Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision

Principle 16

"having engaged in bad behavior in the past, it is difficult for an desyopped administrator to pass Wikipedia:Requests for adminship due to the requirement for consensus."

I would urge the arbiters to consider that while it may seem that way, this evidence points in a different direction: that most ex-admins coming to RFA again fail for reasons entirely unrelated to what got them demoted in the first place. I agree with the sentiment that RFA is far too critical of people to the point of being broken, but whatever problems RFA has are not resolved by bypassing it. >Radiant< 14:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Please look at the evidence rather than the rumor or impression. Radiant has compiled a very, very telling analysis, and to have that work ignored and gainsaid without even consideration is very poor judgment, it seems to me. At least engage the evidence, but don't assert the counter position as if in ignorance or disregard of evidence. Geogre 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Links back to Workshop?

Is it possible to have links from these sections back to the relevant sections of the Workshop, so that Arbitrators coming to this page 'cold' can go there and read the comments left by those who were discussing these issues on the Workshop pages? Either that, or an indication of whether the rest of the Arbitration committee are reading the Workshop pages? Obviously Fred is active over on the Workshop pages, but he did say that he was generally the only ArbCom member to use those pages. I think I did see another ArbCom member on the talk page of the Workshop, but he said that the Workshop was so big that it, um, crashed his browser! Anyway, I recognise that at some point the Arbitrators have to form their own conclave and pass judgement, but I just wanted to ensure the extensive (and almost entirely civil) discussion that took place on those Workshop pages is not overlooked. Carcharoth 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what they look at. I presume that look at all the evidence and carefully analyze all the material on the Workshop. But that may not be true. Fred Bauder 19:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Poor wording

There is consistently poor wording, and I believe that Fred's draft, at this point, is a prosecution rather than assessment of evidence from all sides. Saying something like "do not troll" is inarguable, until you realize that it's stated only to get at "those who disagreed more than once were trolling," just as "do not bait" is inarguable, until you realize that "you are a boil" and "you are all idiots" is, in this characterization, merely an "undiplomatic response," while, "Did you all actually agree with this decision" is "baiting." A difference of opinion is the stuff of Wikipedia, but these interpretations are so beyond the pale as to amount to advocacy that is better suited to the workshop than judgment made from a position of disinterest and dispassion. Throughout this proposed decision, exceptionally ill-defined terms that carry enormous emotional freight are employed, and there is never an effort made to justify or explain why or how such terminology should be anything but fuel to the fire, rather than a calm assessment. In regular jurisprudence, judges are supposed to be unemotional and without prior friendships with disputants. Geogre 13:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can farm this out to Meatball. A dispute here will end up with us, warts and all. Fred Bauder 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Very true. Picking one side of an argument and saying "this side was baiting the other" means little other than "I happen to agree with the other side." I think it's obvious that there was lots of disagreement and criticism, sometimes harshly worded, all around. Friday (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to repeat my statement before the arbitration was accepted (now deleted for some reason): As for "addressing the idea fought over in this discussion editors vs. admins", I don't see how ArbCom may issue a satisfactory ruling in favor of contributors, being composed primarily of non-writing admins. InkSplotch's request is all the more ill-advised, as some parties expressed doubts in the integrity of the ArbCom and its procedures. Bringing the case to be decided by the judge they don't trust seems the worst issue possible. Now we have a predictably poor finale to a manipulative arbitration rigged up by a sockpuppet account. What may be less surprizing? --Ghirla ^-????- 15:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is included in the decision as a comment to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Proposed_decision#Jurisdiction_of_the_Arbitration_Committee, a dissenting opinion, if you will. Fred Bauder 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, for whatever comfort it may be, your statement is still to be found here on the case talk page. The convention seems to be that when a case is opened, the parties' statements stay on the main case page and non-party statements/comments go on the associated talkpage. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lest there is any misunderstanding, I am not trying to say Fred's a bad guy, impugn him in any way, but the wording here is really bothersome. I have an assignment where students read an article about "fat is fine," and the article throughout talks about how "fat" has no harmful effects, etc. I teach my students to notice that this begs the question of "what is fat?" 5 kg overweight is very different from 50 kg overweight. In this proposed judgment, there are many, many cases of undefined, damaging words. I would not like to have this very argument, for example, cited as "baiting" or "trolling" or anything, and yet Fred's proposed decision, at this point, suggests that you get to say something exactly once, and, if the other person does not change his or her tune, doing anything more (other than, apparently, blocking without moderation) is "trolling." That's a hideous idea. Geogre 14:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see you say anything just 3 times, or even so little as a dozen times. Fred Bauder 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see the section below for my comment on this amazing discourtesy. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC).

Judging by such comments, RfAr degenerates from quasi-judicial procedures to quasi-personal vendettas. Not that it had not been evident before this case, though. Another illustration of corruption is that people resort to sockpuppetry in order to launch a RfAr with seemingly predetermined results. There is very little trust in ArbCom these days. --Ghirla ^-????- 07:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the gratuitous insult, and then the illogical proposal to follow. Please try to be calm, Fred. It's not helpful for you to get angry, as your resulting words are irrational. Geogre 00:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Explanation needed

Since "wikipedia is not a battleground" is cited as justification for demoting people, would Fred deign to explain to folks how that policy applies to discussing policy? He cites it as a lynchpin and proof, and yet I cannot see how the policy supports any injunction of any user, much less administrator demotion. Geogre 02:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Highly Unanticipated Provisions of Proposed Decision - Geogre and John Reid

