Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

• Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, two Arbitrators are recused and 4 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Requests for adminship

1) Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who becomes an administrator, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. "Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here", "Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions",Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About_RfB.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bureaucrats

2) Bureaucrats are bound by policy and current consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, usually after a successful request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.....They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions upon request and in a civil manner., Wikipedia:Bureaucrats

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus

3) Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority, a guideline provides, "If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached." "Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision", Consensus decision-making.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Advantages of consensus

4) "Because it seeks to minimize objection, it is popular with voluntary organizations, wherein decisions are more likely to be carried out when they are most widely approved. Consensus methods are desirable when enforcement of the decision is unfeasible, such that every participant will be required to act on the decision independently." Consensus_decision-making#Purpose.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Problems with consensus

5) Consensus requires patience and experience and in some cases may not work at all, see Consensus#Drawbacks and Consensus_decision-making#Criticisms.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 12:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

The effect of failure of consensus

6) Failure of consensus in a difficult case does not abrogate Wikipedia:Consensus as the optimal method of making decisions in a way which maximizes support for decision.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decisions are final

9) In the absence of a successful appeal or reconsideration, a decision by the Bureaucrats such as the closing of a Request for Adminship is final.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Appeal of a decision by Bureaucrats

10) A decision such as the closing of a Request for Adminship may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Such an appeal can consider whether the policies which govern the closing of Requests for Adminship have been followed.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Criticism welcome

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Being upset

12) Within limits, it is acceptable to be upset at a decision or a situation which produces strong emotion, to blow off steam.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

13) Wikipedia is not a battleground brands campaigns of political struggle as inappropriate activity.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruption

14) Users who engage in sustained disruption of Wikipedia by engaging in inappropriate activity may be blocked temporarily by administrators or banned by the Arbitration Committee, or Jimbo. 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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruption by administrators

15) Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Return to administrative status of desyopped administrators

16) Experience has shown that having engaged in bad behavior in the past, it may be difficult for a reformed administrator to pass Wikipedia:Requests for adminship due to the requirement for consensus. In some instances, it is better for requests for restoration of administrative status to be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee rather than submitted to RfA. In exceptional cases a reformed administrator may be resyopped despite a failed RfA.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Courtesy

17) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous and respectful to other users and avoid personal attacks.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Assume good faith

18) Users are expected to adopt a convention of assuming good faith when dealing with other users. This precludes derogation of other users based on their status or the tasks they perform.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion of controversial decisions

19) If a controversial decision is made extended discussion is to be expected. This discussion may include strong statements of opposition. Those who made or support controversial decisions should be prepared to patiently and courteously explain and support the decision. Attempts to prematurely close the discussion are ill-advised.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Productive policy discussion differentiated from trolling

20) Lengthy policy discussions need to be productive. Discussions which consist of head-butting and tendentious repetition of fixed positions are not productive. Participation in such discussions, if they cannot be turned to productive dialog, is a waste of time. Those who prolong sterile discussion are violating Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Baiting

21) Baiting or harassing of other users as a tactic of political struggle is disruptive.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Taking the bait

22) It is disruptive if a user, especially an administrator, habitually responds in an emotional manner to provocative material.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Carnildo

1) Carnildo was deysopped as the result of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Carnildo. After continuing in good faith to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia he was re-nominated for administrator with the support of the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Resysopping

2) Difficulty may arise in instances where an administrator who has been desyopped by the Arbitration Committee makes a request for adminship (RfA). They would not have been dysopped if they had not engaged in some serious bad behavior. Due to the requirement that consensus is required by the community to grant adminship unresolved past offenses can retard development of consensus despite willingness by the former administrator to reform. The Arbitration Committee is aware of this difficulty, but is caught in a quandary: something needs to be done in the case of administrators who violate basic policies, but it is unwise to permanently lose the services of valuable volunteers if they are willing to reform. The alternative to subjecting the former administrator to an RfA is review of the decision to desysop them. Please see this insightful comment by Metamagician3000 and this by Deathphoenix. There is evidence that in most instances RfA functions well enough, see evidence presented by Radiant!.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Failure to achieve consensus

4) Due to strong opposition to Carnildo's RfA there was a failure to reach consensus, see analysis by Richardshusr, analysis by Tim Smith, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay#Questions_for_the_candidate and discussion above regarding supermajority.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Closing of Carnildo's request for adminship

5) 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." [1].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Opposition to closing of RfA

6) 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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Giano's role in opposing the decision

7) Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had legitimate reasons to oppose Carnilo's RfA, having been one of the victims of Carnilo's hasty and ill-considered blocks. He continued after the decision to vigorously oppose it stating, "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." [2]

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

John Reid's role in opposing the decision

8) John_Reid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, posting a demand that each Bureaucrat declare their adherence to consensus "call for statement of fealty"; a few courteous responses were made by Bureaucrats. The course of the discussion on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard with diffs is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings_of_fact#Bureaucrats.27_noticeboard. A portion of the interchange is archived at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/John Reid. Of note is repeated baiting of the other participants in the discussion [3] [4] [5].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kelly Martin

9) Kelly_Martin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a former Arbitrator with a long record of devoted service to Wikipedia, vigorously defended the decision [6], citing the support of the Arbitration Committee during discussions on the Arbcom-l mailing list. Her defense included the unfortunate language, "I applaud these three bureaucrats for having the moxie to break from the stifling expectations of the pseudoconsensus that typically erupts from any given Request for Adminship and instead evaluate the broader picture and make a decision that reflects more than merely the shifting moods of a fickle and ill-informed populace." Following hectoring of Kelly Martin by those who opposed the decision Kelly Martin left the Arbcom-l mailing list and resigned her administrative, checkuser, and oversight roles.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tony Sidaway

10) Tony Sidaway took upon himself the burden of fielding criticism of the decision, in two instances briefly blocking vociferous objectors. He participated aggressively in the various forums which discussed the issue, often responding undiplomatically. When baited [7] he consistently fell into the trap, responding aggressively [8]. His role as clerk of the Arbitration Committee aggravated his offenses. He was blocked by the community for 24 hours and requested to resign as clerk, see User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2006_09_24#Community_block_of_Tony_Sidaways_is_hereby_proposed discussion of block which also contains his consistent defense of undiplomatic response to provocation User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2006_09_24#Loaded_words.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Giano

11) In addition to opposing Carnildo's RfA [9], Giano vigorously protested its favorable closing, posting a series of over the top comments which condemned Wikipedia's power structure as corrupt [10] [11] [12]. Placed in the context of the comments of other objectors to the decision Giano's comments, while inflammatory, do not stand out. Giano then, aided by a few others, entered on a campaign of political struggle based on a theme of institutional oppression [13] [14] [15].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Giano II

12) Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in frustration, destroyed his access to his account, after what he viewed as an inadequate response by the Arbitration Committee to Tony Sidaway's actions [16]; he now edits as Giano_II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It has been suggested that his access to his original account be restored and that the comment regarding "hate speech" be expunged from the block log of Giano.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

JoshuaZ

13) JoshuaZ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Tony Sidaway for 24 hours giving this justification, the diff mention is this comment by Tony Sidaway. Wikipedia:Blocking policy does not specifically provide for a block of this nature, but it was accepted by Tony Sidaway, see User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2006_09_24#Community_block_of_Tony_Sidaways_is_hereby_proposed_discussion_of_block for an extended discussion of the block.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.