Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

X) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Courtesy

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgment while enforcing this policy. Personal attacks are not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Needs to be edited, but basically sound. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Fred Bauder 12:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Direct from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. - Aaron Brenneman 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

2) Editors may be blocked at the discretion of administrators for disruptive editing. Repeated disruptive behavior may lead to bans or other restrictions. The community has made it abundantly clear, over the course of many discussions that they do not feel it is appropriate to "troll" on Wikipedia, or to engage in disruptive behaviour. While there is some dissent over method of enforcement, and over whether individual Wikipedians are or are not engaging in "trolling", there is little or no dissent over this underlying principle.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, except disruption can mean almost anything, while Wikipedia:Blocking policy is rather limited with respect to what is considered disruption. Trolling, agitating really, can masquerade as a policy discussion or legitimate criticism of others actions. It is probably impossible for administrators, even if they are working together well, to shut off a well established user who has fallen into a pattern of trolling, habitually keeping everyone upset with sniping and criticism. Such cases need to go to arbitration, especially if the user is an administrator. A balance must be struck between useful criticism and disruptive agitation. Fred Bauder 12:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Is this 'disruption' section referring to the discussion and expressions of discontent over some of these issues? I have sometimes seen strong and healthy (if somewhat robust) discussions labelled as 'trolling' and disruption. What some people see as an irrelevant disruption, others see as a necessary and important discussion. Maybe it would be helpful to clarify the best ways to air and discuss grievances (and issues in general), and recommend that if people engage in such discussion in inappropriate places, or at great length, then the better response is to point people to the right places to have such discussions, rather than label the activity 'disruption' and use this as a justification to impose a block? The general principle I would like to see upheld here is that encouraging discussion towards a consensus should be preferred to blocks and calls to "get back to work on the encyclopedia". ie. No-one should avoid engaging in lengthy discussion when needed. Point people to the right place, rather than blocking. If you think the discussion has run its course, explain why you think this, rather than just saying it. Carcharoth 10:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir. - brenneman ^{L} 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrators

3) Wikipedia:Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users cannot execute. This includes the power to block and unblock other users or IP addresses provided that Wikipedia:Blocking policy is followed. Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administrators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted, although it is a bit wordy Fred Bauder 12:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, principles 1 to 3. - brenneman ^{L} 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus and consistency

4) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Those editors charged with determining consensus should do so in a consistent and transparent manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is somewhat tendentious, being apparently aimed at the Bureaucrats who disappointed expectations by approving the Carnildo 3 RfA. I think they have adequately explained their reasoning. Whether it was wise is not for the arbitrators to determine. Fred Bauder 12:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Are we trying to adopt a principle that follows from or illuminates policy, or make new policy? I think it would be a bit much to expect consistency in a complex social environment. In closing AfDs, for instance, we have long had a principle of administrator discretion, and an administrator is expected to use his common sense. An analogous principle has long been applied to the decisions of bureaucrats in RFA. --Tony Sidaway 04:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider, my additions embolded. - brenneman ^{L} 00:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom-l

5) Discussions on the Arbcom-l mailing list are confidential. Confidentiality aids candid discussion of issues and protects confidential information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 02:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

If only because the Committee must, amongst other things, consider evidence that contains confidential information. --Tony Sidaway 02:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Seems to me however, that these discussions shouldn't even be referred to outside of the list, since it causes bad blood to even know some topics have been discussed. That confidentiality cuts both ways. It shouldn't be flaunted but should be respected on both sides. I'm quite happy for that stuff being confidential, but no-one should be in a position to tell me I've been subject to discussions on the list. I'd hope the arb-com can see that such circumstances lead to an understandable call for full disclosure, and this is perhaps an area the arb-com needs to consider. What do you do if such discussion is flaunted? The community is bound by confidentiality it has no power to remove. Arb-com have imposed this confidentiality, surely they either have to declare how to deal with any breaches or they have to allow the community to work an answer out. Steve block Talk 21:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The provacy of arbcom list has never been contested. What was contested is the controversial access of former arbitrators, outvoted or even fired, to it. And what's more, there is no provision for recused arbcomers to be dissociated from the case. (the matter was already raised on WT:RFAR#Question_on_the_recusal and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_policy#Recusals, with quite uncertain conclusions. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

6) Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions. They are responsible for closing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 02:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I agree. I'm not entirely convinced that the Carnildo case was a really difficult case originally. The way I see it, the difficulties arose from closing it as a promotion with an unprecedented low percentage. At any rate, the principle is relevant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrator conduct

7) Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Administrators must be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wording from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter. Kirill Lokshin 03:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Second chances

8) Users who have violated policies in the past will be forgiven, restrictions will be removed, and privileges and responsibilities restored if there is substantial evidence that violations will not be repeated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 03:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I agree, but if we are talking about Carnildo getting a second chance (which incidentally, I think he deserved, due to his continued dedicated service and grunt work for Wikipedia, even after the desysopping), I think there would have been much less controversy and ill will if the re-adminning had been through an appeal to ArbCom instead of through a community-based RFA where a lot of people got the impression that the ~40% opposes would be disregarded because of the bureaucrats' opinion. ArbCom should perhaps abandon desysops with "elegible to reapply on RFA" as a remedy unless they intend the de-sysopping to be permanent. If they want an indefinite, but not neccesarily permanent, de-sysop an "...upon demonstration of good behaviour, RogueAdmin may appeal to the ArbCom to have the sysop-bit restored" remedy might be more appropriate. By delegating the decision of when to give the second-chance to an WP:RFA, the ArbCom appeared to give the community the power to decide that, and at present, large parts of the community were not ready to grant the second chance yet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bearing grudges

9) It is a violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith to bear grudges for past wrongs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 03:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Beat me to it! My wording was: Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. All editors are expected to use the dispute resolution mechanisms and tools provided. --Tony Sidaway 03:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nonetheless, saying that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior is not neccesarily a violation of WP:AGF. Saying "I really don't think this person has learned from this mistake" is legitimate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the best way to predict the weather, but unless we throw someone out completely, they continue to participate in the community. If someone is part of the community assumption of good faith is important for smooth functioning of the project. "Never forget, Never forgive" is the slogan of a fictional tribe. Fred Bauder 10:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea in theory, but doesn't that go directly against WP:AGF's statement that "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bearing grudges and fighting battles

9.1) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. All editors are expected to use the dispute resolution mechanisms and tools provided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is excerpted from WP:NOT and in the current context it focuses more on Giano's nursing of a grievance, which was encouraged by his friends who frequently came back to the central complaint that Carnildo had never apologised. Giano's statements make it plain that this is a personal grievance and not just a negative evaluation of Carnildi's suitability for the sysop bit. [1]. --Tony Sidaway 07:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Actually, I think this covers a lot of comments made in the debate at the admin's noticeboard. There were some points made which seemed to suggest a perceived division between those who edit articles and those that don't. I think that sort of view helps "nurture hatred or fear". I think a lot of the debate falls foul of this section of WP:NOT. I would think the whole debate should be looked at with regards to this clause. It quickly descended into what appears to be a lot of people piling into an issue which had appeared to be resolved rather quickly, after 15 minutes I'd say the initial block of Giano was near enough settled, Tony noting 15 minutes after opening the thread: "No problem. I think it had gotten far beyond the stage where asking him to cool it would have worked, though. We'll see how it goes." --Tony Sidaway 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC) How and why the debate floundered as it did is perhaps not for me to comment, but I'd wonder if this section of WP:NOT is not considered relevant. Steve block Talk 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Debating frankly

10) Comments and ideas can and should be debated frankly, as long as opponents do not engage in personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Settling scores

11) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 10:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Nurturing fear and whatnot is a two-way street. An insufficiently sensitive person may, finding a dispute ridiculous, say Qu'ils mangent de la brioche, and exacerbate feelings of alienation felt by valuable and well established editors. (Yes, I've read the Wikipedia article but this is a metaphor, not a history lesson). --Tony Sidaway 14:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it's impenetrable. What other metaphor? My point is that one can unconsciously provoke hatred and all kinds of other weird stuff simply by not understanding why the other guy is so full of fear, hatred, etc, and thus acting in a way that exacerbated his problems. I don't think there's any solution to this. This isn't supposed to be a psychiatric hospital. --Tony Sidaway 01:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What history lesson? This is an impenetrable metaphor. At least the 'other metaphor' was in English and not in French! At a guess, I'd point to Marie Antoinette and Let them eat cake. Carcharoth 01:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How silly. This thread is split between two sections. I guess I should have replied in the "comment by parties" section, but I thought I shouldn't, as I'm not a party. I now see that anyone can post anywhere, but the initial comment should be by an arbitrator, party or other, for the respective sections. The other metaphor I was referring to was the one that got you blocked (or at least was the final straw that got you blocked). As for the fear, hatred and I'd add paranoia here, I find the best method is to simply ignore such things and keep your own comments reasonable and rational. Either the other guy will start engaging with you, or they will give up and go away. If you later encounter the same attitude in the same user, again and again, then it may be worth following up and investigating such behaviour. Carcharoth 10:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism welcomed

12) Criticism of administrative, arbitration, and bureaucratic decisions is welcome.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 10:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As Sjakkalle. Agree with Badlydrawnjeff as far as it goes, but accusing the entire operational machinery of Wikipedia of gross malfeasance isn't so much criticism as, well, a sign that one needs to have a sit down and a nice cup of tea. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sure, just add "constructive" at the start of the sentence, and I'll agree. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Constructive," however, is woefully subjective. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To reply to Tony, that's exactly the type of belittling of one's argument that turned this tempest into a poopship destroyer. When you have an otherwise worthwhile editor see that he was originally a) blocked poorly, b) looked down upon for expressing an opinion regarding the blocking admin's readminning, c) blocked for that opinion, and d) actually see some quibbling as to whether his being unblocked for that is the right move, it does bring into question the entire operational machinery. I'm sure he's not the only person to believe it, and I'm not doubting for a second that he has every right to feel that way, given his experience. To say that it's nothing more than "a sign that one needs to have a sit down and a nice cup of tea" is essentially saying "you're a loon, go do something else," whether that's the intent or not. When it's the same people time and time again, it only adds to it - why else would, for instance, Kelly Martin be dragged into it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Strikes

13) A strike by any editor is the declared decision to withdraw his freely given labor in protest at a grievance that he believes is not capable of being resolved by the dispute resolution machinery of Wikipedia. A strike, or agitation for a strike, is a legitimate form of peaceful protest on Wikipedia, universally recognised as the right of any Wikipedian.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I've observed peaceful (and somewhat successful) attempts by Geogre and others to make their point by withdrawing their highly valued voluntary labor, which they felt was under-appreciated by a growing bureaucracy of non-editors or infrequent editors. We don't really have anything about this, perhaps because it's so blindingly obvious, but I think we should have this principle so as to clarify what this dispute is not about. --Tony Sidaway 14:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify for Sjakkalle, I think it's basically "right to leave" but more explicit about the "freedom of association" aspects. We rightly take a pretty hard line on people campaigning on real-life political issues (at least I like to think we do), but sometimes there are "wikipolitical" issues that may need to be addressed. One form of political power the primary producer can exercise is withdrawal of labor. An analogous case occurred recently in the Irishpunktom case, where User:Dbiv succeeded in using peaceful ban-defiance as a persuasive political protest against a remedy in that case that banned him from editing an article in a subject on which he is an expert. In the hands of unimpeachable producers of good content, these are persuasive methods of protest. We admins are perhaps becoming like police officers, always ready to shoot. If we shoot good people, we're aiming the wrong way. --Tony Sidaway 15:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sure, no problem with this. More or less m:Right to leave. And providing that they haven't done anything egregious, anyone has a right to come back as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reputation

14) Certain roles necessary to the running of Wikipedia, namely bureaucrats, arbitrators, checkusers and clerks, require individuals of the highest reputation within the community. Even the appearance of impropriety may cause great damage. Factionalism must be avoided by the office holder and, where the exigencies of the role make it possible, he must strive for transparency in his dealings, and avoid all reasonably predictable conflicts of interest. --Tony Sidaway 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I think perhaps this wasn't so keenly recognised when the clerks were instituted and three of those chosen were, everybody acknowledges, some of the most controversial editors in the English Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorsed wholeheartedly. With regard to the clerks, I've also proposed a remedy that might help. Newyorkbrad 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed. Appearances do matter. Catchpole 07:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Decisions are final

15) Decisions by the Bureaucrats are final unless they are revised or overturned by bureaucrats.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I have added by bureaucrats because I assume that was Fred's intent, and I think it answers Aaron's question. --Tony Sidaway 23:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What is this tautological statement meant to say? All decisions are final unless they are revised. Do you mean revised by the arbcom, by b'cats, what? Is this leading up to "just shut up and go back to work?" Please give us something to feed off here. - Aaron Brenneman 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely this is not tautological, but self-contradictory: "Decisions by bureaucrats are final except if they aren't". David | Talk 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like an explanation myself. Steve block Talk 22:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I cannot help but note that, after all the stink that I've raised about being forbidden to edit other people's proposals, and how explicitly I've been told not to do so, that Tony edits Fred Bauder's quite cavalierly. Can we have some consistancy, please.
  brenneman ^{L} 07:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Decisions are final

15.1) In RfAs, any changes or decisions by the Bureaucrats are final.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Revised to clarify above. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Acceptance of decisions

16) Wikipedia:Assume good faith extends to the actions of the Bureaucrats (and the Arbitration Committee). Criticism of their decisions, even strong, possibly unfair criticism, is welcome, but graceful acceptance of their decisions is expected unless they are revised or overturned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems a sort of non-sequitur to me: a decision may be wrong even if taken in good faith. Also, what would be the contrary of a graceful acceptance? I suggest rewording this one. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Appeal of decisions of the Bureaucrats

18) The Arbitration committee is poorly positioned to review decisions of the Bureaucrats when they act as a committee. It is best when a dispute arises that decisions made by a committee of Bureaucrats be reviewed by all the Bureaucrats or by Jimbo.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We have considered allegations of misbehavior by Bureaucrats. Fred Bauder 14:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Committee is a good word. Caucus is another one if that isn't thought suitable. There is, I'm told, at least one on-line thesaurus that may be useful for finding other names.

The suggestion that decisions of the bureaucrats should be reviewed by bureaucrats is good. This is one case where some degree of separation of powers is helpful. If the arbitration committee cannot influence the decisions of bureaucrats then this reduces the scope for damaging allegations that the bureaucrats and arbitrators act in concert. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Committee seems to be the wrong word here. It was more of a consultation among several bureaucrats. "Committee" suggests some sort of more formalized process. If I consult with several admins of my choice on an issue, I would not turn around and say "a committee of admins has decided...." NoSeptember 15:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sincere apologies

19) Sincere apologies are an essential component in dispute resolution, and in general, result in more positive effects than punitive actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

That would be good, but I'm not into ordering apologies. Fred Bauder 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I can not get around the feeling that if Carnildo had apologized to Giano, we would not have been here. Probably needs a lot of tweaking. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not ordering, just noticing that apologies in general do often a lot of good if sincere. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Editor morale

20) Since Wikipedia is run mostly by volunteers, the morale of those people is very important to the project. Any action with obvious short term effects can have oft-overlooked long term effects by how it is perceived by the community. Any action that would be good in itself but can cause strong community dissent and/or editors leaving needs to be considered very carefully.

