Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Template: Motion to dismiss
Line 9: Line 9:
===Template===
===Template===
1)
1)
<!-- uncomment and un-nowiki when motion passes <nowiki>
'''Passed''' on ~~~~~
</nowiki> -->
As the continuance of this case is doing more harm than good, this case is dismissed.

:Support:
:# [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|&#9742;]] 16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
2)
<!-- uncomment and un-nowiki when motion passes <nowiki>
<!-- uncomment and un-nowiki when motion passes <nowiki>
'''Passed''' on ~~~~~
'''Passed''' on ~~~~~

Revision as of 16:25, 23 January 2008

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. 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. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, 13 Arbitrators are active (excluding 2 who are recused), so 7 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) As the continuance of this case is doing more harm than good, this case is dismissed.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Wikipedians are expected to observe dispute resolution guidelines

1) Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, a policy, provides a series of steps for the resolution of disagreements or grievances Wikipedians may have with one another. Airing a dispute on project pages in violation of this policy is disruptive and is prohibited. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, a guideline, states that illustrating a point through parody or a breaching experiment is, generally, disruptive.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In general I agree with this. There are nuances of the formulation that are arguable, but they are not sufficient to affect the outcome of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Once a dispute becomes evident, the matter should switch to resolution methods such as discussion of the underlying concerns, with help if needed, not escalation into edit wars. Basic. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Reversion not a substitute for discussion

2) Wikipedia:Reversion states, "Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encouraged to explore alternate methods such as raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in dispute resolution." When disputes arise among experienced editors, consensus should be built and demonstrated using the talk page instead of through repeat reversion, even when the content in dispute is clearly problematic. (See WP:LIVING for exceptions)

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]
  2. In the vast majority of cases, and certainly once more than one revert has taken place. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Second choice. Reversion is a simple assertion "I think that's wrong". Wikipedia is based upon consensus decision making, which necessitates and mandates discussion why it's considered wrong and how to find a wording that the community as a whole can live with rather than squabbling.[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First choice. I'm not sure it's necessary to mention the WP:BLP exceptions in the context of this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Reversion not a substitute for discussion

2.1) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than disruptive editing. Editors involved are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war and for helping the debate move to better approaches, if they wish to contribute. Edit warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is widely agreed to be harmful, and not to be undertaken. With only a few exceptions, this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC) First choice. This is the main principle and a better general guide for future direction.[reply]
  2. Either 2 or 2.1 is fine with me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 02:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Distant second choice. We have noticed and discussed in previous cases that often editors/admins are not aware of the actions of other admin/editors that are happening contemporaneous to their own actions. This seems to be a flaw in the wiki editing that is exacerbated by topics of high interest when emotions are running high. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 2nd choice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second preference. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruption by administrators

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

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Second choice[reply]
  3. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. True, although I don't believe all of this is applicable to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Newyorkbrad. Deskana (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice in light of 3.2 Deskana (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "Aggressively" is unnecessary. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Jpgordon. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comment:
I agree that we should remove the wording "and aggressively". I'll change it tomorrow morning if no one objects or does it first. FloNight (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it slipped by; I made the change. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by administrators

3.1) Administrators act as role models in the community in respect of both editorial writing and conduct. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who act inappropriately and disruptively may be sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee or, in serious cases, desysopped.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC) First choice, adding 1/ administratorship involves an element of being a role model to other editors (multiple arbcom precedents), 2/ desysopping is not the only or even necessarily the primary response arbcom may employ in some cases.[reply]
    Kirills point taken and agreed, now second choice to 3.2 below. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer to 3, although still not convinced all of it is fully applicable here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Any editor may be sanctioned for disruptive editing; this dilutes the essential point that administrators may be desysopped even in cases where the disruption has not involved administrative tools. Kirill 02:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 3.2. (agree with Newyorkbrad that this may not be applicable in this case). FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As above. Deskana (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 3.2 is better. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Disruption by administrators

3.2) Administrators act as role models for users in the community. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Even if no misuse of administrative tools took place, administrators whose actions are inappropriate and disruptive risk being desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Addressing Kirills point. First choice.[reply]
    (Fine with jpgordon's correction, also addressing Deskana's thought) FT2 (Talk | email) 07:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Kirill 02:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With same caveat as above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice, with emphasis on the may. Deskana (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'd consider "risk being desysopped" an improvement on "may be desysopped". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice but I would also make Jpgordon's suggested amendment. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC) First choice.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Pages are not owned