Among other things, the /Proposed Decision being drafted by Fred Bauder proposes that Geogre be desysopped ("suspended indefinitely" as an administrator "for sustained aggressive political campaigning" is the precise wording). John Reid would be banned for one week for his postings to the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. In all the pounds of typing expended in the Workshop and elsewhere, not a single user suggested that either of these remedies was in order or should even be considered. I did not agree with everything that Geogre or John Reid said during the past month, but I consider these proposals to be entirely unreasonable and unacceptable. Newyorkbrad 20:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Second that. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Thirded. To add, desysopping is not going to do ANYTHING for the issues at hand that Geogre is accused of. So, there is NO rationale for this.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Fourthed, for what it's worth. --Conti|✉ 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
4. I'm stunned to read that it's even been proposed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Yikes, a non sequitur at best. Outrageous attempt at punishing an outspoken but rational critic. Rx StrangeLove 21:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Strongly support what Newyorkbrad writes. Desysopping Geogre is unreasonable, there was nothing that he wrote that was so terrible, and he never used his admin powers in conflict. He was by no means the only one writing these things; desysopping him for it would only further the impression that the Wikipedia administrators are a club expected to conceal their own opinons, toe the party line, and circle the wagons in the face of any criticism. Blocking John Reid is overkill, nothing indicates that he intends to damage the Wikipedia, note that "Blocks are preventive rather than punitive measures" (WP:BLOCK, nothing and, frankly, if administrators are supposed to be thicker skinned than the average user, surely bureaucrats should be even more so. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Unreasonable and unacceptable desysopping and block, yes. As for Fred's personal attack just above, "I'd like to see you say anything just 3 times, or even so little as a dozen times", that's the voice of one who doesn't understand the obligations a position of power places on him. Oh, no, did I say that? Trolling! Desysop Bishonen! Bishonen | talk 21:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC).
8. Yes, utterly unreasonable, as per all the comments above. I have an extremely hard time believing anyone could seriously suggest such a thing. Friday (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
9. LOL surely a joke! I think Fred must be baiting. It's clear now this process is utterly unworkable. --Mcginnly | Natter 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Well it's not a very funny joke, so I strongly advise Fred Bauder to retract that proposal. Giano 22:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
11. I'm absolutely gobsmacked. Desysop for alleged "disruption" an exemplary admin who has never abused the tools? I'm not normally this direct, but I have to say I think that must be one of the very worst suggestions I've seen since I joined Wikipedia. AnnH ? 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Hmph. I wrote a long diatribe with lots of technical objections. But then I deleted it and decided just to leave this show of support. Carcharoth 22:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
13. See, I don't have a way of adding myself to this list that doesn't come across as cronyism, or as a personal attack on Fred Bauder's rationality. (Or maybe both.) So maybe I shouldn't add myself to this list. But I guess it would be dishonest not to. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
14. I'm not sure that this does anything, but egads. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Exactly as per Carcharoth and Bunchofgrapes. Just one additional comment below. --Irpen 23:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
16. This isn't a vote, of course, but I particularly find imposing sanction on Geogre in this way to be beyond the pale. Even more disturbing is Fred's mischaracterization of Geogre's comment on WP:AN as expressing "the position that the administrative structure of Wikipedia is oppressing those who do the editing." My reading of Geogre's words — and I think they're quite straightforward — is specifically that certain activities have occurred outside of Wikipedia's administrative structure which have had negative effects on the project. So by my reading, Fred's interpretation is 100% backwards of what Geogre actually said. Nandesuka 23:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
17. The situation, as I see it, involves the fairly uncommon case of an administrator who also happens to be a stellar contributor to article space. More a rarity, even, as this is a case where "stellar" is an understatement, but it's the best word I can come up with. This is also the sort of administrator whom we'd prefer simply to thank for his article-writing achievements rather than rolling our eyes when he launches incessant criticism of other administrators, because we all know that Geogre's work is phenomenal and he writes featured articles like he's Danielle Steel, even in his sleep, and even if half of active admins could name one and a quarter have read one, we still appreciate it, even if we never bother to say so. This is the kind of administrator whom we have no reason to suspect of tool-abuse. This is the kind of administrator to whom we'd prefer to say just say "shut up and edit", but most of us don't, because somewhere deep inside, we have tremendous respect for him. This is the sort of administrator for whom I might support remedies similar to Everyking 3 (namely 7.1.6.3.1 and 7.1.6.3.2), but I see no rationale in hell for desysopping him.
    The other key issue here seems to be the concept that one's position as an administrator can be abused without actually abusing tools, i.e. without doing something inappropriate that would appear in one's activity log. Now, this question is a complex one, and it has less to do with the Giano case itself than with the rather hackneyed riddle of the true nature of adminship. Is it a technical or political position, folks? I think we need to really get back to the basics here, to actually codify what adminship (and by extension, admin abuse) is and isn't, rather than tweaking its definition to suit one's own side of a given argument. —freak(talk) 01:37, Oct. 4, 2006 (UTC)

    Oh, and as for User:John Reid, endorse as written. —freak(talk) 01:38, Oct. 4, 2006 (UTC)

18. I may be the only user in this entire...situation, horror, mess, whatever...who was credited with a "more neutral observation". So I'll make a definitely non-neutral comment. Fred Bauder's proposals on Geogre and John Reid are the worst things I've seen crawl out of ArbCom. If I thought these proposals had a snowball's chance in summertime Phoenix with the the other arbs, I would seriously consider leaving Wikipedia. Fortunately, these proposals will undoubtedly be voted down. I can't and don't want to imagine the enormous damage to the project that would result otherwise. Casey Abell 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

    The early exit polls are in, and it looks like the proposed desysopping of Geogre will crash to a thoroughly enjoyable defeat. Unfotunately, the enforced week-long wikibreak for John Reid may squeak through. I'm a half-a-loaf kind of guy, so I'll live with that result, even if I can't do a touchdown dance. My attitude towards ArbCom will never be quite the same, though. Which probably won't make anybody, including me, lose any sleep. One more point: I want to thank Cyde for the inspirational slogan I've placed at the top of my user page. Whenever I'm stuck in edit hell and can't see my way past the fire and brimstone, I'll remember his uplifting words, his inspiring advice, his thrilling exhortation to article-writing drudges everywhere: Anyone can do it! Casey Abell 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    I lied about the above being my final comment. Just so people don't think I'm Geogre's bum-boy, I can't agree with his odd assertion that Wikipedia proves "socialism" is superior and competition sucks. If I thought Wikipedia was some kind of 1930s government WPA effort, I'd spend my time elsewhere. It's exactly because Wikipedia is a private organization in direct competition with every other information source on the Internet that I like contributing to it. And it's because of that competition that we can't afford to alienate our best writers like Geogre, even if his political views about Wikipedia as some kind of socialist experiment seem strange to me. (Truth to tell, I think the swipe at Bush in his user name is also pretty pointless, but that's another topic.) Casey Abell 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

19. The Geogre remedy is quite thoroughly unsupported by the facts of the case, and indeed, by the findings of fact on this page. The good news, I suppose, is that if it passes Don Denkinger will be off the hook at last. --Robth^Talk 02:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
20. No. Bad idea. Geogre's done nothing to abuse adminstrator tools, so the "remedy" would "remediate" nothing: it would be a non-sequitur. To me it seems punitive, and misses the point of what we are: a group of people who have gotten together to build an encyclopedia. We're not a cult, and we don't punish people for speaking their mind, when they do it civilly, in the proper channels, and in conformance with policy. Honestly, listen: this remedy is a terrible idea. Geogre's done nothing to abuse administrator tools. Let's not do this. Antandrus (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
21. I found this unusual proposal to be wrong on at least three different levels:
    1. I do not see Geogre harming Wikipedia
    2. Even if he did something harmful, in this conflict he did not used or abused his admin tools; thus, the remedy is unhelpful.
    3. Even if he did something wrong and his desysopping would somehow prevent this behavior in future, it still was not discussed on the Workshop. It should be discussed first. abakharev 10:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
22. Yup. These proposals are ill-advised. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
23. I believe Fred was misled by someone into believing that Wikipedia is corrupted some sort of struggle between "power-haves" and "power-have-nots". This is not the case, because we know apriori that power is wielded by admins, not editors, however prolific they may be. A most useless IRC fairy has the power to block and banish from editing the most helpful wikipedian. Nobody, even Geogre, has doubted the principle. Apart from insulting proposals as regards Geogre, I am stunned at the arbitrator's phrase about "high status users, including productive editors" (which apparently refers to Giano). I would like to know — is Giano's "high status" official or what? what privileges are conferred upon him? does he have an access to IRC? will he be able to unblock himself if a new IRC conspiracy results in new blocks for him? how could you tell which non-admin has a "high status" within the community? It seems weird to put admins and mere editors on an equal footing as regards punishments, not privileges. This is a very strange proposal which calls for revision of many policies that we have. --Ghirla ^-????- 06:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
24. Although I can't muster the surprise so many are expressing... Everyking 08:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
25. I fail to see the logic here or how desysopping Geogre will make Wikipedia better. Shanes 09:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
26. IMHO, desysopping doesn't make much sense. I wish that Geogre (and others) had been more civil, but that doesn't have anything to do with his role as an admin. TheronJ 14:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
27. This is an example of truly unwholesome wikipolitics. The diffs shown by Bishonen are very bad indeed. Fred's lost bpth his cool and his sense of neutrality and doesn't seem to be aware of it quite yet. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
28. Agree with the general sentiment expressed, especially in the case of Geogre, who makes a lot more sense than it seems he's being given credit for, and whose behaviour was certainly no more odious than some of the treatment he's been on the receiving end of recently (including this proposal). Also: even if we grant that Geogre has somehow harmed Wikipedia, which is bullcrap, the "punishment" suggested doesn't seem to fit the crime; even his most rabid opponents aren't suggesting that he's abused his admin tools, or otherwise shown himself to be a problem qua administrator. Which is more than can be said for certain former arbitrators. I am heartened by the fact that this suggestion currently has more oppose than support votes, given how seldom common sense seems to prevail around these parts at times. PurplePlatypus 23:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
29. I was alarmed to see this proposed, and am relieved to see that common sense will likely prevail. Jonathunder 01:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
30. I want to express my utter disappointment that these putative "remedies" were even considered as a possibility. No matter anyone's views of Geogre's outspoken positions on Wikipolitical matters, he has espoused those views in legitimate ways and has nowhere abused his admin tools. The proposed remedy would establish a chilling precedent that users could be punished for the heinous crime of peacefully and non-disruptively advocating for Wikipedia policy changes - and that is unacceptable. FCYTravis 06:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
31. For what it is worth, I also consider the desysopping proposal to be completely without merit. Geogre was questioning practices that he considered unfair, but in no moment abused his admin tools; this makes the proposed remedy similar to grabbing a Panzerschreck to scare away a mosquito. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
32. De-sysopping Geogre is one of the worst proposals I've ever seen. I'm flabbergasted. (Better late than never) Paul August ☎ 19:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