(For example, blocking an editor can cause that editor to leave the project. For your average vandal, that's not a problem, but for good editors it is)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Spot on. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Grafikm_fr has apparently misunderstood me. I mean solely that its application to my conduct is "spot on". I've no idea whether it applies to other editors and I'm not intersted, in this case, in whether it does. --Tony Sidaway 20:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

We need to pay more attention to this. Feel free to reword, by the way. Radiant! 17:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is, it also works the other way of what Tony thinks it does. His incivility is a bummer for the morale of some people (see diffs in Evidence). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Editor morale redux

21) Per the above, if it is decided that a controversial decision is nevertheless for the good of the project, it must be handled very carefully. Comments along the lines of "put up or shut up" only serve to aggravate the situation. Unhappy editors are not good for the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Absolutely. And here let me say that I mean by this "this principle applies to my conduct." Nothing more and nothing less. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Has someone called some other editors idiots? --Tony Sidaway 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this is a reference to Jdforrester's post captioned "You're All Idiots" on WP:AN (see proposed findings below). Newyorkbrad 23:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm sure someone will post examples in /evidence about things that should have been said in a different way, or by a more diplomatic person, or not at all. Radiant! 17:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, calling other editors "idiots" sure does make some unhappy... <_< -- Grafikm_fr 20:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration should not be used as an effort to "out" fellow Wikipedians

22) Deliberately seeking "diffs" and attempting to pile-on random evidence not directly related to a current Arbitration hearing should be viewed as attempts to "out" a fellow Wikipedian, especially if said individual has an axe to grind from a previous unrelated encounter such as a block, bad disagreement of for not getting what they wanted in a previous dispute proceeding with said individual.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Arbitrators are human and arbitration is a human process. We trust them to try their best to make the best decision in the interests of the project. Whilst it may sometimes happen that an editor may use arbitration as a means of settling scores the effect of this principle, if adopted, could only be to deter editors from presenting evidence lest they might be thought to be pursuing a vendetta. Arbitrators aren't stupid, they should be able to see through such attempts if ever they are made. Moreover, "diffs" that present an unequival picture of problematic behavior should be welcomed. The arbitrators may be able to suggest a remedy. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but since arbitrators can't be expected to know about all past situations, what mechanism is utilized to make it clear that a contributiong editor may simply be trying to settle a score.--MONGO 21:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In this instance, the arbitrators can be assumed to know a bit more than one might otherwise imagine. --23:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by MONGO--MONGO 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better worded as a simple "Evidence presented during an arbitration case should be germane to the hearing at hand?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about those that have had prior dealings who use arbitration cases as an opportunity to "out" someone as a form of retribution. So germane is possibly part of my comment, but I emphasize that this applies mainly to those with an axe to grind.--MONGO 20:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear what this has to do with the present situation in any case, as there's no previous arbitration (aside from the userbox wheelwar one) in which any of the involved parties participated. Kirill Lokshin 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about those that go to an arbcom case to deliberately attempt to out a fellow wikipedian due to a past grievance (and this applies in the Workshop and or Evidence sections of an arbtration proceeding) and using that as a platform to seek retribution.--MONGO 20:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather curious how you believe this principle is relevant to this particular arbitration case, though. Kirill Lokshin 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In the case of some editors who have had to deal with problematic users in the past, I am concerned that these users may use the Workshop and Evidence pages as a forum to post diffs in a deliberate attempt to get retribution. So my proposal applies to all cases, but in the case of Tony Sidaway, who has had to deal with many problematic editors, this issue is pertinent to this case. It may also apply to Bishonen who has been dealing with at least two problematic editors who could potentially use this siutuation as an opportunity to try and get some form of revenge.--MONGO 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh. If the diffs are relevant to the case, I don't really think it matters why editors may or may not be motivated to provide them; and if they're not relevant, I assume the ArbCom will simply ignore them. Kirill Lokshin 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is adopted, I don't think the verb "out" is quite what the proposer means. That term typically refers to revelation of private or non-public information, which is not at issue in this case. Perhaps the proposer meant something like "oust" from the project. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Out, oust, well, in this case, which is big, the opportunity to add diffs and other information in the workshop and evidence pages in an attempt to (get rid of?) an editor, may be an issue, maybe not. I do have faith in arbcom to weed out obvious attempts at this, however, I have concerns about the lingering shadow effect that may endure. If this isn't adopted in this form or by any form, that's fine.--MONGO 21:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Recognition of contributions to the project

23) While all editors of Wikipedia are entitled to respect and consideration regardless of the nature or volume of their contributions, the work of long-standing and dedicated Wikipedians is particularly entitled to recognition and respect. This is so regardless of whether the user's contributions consist primarily of article creation, editing existing articles, or performing administrative functions, as all of these roles and many others must be performed for the project to succeed. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this is divisive because it suggests a hierarchy. --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Totally support. -- Grafikm_fr 20:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Tony Sidaway, the intention was to say exactly the opposite of how you read it, but I'd be glad to see another wording. Newyorkbrad 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. I'd also suggest that if you argue that long-standing users are treated with greater respect, then you'd also have to state that they should be held to higher standards of conduct. I think we should all be treated the same. Perhaps along with Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies we need a Wikipedia:Don't revere the elders?

Revere, no. This was designed to set up the next numbered paragraph. Read together with that, it may (or may not) make more sense. Newyorkbrad 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Recognition of contributions to the project

23.1) While all editors of Wikipedia are entitled to respect and consideration regardless of the nature or volume of their contributions, the work of long-standing and dedicated Wikipedians is particularly entitled to recognition and respect. This is so regardless of whether the user's contributions consist primarily of article creation, editing existing articles, or performing administrative functions, as all of these roles and many others must be performed for the project to succeed. However, good behavior does not, in itself, entirely excuse bad behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Divisive because it suggests a hierarchy. --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Last sentence added to the above; could probably use some wording cleanup. Kirill Lokshin 21:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Tony. Steve block Talk 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Consideration of a user's contributions in evaluating user conduct

24) A user's history of valuable contributions to the project does not entitle the user to violate Wikipedia policies or procedures. However, such a history may be extremely relevant in assessing the user's behavior and in determining that the user's administrative actions and/or editorial comments and behavior were undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We're all grown ups. I think this is sort of implicit in the wikipedia process. Nobody gets a free ticket to harm the encyclopedia or piss off the community. A good contributor may nevertheless be a serious problem to the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Conduct of project-page discussions following contentious decisions

25) Discussion of community-related issues on project pages, like any other discussion within Wikipedia, is to be conducted within the framework of the project's policies endorsing civil behavior at all times and forbidding personal attacks. Aspirationally, the same high level of civility and courtesy would prevail in any discussion at any time, anywhere across the project. Nonetheless, in project-page discussions following a highly contentious decision, it is understandable that strong feelings may be expressed by those on all sides of a given issue. It is particularly understandable that long-time editors and administrators, being the most heavily invested in and dedicated to the project, may express their views forcefully at such times. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reasonable basis for project-page comments

26) In contentious discussions on project pages, users are entitled to comment on the role of administrators, bureaucrats, members of the Arbitration Committee and other prominent members of the community in a candid fashion. Comments on the performance of official duties by persons holding such roles are of direct relevance to the functioning of the project and do not constitute personal attacks. However, in all cases, such comments should be supported by facts or by reasonable inferences from the available facts. Adverse comments about another user's conduct or motivations that are based exclusively on conjecture or speculation should be avoided. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators should avoid taking administrative action against those with whom they are in a dispute

27) The well-recognized principle that administrators should avoid taking administrative action (such as blocking) against a user with whom the administrator is embroiled in a dispute, typically applied in the context of content disputes on article pages, is equally applicable to meta or interpersonal disputes on project pages. When an administrator believes that a block may be appropriate in these circumstances, the views of uninvolved administrators should be sought. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The extension to meta-disputes is spurious. In this case it's simply fatuous. I was aware of no interpersonal or meta disputes with Giano at any time, except in the sense that he seemed to have singled me out as someone who was involved with him. I wasn't. To me he was just a particularly noisy person in a public order situation. I was barely aware of his existence. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Impossible. The very action of taking administrative action places you in dispute with someone. Are we only allowed to interact administratively with each other user only once? Interpersonal disputes are hard to properly evaluate in that context. That said, I'd counter argue that Tony followed what was required of him by bringing the block to the admin's noticeboard and accepting the overturning of the block. Steve block Talk 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Every time an admin confronts a user who is behaving inappropriately, he or she is in a dispute with that user. I'm referring to a narrow subset of these situations ... I will give some thought to coming up with a better wording. 00:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucratic decision is subject to Wikipedia:Consensus can change

28) The role of a bureaucrat is, as defined above, that of "administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions." Therefore, they determine the consensus of the community, and that consensus is therefore subject to Wikipedia:Consensus can change. That consensus may change after a long period of time, but the bureaucrat's decision may in fact provide the catalyst for that consensus to change.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed Steve block Talk 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The community has no process by which to register a changed consensus regarding an admin's status

29) Whilst Wikipedia:Consensus can change guides that "It is important that there is a way to challenge past decisions, whether they have been reached by poll or consensus. Decisions should therefore practically never be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back", the consensus granted by the community within an admin's promotion is not currently subject to this through any clear process which is practically available to the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed Steve block Talk 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Carnildo's promotion