4) Wikipedia:Ownership of articles provides that Wikipedia pages are not owned by particular individuals or groups. Even on those pages where relatively narrow conventions exist regarding who may edit, the community at large is expected to enforce the convention, not the individual or group who, by convention, edits the page.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Fred has a point so I can not support this wording. FloNight (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Fred's right. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Simply wrong. This page, itself, is owned, and we enforce that, and do with respect to other arbitration pages. It was not unreasonable for the person responsible for IRC to feel justified in maintaining the policy page about IRC in conformity with his understanding of IRC policy. Fred Bauder (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Fred. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Decorum

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Support:
  1. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deskana (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Duplicates earlier points somewhat. But probably worth saying. Second choice.[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This is fine but I believe we will have to address the duplication among these remedies prior to completely closing the case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum

5.1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Alternative (to go with 6.1 and 8) to minimize redundancy. Kirill 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC) First choice at present..[reply]
  4. First choice if 8 passes. FloNight (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum: fair criticism

6) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.

Support:
  1. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deskana (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I see this as the most important principle in this case. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Criticism

6.1) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the normal expectations of appropriate conduct.

Support:
  1. Alternative (to go with 5.1 and 8) to minimize redundancy. Kirill 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice if 5.1 (instead of 5) and 8 passes. FloNight (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Since many of the findings overlap, we may have to do some copy editing on the final decision.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum and discussion

7) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Frank discussion of matters affecting the project is valued, and users are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders.

However, to make such dialogue useful, there is an expectation that users will approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive collaborative outlook, and will avoid behaviors that are forbidden by policy as being unconstructive or harmful. Editors who have genuine grievances or concerns are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism and arguing, and to accept a communal consensus when finally achieved. Users should not respond to hostile behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be calmly brought to the attention of the community.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC) First choice, merging 5+6 which overlap, cleaning up the flow of both, fixing omissions caused by the overlap. Length less than the two combined.[reply]
  2. Last choice Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think this blurs the major points too much; the basic expectation of decorum goes beyond the context of critical discussion. Kirill 03:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I see benefit in keeping them separate as Kirill says. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Generally agree with Kirill, but not opposed to the substance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

8) Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.

Support:
  1. Alternative (to go with 5.1 and 6.1) to minimize redundancy. Kirill 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Generally acceptable, although one user's "unbridled criticism" may be another's "expression of genuine grievances," and sanctions can be appropriate only when the line has been clearly and repeatedly breached. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with the spirit of this although the wording might need tweaking. We want to make sure that we do not stifle blunt harsh criticism made in all appropriate venues at the appropriate time. I'm think of RFCs, RFAs, Arbitration Committee talk page among others. FloNight (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I believe this duplicates other findings.[reply]
Abstain:

Provocative actions

9) Needlessly provocative acts can led to disruption, in which the provoker must share a degree of responsibility for the consequences. Conversely, reasonable and mature self-management is expected even if provoked. Attempts by others to provoke should be ignored or dispute resolution sought.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC) As discussed.[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. True as a principle, though we have no findings yet concerning which particular actions might fall into this category, and I don't know that it would be worthwhile to parse them at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is not civil to provoke other users. FloNight (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I would prefer that we stick to policies and standards of conduct in our principles.[reply]
Abstain:

The community has a forward-looking approach to interpersonal disputes

10) Wikipedia community norms are intended to be forward-looking. Editors are strongly encouraged - and often expected - to set aside past interpersonal disputes or find ways to move beyond them, and to choose their present Wikipedia conduct in a way which exemplifies this. Users who fail to do so may themselves give rise to disruption.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) As discussed.[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Generally fair, although the last sentence is not as I would phrase it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Experienced users are expected to have insight into how their actions will be perceived by other users, especially those users that they've had conflicts with in the past. FloNight (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Other findings express the essence of this better.[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Administrative tools

11) Administrators have access to additional tools to be used in a proper manner for the benefit of the project. Apart from a very few exceptions clearly agreed in each case by policy, the use of administrative tools in respect of a page (or a user) where an administrator's neutrality may be in reasonable question, is likely to be considered unacceptable.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) As discussed.[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Last choice if none of 3, 3.1, 3.2 pass. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I support the spirit of the principle but think it is not needed as other principles work better for this case. FloNight (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Wheel warring