?

• User:John Reid went slightly too far, IMHO, and I had already said as much on WP:BN, but the suggestion that User:Geogre should lose his admin bit "indefinitely" for engaging in vigorous policy debate, in an entirely civil if tenatious manner, defies description. He was speaking for many of us who have profound doubts about the direction - and indeed creation -of the Wikipedia power structure. Is this another remedy "pour (dis)encourager les autres"? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Wikipedia's power structure, including attempts to change policy is welcome. Fred Bauder 11:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Good. So when does "discussion of Wikipedia's power structure, including attempts to change policy" (welcome, it seems) become "sustained aggressive political campaigning" and "continuing violations of Wikipedia is not a battleground (and so liable to lose admin status indefinitely)? Presumably "sustained" is alright (unless we are now required to shut up as soon as someone tells us to?), and discussion of policy will inevitably be "political", so presumably the alleged problem is that User:Geogre has been "aggressive" in some sense? If it is not clear when otherwise-acceptable behavious becomes culpable, the effect may be that we will just have to keep quiet for fear of being punished. Is that the intended effect? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Just frame issues as policy, suggest policy changes if necessary and attempt to reach consensus. When does it become a "battlefield"? Hard to say, but I think it can be expressed as agitation against consensus. If what you want as policy is not adopted after extensive discussion, then further campaigning is inappropriate. Fred Bauder 14:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So it seems that "sustained" is actually a problem (I note in passing that you have not pointed to any agression on Geogre's part, or disputed that the process is inherently political). How are Wikipedians meant to achieve change (that is, crystallise consensus in a different place to where it was previously) without "agitation"? Oysters and pearls. And, as someone else said, it takes two to "battle". -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred is also begging the question; how does he know consensus isn't on Geogre's side? This is not obvious and I strongly suspect it isn't even true. This is a good example of what was said recently in a different context, that ArbCom, or at least certain members of it, seem to be out of touch with the current experience of the "Wikipedian on the street", as it were. PurplePlatypus 23:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This would also seem to be in flagrant violation of WP:NBD, which establishes that very little on Wikipedia should be accepted unquestioningly, and that debate and discussion on issues of policy and project direction are welcomed and accepted. FCYTravis 07:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• ...if I may. This totally unexpected decision was never proposed and discussed at the Workshop, while, admitedly, this is not required. So, I suppose this is either Fred's own suggestion or it is transferred here from ArbCom-L. In any case, in line with Fred's own earlier proposal that stated that it is reasonable to expect the explanation in difficult decision, may I request such explanation of the rationale of such totally undiscussed (openly), unexpected, and as above edits show, rather uncalled for proposal, at least in opinions of many respected editors. --Irpen 23:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• While I agree with the intent of it, being keenly aware of the corrosive effect of this brand of wikipolitics, the proposed remedy regarding Geogre doesn't seem to address the problem directly, but rather in the manner of a deterrent. I recognise that we're not well placed as a community to deal with this kind of campaigning, and it would be hard to craft a more suitable remedy, so I appreciate why Fred's trying this proposal. I think it would be hard to avoid turning Geogre into a much brighter, more resourceful Karmafist, however. --Tony Sidaway 06:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not clear what the last sentence means but there's clearly no comparison between Geogre and Karmafist, who as I recall ended up engaging in a vandalism campaign and encouraging others to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a perfect comparison but hitherto the closest we have had to political insurrectionism of this kind was Karmafist's campaigning. --Tony Sidaway 06:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's an unfair comparison. Very different agendas and different personalities. Geogre is trying to clear up specific instances of unfairness or irrationality and what he sees as the causes. Karmafist was trying to change so much it was hard to keep track, and as I recall he did it from day one; Geogre on the other hand is a regular editor using his considerable experience here to effect change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if taken as a moral equivalence it would be an unfair comparison. Karmafist, by the way, was a regular editor and administrator until he became damaged during the course of the Pigsonthewing arbitration. However the point I'm making here is that Fred's proposal could have the opposite of the desired effect (sadly, not an uncommon occurrence in arbitration). --Tony Sidaway 08:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that arbitration can make issues worse, and I feel I've noticed this more since the advent of the workshop pages, which trigger very bitter, fruitless debate; repairing the editing relationships afterwards is almost impossible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree on workshop pages. I have found them to be very valuable, and my decision to desysop was a direct result of insights gained from the comments in the workshop in the current case. --Tony Sidaway 08:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I admire you for requesting the desysopping, but I wish there was a less damaging way of airing differences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why Karmafist's name should be brought by Tony in his every second comment. Not everyone is aware of who Karmafist was. --Ghirlandajo 06:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've mentioned him perhaps three times in the current case. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist for a partial history. --Tony Sidaway 07:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, one more time: Tony's comment again talks about "revolution." Wikipedia has no government. Would Fred kindly put in a "resolved: Wikipedia is governed by the ArbCom?" That way, Tony can be correct, and Fred won't have to put up with me correcting him. I cannot advocate a revolution or insurrection, because there is no government at Wikipedia, and, if there were, it wouldn't include clerks or "emeritus" ArbCom members. I don't even think it would include the ArbCom members. Geogre 10:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the exasperated tone. It's just that we are not governed. We have experts and commoners on the same level, administrators and new users with equal power. Any leadership we have is a meritocracy, or should be. Much of Kelly's support is due to her long, good work, and I cannot disagree with that (although I wish someone would actually say what it is instead of just waving a hand vaguely), but it is also a great deal her own telling people that she is important, and with that I disagree wholeheartedly. We do not have a pyramid. We have an informal structure that is derived solely from practice, not policy. No one can revolt. No one can perform a coup. Unless a campaign of civil disobedience begins, there is no striking at the power of Wikipedia. That would be a revolution, but only that. Geogre 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony is correct that this matter is quite similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist. Kelly was quite aggressive, even bullheaded, but now, when she is hurting, is not the time to analyze her errors explicitly, best just to say thank you. The Arbitration Committee bases its decision on Wikipedia's practice and policies. While others may differ, I interpret Wikipedia is not a battleground to preclude political agitation leading to development of factions. Fred Bauder 11:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Highly questionable analogy. Karmafist's case was about his arguing Wikipedia policies and politics in welcome messages to newcomers. Geogre was arguing Wikipedia policies and politics on places like the Administrators' Noticeboard and the Requests for Administration page. Invalid comparison. Newyorkbrad 15:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I can easily accept the claim that Kelly is hurting and shouldn't be hurt more, but why does that apply only to her? Zocky | picture popups 00:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