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3

1) The successful request for adminship made by Carnildo, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 had strong support, included support votes from some of the arbitrators who had dysysopped him. There was also a great deal of opposition including strong opposition from those he had blocked for "hate speech".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 02:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A lot of this opposition seems to have been based on an unresolved grudge held by Giano and supported by people who sympathized with him. I find no evidence that Giano or any other party has ever used the dispute resolution process to attempt to resolve this bad feeling. In response to Kirill, I'll say that it seems to me that the particular opposition expressed by Giano and some others was that an apology must be made before adminship would be considered. In my opinion this could be seen, in effect, as using the RFA as a stage upon which to pursue a personal grievance. This isn't the purpose for which Requests for adminship is intended. --Tony Sidaway 03:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The situation was addressed by the dispute resolution process as part of the broader userbox wheelwar case; presumably the parties in question found the outcome there sufficiently satisfactory that they saw no need for further measures? Kirill Lokshin 03:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I supported Carnildo's RFA and as such I am happy to see that he is an admin again. However, I am unhappy about the way the promotion finally occurred. I think Tony is right that several people opposed Carnildo's re-promotion because they had unresolved issues (if not a "grudge"), but in all fairness Carnildo has never apologized for the spurious blockings of three users in good standing, and several users opposed on those grounds. I supported Carnildo in spite of that mistake because I felt that his good contributions as admin still far outweighed the bad. I cannot say that the opposing side was withou merit, although I disagree with them. If Carnildo now uses his admin tools responsibly and never makes a mistake of such a magnitude again, I don't think there ever will be any strong wish from the community that he be recalled. However, I did make this statement in an e-mail which I will repeat here: "It is my belief that the upset over the outcome is not so much to do with Carnildo becoming an admin again as it is about the bureaucrats setting aside the opinion of the community and blatantly disregarding the rules which govern the same RFA process which they are set to manage." Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• (I did not vote.) Administrators are supposed to be trusted. When people point to data that indicates somone cannot be trusted, that should not be discounted as a "grudge". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing of Carnildo's request for adminship (long)

2) Carnildo was nominated for adminship on 18 August 2006 and on 5 September 2006 he was promoted. Six minutes later the bureaucrat who closed the request, User:Taxman, gave a brief description of the decision and said that bureaucrats User:Danny, User:Rdsmith4 and he himself had decided, on the belief that Carnildo's desysopping in February "was meant as a temporary measure, a cooling off period" to "reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom." [2]. The successful request for adminship had approximately 60% support, including support votes from some of the arbitrators who had dysysopped him. There was also over seventy statments of opposition, including opposition from two editors whom he had blocked for "hate speech". The decision to promote was well outside the standard practice, and was a suprise to many established editors. Promotions with less than 75% support pseudo-votes are unusual, and this is the de-facto benchmark. Some members of the community stated that they choose not to oppose based upon the presumption that the promotion would not occur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 03:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC) (has been changed) Fred Bauder 03:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is trying to do too much. I prefer the short version. Perhaps some of this could be split out into another finding or two. --Tony Sidaway 06:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

*sigh* I suppose asking that we make a single version of this is too much to ask? - brenneman ^{L} 03:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A question directed to Tony Sidaway, as he's stricken "just the facts" above: What statements here are not facts?
brenneman ^{L} 05:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the removal of the stricken comment as indicating not that these aren't facts, just that it included facts that unpalatable to some.
brenneman ^{L} 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If we're to split this out, I suggest three sections:

• A statement about the de facto standards for promotion,
• A statement about the pseudo-votes on CoRfA3 and the subsequent promotion, and
• A statment about the response.

Any statement that includes weasel wording about the facts (like hiding the number "2" in the word "those" [3]) is clearly unacceptable.

brenneman ^{L} 06:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing of Carnildo's request for adminship

3) Carnildo was nominated for adminship on 18 August 2006 and on 5 September 2006 he was promoted. Six minutes later the bureaucrat who closed the request, User:Taxman, gave a full description of the decision and said that bureaucrats User:Danny, User:Rdsmith4 and he himself had decided, on the belief that Carnildo's desysopping in February "was meant as a temporary measure, a cooling off period" to "reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom." [4].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 03:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As proposed by me, and tweaked and accepted by Fred Bauder in an earlier incarnation of what was then finding 5 [5]. --Tony Sidaway 03:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Poor form indeed that people won't even work together in a finding of fact. It speaks volumes. - brenneman ^{L} 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the word "brief" from this title as it is deceptive. It's not that it's shorter than the other, it's that it fails to cover the same material. I'd have changed it to "biased" but that seemed too provocative. - brenneman ^{L} 05:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Smart move Fred Bauder 13:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Access to Arbcom-l

4) Access to the Arbitration Committee mailing list, Arbcom-l, is restricted to current and former arbitrators and the principals of the Wikimedia Foundation. All other users including arbitration clerks have write access.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 02:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

To refine this, anyone can send email to the moderated list, but clerks' emails to the mailing list are normally unmoderated. Typically clerks use this facility for forwarding confidential evidence that is sometimes submitted via them, asking for arbitrators to clarify decisions, and so on. A clerk does not see any mailing list traffic at all; this has always been the case except where Kelly Martin, a former arbitrator, retained her read access to the mailing list in that capacity while acting as head clerk. --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of private communications to clerks from the parties, which are relayed to the arbitrators, the clerks normally see nothing that is not completely public in case after case. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

My understanding was that all editors had write access, is this not the case? - brenneman ^{L} 02:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Might be Fred Bauder 03:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony's answer is correct, and to clarify, yes, everyone does have access to the list, and many prties have used it for appeals and such before. Dmcdevit·t 03:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to closing of RfA

5) Following the closing of Carnildo's request for admin considerable criticism was expressed concerning both the novel 2 month probationary period granted and the closeness of the poll, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/archive3#Making_it_up_as_you_go_along, User_talk:Carnildo#Resign_your_adminship, and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_68#Carnildo.27s_re-promotion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 03:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

There was a feeling, perhaps, that the rules of the game had been unexpectedly changed. Maybe it was a bad idea to give people the idea that it was a game with rules. --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Is it really useful to have this spun off from the existing proposed findings on this RFA? I feel strongly that these forks indicate that some parties are less interested in creating a neutral statement of facts than in making revisionist history. - brenneman ^{L} 05:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You make your proposals; I'll make mine, but keep talking about how and why yours are better. Fred Bauder 10:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano has a grudge against Carnildo

6) Giano has longstanding uresolved issues with Carnildo over the indefinite blocking of Giano (including an edit summary that contained a harmful and hurtful reference to "hate speech") which led to Carnildo's desysopping, He has said "Before you even begin to tell me to think of forgiveness and people being deserving of a second chance, just remember this: Carnildo has never once expressed regret or remorse let alone apologised." [6]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Unresolved issues might be better language Fred Bauder 10:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is probably at the center of the case, I think. It concerns an editor using Wikipedia as a stage upon which to pursue a personal grievance, without following dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway 07:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How was he supposed to engage in dispute resolution. That had been done. Carnildo had been desysopped. Fred Bauder 10:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet Giano felt that that was not enough. --Tony Sidaway 12:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This fails to seperate the pejorative term "grudge" from the instance where an editor has reasonable cause to believe that someone has displayed a pattern of behavior. - brenneman ^{L} 07:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this a grudge, or is it legitimate distrust? Being unfairly blocked indefinitely is a punch in the face, no matter how quickly it is unblocked, and I think it is a bit ureasonable to expect or demand that Giano be happy about seeing the person who did this to him readminned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us say that based on his past behavior there is good reason to distrust Carnildo. That formulation extends good faith to Giano. Opposition to his request for adminship is acceptable, including statements regarding past wrongs, failure to show remorse or appropriately apologize, and his rather brief responses to inquiries about future behavior. Fred Bauder 10:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano had reason to distrust Carnildo

6.1) Based on his past behavior, Giano had reason to distrust Carnildo: an indefinite blocking of Giano (including an edit summary that contained a harmful and hurtful reference to "hate speech") which led to Carnildo's desysopping. He has said "Before you even begin to tell me to think of forgiveness and people being deserving of a second chance, just remember this: Carnildo has never once expressed regret or remorse let alone apologised." [7]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Tony has a point Fred Bauder 13:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Although I think it's true, the meaning of my original proposal has been lost. The issue is not how much he had reason to distrust, it's how far he took his grievance. Which was to the extent of accusing the Committee, the Bureaucrats and named individuals of being involved in a massive conspiracy. The unresolved gripe seems to have had grave consequences to his equanimity, many months after the event. --Tony Sidaway 12:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This idea ties in with my original statement, where there's a rather persistant theory that there is a "cabal", to use the better-known term. The grievance was taken to the extent it was because of the perception that community opposition did not matter in this instance, and is a position often taken by people close to the 'crats, the ArbComm, and certain members of the administrative community. True or not (and while I have my own opinions on the matter, they're not based in any evidence worthwhile to this case), the perception persists and this situation has its root in it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's history of controversy

7) Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin has been the centre of a large number of highly contentious disputes. This has ranged from editorial complaints regarding civility to administrative issues reagrding appropiate use of sysop rights.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Needs to be broken out by individual with supporting evidence Fred Bauder 10:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is a bit like saying "Tony Sidaway's chest has been seen to rise and fall, and people who held his wrist have reported a pulsing sensation. I'm a known quantity. --Tony Sidaway 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

At least part of the conflict here involved editors whom have near-continous wiki-drama surrounding them.