12) Administrators must resolve disagreements by other means than by repeatedly doing and undoing each others administrative actions ("wheel warring" policy). This is strictly forbidden and taken most seriously. Whilst there has at times been confusion, the long standing convention of both policy and (usually of) this Committee is that wheel warring occurs when there is a repetition of their previous action that was undone by another administrator, or where there is a pattern that their similar previous actions were undone. Usually this will be a cycle such as block-unblock-reblock, but the spirit and wording of Wikipedia:Wheel war relates to the choice of administrative tools – rather than discussion – to force the matter, when one's own previous action using administrative tools was reversed.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) As discussed.[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Generally agree. There continues to be disagreement within the community concerning whether a single undoing of another administrator's action, without more, is unacceptable. In my view, the better practice is virtually always to consult with the first administrator, but I can agree with this formulation that sanctionable "wheel warring" will usually require more than a single instance of a failure to do so. Compare the comments from Doc glasgow to me on the talkpage for a contrary view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I oppose any attempt to utilize the term "Wheel warring" in any finding, and I oppose defining administrator misconduct involving reversion of administrative actions made by others in a mechanical fashion.[reply]
    The problem is that some administrators are skipping discussion and using their administrative tools to advance their position in a conflict. Other times undoing another admin actions can be fine and even expected. I do not think that the Committee should support any interpretation of administrator policy that includes the "bold revert" concept since admins should not be using their tools in a provocative manner. Administrators need to be role models for the Community and show that discussion in the way to reach consensus in a dispute. If an admin has gotten feedback from the Community or ArbCom that their reversions are provocative then they need to stop using their tools in that manner and other admins that are aware of the caution need to follow suit. That the same admins are continuing to use their tools to revert other admins instead of using discussion or dispute resolution is the issue. FloNight (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with UC here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Warlike behavior using administrative tools

12.1) Administrators are strictly and most seriously forbidden from engaging in warlike behavior using administrative tools, whether for desirable reasons or not. With very few exceptions, when an action performed using tools has been rejected to the point that a second administrator has reversed it (or similar related actions were reversed), then there is almost never a valid reason for any administrator to reinstate the same or similar action (or end result) again, without clear discussion leading to a consensus decison, and administrators who do so may risk desysopping for abuse of their access. As a corollary, reversal of an administrative action should also not be undertaken without good cause. The policy Wikipedia:Wheel war describes this kind of behavior.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Considering UC's point. I wonder if this is actually a better conceptual approach to the issue. Either of these will work for me; this one might be a useful approach as a precedent though.[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Provisional support. I think that the core ideas expressed here are sound. It may be possible to improve the drafting slightly.[reply]
  3. Kirill 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sounds a bit better Fred Bauder (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
  1. Don't like "warlike". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Sound in general principle. Where two administrators are in open disagreement about what administrator action to take, the matter should go to ANI or another appropriate forum for discussion and hopefully consensus. However, I don't care at all for the word "warlike," and we should specifically note the BLP-related exception implied by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does "antagonistic" capture the behaviors better? FT2 (Talk | email) 23:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Brad. FloNight (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Blocking and unblocking)

13) (Placeholder - wording under consideration)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

(Protected pages)

14) (Placeholder - wording under consideration)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Bad Blood

15) An administrator or other user who feels the need to comment on the actions of someone with whom they have bad blood or past fallings out, should seek impartial advice and allow others to handle the matter who have no such connection, in order for clear neutrality of handling. If no impartial uninvolved editor or administrator is evident, the matter can be passed to the administrators' incidents noticeboard for communal consideration which allows the originator to cede it to others.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC) A common theme in dispute escalation.[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The administrator is free to comment just like any other user, but administrator actions should then best be left for others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Deskana (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Vague, but usefully so. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Too vague[reply]
Abstain:

Scope of communal editing

16) Whilst almost all pages (including policy pages) may have their content decided by communal editing and consensus-finding, some pages may contain or describe matters that are not within the community's discretion to change in this way.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) As discussed. Relevant to a number of pages on the wiki.[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. True and relevant to this case. FloNight (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Statement of the obvious, but true nontheless. Changing the IRC page in an attempt to change something in the channel is not particularly likely to change the way people behave. Deskana (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure I agree, and even if true, I don't think the finding is germane to this matter.[reply]
    See eg m:Foundation issues. Seems to be germane. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Trivially true (e.g. the text of the GFDL), but not really relevant here. Kirill 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Eh. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Arguably a policy issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy issues surrounding IRC

