Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Proposed decision

This [1] is probably a better diff. Thatcher131 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect, Fred, the "taunting" being discussed is not, in fact, aimed at EE. Rather, on Bishonen's talk page, in particular, people have been exasperatedly and wittily complaining to each other and going on in wit battles. Inasmuch as most of these occur when EE says that she has left forever, no one should be blamed for "taunting" her when she says that she's gone. Imagine a party where the drunk says he's leaving. You then turn to your friend and say, "What a jerk." You can't be accused of trying to start a fight with the drunk, even if he simply looped back around. Giano's worst was, in my opinion, nothing more severe than an attempt to convince EE simply to go away (not from Wikipedia, although he would be justified even in that, but from the stalked pages). He didn't want EE to keep disrupting the work that Bishonen and he were doing, and yet endless "I'm gone/I'm back/I just showed up" comments showed that politeness wasn't going to be effective. He tried something a bit meaner, but I don't think it was a taunt as much as another strategy for getting some peace. Geogre 11:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Later comment for clarification): Another element of this is that most of the "taunts" I saw were on Bishonen's talk page, and they were specifically made when EE said that he "would never be at this page again." The temptation to prove the hypocrisy is there for everyone. If you believe him, then you feel that you can exhale and finally comment freely. If you don't believe him, then you may want to prove that he hasn't gone away. The point being that continuing to say only the nicest, least sincere things forever is basically to cede ownership of one user's talk page to another user. The others, and the ones pointed to as "taunting by Giano," were talk pages to articles that EE had been mucking about in and followed another "I will not edit this article/page ever again." Once more, users in dialog to build up the article could be understood to have exhaled or to have said, "Don't let the door hit you in the rear" or to make it clear that he had not left, would not leave, and couldn't resist coming back. This is not to say that these were the correct actions. They were, however, understandable outside of the context of taunting. Geogre 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Saying that EE is "unblockable" may be true. He edits from libraries and other public access points. However that's really an enforcement issue and not an issue of what the user's actions warrant. In other words, if ArbCom says that EE is blocked for some period of time, then that at least provides the rationale and 'legal' framework for administrative action. Not giving the sentence because enforcement will be impossible or difficult seems to me to be a wrong turn. Geogre 11:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, honestly:

• Giano is to be blocked, and EE is to be put on probation. Have they swapped trousers or something?
• Worse: Giano's block is admittedly not deserved by his actions, but just an example to encourage the children to play nicely in future.
• And the purported "example" is not just the public humiliation of notional block for, say, 5 minutes or an hour (neither of which would be justfied, in my opinion) but for a whole month. Please can I borrow that sledgehammer when you are finished: I have a nut around here somewhere.

Yes, Giano's comment was arguably in poor taste, but it was not a personal attack; it was not a legal threat; it was not a threat of violence or a death threat (EE certainly didn't seem to think it was[2]). Anyone who was watching User talk:Giano, User talk:Bishonen, and many other places, would have seen the spectacle of same HW, EE, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, playing itself out repeatedly for month after month.

Wikipedia is not maiden aunts' tea party. We debate issues fully, frankly and robustly; and we should not be afraid to express our views (within the accepted policies) for fear that others may get attacks of the vapours. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, and that goes just as much, if not more, for talk page and user talk pages.