• The "accept" statements failed to limit/exclude this line. If the committee does not want to turn its lens this way, please do say so.
• I'm well aware that (as I'm the one who raised it) many parties will sweep this into the same "grudge" category that's raised above.
• Regardless, both have had Arbitration cases raises against them in the quite recent past. This looks as good a time as any to do this.

I'm going to start a discussion thread on the talk page, as I'm already frustrated with the odd manner in which this page is progressing.

brenneman ^{L} 07:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just thinking in public and you are trying to help me. Fred Bauder 10:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have plenty of evidence of this if it's needed. I'll compile and add in the next 24-48 hours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Focused on Sidaway per Fred Bauder. If somone wants to create a Kelly section, feel free.
brenneman ^{L} 13:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway

8) Effective September 25, 2006 Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has resigned as arbitration clerk after a request that he do so by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 11:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Duly emancipated. --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred's compliment is appreciated. I worked hard at a time when there was nobody else to do the job, and I felt appreciated. I am happy to leave the clerks' corps after seeing our three new clerks do an excellent job of taking over. I think that my evidence makes it plain that I believe that it should be permanent. A controversial sysop is not a sensible choice of clerk, no matter how good he may be at the job. There is a conflict that, with experience of the role, we have come to acknowledge. Some editors (notably Geogre) warned us from the start that the choices of personnel were unwise, and they were right. Nevertheless I would defend the choice of personnel on the basis of the paucity of people who are both willing to do the work and capable of doing it well. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to McGinnley, I was asked to resign as a clerk in an email from Charles Matthews. I made a couple of edits which had the effect of removing myself from the clerks' corps. I had spoken to Jimbo the previous day and he said he thought "declerking" would be likely. I didn't find that surprising. --Tony Sidaway 21:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to McGinnley for the second time: I have resigned as a clerk. I have no intention of becoming a clerk ever again. I have told the Arbitration Committee that I think that having people like me as clerks is a bad idea. --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A very minor point: I was reading up on the history of the clerks, and I found this subpage which seems rather out-of-date (last edited back in June and doesn't mention Tony at all). Can anyone help fill in the history or redirect to a more informative page? Thanks, and apologies for putting this side-point here. Carcharoth 12:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neglected page, but not inaccurate. Fred Bauder 13:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now been directed to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/current (a sub-subpage below the subpage I had found). The history is there. The reason I failed to find the history in the history of the subpage was because the sub-subpage was transcluded to the subpage using a template. A little trick I had forgotten, but which catches me out every time. I wonder if there is a way to make such things more transparent? I find use of templates helps editing-editors, but hinders reading-editors that want to dig into the histories. Carcharoth 17:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Could the ArbCom clarify - was the request 'to resign' or was the resignation the result of a different request - it's a little ambiguous as currently written? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Will Arbcom confirm if this is a temporary suspension or a permanent dismissal and what its purpose is? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think much of it, cutting our nose off to spite our face, but I think there was a sense that Tony's actions reflected badly on the Committee. I think they reflect badly on Tony, but he was the best clerk we have ever had. Fred Bauder 17:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So, sorry to labour this, but is Tony temporarily suspended from his duties as clerk for the duration of this arbitration, or is the intention that it is permanent, or will it be decided after the findings? --Mcginnly | Natter 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony's responded above. Newyorkbrad 00:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano protests

9) Following the closing of Carnildo's successful RfA Giano protested vehemently [8] [9].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In response to User:Grafikm_fr, I don't really know of anyone else who said that, basically, there was this massive conspiracy within the top level of Wikipedia. There were some other pretty odd protests, but nothing like that. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Looks biaised as it is, there was a lot of protests, singling out Giano as it is now is biaised. -- Grafikm_fr 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway blocked Giano

10) At 21:07, September 14, 2006 Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 3 hours (Making quite hysterical accusationsand needs to cool down a bit)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I felt that this was hysteria. I could understand the feelings, but at this stage I didn't feel that anything productive could be done. Giano had been warned about his provocative discussion edits but plowed on. Because it isn't productive but only makes plainly false and inflammatory statements about, well, basically everyone involved in any capacity in the promotion of Carnildo, and others presumably added in for rhetorical effect, I still feel that this was the point where you say "oh come on, friend, let's sit down and really discuss what this is about without all the silliness. This may have been the wrong decision. No, really, if it was the right decision nobody would remember it at all now. It was the wrong decision. I put it up for review, but in that instance my judgement was apparently so off that other administrators fell over themselves to reverse it. I still don't understand why, and that is worrying (I'm worried about my judgement, not theirs). --Tony Sidaway 15:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Let me just get straight what I'm seeing sprinkled around: This section is inviolate. The words above shall be edited by no-one else. Is that really what we think is the best way to proceed? More accurately, is that what committee members other than Fred think is the best way to proceed? - brenneman ^{L} 14:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Propose alternatives, don't change any proposal you did not make yourself. The /Workshop page works this way because I invented it and am usually the only arbitrator that uses it regularly. It would be unusual for any other arbitrators to show up. I have a strong commitment to public discussion of decisions, transparency, if you will. Fred Bauder 14:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway was cautioned to remain civil by the Arbitrators

11) In a previous arbitration case, Tony Sidaway was cautioned to be civil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Grafikm_fr 15:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I'm not very civil. --Tony Sidaway 21:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If I were you, I would not be very proud of it. -- Grafikm_fr 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not proud of it. Why do you think that I am? --Tony Sidaway 23:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Giano was blocked during the Carnildo RfA

12) Giano was blocked during the Carnildo RfA (31 August by Kylu (t · c · b · p · d · m · r)) related to his comments concerning the RfA, and this block was hotly debated on ANI. 18 hours after the block Giano struck out his oppose vote on the Carnildo RfA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as more background of events two weeks prior to the block by Tony Sidaway. -- NoSeptember 16:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A divide between content-creating editors and administrators is growing

13) While the assumed intent of editors at Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, there is an ongoing debate between established Wikipedians regarding the editing habits of users, including concern over a type of Wikipedian who, upon recieving extra permissions and responsibilities, build the encyclopedia less, and in some cases rarely ever at all. Wikipedians who spend a significant amount of their project time on articles have legitimate concern that their views do not recieve the proper attention, and are often needlessly harassed or worse by administrators who show less commitment to the encyclopedic goal of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

These phenomena, if they exist, are policy matters. Fred Bauder 23:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this wording is complete bollocks. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is a better wording, IMO, of the above. To use an example of someone directly involved in this, Tony Sidaway has very few recent articlespace edits (and I'll toss those in the evidence section later simply for the sake of evidence), but his contributions to the project (with his clerk duties in particular, but also in other WP spaces) were never in question, regardless of people's personal issues with how Tony handles and carries himself. For someone like Giano, who cranked out FA's faster than I can stub-sized articles, this divide becomes more apparent - neither editor's contributions should be belittled, but it's obvious that the growing divide between editors and administrators fosters some ill will and strife, especially when it comes down to people who are actually creating content feeling as if they have to leave the project due to people who rarely create content. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony's incivility

14) Tony Sidaway was incivil to a lot of editors, and removed warnings about civility from his talk page. [10][11][12][13][14][15]