17) The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, we need to gather further feedback from interested parties in the Community as well as guidance from JamesF and the chanops. FloNight (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Concur, although this is more a declaration than a principle. Mackensen (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my comments on proposed remedy 6 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yeah. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill 02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

IRC

1) (Placeholder - wording under consideration)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

WP:IRC/WEA

2) David Gerard's reverts to the WEA page were based on a mistaken belief that he had a mandate from this Committee to control the content of the page using any means necessary. While the Committee did encourage David to take an active role at WP:WEA, the Committee did not give special dispensation to revert the page beyond customary bounds.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Per my comments on the other proposed findings concerning this user (with which this paragraph should probably be consolidated, if it is adopted). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

3) (Placeholder - wording under consideration)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Giano

4) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was formally reminded less than one month prior to the events of this matter that "Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors. The Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions." Despite this, Giano made a series of provocative and disruptive edits to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins regarding comments made in the channel in September 2006 and on December 22, 2007 (see timeline).

Support:
  1. Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Giano (actually, Giano II), in addition to being a valued content creator, is an opinionated editor, dedicated to Wikipedia but known for expressing his views on matters affecting governance of the project in an unusually direct and forceful way. At times, this is to the benefit of the project. At other times, Giano has the weaknesses of his strengths and escalates his stridency to the point that it becomes less productive. Friendly urgings that he lower the tone of the rhetoric, in these situations, are often ineffective. In this instance, comments made by another user to Bishonen in the #admins channel on the evening of December 22, 2007 became known to Giano, a close wiki-friend and collaborator of Bishonen's, under circumstances described in Bishonen's evidence, which I credit. Giano, who already disdained #admins and the Wikipedia page describing it as a result of prior incidents in the channel, sought (with some success, as it happens) to compel change to #admins through a series of provocative edits to the page in question beginning the following day. Although Giano believed his edits were truthful and accurate (see his evidence, which I also credit), and although I am confident that his subjective motivation was to help rather than harm Wikipedia, the fact remains that Giano made a substantial number of these edits over a sustained period of time and persisted long after it had become clear that his point had been made. With regret, I cannot avoid the conclusion that the overall effect of this conduct was unnecessarily disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree with some of Giano's motives, but his actions and the way he handled himself are inexcusable. Deskana (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A close reading of Wikipedia:Assume good faith suggests that an editor's motivations are ultimately not material when dealing with the net effect of his actions. Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FloNight (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Strike for now. I think the first Fof for the case needs to be a more general statement of the events that happened. Having something more general that mentions the involved parties is better, I think. For example, Bishonen's role in the event needs to be mentioned but I'm not certain that a separate Fof is needed for her. This applies to other editors as well. (I realize others disagree about the need for a specific one addressing her so I'm not asking for it to be remove rather another approach to including her in a Fof for those that can not support a specific one.) I do not have time to write one now. Get to it later today. FloNight (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Bishonen

5) Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, made three edits to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins, shortly after Giano's edits. Bishonen's edits were similar in substance and tone, and were provocative and disruptive (see timeline).

Support:
  1. Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Bishonen made a total of three edits to the page in question, the day after the incident in the channel. The first two of the edits echoed Giano's early edits. One might opine that these were unhelpful changes (assuming that the circumstances made this a conduct issue rather than a content ruling). However, these edits came at an early stage of the dispute, and Bishonen did not persist in adding the language in question after being twice reverted. Instead, her third and final edit took an intermediate course by reverting a sentence to a prior version that had been stable for five months. That edit strikes me as wholly unobjectionable. When reverted again, Bishonen left the page completely and did not participate in editing it any further. I cannot consider that her two or three edits at issue are sufficient to warrant this finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Brad. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As Brad. Mackensen (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre

6) Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, made a provocative and disruptive edit to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins, shortly after Giano's edits. The following day, he reverted on separate occasions an attempt to protect the page and an attempt to delete it, thereby escalating the disruption (see timeline).