She was the only user driven off. Fred Bauder 03:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This claim is not accurate. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "She was the only party to the case who left" is more accurate? Regrettable as it is that other users have left over this, the ArbCom can only reasonably be expected to deal with what happened to the parties to the case. Carcharoth 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Driven off? Shall we have a full and frank debate on exactly why Kelly left? Including all the details and some IRC logs. Believe me Fred, it wouldn't take many editors much of a push to go the extra centimetre in that direction. There are time when it is difficult to assume good faith when some of your statements seem deliberately calculated to inflame dying fires. Giano 07:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Not to mention the "she is hurting" and therefore her behavior bears no more examination? Until it closes that she cannot regain all previous positions at her request, she has not "been driven off" and is not "hurting." She is not even "gone." Until then, she is merely away from a publically visible face on Wikipedia proper. She is still on the Wikipedia IRC channels (or was on October 6th, which is curious if she's actually driven off...don't recall anyone else who left doing that). If she is "hurting," it is because of her own actions being examined, and not because of anything I have done (except not be cowed). Also, while I absolutely agree with Fred's suggestion, because I consider it my religious duty to be nicer to people than they have been to me, I do not recall her being sympathetic to those she had dealt with, nor can we see Tony exhibiting much human kindness above, either to me (comparing me to Karmafist, who broke policy repeatedly and was pushed to the point where he went down swinging) or to departed administrators and users (using Karmafist as an example of unquestioned evil); no one seems to care that Fred can insult me openly, that Tony can insult me openly, and that this is ok, while merely asking questions is "battling." The central point is that Kelly cannot be excepted from rules because she left. If she has left, then she cannot be made uncomfortable by the examination or sanctions. If she is only "doing penance for a week," then being away a short time must not stop the judgment that ArbCom is charged to make. I find the idea that we are all to stop, speak only well, and tearfully thank Kelly Martin because she made a dramatic announcement intellectually repugnant. Geogre 00:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this comment of Geogre's is an attempt to raise wider issues of the sort that Carcharoth recommended we leave until after this arbitration is closed. I find it curious that Geogre seems to imply, sarcastically, that people object to his asking questions, when in fact he refused to answer my questions. If Geogre feels free to ask questions and make assertions regarding Kelly Martin's behaviour I will feel free to ask questions and make assertions regarding Geogre's behaviour. --Ideogram 02:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Irrational, if not vindictive proposal

One of the issues here is that Tony Sidaway exhibited vindictive blocking. Another was that Kelly Martin (who now believes that her blog is applicable evidence on Wikipedia) drew up enemies lists and tried to get people to act in such a way as to allow her to block them. Fred has here proposed that I should lose my administrative status for holding to my point of view, and he has cited "not a battleground" as justification. Aside from the fact that nothing in the Evidence page suggested that I had failed "battleground," what really concerns me is that he is showing vindictiveness for my above exposing of the semantic weakness of his statements.

The proposal is wholly irrational, however, and the irrationality suggests that it is coming out of anger rather than deliberation. How is it irrational? Well, if everything stated were true, if I were making Wikipedia a battle ground, if I were at "war," then that has absolutely nothing to do with whether I am an administrator or not. Had he proposed that I be blocked indefinitely, that would be logical. However, in the absence of even alleging that I have misused administrator's powers, the proposal is so irrational on its face as to beg the question of Fred's mental state when he made it. I also ask how any member of the arbitration committee would make such an enormous error of fact as to cite a policy that explains how we are supposed to behave in article creation unless it were out of anger.

I hope I'm wrong and that there is some secret manner in which it is logic and not anger and vengeance that explains it, but Fred has offered us no help there. This is not sarcasm: I really hope that there is a logic. If there is, I trust that Fred will always vote and propose such sanctions on all administrators who argue all positions for an amount of time beyond his own preference and for a position he disagrees with. Geogre 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano's block log

While I fully support expunging Giano's block log of the "hate speech" entry, I noticed Brion posted this comment[1]. I hope ArbCom works something out before voting occurs on that proposal, I'd hate for false hopes to be raised. --InkSplotch 21:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern Inksplotch, however you are overlooking two things. 1: Nobody is taking the slightest notice of anything on the workshop page; and 2: I have changed my name and so rid myself of the block log - so I am happy. Counting edits and credits are of no importance to me what so ever, all the people who matter know who I am and that is good enough for me. Giano 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They were my proposals, Giano, standing out clearly when they were first posted on a relatively clean page; intended as conciliatory gestures, and adopted as such by Fred Bauder in the /Proposed Decision; but unfortunately, matters seem to have moved a bit beyond that. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's proposing your original account be reactivated, which I'd assume would involve your current account & history being merged into the original, as well as the block log being modified. I imagine merging the accounts is something most admins can do, although the password reset might require developer assistance. But modifying the block log is a more serious thing, at least to Brion, the lead developer. So, if you personally don't want any of that remedy enacted on your behalf, and I'd think carefully on it, you might want to state it clearly right here, where Fred is most likely to see it. Otherwise, it might get voted on and carried out regardless. --InkSplotch 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have your experience of these things, but to be honest I couldn't care less - what's in a name? Giano 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Developers may be able to do such things, but if you mean admins as in those with the +sysop bit, we're not given access to those tools that would allow for merging accounts and histories, resetting passwords, or modifying the verbiage on the block log. More information is available at WP:ADMIN if you'd like. It's actually a very limited set of tools, though perhaps too easy to use at times. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano seems to have indicated that these proposed remedies (as I stated above, my proposals on the Workshop, based on comments he made in the past) are no longer of much interest to him. Perhaps one issue (brand new user account) has cancelled out the other issue (objectionable block summary from February). Since the putative beneficiary is not worried about these proposals any more, we needn't spend much more time on them. Newyorkbrad 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Observation

I think that all the commentators above who express horror at Fred's proposals have missed their purpose. Now, I haven't talked to Fred, this is simply my interpretation. For about three days earlier this month, we were all confronted with what I would call an attempted "permanent revolution." That is to say, there was a definite lack of desire on the part of certain parties to see the situation resolved. If you go though the noticeboard archives you'll see me, among others, trying repeatedly to find a way to defuse the situation and get the parties talking to each other in a constructive fashion. Gnashing, wailing, calling each other idiots and demanding bans and whatnot doesn't count. All suggestions at dispute resolution and archiving were waved off because that either meant I was trying to stifle discussion or dispute resolution was "inadequate" or "inappropriate" (I'm paraphrasing).

Wikipedia is not a battleground, and anyone who tries to make it one is not welcome here. I think this is a principle to which we could all subscribe. It is my view that administrators are looked to by the community as leaders; certainly many think of themselves that way and try to act appropriately. It is for this reason, beyond most, that Tony Sidaway has earned condemnation. A three-hour block is small beer indeed, in the grand scheme of things. However, by his use of inflammatory language and rhetoric, Tony escalated the situation far, far beyond where it needed to go. In short, he ceased being a custodian of Wikipedia and became part of the problem.

Now, we turn to Geogre. His contributions to the article space are outstanding and I hope that this will continue. At the same time, his holding of administrative status confers upon him certain responsibilities–responsibilities which he abandoned when he repeatedly prolonged a dispute that cried out for closure and resolution. For several days Geogre was among those users who stood in the way of resolution. I watched with horror as the permanent revolution moved from place to place, from noticeboard to noticeboard, from wrong to wrong.

