Wikipedia is not a circus! Options

[Dzonatas]

This is getting too easy to predict:

Compare this:

It appears as if some want to bring a circus to town at the feet of ArbCom and use the audience to single-out a few issues; when those issues are dealt with under the pressure of the audience's expectation of circus fun, the performers will quickly leave stage (as some have before) and put up sign saying "nothing more to see -- move along now."

To compare what's happening after the RFC at ArbCom, we have SirFozzie's statement to redefine wheel-war (21:58, 4 July) and Durova 's attempt to jump around also (at 22:43, 4 July) with signatures like somehow suddenly "Wikipedia is a democracy", but those comments were made right after SirFozzie deleted one of the ArbCom case comments (at 21:19, 4 July).

It's bad enough to delete the comment that calls him out on the attempt, but it is even worse for him to immediately implore for it to be justified. Then, they stumble to close the case immediately before any proposal is taken upon him.

It is like Durova is asking that if the case is closed immediately then she will *now* support letting people be heard before they are indef-blocked (where like before they wouldn't even be allowed to reply). if the case is closed immediately, Durova gets her buddies protected.

I think that is *almost* substantial evidence that she (and her buddies) may have done something wrong (almost admits it) on her encouragement of blocks. Her actions, however, are not quite in plain English enough.

Looks like ArbCom has a bit of breathing room now. =)

This post has been edited by Dzonatas: Sat 5th July 2008, 8:22pm

[Proabivouac]

To compare what's happening after the RFC at ArbCom, we have SirFozzie's statement to redefine wheel-war (21:58, 4 July) …

I'm afraid SirFozzie is right.

Consider this recent case, in which Tango blocked MONGO for a comment directed towards Tango himself, and was rightly desysoped:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...DefendEachOther
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._decision#Tango
Here you have both that and "wheel-warring" of the injured ego variety.

…Durova 's attempt to jump around also (at 22:43, 4 July)…

This "attempt to jump around" looks entirely unobjectionable:

Per my pledge to stand up on behalf of fair process for any and all Wikipedians, I respectfully request that the arbitrators refrain from voting on this case until all of the parties have had adequate time to present evidence.

Is there something sinister in this I've overlooked?

[Dzonatas]

Consider this recent case, in which Tango blocked MONGO for a comment directed towards Tango himself, and was rightly desysoped:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...DefendEachOther
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._decision#Tango
Here you have both that and "wheel-warring" of the injured ego variety.

In the Tango case, you see the original block on MONGO was questionable as retaliatory.
In The G-WMC case., that first block made by WMC against Giano does not look like a direct retaliation, but it is still questionable why it was done. Unlike Tango, WMC continued to extend the block.

To justify the extension of the block as a wheel-war doesn't fit. It isn't comparable to Tango-MONGO in that regard.

…Durova 's attempt to jump around also (at 22:43, 4 July)…

This "attempt to jump around" looks entirely unobjectionable:

Per my pledge to stand up on behalf of fair process for any and all Wikipedians, I respectfully request that the arbitrators refrain from voting on this case until all of the parties have had adequate time to present evidence.

Is there something sinister in this I've overlooked?

Sinister?

That statement is not consistent with what she says next on the page to get the case closed, so why even add that statement? It also doesn't match with what she did to quickly get me blocked. It's inconsistent.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas: Sun 6th July 2008, 5:55am

[SirFozzie]

If you look at the workshop I've posted, Dzonatas, this is what I've said.

(short short version)

WMC
3 hour block - OK, had consensus at ArbCom Enforcement as a violation of Civility Parole
Extension to 24 hours: Supportable, but not optimal. Many people think that WMC should have disengaged at this point
Extension to 48 hours: NOT supportable: A, we're not supposed to block for incivility aimed at ourselves (bring it up for wider attention, and then see if a neutral admin will do it), and B he REALLY should have disengaged at this point

Geogre
Unprotect/Unblock: Not supportable. The tools are not supposed to be used in this way. The generally accepted version of things is that you get either the ok of the other administrator, or the consensus of uninvolved admins/community before you undo another admins actions

WMC
Reblock: Completely not acceptable. Even if Geogre's unblock WAS invalid, reinserting it without discussion/consensus is wheel-warring.

Here's the timeline, if you want to review it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...idence/Timeline

[Dzonatas]

If you look at the workshop I've posted, Dzonatas, this is what I've said.

If you want to re-write it to make it clearer, that may be acceptable. This is what you wrote (emphasis added):

I just happened to notice that while there are findings of fact aimed at WMC's inappropriate extension of a block aimed at Giano, and then "inappropriately reapplying the block" (hmm.. sounds like wheel warring, under ANY definition), the only proposed remedy is that he is not to have any further administrative action against Giano.

[SirFozzie]

Done. I was referring to two findings of fact on the proposed decision page.

How does this sound?

I just happened to notice that while there are findings of fact aimed at WMC's inappropriate extension of a block aimed at Giano, and then inappropriately reapplying the extended block (hmm.. sounds like reinstating the block after an unblock without discussion or consensus, no matter how dubious the unblock, constituted wheel warring, under ANY definition), the only proposed remedy is that he is not to have any further administrative action against Giano. Do you really think after touching Wikipedia's third rail (thanks, Risker for the reference, it fits!) and with the proposed remedies modifying the sanction against Giano, he'd WANT to have any further contact with him? So what we have here is the one person who EVERYONE can agree wheel-warred on this, again, that one line that should never be crossed by an administrator, and we're going to do... nothing? Maybe I'm jumping the gun here and there's more remedies coming, but there's a glaring hole here as it stands. SirFozzie (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[Dzonatas]

I just happened to notice that while there are findings of fact aimed at WMC's inappropriate extension of a block aimed at Giano, and then inappropriately reapplying the extended block (hmm.. sounds like reinstating the block after an unblock without discussion or consensus, no matter how dubious the unblock, constituted wheel warring, under ANY definition), the only proposed remedy is that he is not to have any further administrative action against Giano.

That entire parenthesized block of text does not even flow in the idea of your overall sentence. You don't use parentheses for completely unrelated ideas, which could be better put into another sentence. The single idea you tried to create is not clear.

[Moulton]

Here at Wikipedia Review, our speciality is inchoate storytelling.

[jch]

They even fired the clown!

[Milton Roe]

They even fired the clown!

Not fired; decommissioned. The Clown was down. For months. Nothing but spasmotic agonal blocking movements noted.

Serious re-boot/med change/electroshock required.

MR