This decision is a travesty in the making. Fortunately I will be on wikibreak shortly, so won't have to watch it. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at /Workshop and at User_talk:Charles Matthews, which I won't cross-post. Fortunately, good sense seems likely to prevail here. Newyorkbrad 21:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks all of you! Have you thought about taking silk ALoan? Probably make more staying on tax though! However, I'm impressed, one small point "Yes, Giano's comment was arguably in poor taste" Have you ever tried Fugu, it really is very nice - sort of tingley on the tongue, a little like the best champagne when coupled with caviar! (perhaps you should take silk - then you would know these things!) Anyhow thanks all of you - this is getting kinda embarassing for me - being nice to yau all! Giano | talk 21:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Giano, I've been pretty staunch in supporting you, but I will go on record, as I have before, in saying that you were letting him get to you far too much, and you were giving him a kick in the pants as he claimed to be leaving. You did not cross the line, in my opinion, but there is reason for people to say that your general comments were more aggravated and aggravating (and irresistable for EE to reply to) than need be. Geogre 02:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The one-month ban on Giano is disproportionate But I believe Fred is right that there should be no lattitude here for incivility involving insinuations of physical harm, and some remedy is called for. I'd suggest something like a PA parole and a restraining order disallowing any interaction beween Giano and EE in the future. and singles him out to too great a degree.
• I agree with Geogre that "unblockable" is irrelevant. That said, I think a one-year full ban is disproportionate to EE's offenses. Suggest two months.
• Proposed remedy 1, the probation, needs a longer maximum time. Banning EE for a week from an article (s)he's harassing somebody on is not enough.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the woman off my page, out of my life great idea BoG, what took you so long to come up with it - why not extend it to all of us - Oh and by the way ever heard of Fugu? Giano | talk 21:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It was a coincidence that the Japanese food you chose to suggest has a mortal reputation? It seemed like that was part of the jibe. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Did I provide her with a recipe? Suggest she caught it gutted it and grilled it herself - No I did not. I assumed I was talking to an educated person. I was merely seeing if she was in Japan, and how clued up she was? Naturally she was lying as usual - and was a little cross when she realised she had betrayed herself - yet again. Giano | talk 22:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to point out that what you said was literally quite correct. She should try the blowfish, as it is delicious, supposing she were in Japan and around competent chefs. I don't see any threat involved, anything other than, "Please p*ss off," which is a thing we have all been saying in more and less overt ways. Geogre 02:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we all agree it's comparable to saying "why don't you take a long walk off a short pier?" I suppose that's true; it does have more the flavor of rhetoric than threat. Incivil still, but no more than things I've said. (I think I subconsciously tend to assign a lot of weight to whatever an arbcommer says and was reading too much into the blowfish statement. Sorry Giano.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think Giano has been ban-worthy by a long shot, but smewhat uncivil. Perhaps I'm coming at it differently, but I think something like, say, [3] (or an earlier eample of such would be better, but I just grabbed the first one I saw), while less egregious in the context of provocation, did indeed end up antagonizing eternal Equinox, and making the situation worse. To have responded dispassionately would have been best. I see evidence that the response was more than appropriate, even given the context, as I judge it to have been on a different scale than Bishonen or HeyNow's comments. Of course, I welcome an explanation that will convince me otherwise. Dmcdevit·t 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember EE (or was popping up on a daily basis) here is an exchange where I was fairly polite [4] - I had just questioned the wisdom of her nominating a RFA candidate? Here again [5] ranting on my page that she was not Hollow Wilerding. No matter how often she was told to go away she returned. Every time she announced she was leaving I rejoiced but each time she returned. I don't regret the content of one exchange with her, she was a deliberate nuisance, and received from the me no less than she deserved. She knew I was sick of her, she knew I had a nasty bite, she knowingly swam with a shark and got bitten - very mildly actually - and I think in a masochistic way she quite enjoyed it - why keep returning for more? No-one should be cautioned over this whole business with her, and I certainly won't accept one. I suppose people talk to her differently depending on how they perceive her - which of her aliases they find most plausible (there was usually a personal account of the personae on the user page) I always picture her as the bossy teacher in her late twenties as she described herself in my first dealings with her - I know others think of her a high school student, others as the boy from a rich family living with his girlfriend while at college. The woman was a compulsive nuisance, and I for one am delighted to see the back of her - no matter how temporary that situation may be. Giano | talk 16:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Fred Bauder's proposed finding of fact that I restored a message on User talk:Eternal Equinox is misleading to put it mildly. As the page history shows, my restoration of Jim62sch's message was accidental and immediately self-reverted. Why ruin a good story by checking, though? Or indeed by reading the workshop page, where Bunchofgrapes pointed this out several days ago. Nobody but the ArbCom gets to edit the proposed decisions page, so I'd appreciate it if an arbitrator mentioned what the real deal was at that vote. It's very much not a feature of my editing style to restore negative messages on userpages. Secondly, I won't accept any cautioning of either me or Giano either. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I see my error and have corrected it. Fred Bauder 20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's not very clear without the cross-out (<s></s>) code, but I hope people can understand it. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I might go back and try to fix that. I do see that you just made a simple mistake. Fred Bauder 23:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well put Bishonen. I think Fred is making far too many errors and failings - perhaps he should be removed from the arb-com. He professes to be a retired lawyer - in Europe any proficient judge would have adjourned court and taken him into "chambers" for a quiet word on the application and interpretation of the law. Perhpaps things are different in the USA? Giano | talk 20:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one month block of Giano being mooted, for a remark that you have to work at to even find as a threat, strains credibility and is completely disproportionate, I'm afraid. I would be terrifically disappointed if this ended up being one of the outcomes. EE on the other hand has earned a permanent community banning if you ask me. ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone seems baffled apart from User:Fred Bauder and User:Charles Matthews - who apparently wants to string Giano up as an example to us all, but is quite content to call for just a probabtion for EE[6]. Utterly bizarre. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with all due respect to ArbCom, if EE doesn't get a goodly long block (including all his/her known and yet to be discovered socks) out of this, I think I'll just take it to WP:AN/I and propose a community ban for having exhausted patience, as we've had well enough of this editor already, I feel. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respect for Arbcom seems to be another casualty of this sorry affair. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a casualty with me, not in the slightest. I have a great deal of respect for ArbCom, its members and its processes. What I am proposing is Community Shunning. That, like Admin voluntary recall, like being ROUGE, like being willing to do difficult blocks (just to pick a few community centric things) shows no disrespect for ArbCom, it just shows that sometimes, in our consensus driven world, the community needs to do the right thing even if ArbCom (for possibly good and valid reasons) can't. Further, my comments here are intended to influence ArbCom to do what I think is the right thing. If I disrespected ArbCom I certainly would not be here commenting. Hope that helps clarify things. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting fact I just heard again was that of those users subject to "serious bans" -- defined in this case as bans of a month or more -- only 5% or so ever came back as good editors. The Arbcom members all know this. It casts an interesting, gloomy light on the proposal. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: by "intersting, gloomy" I actually do mean "outrageous". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well put your money where your mouth is BoG! Giano | talk 18:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what that means. I'm expressing my opinion here, in what I think is the most appropriate place to communicate it to the arbitrators voting on the issue. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I call it hedging one's bets BoG! Giano | talk 20:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If we're lamenting loss of faith in ArbCom, I suppose I'd have to go into that category. Not because I disagree with this or that, but because the entirety of the "block Giano" business relies upon employing the utterly unworkable "personal attack" business and then amplifying it. To see Giano as having committed an offense worthy of sanction, you have to not only read "try the pufferfish" as "eat unprepared pufferfish and die," but you have to read that as "I will force you to eat it and die." Any other way, and there is no threat. The ruling would be, in essence, "Never wish anyone else ill" as well as "never express your ill feelings toward anyone." I don't agree with the latter, and the former is absurd. It isn't that individual members of ArbCom are more or less Solominic here, but rather that such an incredibly untennable proposition as Snowspinner's "semi-policy" of WP:NPA is getting treated with such po-faced solemnity as to get sanctified and exaggerrated. Seeing that happen weakens my faith. Geogre 02:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but I have no problem with that result. I really must say that I have little faith that probity will result, but, despite it all, it might work better, because the public terminal usage will result in collateral damage that isn't strictly needed. This is not Lir. Geogre 02:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]