This doesn't mean that administrators are expected to be the Arbcom's jackboots; far from it. There is a place and time for responsible and constructive criticism. In moments of anger unfortunate things may be said, but it is expected that parties will attempt to come together in good faith to resolve their problems. If parties are unwilling to do so–that is to say, are not willing to resolve the dispute–then we have a very serious problem.

I may have misunderstood Fred; I'm sure that what I've said above will prove unpopular and be roundly criticized. This is how I see the matter. Put briefly, administrators are expected to defuse situations and not escalate them. Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to get it. Fred Bauder 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• To say the least, your view is incorrect. What you call "resolution" I call "telling people to shut up." Silence is never to be confused with resolution. You offered absolutely no remedy. You offered no further discussion to work out principles and demanded that everyone else cease talking. Did I stand up for continued discussion? Yes. That is my responsibility as a leader, but not as an administrator, because whatever leadership I do have does not come from that administrator's status. The resolution, the only gesture of resolution, was coincidentally taken by Kelly Martin when she lodged this Rfar. You could have done that but did not. Fred could have but did not. Doc could have but did not. Instead, you insisted on silence and that means that you showed no concern for the complaints of dozens of editors. That is not leadership: that is coercion. Finally, you state and stated that you think this is "revolution" and "revolt," as if there is a government. Please, Mackensen, will someone enter in "Proposed: Wikipedia has a government, and administrators and editors work beneath it?" That way, we can for once have some statement that everyone should have been quiet when you spoke, or James did, or Kelly did (even though "emeritus"), or the deferred governors the clerks. If there is no government, then please do not expect anyone to have to be quiet simply because the conversation is uncomfortable. Every effort at telling people to stop talking was generative of more protest. Only the offer of actual resolution at RFAR was anything approaching resolution, and you will note that people did get quiet then. (Well, except Tony making the workshop page 3 transcluded pages long, but I'm sure that's not battling.) Geogre 01:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, Geogre, that's not what I said. I wasn't in a dispute with anybody, then or now. I had no standing for dispute resolution. I asked you to consider dispute resolution; you refused. I suggested that you craft a new policy proposal; you continuted arguing on the noticeboard. I suggested alternate paths but I didn't tell you to shut up; I didn't delete your comments either. I detest coercion and detest even more the suggestion. Government has been proposed before and rejected; I believe Karmafist was the last. I don't support such an idea and wouldn't give my backing to one. If you think it's a good idea why don't you go propose it. I'm talking about individual responsbility here–I suggested, as one individual to another, that you consider these ideas. Why should my voice silence yours? My intention was to get something constructive going by getting the disputing parties interested in something other than arguing. If I had no concern why did I express that concern repeatedly and urge that something be done? Mackensen (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I want to see diffs to those offers of yours.
• Something "constructive" was impossible so long as Tony Sidaway continued to behave unilaterally and retained that administrator's power. Further, it could not be accomplished so long as Kelly stomped around threatening people with her "power." Neither of those things could be remedied without an arbcom action. If Tony Sidaway stops acting unilaterally, I have no issues with him. If Kelly goes to do the incredibly wonderful work that she does furnishing opinions to thousands every day and playing with IRC and stops trying to bait people, bully people, create enemies lists, reveal Checkuser data in public, etc., then I have no issue, but that needed ArbCom. What policy could I have proposed for these things, when the policies are present.
• Now, why is this "battling?"
• Please correct me if I summarize improperly, but your argument is: 1) Geogre battled (but Tony didn't and Kelly didn't and you didn't and telling people to stop talking is not a battle action, but talking is), 2) administrators are looked up to (even though there is nothing that says this anywhere), 3) because of this one violation of this one principle understood in this one debate, Geogre should cease to be an administrator because...no one who ... is ... admired...should be allowed to battle? [I'm sorry, but I see a lot of "battle" going on, and the way I read that page is that it never applies to policy debates, which is what we were having. Still, if we're going to say that even policy arguments are "battle"s, that no one has baited me but I have baited others, that my attempts at being nice and avoiding calling names are nevertheless "trolling," and that this is such that this one debate over this one issue is so clearly an example of violating a policy that doesn't refer to such debates, then I've got to wonder why Fred is going to remain an administrator, why ...well, why anyone who hasn't been quiet... unless this is reserved for the people who are effective in their arguments or being singled out because they are admired.] [Is it inconceivable that people are admired for reasons other than being administrators?]
• If you want to start criticizing people for battling, spread the love. Take yourself into account. Take all the participants into account. Take every admin into account.
• Also, read the policy that's cited. It has nothing to do with arguing policy nor seeking remedy for abusive behaviors, which Tony, James Forrester, and Kelly Martin had engaged in. "Battle" violations would be creating an enemies list (see the evidence on Kelly) and looking for reasons to block people (IRC evidence Kelly and Tony actively looking for any possible way to block someone who had ticked them off). That is a violation of "battleground." Protesting "battleground" violations is not a violation. I'm sorry that I believed that these issues were worth arguing for. Geogre 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've responded in the main below, but I want to respond to one specific thing you said right here. Just what do you mean about revealing checkuser data. That's serious business and a slur if you're wrong. I'd like to see evidence of that happening. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Another point: did you read where I criticized Tony's behavior and agreed with his desysopping? Mackensen (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• The Checkuser matter cannot be discussed publically without repeating the crime, but it is being followed by the appropriate authority. However, you only needed to look at the administrator's IRC channel, that fantastic echo chamber, to have seen it. And you have no qualm with Kelly making enemies lists, and then making them again to try to trap another admin? Geogre 02:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If there's no evidence that can be revealed in a public manner then the accusation shouldn't be made public either. Having spent considerable time in the admin IRC channel I can only say that it's a silly place most of the time, and hardly the sinister cabal-cave of lore. I don't like people making lists; they say much about the people who make them. I'm not sure where that accusation comes into this, or why you presupposed I approved. Mackensen (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know how to explain how you missed it, then. Perhaps you weren't noticing? My log has "one of us (will do) penance for a week." My log has "If they don't have diffs, fuck 'em!" My log has "X person edits out of X ISP" said casually to the friendly confines. If the place is boring, let's open it up to all Wikipedia. Hey, better yet: if it's not useful as cabal-self-love, let's just abolish it! (This is like that "It's no big deal for Kelly to have access to the list" arguments: if it's no big deal, then why is everyone fighting for her to keep it? If the channel hasn't been used in the past for collusion, why keep it? What good has come to Wikipedia from its existence?) As for whether the allegation can be made publically...sure it can! It might not be nice, but it explains why I oppose Kelly's regaining of previous rights so tenaciously. That was the question. Why would I "fight" in this case? It is precisely my judgment and experience as an administrator that tells me that this one is worth fighting for. Geogre 03:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This might be a good time to take it private, with all due respect? Rx StrangeLove 03:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• • At the moment, I've missed it because it isn't in front of me. I can't comment on evidence that I haven't seen. Out of deference to people's privacy I don't log channels nor do I quote from them. Agree with the good doctor, you offered to take this part to email and I accepted. Did you get my note? Mackensen (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: I did forward the logs and had forwarded them by the time of your comment. Second, I did not quote from logs. I gave quotes with no reference to the speakers. If you are able to figure out the speakers, then that's proving my point about the characters involved. As for logging: much worse than logging is colluding to run people off Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that every time comments like these are made, someone is logging. I will never agree to invisible, unaccountable actions. Geogre 10:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