Support:
  1. Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Deskana (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Reviewing the proposed finding in order, first, it is not clear to me which of Geogre's edits is described as "provocative and disruptive." To be sure, some of Geogre's edits were in my opinion unhelpful, but that is at some remove from an arbitration finding of disruption. Next, a finding based on the single reversion of protection is questionable; it has never really been settled whether a single reversal of another administrator's action is sanctionable, and a mitigating factor here is that the initial full protection was itself dubious, having been applied by a user busily engaged in editing the page. Last, a finding based on the undeletion of the page would be without support: the page had been deleted, admittedly without any policy basis, on Christmas Eve with the suggestion of a "Christmas truce"— a well-meant effort to reduce what had become a divisive and dispiriting dispute, but hardly a disposition that could be made binding on users over their objections. (Is the contention really that someone should have initiated a five-day DRV debate seeking to reinstate the page?) I must therefore oppose the finding as presented. This is not, by any means, to suggest that I approve of all that Geogre had to say with respect to this matter. As with Giano, I admire the strength with which Geogre articulates his thoughts about Wikipedia as well as his loyalty to his friends, but I will suggest that Geogre might better dedicate his almost unparalleled mastery of rhetoric (in the word's positive sense) to worthier and weightier affairs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strikethrough to correct a factual error noted by Doc glasgow on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

David Gerard

7) David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, repeatedly reverted Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins in violation of WP:3RR and WP:OWN.

Support:
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In the sincere belief he was correct, but still ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. He was responsible for the IRC channels Fred Bauder (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. David Gerard did revert the page, but in the absence of a finding about the exact status of the page and of IRC, this finding of fact rests on sand. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Abstain for now because David Gerard has indicated that he intends to submit a statement. He is urged to do so promptly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC) David Gerard has made a limited statement on-wiki as well as a more detailed submission to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. (I do not view his doing so as an abuse of his access to the list as a former arbitrator, because any editor may submit evidence privately to the arbitrators, and I do not believe he has commented offline on the role of any other editor. Having said that, I would have preferred to see more of the statement on the wiki.) It appears that David Gerard acted in the good-faith subjective belief that he had been asked to take on a leadership role regarding the #admins channel, and understood his editing the Wikipedia page describing the channel as an extension of that role. Based on my review of the evidence, it is not clear to me exactly what David Gerard's role in #admins was intended to be, though it is clear he was to have some role there, nor whether such role was intended to extend to the on-wiki project page. What is clear is that even assuming that David Gerard believed he had some specialized role to play in editing the on-wiki project page, he used poor judgment and timing in asserting that position (without clearly explaining what he was doing or on whose authority) in the middle of a raging edit war on the article, and in taking actions that on their face violated our policies for use of administrator tools. I further find that this misjudgment significantly worsened the level of disruption and anger already present on the page, and that as an extremely experienced editor and administrator David Gerard should have realized that precisely this would occur. With respect to the proposed finding of fact, I find that while literally accurate it fails to reference relevant mitigating factors and, therefore, may be misleading. I also see no allegation that David Gerard has similarly misused tools in any other situations, nor has he repeated his questionable actions in the more than three weeks since the events in dispute. I conclude that while arguably literally accurate, a formal arbitration finding against this editor is unnecessary, consistent with my view to this point (which I hope I do not need to revisit as a result of ongoing disputes) that a critical and punitive set of findings is the wrong approach to this entire case. Accordingly, I will leave my abstention in place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Abstain for now, still checking relevant points of fact, and also per Newyorkbrad awaiting statement.[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard

7.1) David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, repeatedly reverted Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins in violation of WP:3RR and WP:OWN, in a good-faith but mistaken belief that he had special dispensation to do so.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support for the moment, unless someone suggests better wording. Mackensen (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Could be better, but OK. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 02:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not in my view necessary on my view of how the case should best be addressed, but preferable to 7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway

8) Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a former administrator, has engaged in repeated instances of incivility, personal attacks, and general lack of decorum befitting a Wikipedia editor. Previous warnings and arbitration case rulings have not resolved the problem.

Support:
  1. FloNight (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. At root I think is an unwillingness/inability to back down from a situation until it explodes. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

11) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

12) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

13) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

14) {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.

1RR parole

1) The parties decided to have behaved disruptively in editing the WP:IRC/WEA page are placed on 1RR parole with regards to pages in the Project namespace for a period of one year. They may not undo changes to Project namespace pages, other than blatant vandalism, made by another editor, more than once per page per 24 hour period.