During the instruction of the present case, he also made highly incivil comments, such as "for fuck's sake": [16]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Grafikm_fr20:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. --Tony Sidaway 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never misspelled "fuck" with an asterisk (corrected). --Tony Sidaway 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

JDforrester making insulting remarks

15) JDForrester called other people "idiots" and telling them to "knock it off": [17]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Even if he did not meant it, the remark was still highly offensive. -- Grafikm_fr 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you could stop spewing that horrible signature all over this page? --Tony Sidaway 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you have against my signature? It is perfectly compliant. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

15.1) Jdforrester (talk · contribs) (signs as JamesF) posted to the discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard a post headed "You're All Idiots" and telling other users to "knock it off." The context for the post was the ongoing dialog concerning Carnido's re-sysopping and Tony Sidaway's block of Giano, in which tension among users was at a high point. Jdforrester posted in an attempt to reduce the level of tensions by emphasizing his belief that the extreme contentiousness was unnecessary, and represented a sincere attempt to reduce the tensions, though it did not succeed. While Jdforrester's words may have been poorly chosen, his comments were in good faith and no action by the Arbitration Committee is required. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suggest that we reword this proposal as "James_F was right, if not completely civil." --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I shortened it slightly, though not quite to that extent. :) Newyorkbrad 02:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others:

Caveat by proposer: Jdforrester made favorable reference to me in the remarks in question, so take this for what it's worth. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Aside from all content, calling people "idiots" is never a good thing. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Giano

16) Giano (talk · contribs), now editing as Giano II (talk · contribs), is a long-time editor of Wikipedia. He has made vast editorial contributions to the encyclopedia, including the creation of at least nine featured articles, and the quality of his editorial contributions is generally considered outstanding. Newyorkbrad 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

He still has a festering grudge against Carnildo. You could get rid of me, Kelly and James_F and you would still have an editor with a festering grudge and a number of friends who nurture it. We just happened to be people who got in his way on that day. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Kirill, an administrator who has not apologised for something can be approached and asked to apologise. The problem with Giano is that he seems to have had a grievance but has never attempted to use the dispute resolution process. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Re: Tony: Blaming particular people really cuts both ways; it's just as easy to talk about how we still have a (curiously) re-promoted admin who's completely unapologetic about the abusive behavior that caused this mess in the first place. Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tony, why would he? In his mind, the dispute resolution processes weren't going to do a lick of good. What reason did he have to trust it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tony: We've been through this point before, haven't we? The dispute between Carnildo and Giano was taken through the dispute resolution process (the userbox wheelwar case). While Giano has never been particularly fond of Carnildo afterwards, you might notice that it was only after the remedy in that case—Carnildo's desysopping—was (in Giano's eyes, unjustly) undone that things fell apart; the previous six months seem to have passed without any acute conflict. Kirill Lokshin 02:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Geogre

17) Geogre (talk · contribs) is a long-time editor of Wikipedia and has been an administrator since August 2004. He has made vast editorial contributions to the encyclopedia, including the creation of featured articles, and the quality of his editorial contributions is generally considered outstanding. In addition, he has contributed to Wikipedia through the performance of administrative functions. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:Bishonen

18) Bishonen (talk · contribs) is a longtime contributor to Wikipedia and has been an administrator since May 8, 2005. She has made substantial editorial contributions to the encyclopedia and the quality of her contributions is considered outstanding. In addition, Bishonen has contributed substantially to Wikipedia by performing numerous administrative tasks in a highly competent fashion, including in complex and stressful situations. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tony's remarks

18) Tony often comments on what he considers inappropriate behavior using particularly colorful terminology ("disgusting rabble", "malodorous filth").

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm English, for fuck's sake. It's my language. ---Tony Sidaway 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not from Yorkshire. Fuck is a perfectly normal English word, in use throughout England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and apparently known in other countries. --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony's remarks

18.1) Tony often comments on what he considers inappropriate behavior using particularly colorful terminology ("disgusting rabble", "malodorous filth"); such remarks are viewed as inflammatory by other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Somewhat more judgemental. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony is, if I'm not mistaken, a Yorkshireman. Bluntness is a characteristic of Yorkshire speech, and it is often mistaken for rudeness. It is quite the opposite: the Yorkshireman credits anyone they criticise with sufficient moral strength in their own opinion to be able to withstand blunt criticism without breaking down or rushing to violence. It's a form of respect, not of disrespect. David | Talk 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Regional quirks of speech are an inadequate excuse, I think; blunt criticism does not require the use of such inflammatory language. It's perfectly possible to be harsh yet polite. Kirill Lokshin 21:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, there is all the difference in the world between bluntness and rudeness. David | Talk 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yorkshireman or not, using the F word is not a good idea. A lot of people might find it offensive. When I speak Russian, you better get women and children out of the room, but that's a cultural difference - the culture is like that. In English, I try to avoid such words as much as I can. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by the above statement. You say that swearing is acceptable due to culture, but reject the idea that Tony's language is based upon his culture? Steve block Talk 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that there are people with a lot of different cultural backgrounds here, so we have to have rules common to all of them. Thus, usage of such words is prohibited. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Civility" is a set of rules, skills, and customs that allows people to cohabitate and collaborate with people who are not their persona friends and family, i.e. to live in a civilization. Being polite to strangers and acquaintances is an important method for avoiding conflicts. And in any culture, swearing at people who don't like it is not polite. Zocky | picture popups 01:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuck is incivil to a stranger or in any slightly formal setting in the UK. Even a Yorkshireman (I know Tony isn't) couldn't say it in Betty's Tearooms. I say it a lot, btw, but not on WP. JackyR | Talk 11:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Irpen

19) Irpen (talk · contribs) is a longtime contributor to Wikipedia who has contributed high-quality and valuable content to the encyclopedia in a number of areas. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposer's note: I am not as familiar with Irpen's contributions as I am with those of some other parties, so someone more familiar is welcome to augment this comment.

100% support. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Project-page contributions by certain users in light of Carmildo's re-sysopping

20) In the wake of Carmildo's contentious re-sysopping, extensive discussion ensued concerning the decision that his RfA has succeeded. The nature of the discussion quickly widened to include disputed policy issues such as the functioning of the RfA process and how the success or failure of an RfA should be evaluated, as well as the identity of the persons who should participate in making such decisions. The discussion then further widened to include an assessment of the roles that certain individual high-profile Wikipedians play within the project. Users Giano, Geogre, Bishonen, and Irpen were among dozens of participants in these discussions. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The emergence of a bureaucracy

21) The fundamental goal, the overriding reason, for the existence of Wikipedia is to produce a high quality encyclopedia. Wikipedians are united by that aim. There is an ongoing debate about the emergence of a class of Wikipedian who, having edited articles extensively, over time shows little inclination to continue and devotes all or most of his time to other activities. Wikipedians whose primary focus is the production of articles feel legitimate worries that their needs as content producers are not being addressed, and that they are sometimes needlessly harassed by administrators who in their view show less commitment to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This would be a finding of fact Fred Bauder 14:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

These phenomena, if they exist, are policy questions. Fred Bauder 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is very much a first cut. I want to aim for a wording that will satisfy everybody. I want to characterise the debate from the point of view of editors like Geogre, Giano, and so on, who undeniably produce great content. --Tony Sidaway 14:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fred that really it's a Finding. I do think that this is about the emergence of a class, as defined by patterns of behavior that are, overall, of benefit to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't think the phrase: "the emergence of a class of Wikipedian" is a good idea, since it suggests a caste system/heirarchy, rather than just emerging trends in editing inclinations. "...about Wikipedians who..." might be preferrable. - jc37 17:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Replying to Tony, this is something that a) should be a finding of fact per Fred, and b) should probably be written by those of us with the point of view in question, and not someone who doesn't share it, as this doesn't seem to reflect the view that I'm sharing with Geogre et al. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kelly Martin

22) Kelly Martin (talk · contribs) was a longtime and prominent participant on the English Wikipedia for several years. Most recently, she was an administrator and held Checkuser and Oversight privileges. On September 21, 2006, Kelly Martin resigned her privileges on the English Wikipedia and stated that she was leaving the English Wikipedia project, although she stated that she would continue performing other responsibilities for the Wikimedia Foundation. This followed extensive discussion on project pages concerning her role in the project, . Although certain users had called for Kelly Martin to step away from certain responsibilities and privileges (such as access to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list), the initial suggestion that Kelly Martin would resign from all her roles within the English Wikipedia if called upon to do so by certain users was her own. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evaluation of user conduct