If no one minds I'm going to attempt to stifle and censor discussion by proposing that this matter best be handled as dispute resolution between Giano and Tony Sidaway. Tony reported his block, the block has been undone. Nothing's going to be accomplished here save much grumbling and drama. We all know where the dispute pages are; we all know where to discuss the blocking policy. Administrative action isn't needed here. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Because the issue had broadened. It simply wasn't Tony Sidaway vs. Giano at that point. It was the bullying of administrators by James Forrester and Kelly Martin and Kylu that was at stake there. The reason no one accepted your view is that it would have been to sheer away the actual open question of policy by trying to treat everything as if it were a single action. The project had dealt with the single issue already. There was no need for an RFAR, unless folks wanted Tony arbitrated. No one did, at that point. We had dealt with it, but things had exploded because of the intervention of arbcom members speaking as arbcom members. If the misstatement of an administrator earns loss of administrative status, what about speaking as if you were ArbCom when you're on ArbCom? Is that not worse? Geogre 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, that's not the case. My comment was made on the 14th, JamesF's on the 17th. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • My apologies if I got the chronology wrong. One of the things that was at stake at the very earliest was whether three or four administrators agreed that it was necessary to go for a longer block or ArbCom, but it surely wasn't Tony v. Giano. The question was, "Is Tony off the rails? Is there sufficient stuff to go to ArbCom?" I admit that "ArbCom gives him a free pass" was voiced, although not by me (nor generally replied to by me). I do think that Tony has gotten slaps on the wrist where others would have gotten permanent bans, but I don't think talking about collusion helps unless there is actual evidence. Actual evidence came along much later. Geogre 02:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, Tony was already under administrative parole (1RR I believe). To me, that was a sign that he was on thin ice already. Part of the question is whether arbitrators we speaking ex cathedra, as it were. For my part, when I'm speaking as a checkuser when not on the checkuser page I'm clear about it (e.g. "speaking as a checkuser"). At the time, I thought the real dispute was between Tony and Giano, given the vitriol passing between the two of them. Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Mackensen, you do it the right way. You've never heard me utter a bad word against you, I hope, although just now I'm disappointed. You do it the right way. You should have access. The people who do it the wrong way should not, and they should not regain access whenever they feel like it. Furthermore, their friendships should not allow them to do such horrid things. To the matter at hand, though: No. The vitriol between them was private, as far as those of us considered the "anti-Tony" group here, were concerned. None of us, that I know of, do much about WP:NPA. None of us, that I know of, were following Giano to endorse what he was saying. We were discussing the wider issues. In fact, one of my frustrations has been trying to convince people that there can be a fair trial of Tony Sidaway. By commenting publically, I waited for mediation or expiation. The apologies Tony has offered later would have been a tonic if offered then, if they carried with them, "I am going to get someone else to do any blocks of people I'm arguing with" (which is what Blocking policy says we're supposed to do). Geogre 10:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere. We've devolved to a meditation on the nature of power on Wikipedia. I think that's a sure a sign as any that no actual constructive action is going to occur. If dispute resolution is needed, there's WP:RFC or WP:RFAR. If arbitrators need to be replaced, you can email Jimbo or wait until the December elections. I believe there are three seats open, including the one I vacated. If you intend to seize power, you'll need a rogue steward to make it effective. If you want to develop proposals for devolving Arbcom's authority over desysopings (an authority expressly given to it by the community, please see Stevertigo's last RfA), then Geogre, Dmcdevit, and I have each, independently, developed proposals that would do that. Otherwise, I think it's time to step back and wonder how things got this far, and all pledge to try and be polite to one another. For this to be effective, admins have to stop threatening to block people, and non-admins have to stop claiming that if they speak up admins will block them. Neither one represents helpful or respectful behavior. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• And yet, what followed, was regular users quoting statments by Tony Sidaway showing that he did threaten to block them if they complained. That evidence is here on the Evidence page. I.e. it wasn't "the nature of Wikipedia." It was the misstatements and bullying of a very few people using their elected status to try to isolate and silence the rest. This is, indeed, where the inability to arbitrate came up. The proper response at this point in the debate would have been to open a case, but I couldn't imagine how to open a case against James Forrester and Kelly Martin and Kylu for hanging out on the #en.wikipedia.administrator IRC channel and all at once responding to Tony Sidaway's block to come to AN to tell everyone to shut up and mind their business. I couldn't think of how to frame the issue of Kelly, in particular, who was not a member of ArbCom, pretending to speak for ArbCom (when she may have only been speaking of that onanistic IRC channel) and its mailing list. New issues had arisen, and they needed to be addressed. What's more, they still do. To have been quiet at that point would have been wrong. Further, as you can see below, nothing, even the most tireless tirades, would have been "not a battleground" violation, because that policy has diddly to do with policy debates. Geogre 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Note my original attempt to bring the parties to dispute resolution was on the 14th; that went nowhere. I then suggested that route again on the 20th. Note that I suggested a number of possibilties, some more serious than others. I also referred to three separate policy proposals, one of which I myself had authored. So much for me not doing anything (and yes, Geogre, you did chip in some). Now, tell me Geogre, in all honesty, how did the following response help?

• • The bit on the 14th was rejected as still a narrowing and trivializing and misreading of the situation. Folks were wondering, with Tony's use of "fuck" in edit summaries and block summaries when blocking people for anger, plus his action in the Ghirla case, and then the action with Giano, whether this was something that needed to be yet another Tony Sidaway arbcom case. Or, should we go for a block? If so, how long? I.e. it was rejected for not being proper at that time. Geogre 02:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with a move to archive. This has always, always, always been about "the nature of power," because the community had decided what to do -- sanction Tony Sidaway for 24 hr with a block -- and then found magical friends appearing to unblock him and tell everyone else to shut up. However, the reason this should not be archived is that, first, there are no trolls here. No one who has posted to this is an anon whining about abuse. Second, there are very significant issues with the specific behavior of some people that affect the ongoing operation of Wikipedia here. Third, this is NOT (sorry for shouting, but I've tried everything else to get attention) a referrendum on ArbCom. This is and always has been about back channel communication and clubbishness overriding the operation of the administrators. Fourth, those who say that they will get blocked for unpopular views have legitimate grounds for saying so, as the Giano case attests in glorious black and blue. Finally, there are unresolved matters still pending. Do not declare silence triumphant or force peace, please. Geogre 18:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I shall be happy to tell you how it helped. I opposed the archiving, because the very issue under debate was the "you're all idiots" and "you are being examined" foolishness. That was in the section you wished to archive. The rest of the discussion would have been, and in fact was, entirely incomprehensible without that. Therefore, the archiving attempts were, in my view, an attempt at sweeping the dirt under the rug, making sure the maladroit statement by James Forrester was no longer visible and the threats by Kelly were gone. Further, what battle was prevented by the ultimate archiving? How did splitting half of it away fix anything? How would shoving it all into the archive actually addressed any of the issues? Silence does not equal health. Silence is not assent. Getting everyone to shut up is preliminary only to watching them all leave. Geogre 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what this splitting is; nothing I did. My proposal was to archive what there and start afresh, renewed, somewhere else. If I thought silence was assent I would've just done it and blocked anyone who disagreed. Instead I asked. When you objected I didn't do it. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I have not accused you of improper actions. I do think you were on the wrong side of the beam, but you obey policy. Were you actually unaware that Doc Glasgow partially archived? Then Drini tried to archive? Then Doc Glasgow partially archived to remove a bit where he looked bad (at least it seemed that that was the reason)? Were you unaware that "archiving" was then a topic in the discussion itself, and the very subject of "does it do any good to stop this discussion now" was under discussion? I felt that archiving and continuing there (if you said "elsewhere," it was not clear that you meant ArbCom, since every other version had been "on a subpage") would have made the discussion incomprehensible. I felt that putting it on a subpage did absolutely nothing except attempt to limit participation. I felt that the topic needed to be aired and needed discussion. If you want an administrator's action from me in any of this, there were none, but it was my judgment as an administrator that we needed to keep talking. It was yours that we didn't. I see that as a tie and certainly not a violation of WP:NOT. Geogre 02:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is marvelous rhetoric completely unconnected with what was written. No one unblocked Tony Sidaway, and there's nothing magical about people showing up to argue. Issues of behavior sounds like a dispute resolution question. You stated that there were "further issues" but you didn't say what those were. Tell me, Geogre, just what was all the meant to accomplish? Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• When you tell me what stopping people from working out the issues would accomplish, I can tell you what trying to work them out was meant to accomplishe. Oh, heck: I'll tell you anyway so as to avoid the wait. The further debate was attempting to work out a policy that ArbCom members cannot tell the project to cease debating policy. You found me out. Oh, and I hoped we would get to an agreement that no one may employ private associations as leverage on Wikipedia. (Note: that's leverage.) Other than that, I was hoping to let the discussion lead where the community wished it to go and I see and saw no benefit to telling the community that it couldn't go there. You appeared to. Please tell me what that silence was going to achieve. Geogre 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't call for silence (save in jest). I called for moving things into appropriate forums. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not see, in the bit about archiving, any suggestion of how we'd go to dispute resolution. We all wanted dispute resolution, although I wanted no more unilateral actions and coercion even more. Geogre 02:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about that "battleground," eh?

