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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Direct from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. - brenneman ^{L} 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:

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:

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:

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)

Isn't the above comment in the wrong place? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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:

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:

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:

Debating frankly

1) 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:

Comment by others:

Criticism welcomed

12) Criticism of administrative and bureaucratic decisions is welcome.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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:

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:

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)

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)

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 holds a grudge against Carnildo

6) Giano has nursed a long-lasting grudge against 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)

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)

History of controversy

7) Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin have 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:

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)

Tony Sidaway

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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)