23) Certain specific comments on project pages in the light of Carmildo's re-sysopping and the ensuing days of contentious discussion failed to attain the highest levels of civility and might have far better been left unsaid. However, none of them rises to the level of gross incivility, personal attack, or policy violation that would call for action by the Arbitration Committee. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:JoshuaZ's block of Tony Sidaway

23) The decision of JoshuaZ (talk · contribs) to block Tony Sidaway for 24 hours fell within the realm of administrative discretion, particularly given that JoshuaZ reported the block to the administrators' noticeboard for consideration by other administrators, and does not call for any action by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think we're agreed that "lancing a boil" was a poor choice of words that was seen as incivil. I certainly had no problem with the block. Those editors really believed that I had referred to Giano in those terms. --Tony Sidaway 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes. Moreover, Tony was blocked for a highly incivil remark. -- Grafikm_fr 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I too don't think this needs to be looked at, the situation resolved itself amicably between the involved parties. Steve block Talk 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's block of Giano

26) Tony Sidaway's "cooling down" block of Giano for three hours was arguably inappropriate given that Giano's comments for which Tony Sidaway imposed the block took place in the context of a contentious discussion to which Tony Sidaway was also a party. Moreover, under all the circumstances, it could reasonably have been anticipated that the block would markedly increase rather than decrease the tension of the discussion, as indeed occurred. However, Tony Sidaway acted appropriately by reporting his action to the Administrators' Noticeboard and calling the block to the attention of other administrators, as a result of which the block was promptly reversed, and Tony Sidaway acted in good faith and in what he perceived as the best interests of the project. Accordingly, and in light the subsequent block of Tony Sidaway for subsequent conduct, no further action by the Arbitration Committee is appropriate in connection with this block. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I agree, I've noted above that this block was resolved within 15 minutes. Steve block Talk 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

26.1) Tony Sidaway's three hour "cool down" block of Giano for disruption was inappropriate given that both were involved in a contentious discussion on the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard. Moreover, the block only served to increase rather than decrease the tension of the discussion. However, Tony Sidaway appropriately reported his action to the Administrators' Noticeboard, and the block was promptly reversed. Tony Sidaway acted in good faith and in what he perceived as the best interests of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Alternative version, which concentrates the language. --InkSplotch 02:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

26.2)Tony Sidaway's three hour "cool down" block of Giano for disruptive statements on Taxman's talk page [18][19]. The block only served to increase rather than decrease the tensions. However, Tony Sidaway appropriately reported his action to the Administrators' Noticeboard, and the block was promptly reversed. Tony Sidaway acted in good faith and in what he perceived as the best interests of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Another version, similar to last, which removes the element of "engaged in discussion." I think more people (on AN) felt the block was either unwarranted or just not useful, not that Tony was too involved in discussion to have been the one to block. --InkSplotch 02:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To NYB, oddly...that's the bit I had the most trouble with. "Predictable" in a finding of fact. This could be newness showing, but perhaps we should address it in the Principles? This might just be the time to declare "cool down" blocks as ineffective. For the record, I've never felt "cool down" was a reason of itself, nor do I think it's seriously used as such...I view it as shorthand for "general disruption or other blockable offense." But it seems lately the short, 10 min, 15 min, 3 hr blocks are taken worse than the 24 hr, 1 week, indef blocks. Maybe either a principle against the under 12 hour blocks, or a principle suggesting admins think twice before undoing such a short block. --InkSplotch 02:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm okay with either alternative; the only significant point of my original that is deleted in the alternatives is the point that it was predictable that the block would have a negative effect, not just that it happened to work out that way, but that's a minor point. Newyorkbrad 02:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No sanctions imposed

1) Upon consideration of all of the evidence and circumstances and due deliberation, and without endorsement of any of the questioned user conduct, no sanctions are found to be necessary against any of the involved parties. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This won't really satisfy anyone, I think. Kirill Lokshin 23:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh as per Kirill. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is going to walk out of this satisfied. It's been a miserable few weeks for all concerned. But I don't think that another week of finger-pointing followed by formal ArbCom sanctions against various users is an answer to anything here. Others may disagree. Newyorkbrad 00:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Newyorkbrad. Already much harm is done and many editor-hours are lost. The policy discussions are outside the scope of arbcom abakharev 05:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway

2) The resignation of User:Tony Sidaway as Clerk of the Arbitration Committee is accepted with thanks for dedicated service. Tony Sidaway is urged to resume the performance of his other administrative duties, subject to the restrictions imposed in his prior arbitration case. He is urged to be mindful of the observations of other users in this proceeding and to consult with other administrators before taking potentially controversial actions. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The wording of the first sentence is supposing that Tony is ready to resign. I'm not taking a position on whether he should be forced out or not. Newyorkbrad 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Tony's now noted above that his resignation is agreeable and permanent, so the draft stays as was. Newyorkbrad 00:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway is warned

2.1) Tony Sidaway is warned again in the strongest possible terms to avoid insulting and incivil remarks. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole

2.2) Tony Sidaway is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Given the distinct failure of past warnings, something more to the point may be appropriate; wording from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. Kirill Lokshin 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole

2.2a) Tony Sidaway is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Revised version, which I think is nessecary because this is chronic. Take your pick. - Mailer Diablo 04:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway blocked

2.3) For repeated incivility despite many warnings, Tony is blocked for one week.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A stronger version of 2.1) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a half-way-pregnant sort of solution. We really shouldn't be in the business of making a block long after the fact, and this does not put in place any long term solutions. brenneman ^{L} 01:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not see how it will help abakharev 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate edit summaries

2.4) Tony Sidaway is required to make valid edit summaries for the period of three months. Should Tony Sidaway fail to make an edit summary or make a comment that could reasonably be interpreted as a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, any administrator may block him at his/her discretion for a maximum period of one week for the first five violations, increasing to a year thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. From Theodore7. - Mailer Diablo 05:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is valid, but doesn't need to be on its own. This could simply be included as the words "including in edit summaries" in the proposals above. - brenneman ^{L} 06:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway is forbidden to block established users

2.5) Tony Sidaway is forbidden to block established users (with more than 500 edits) for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I do not see a point in blocking Tony from editing and while he uses quite a colorful language in his edit summaries, IMHO they lack sufficient venom to really hurt people. What does hurt people though and causes an excesive amount of drama is his using blocks on established users that in hindsight sometimes do not appear to be done in good judgement. This indictment should not prevent him from blocking anonymous vandals and sock-puppets, nor to perform unblocking, deletion or undeletion or any other administrative tasks. If there is a need to block an established editor Tony could contact any administrator. The additional time required for such a contact as well as a judgement from another admin could benefit to the thoughtfulness of the blocks. The 500 edits threshold is an arbitrary number, I do not mind to increase it to 5000-10000 or something, but 500 edits limits is just easier to check - just see if the contributions of a user fills one 500-edit page. abakharev 06:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to object to this one strongly. Plenty of "established users" are validly blocked, and if Tony is to retain his sysop bit, this restriction is entirely too arbitrary. I understand what the intent is, and it would be better served by "disruption parole" or something similar.
brenneman ^{L} 06:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed plenty of established users are validly blocked. If Tony wants to block an established user he will only need to ask for it on #wikipedia-en-admins or on WP:AN/I or go to a talk or wikimail page of an administrator. If the case is valid he would almost certainly quickly find somebody to perform the block for him. If the case is not so valid we might be spared from much of a wiki-drama. The handicap for his administrative duties is minimal, the benefits are quite real (especially if the alternative is desysopping). abakharev 07:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway on administrative parole

2.6) For Tony Sidaway's mis-use of administrator powers on past occasions, he is hereby placed on administrative parole for six months. Should the Arbitration Committee deemed to have found any further abuse of administrator power by Tony during this period, he shall be de-sysopped immediately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others

This is a new form of proposal. De-sysop is too harsh, so we may want to try something intermediate. - Mailer Diablo 07:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Tony occasionaly creates problems not because of his bad faith but because of the poor judgement. I will be very reluctant to desysop somebody acting in good faith. If he is allowed to block established users he would screw up now and again and every time we will be in the same situation - do we really want to desysop Tony for a good faith but badly thought block. Just ban him form the block button all other actions are reparable and with his 1RR on admin actions they are quite easy to repair. abakharev 07:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Just ban him form the block button..." won't be feasible, especially since you had already objected to 2.5., and sysop tools historically usually come as a set together. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kelly Martin