Just for those who rely on their memories and don't believe in reading policy:

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.

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation.. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly towards you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same in retaliation. Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavoring, or ignore the relevant message entirely.

When a conflict continues to bother you or others, adhere to the procedures of dispute resolution. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.

Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.

• So, first, we realize that this is part of "NOT" which is about article creation.
• Second: personal grudges and imported stuff. Nope. I don't care about the persons, have avoided making personal reflections, have generally tried to comment on the words or actions of people rather than the character or personality or person of the individuals. This is not gaming, either: I generally don't care about people. I don't like them, much, and Wikipedia people aren't even people: they're screen names in front of identities of which only words exist.
• Calmly, etc. Well, take a look at the Kelly Martin "evidence" and see how calm that is. Compare the worst thing I have said (whatever that might be) to find any hostility, insult, pejorative, etc., and I don't think we can see me as a problem if Kelly isn't, and yet Kelly's demotion is not being advocated, as she gave up the bit and can get it back without fuss. (And those who have believed that she should be demoted have not said so because of incivility, but what that incivility has accompanied.)
• So, we should go to conflict resolution. We're here now. I have engaged in it, and yet it's principally this, I think, that is cited as evidence of my violation. As for Mackensen's statements, I could not think of an appropriate way to lodge an RFAR, as I did not think we should have to file one to tell people not to interfere with admins conducting licit blocks. Had I known that lodging a "let's catch everyone who we don't like for no particular reason" case would make, I'd have done it from the start. Of course, Kelly intimated that she was in charge and that arbcom was going to act without a case, so, if I didn't know her, I might have been reluctant to file. Fortunately, I've been here long enough to know better than to trust people to tell you that they're in charge. Geogre 01:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because it's part of article creation does not mean that said behavior is appropriate elsewhere. Let's ignore the legalism and move on. I would like to believe that you aren't holding grudges, but you seem to be protecting yourself with a version of tu quoque. Just because the opposition is hysterical and irrational does not grant license to assume bad faith and refuse resolution. You'll notice that penalties are being leveled against the remaining party from the other faction. I'm glad that we've arrived at conflict resolution, I wish we'd arrived here a good deal sooner. I think it says something that you saw no way to handle this through dispute resolution. What about my original suggestion--that Tony and Giano seek mediation or some such? That would've headed much of this off. Finally, I'm disappointed that you felt the need to take yet another potshot at Kelly. Can we leave vanished users alone? Also, you've not responded to me query above. Mackensen (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• I do not regard her as vanished, and, until it is settled that she cannot resume all former powers simply by asking, she remains here as an administrator. Giving up the "bit" only to get it back whenever is no different than taking a Wiki-break, and we don't stop examining the abuses of people just because they hide behind a tree (or a new account name) for a week. Further, this is not a tu quoque. Instead, the argument I am presenting is that your own ethos in making this specific charge is weakened to dust when you apply your principles specifically at only one. I do not recognize factions, but among the people who have agreed that Tony and Kelly acted abusively (and who agree with me on little else) are many people who argued after you called "stop." Yet I am the one user whom you felt moved to call for demotion without evidence presented? Also, your ethos is weakened further when you say that I failed to launch an RFAR and yet you are amounting to introducing a new complaint, a new section of evidence, and a new principle (that "battleground refers to all edits and policy") only when we're at the decision stage, and not when evidence was being presented. It is this, the weakness of your position as a speaker, that I am responding to with what appears to be "they're as bad." The full statement is "they're as bad, and you say nothing." If you were to recommend demotion of everyone who participated in the AN argument beyond your first call for mediation (including Doc Glasgow, Phil Bosworth, and everyone else who taunted another round and laid out bait), then I would have nothing to say except, "If it happens to them, it should happen to me." Otherwise, you would need to demonstrate that there was something special about me. There wasn't. Maybe I was more effective or more admired, but I wasn't the only administrator, and nothing I said compared someone to a "bunny boiler" or Kelly Martin to our appointed government. Geogre 02:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't recall calling for your demotion, here or anywhere else. I applied principles equally, please read the paragraph where I mention Tony. Also note that as Brad observed below, I described Fred's reasoning without necessarily endorsing all of it. Mackensen (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Reread the policy It clearly states Wikipedia is not a battleground is a subsection of What the Wikipedia community is not. The idea that this applies only to article creation is flawed and redundant. I have no axe to grind here but I won't see this important principle reduced in such a manner. Hiding Talk 11:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've re-read it numerous times, and I posted it, all of it, right up there. It is, indeed, part of the section on article writing. The subtext was initially, "Don't try to fight your Balkan war with articles." It also covered, "Don't bring your Something Awful fights here." It's on the second pivot that the "behave without fighting" turns. This is nothing whatever about "don't debate policy with someone who disagrees." It's not "stop talking as soon as the other person tells you to." It has no mention of, "If you disagree, you may only disagree until such a time as someone else dislikes it." One person says, "This is going nowhere and must stop." The other says, "This needs to be said." That's not making a battleground: it's normal disagreement. To decide who is right, you ask the community and get consensus. If the consensus is fractured, you do not cease the discussion, much less arbitrate on its existence! What you're calling an "important principle" simply isn't in the policy. If you think it should be, then by all means get some wording changes and seek consensus for them, but absolutely nothing in the AN argument is covered by that policy. Geogre 11:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You didn't post it all, you missed out an important line: The above guidelines apply to articles on Wikipedia. These guidelines apply to Wikipedia discussions. Regardless of any subtext you seem to aver exists, that is quite clear. Wikipedia is not a battleground applies to Wikipedia discussions. It's there, plain and simple. You can argue that your discussion was not turning Wikipedia into a battleground, that's your choice, but let's be honest here, the principle applies to Wikipedia discussion per policy. Hiding Talk 12:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So, umm, you want to be arbitrated against for stepping in here, when you weren't involved, to pick a fight? You're making this a battleground! You're trying to make enemies! Now: prove to me you're not.
  • You see?
  • I want you to read the policy properly. I want you to have been watching since the creation of the page. You want me to believe in Fred's irrational (and he even admits) interpretation of a page that didn't apply. By your standard, you are guilty, because I want you to be quiet, and you want to tell me I'm wrong. It's folly. It's absurdity. It's the dream of the childish and the weak and the tyrannical. Geogre 15:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • My apologies, but don't see that I have anything to prove to you. I'm simply here to make the point that "Wikipedia is not a battleground" applies to Wikipedia discussion, not article writing, as you stated and which is clearly countered by the policy itself. I don't need to have watched the page from creation to know how it reads now, although I'd note the page's history doesn't support your assertion either. You are free to dismiss my words as you will, and I have no interest in whether your actions fall foul of the policy or not; ultimately that's not my decision anyway. What I want to make clear is that all discussion on Wikipedia is subject to the policy "Wikipedia is not a battleground". Feel free to make points on whether your actions breach that policy to those to whom it matters. I have merely corrected you on a point and am now asking you not to misrepresent the policy. I would hope you can accept my intentions and also accept your mistake regarding the nature of the policy. Hiding Talk 15:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You are both failing to understand what the other one is saying. Hiding is right that WP:NOT a battleground applies to Wikipedia discussions, but Geogre is right that the "politics" part applies to battling for encyclopedia content from political POVs, not to internal project policy discussions. Zocky | picture popups 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • It's entirely possible you are right, and if so I apologise for any misunderstanding on my part. I'm not sure where this idea of politics comes in. To me "Wikipedia is not a battleground" applies to discussion and means it should be conducted in a civil manner and discussion should not be conducted to settle personal scores or become clashes of personalities. Grudges shouldn't be allowed to colour thinking and personal jabs should be steered clear of. I think a lot of people disregarded the policy in this debate. The only resolution I thought was coming out of this was that people who were grinding axes or attempting to settle scores would be reprimanded. We have a dispute resolution process and that should have been followed. I think the 'crats should be told they need to build a consensus for such decisions in the future, I think arb-com needs to note it should be clearer in its desysopping in the future and I think Giano, Kelly, Tony, Geogre, James F and John Reid should be slapped on the wrists and minded that their contributions to discussions should be civil and germane and that they should learn when to call it a day, because Wikipedia isn't a battleground. I don't really see why blocks are being thrown about in the manner they are. Either everyone gets a block or no-one does. Battles have two sides. We have a dispute resolution process for a reason. To stop disputes escalating. Hiding Talk 19:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, and arb-com need to think about the purpose of their mailing list and who is mandated by the community to subscribe to that list. If it is to aid official discussion of arb-com cases, then only arb-com members are mandated to discuss them in such an official manner. Hiding Talk 19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No he's wrong, "politics" refers to internal Wikipedia politics. Fred Bauder 16:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred, were you there? Were you participating in the discussions when that was drafted? On what basis can you announce the meaning? What you suggest would make this section really out of place in the WP:NOT page, as the rest of WP:NOT is about articles. If you were there and know what it's really about, why didn't you urge folks to put it on a separate page? Seems to me that "disruption" and "point" already cover what you are trying to make this cover, but they have a long history of use in arbitration that wouldn't let them fit the circumstance. Geogre 19:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Informal mediation

