, either.

He actually vented on his own talk page just before they removed his talk page access.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =597141577

GorillaWarfare is an extremely stupid woman and a little fish in a little pond; she does not even know she's supposed to notify me of her ridiculous actions so I doubt we shall see her here anytime soon. Anyway, that is all hypothetical because I find it impossible to respect Wikipedia's ruling body and most of its Admins, and as I can't work with those I don't respect, that is a rather that. Getting a fair hearing for Eric Corbett has been worth the effort, but it's exposed what I've been in denial about for years. I don't belong here. Giano 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

[EricBarbour]

He actually vented on his own talk page just before they removed his talk page access.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =597141577

GorillaWarfare is an extremely stupid woman and a little fish in a little pond; she does not even know she's supposed to notify me of her ridiculous actions so I doubt we shall see her here anytime soon. Anyway, that is all hypothetical because I find it impossible to respect Wikipedia's ruling body and most of its Admins, and as I can't work with those I don't respect, that is a rather that. Getting a fair hearing for Eric Corbett has been worth the effort, but it's exposed what I've been in denial about for years. I don't belong here. Giano 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Saved it, and

[Triptych]

The original block may have been justified. Dumping an indefinite block for no obvious reason, however, is just stupid.

Stupid is what admins like the Gorilla do best.

I take it she's not the Gorilla your dreams?

I looked briefly, and all I saw Giano did was say to this person Kaldari that he or she was a "disgrace of an administrator" for restating Berkeley graduate Kevin Gorman's awful and clearly false claim that Eric Corbett had grave-danced a suicide committer. Kaldari said Eric "publicly belittled the suicide of a Wikipedian." Under criticism, Kaldari subsequently said that "Eric didn't say anything about the suicide victim. He was belittling the tragedy of the suicide and criticizing the ensuing outpouring of sympathy."

Are these really A) compatible statements or is B) Kaldari transparently engaging in wordplay to continue Gorman's character defamation of Corbett? "Publicly belittled the suicide of a Wikipedian." Correct answer is B!

So Giano then also comments that Kaldari is a WMF employee! Truth? Kaldari says at his userpage: "I'm an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation." So, Kaldari's "publicly belittled the suicide" comment is something you and I paid for, WMF charity donators!

Now, Gorillawafer has instituted that troublesome concept of an "Arbcom block," and Roger Davies rushed in to support her. I've been willing to entertain the fact of "oversight blocks," which we don't get to know about because privacy-violating information has supposedly been revealed. But an "Arbcom block" is something entirely different, it is an authority-only-based block, in which there's no reason for the arb not to specifically lay out the rationale. So is Giano's "disgrace of an administrator" remark sufficient for a permanent block, only appealable to Arbcom via email? I guess we shall see.

[Cla68]

Whenever an "ArbCom block" is made, the implication is that any admin who undoes it will be immediately desysopped. The obvious response, then, is for all the active admins on en.wp to line up and undo the block in sequence so that they all get desysopped and Wikipedia is left without any active admins. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the kind of case where something like that could happen.

[MilesMoney]

Whenever an "ArbCom block" is made, the implication is that any admin who undoes it will be immediately desysopped. The obvious response, then, is for all the active admins on en.wp to line up and undo the block in sequence so that they all get desysopped and Wikipedia is left without any active admins. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the kind of case where something like that could happen.

Admins with a moral compass and the willingness to follow it? Whatever you're injecting into your veins, I want some!

(It's not for me. I'll share it with Rob Ford.)

[TungstenCarbide]

Yet another development
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... er%3AGiano

22:37, 25 February 2014 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked Giano (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. Do not unblock without ArbCom consent.)

Here we go again! YeeHaw!

[neved]

Whenever an "ArbCom block" is made, the implication is that any admin who undoes it will be immediately desysopped. The obvious response, then, is for all the active admins on en.wp to line up and undo the block in sequence so that they all get desysopped and Wikipedia is left without any active admins. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the kind of case where something like that could happen.

Roger has already indicated that he's willing to lift the block

Hi EdChem. You're right that Giano is not alone in behaving sub-optimally. That said though, this is Giano's second block in this case and relates to the umpteenth occasion in this case when he has acted inappropriately. While I'm personally open to lifting the block in the very near future, I'd really like some assurances that he will rein in his obviously strong feelings as I would hate to see more of the same on the WT:ACN pages. Roger Davies talk 01:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess under "some assurances" he means that Giano will be allowed back if he agrees to keep his tail between his legs. I am not sure Giano will agree to provide such "assurances".

[Vigilant]

The original block may have been justified. Dumping an indefinite block for no obvious reason, however, is just stupid.

Stupid is what admins like the Gorilla do best.

I take it she's not the Gorilla your dreams?

I looked briefly, and all I saw Giano did was say to this person Kaldari that he or she was a "disgrace of an administrator" for restating Berkeley graduate Kevin Gorman's awful and clearly false claim that Eric Corbett had grave-danced a suicide committer. Kaldari said Eric "publicly belittled the suicide of a Wikipedian." Under criticism, Kaldari subsequently said that "Eric didn't say anything about the suicide victim. He was belittling the tragedy of the suicide and criticizing the ensuing outpouring of sympathy."

Are these really A) compatible statements or is B) Kaldari transparently engaging in wordplay to continue Gorman's character defamation of Corbett? "Publicly belittled the suicide of a Wikipedian." Correct answer is B!

So Giano then also comments that Kaldari is a WMF employee! Truth? Kaldari says at his userpage: "I'm an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation." So, Kaldari's "publicly belittled the suicide" comment is something you and I paid for, WMF charity donators!