3) Kelly Martin's voluntary resignation as an administrator and relinquishment of her Checkuser and Oversight access on the English Wikipedia are noted with thanks for her dedication and record of extensive contributions. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitration Committee Clerks

4) The Arbitration Committee expresses its thanks for the work of its Clerks, past and present. To reduce the potential for any further misinterpretations of the role of the Clerks, future communications from Clerks to users shall, after the Clerk's signature, contain the words Arbitration Committee Clerk, and the word Clerk shall be Wikilinked to the project page describing the Clerks' role. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This will make huge signatures... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we eliminate "clerk" hierarchy? This group has no powers or authority, and on at least one occasion a clerk has overstepped the mark thinking that he did have special status, why not just relegate "clerking" back to a normal editing function? The people who want to do the work keep doing it, without the fez and the tiny car. - brenneman ^{L} 01:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

When a case is opened, someone has to be responsible for notifying the parties. When a case is decided, someone has to notify the affected users. The notifications have to come from someone with some reasonable authority to be making them (as opposed to "yo! look over here what they wrote about you"). Someone has to open the pages when a case is opened (there are special formats, etc.). The arbitrators are backlogged enough and it's good that there are experienced individuals who volunteer to help them with these tasks. Newyorkbrad 01:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This appears to misunderstand the intent of my comment. The clerk's position certainly appeared to be a gold watch to failed arb candidates, and the position is utterly useless. Just as we don't have a "CounterVandalism Head" or a "Captain of Deletion," we don't need clerk positions to indicate what work needs done. Let normal people do normal edits, and enough already with the layers and badges of honour.
brenneman ^{L} 03:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Aaron abakharev 05:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hear hear. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User Account of User:Giano

5) There being no possible doubt that User:Giano II is the same individual as User:Giano, Giano II shall, upon request, be furnished the password to his original Giano account so that he can resume making contributions under such account. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

How did he lose his password? Fred Bauder 23:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

IRT Fred Bauder: afaik he scrambled it (and disabled his mail). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost: I believe he scrambled the password as he was (intending to be) leaving forever, and never had e-mail enabled on that account, so he couldn't write in for a new one. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no technical way to "furnish" him a password. All passwords are hashed and salted in the database. Ral315 (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure a new password can be hashed, salted and updated into the database, and this password can be mailed to him to use and change. Or, his email address could be inserted into the database and marked as validated, so that he could use the "email a new password" button. Zocky | picture popups 05:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is technically doable, then it is to be done abakharev 05:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Expungement of Block Logs

6) Recognizing the number of other priority tasks before them, the Developers are urged to develop a mechanism by which unjustified blocks or inappropriate language in block descriptions can be permanently expunged; and when such mechanism is available, the February 2006 block of Giano for "hate speech" shall be so expunged. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is actually quite simple. Anyone with access to the database can do this manually. Sounds like a good idea in unusual cases. Fred Bauder 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I feel we're burying the thing a bit too quickly... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This was Giano's original grievance that started us down this whole road. Newyorkbrad 23:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the purpose of this? I don't think we should remove all mistakes everyone once did to keep their image clean, we all make mistakes. --Conti|✉ 23:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't that the blocked user made a mistake, it's that the blocking administrator made a mistake (and has acknowledged it). As Giano has pointed out, his block log will "forever" state that he was blocked for engaging in "hate speech" when there's overwhelming consensus that he didn't do any such thing. The more problematic aspect of the proposal is that ArbCom would be deluged with request for expungement of every borderline 3RR block, so expungement would have to be reserved for extreme situations. Newyorkbrad 23:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I also was talking about the blocking admin. Giano's block log also states that three admins undid that block. Nonetheless, I can see that having this in a users block log doesn't look very nice, but I don't like the idea to start removing log-entries because it's against someones personal pride. --23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. This opens up a huge can of worms, as Newyorkbrad acknowledges. (I'm not sure the developers are able to do this anyway, but we'll leave that for the moment). I declare an interest in this because of what happened to me, and in fairness, what I did, in the middle of February. I attempted to find an (utterly inadequate) way of countering it on August 4. It is a Bad Thing that users might draw a mistaken conclusion from a block which is subsequently shown to have been wrongful, but I think the better way of getting round that is to caution everyone against making judgments against productive editors based on block log contents, without looking in more detail at the circumstances. David | Talk 23:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

They can. It was done for me for a bogus 3RR over a year ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Fred Bauder, if it's really "quite simple" to do this, I wish we'd all known it months ago. //sigh// Newyorkbrad 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The devs can remove logs (which are important to transparency here) without leaving any trace. Just because it can be done quickly doesn't mean that it should be the first solution that's considered. --Interiot 04:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. This obviously can be easily done by the right people, but I doubt that retouching history is the right way to make amends. Zocky | picture popups 04:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we could do it once in this extraordinary case. Should not be done routinely though as it prevents administrators accountability. abakharev 05:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If rewriting history is a problem, then don't expunge the block logs. Instead, modify the block log to give what is retrospectively decided to be a fair summary of what happened (though in practice, given the length of the discussion, one will also need to provide a link to a few pages that explain what happened). Normally, people would read the next few block log entries to see what had happened, but in this case, the aggrieved party wants more than this to happen (whether this would set a bad precedent is another matter). ie. Change from "blocked for hate speech" to "blocked for hate speech - NB. This was later <give date> deemed an unfair and inaccurate block summary. <insert history and verdict on the block here>." Ideally, the text added to the block summary will look different and it will be obvious that it was added after the original, and it will be obvious what the original summary said, but no more will only the original summary be available. In any case, despite fears that this block summary will remain "until the internet crumbles to silicon dust", erasing it would be the worse sort of rewriting of history. It happened, and there is too much history there now to try and erase it. It reflects badly on Carnildo, and erasing it would remove some of his history as well. Leave the history alone, and concentrate on delivering a verdict on it. Carcharoth 10:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Concluding remark

7) While the events of September 2006 have not been Wikipedia's finest hour, all involved users are urged to move forward in a civil and mutually respectful fashion and to continue making their respective contributions toward building the encyclopedia. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'd like to ask arbitrator input on the issue of forked "findings of fact." It appears to me that this is more about controlling the release of facts than about crafting clear and neutral statements. Is there any substantive reason that editors cannot be called upon to work on a single cohesive finding of fact, rather than the puerile squabbling that's already taken place? - brenneman ^{L} 05:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to this, let me suggest that it's highly inappropriate to add material that, in effect, substantially changes the intent of a proposed finding of fact, particularly given that you didn't bother leaving a note on the talk pages of Fred and Tony saying that you'd done so. Ral315 (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually referring to this which was arrived at only after a traversal through this and this.

• I'm gobsmacked at the suggestion that I leave a note on the talk pages. Do we not have watchlists for goodness' sake? Do we believe that those two will never look at the page again? It's borderline nonsensical.
• As to the intent of a finding of fact, isn't it to, erm, FIND FACTS? Forgive my incredulaty at thinking that adding facts changes the intent, unless we're agreeing that the intent was to present a highly biased reading of events.
• Reasonable editors should be equipped with the tools to work together to present clear, concise versions of the actual events that transpired. Once we have in place the statements that are without dispute, we work towards interpretation, without supressing inconvenient facts. If that is not what we're attempting to do here, please do explain what we are working towards.

brenneman ^{L} 06:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I defend Tony's actions, but you edited something that they endorsed. Letting them know so they could make a decision on whether they endorsed your re-wording or not would have been polite (especially given that they don't endorse your re-wording).

As far as findings of fact go, yes, they're to find facts. However, these are all valid proposals. If a finding of fact is absolutely biased, a simple "This statement is biased; see my proposed alteration below" in the General Discussion section would have sufficed. The Committee's job is to read through and decide whether the proposals are truthful, not parties inside or outside the dispute. Ral315 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've stated my resignation to this sad state of affiars on the talk page, but I'll say it again here: Enough people have told me this way is "how it works" that I'll stop complaining, but it's still a bit sad. The facts speak for themselves, and it seems vile to me to allow encourage people to present their own version of the truth. But, yes, through complaining. - brenneman ^{L} 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)