Support:
  1. Adapted from the Workshop. Good a place to start as any. Mackensen (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Whether or not this might be defensible as to some involved parties, it is certainly unacceptable as to others who I do not believe acted disruptively in any significant way (but as to whom the committee may take a contrary view). Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would support something similar to this, but not on a list of parties which was likely assembled in a rush. If we're more exact about who we apply this to, I'd support. --Deskana (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comment:

Giano II

2) Giano's editing privileges are revoked for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC) I note that the committee lacks consensus on remedies for this case. However, since there is no further discussion of this matter within the committee, I believe it is important for reasons of transparency to have a formal vote on certain measures.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Giano's edits outside the project namespace are not an issue. Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Despite my exasperation with the tone of some of Giano's comments, this is grossly excessive on its face and would also be bitterly divisive for the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Overkill. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 22 January 2008
  4. No way, excessive. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Mackensen. Kirill 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Giano II

2.1) Giano's editing privileges in the project namespace are revoked for a period of one year, excepting those pages which directly concern the featured article process.

Support:
  1. Alternative. Giano's presence in other namespaces is not an issue. Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 2nd choice. Better than nothing, but enforcement would be problematic.[reply]
  3. Appropriate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There are levels of unseemly conduct that even superlative contributions cannot excuse. Giano has unapologetically ignored our plea for calmer behavior after the Durova case, and has instead continued to utilize disruption and demagoguery as a method by which to advance his aims. I see no alternative left to us but to curb his activities by force, no matter how crude a tool that force may turn out to be. Kirill 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Kirill. Other users involved with the case have looked inward and seen problems with their own conduct, Giano has not. That is the reason that it is necessary for us to take action to stop his inappropriate editor conduct. FloNight (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. More rational than an outright ban, given this editor's strong record of positive contributions, but still excessive. Among other things, the proposal would bar Giano II from participating in arbitration cases, despite the useful role he played in presenting evidence in The Troubles case, would debar him from participating in RfA !voting or in ArbCom elections, and would in myriad other ways make him a second-class citizen of the project. Despite my growing exasperation with how Giano (like at least one other editor who is not the subject of a remedy proposal at this time) sometime chooses to express himself, I cannot support this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A quality contributor should have a say in how the project is run. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Geogre

3) Geogre's adminship privileges are revoked. He may reapply via the usual means or by appeal to this committee. The committee will approve the restoration of these privileges immediately upon receiving satisfactory assurances from Geogre that he will not misuse them.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Having found no significant administrator misconduct by this user, I find no need for a remedy. Even if I did agree with the majority as to the finding of fact proposed above, I would find this remedy substantially excessive and could not support it, there being no assertion that the alleged misuse of administrator tools here was anything other than an isolated incident. However, I urge Geogre to reread and carefully consider my comments on the finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not justified by the finding of fact. Even if it was, I couldn't support as worded. A successful application to the committee presupposes that the committee as a whole believes no misuse will take place. Mackensen (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No FoF. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Too harsh at this point. Kirill 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Bishonen

4) Bishonen is asked to support Wikipedia's dispute resolution process by redirecting disputes towards constructive resolution rather than inflaming them.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Having found no misconduct by this user, I cannot support a remedy directed against her by name. I would support the remedy if it were offered as a general admonition to all parties to the dispute, including some who are not presently the subject of specific remedy proposals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my opposition to the finding of fact; this should not be construed as opposition to the principle at hand. We would expect such behavior of everyone. Mackensen (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not necessary. Kirill 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

David Gerard

5) David Gerard is asked to continue his work at WP:WEA, and is at the same time asked to observe WP:OWN.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A fair request, with no cost. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. There being no evidence that the administrator conduct at issue here was anything other than an isolated incident, and given that there has been no recurrence in almost one month since the events at issue took place, I do not find a remedy directed at this user by name to be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Newyorkbrad. FloNight (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Kirill 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

6) Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although I was not yet a member of the Arbitration Committee when Jimbo Wales requested that the arbitrators take on additional responsibilities concerning #admins and possibly other IRC channels, I gather that this request came as a surprise to at least some arbitrators. To this point, the committee has not reached any consensus as to whether and how to implement these new responsibilities, and I believe that we should call for community input (which I would strongly emphasize should be civil and avoid personalities and personal attacks) before doing so. Although it can be argued that directions concerning future governance of #admins should be included in this decision, it has become clear that the matter will not be settled in the near future. Keeping this case open any longer would be unfair to the parties and would also keep the associated project pages open despite plainly diminishing returns. I therefore concur. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

12) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

13) {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

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision&oldid=186366398"