Now, Gorillawafer has instituted that troublesome concept of an "Arbcom block," and Roger Davies rushed in to support her. I've been willing to entertain the fact of "oversight blocks," which we don't get to know about because privacy-violating information has supposedly been revealed. But an "Arbcom block" is something entirely different, it is an authority-only-based block, in which there's no reason for the arb not to specifically lay out the rationale. So is Giano's "disgrace of an administrator" remark sufficient for a permanent block, only appealable to Arbcom via email? I guess we shall see.

He reverted a clerk on the ARBCOM case page after being told not to do so or he would be blocked.

He dared them to block him.

[Malleus]

He reverted a clerk on the ARBCOM case page after being told not to do so or he would be blocked.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

[Vigilant]

He reverted a clerk on the ARBCOM case page after being told not to do so or he would be blocked.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

I agree. It's a good thing Giano was blocked.
Perhaps you can do your diva flounce and rage quit like you promised?

[Malleus]

He reverted a clerk on the ARBCOM case page after being told not to do so or he would be blocked.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

I agree. It's a good thing Giano was blocked.
Perhaps you can do your diva flounce and rage quit like you promised?

Do try and keep up.

[EricBarbour]

He doesn't need to, as he's quite properly been unblocked.

Right on schedule. The Wiki-trains are hideous but run on time anyway.

02:37, 26 February 2014 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) unblocked Giano (talk | contribs) (Remove block now that Arbitration case is closed)
23:59, 25 February 2014 Roger Davies (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Giano (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (This remains an Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy block. Do not unblock with ArbCom's consent)
23:15, 25 February 2014 The ed17 (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Giano (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (remove talk page access)

Blocking, or as it's called on here "muting", is a problem that really ought to be addressed, but for obvious reasons won't be. Either here or on WP.

Not for lack of trying. The people who do the blocking would rather walk away than discuss it like adults.

[neved]

And Eric is back
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =597177411

I wanted to see Gorman desysoped. He hasn't been. I'll reflect on whether an admonishment is a sufficient substitute given his various comments elsewhere. Eric Corbett 04:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

except now Eric should request that Kaldari (T-C-L) is desysoped as well over this comment
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =597105322

Admonishing Kevin for a single statement that he has has repeatedly acknowledged as a mistake while taking no action whatsoever against Eric Corbett's deeply offensive behavior (both in publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian and in personally attacking Kevin) is deeply troubling. Is the Arbitration committee now simply the executive arm of the Wikipedia administrator lynch mob? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 18:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

[Malleus]

And Eric is back
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =597177411

I wanted to see Gorman desysoped. He hasn't been. I'll reflect on whether an admonishment is a sufficient substitute given his various comments elsewhere. Eric Corbett 04:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

except now Eric should request that Kaldari (T-C-L) is desysoped as well over this comment
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =597105322

Admonishing Kevin for a single statement that he has has repeatedly acknowledged as a mistake while taking no action whatsoever against Eric Corbett's deeply offensive behavior (both in publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian and in personally attacking Kevin) is deeply troubling. Is the Arbitration committee now simply the executive arm of the Wikipedia administrator lynch mob? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 18:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari ought to have been desysoped ages ago.

[The Joy]

And Eric is back
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =597177411

I wanted to see Gorman desysoped. He hasn't been. I'll reflect on whether an admonishment is a sufficient substitute given his various comments elsewhere. Eric Corbett 04:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

except now Eric should request that Kaldari (T-C-L) is desysoped as well over this comment
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =597105322

Admonishing Kevin for a single statement that he has has repeatedly acknowledged as a mistake while taking no action whatsoever against Eric Corbett's deeply offensive behavior (both in publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian and in personally attacking Kevin) is deeply troubling. Is the Arbitration committee now simply the executive arm of the Wikipedia administrator lynch mob? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 18:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari ought to have been desysoped ages ago.

Malleus, why do you keep returning to Wikipedia? Is it because of a "I can't let the bastards win!" attitude? Wikipedia qualifies as a hostile work environment. You'll always have a target on your back and there are a never-ending supply of Kaldaris and Gormans working to drive you insane. The trolls know they can easily push you and your friends' buttons in order to cause maximum drama. I've asked this of Giano, you, and other major content editors before, but no one's given me an answer. I don't get it.

[Casliber]

And Eric is back
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =597177411

I wanted to see Gorman desysoped. He hasn't been. I'll reflect on whether an admonishment is a sufficient substitute given his various comments elsewhere. Eric Corbett 04:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

except now Eric should request that Kaldari (T-C-L) is desysoped as well over this comment
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =597105322

Admonishing Kevin for a single statement that he has has repeatedly acknowledged as a mistake while taking no action whatsoever against Eric Corbett's deeply offensive behavior (both in publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian and in personally attacking Kevin) is deeply troubling. Is the Arbitration committee now simply the executive arm of the Wikipedia administrator lynch mob? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 18:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari ought to have been desysoped ages ago.

Malleus, why do you keep returning to Wikipedia? Is it because of a "I can't let the bastards win!" attitude? Wikipedia qualifies as a hostile work environment. You'll always have a target on your back and there are a never-ending supply of Kaldaris and Gormans working to drive you insane. The trolls know they can easily push you and your friends' buttons in order to cause maximum drama. I've asked this of Giano, you, and other major content editors before, but no one's given me an answer. I don't get it.

I can speak for two things - Personally I do what I want and enjoy about 75% of the time. If I didn't I think I would have left long ago.

Regarding Eric, maybe he will answer but you should realise that maybe >90% of the interactions Eric has are constructive article writing with a whole bunch of folks. Sometimes months and many thousands of edits pass between these blowups. (Sometimes they don't, granted but..) - so for folks sitting around in the peanut gallery, all this in-between-time passes unnoticed. Note that I have had to make this point on wikipedia as well previously....

[Casliber]

What I don't get is folks that don't contribute content really (well, I do...but don't)....