I'd like to invite the two big fellas above to step into my office. I reckon that here isn't the place to work it out. While I'm not the most unbiased with regards to them both, when I put my "sorting it out" hat on I'm a straight shooter. George: Think of it as satisfying the "you didn't try dispute resolution" complaint, Mack: Think of it as a way to communicate with George via someone whom he trusts. I'll make a space on my talk, and suggest that the above thread be moved there if you both agree. - brenneman ^{L} 01:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Aaron, I'll regard the matter as settled if Geogre clarifies his accusation above that Kelly did or threatened to violate Foundation policy. I've said my piece otherwise. I appreciate your offer very much–if Geogre accepts I'll reciprocate as a measure of good faith. Mackensen (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also was about to humbly suggest that this thread may not be going anywhere we should want it to go, especially on this particular page. As for Mackensen's pending question, as much as I value transparency, this may not be the best place for that discussion either. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have clarified as much as I can in public. If it is regarded as a slur to merely refer to something I know that you do not, then I am sorry for all the slurs that Kelly has committed when she speaks of the powerful groups she knows who are paying careful attention to my edits. I can furnish private evidence, but the evidence is mixed. Mackensen should know about one of the misuses. The other misuse occurred in IRC and has been captured in logs which may not be posted publically according to the rules of Freenode and Wikipedia both. Nevertheless, I do not regard Mackensen's endorsement of the absurd and vindictive and illogical proposal of Fred's (though without support from workshop or evidence pages) to be a thing that can be explained away. If he wishes to avoid hypcrisy, he can recommend demotion of all administrators who argued on AN in that thread. Geogre 02:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the matter is best discussed privately and I would be most gratified if Geogre would be willing to do, privately (via email). I hope that my word is still sufficient assurance that the matter would remain private. Regarding your other point, I don't see anything hypocritical in my position. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Perhaps I am misreading the situation, but although Mackensen has endorsed Fred Bauder's criticism of some (lots, even) of your comments, Geogre, I don't see that he has actually endorsed the remedy proposal itself. Nor does it matter much whether he does or not, nor do I want to put him on the spot by suggesting that he comment pro or con ... but I also don't want the two of you talking past each other more than already seems inevitable. Newyorkbrad 02:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You've got the thread, but I'm afraid that Fred and I have become conflated. Mackensen (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I see the position as inherently hypocritical if applied to me but not to those who baited, and even Mackensen himself, whose "everyone be quiet" couldn't have been thought to achieve peace. Surely everyone knows that you do not go to any group, children or adults, and tell them to be quiet and expect that to get peace! At most, you can get the desired quiet, if the group fears you, but, without actual persuasion (i.e. talking (i.e. not silence)), you can't get folks to be peaceful. If Mackensen wants Doc Glasgow demoted, along with Phil Bosworth, along with himself, along with Kelly (demoted, not "vanished"), along with Tony, along with Friday, along with ... everyone who participated after he regarded the discussion as sterile, then there has to be some particular uniqity to my statements or person that would warrant particular treatment. Further, it still doesn't follow that it has anything to do with administrator's status. Geogre 02:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we please take this elsewhere? For the sanity of all concerned, not to mention that it's terribly unseemly seeing you two go at it: Decorum cast aside, zimmermans at thirty paces, wigs askew and red in the face. Please. - brenneman ^{L} 02:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Aaron, I had always held Mackensen in the highest regard. This sure feels like a mugging. Geogre 02:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel as though there are some misunderstandings here. First of all, I sought to explain Fred's reasoning. I sympathize with some of it. I never called for your desysopping and don't really think it would accomplish anything anymore than mine would. Neither one of us used our tools during the dispute, not that I'm aware of at any rate. If I'm trying to stifle discussion I'm obviously working at a cross-purposes with myself. Mackensen (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If you felt that all of the discussion needed to be in arbitration, I sure wish you'd led the way by filing a case or asking people to come up with a list of the charges. Note that I tried to do that before. I had a "narrative" that I drafted to try to help people understand, from my own point of view, "Why we fight." I was doing that to get input so that we could have a proper dockett. One cannot be guilty of not seeking dispute resolution when coming up with dispute resolution charges (compare Fred seeing my drafting of my "Evidence" on a subpage of my talk page as "evidence" of my battling!). Geogre 02:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I could have done so, I didn't feel it was my case to bring. I think I did ask, at one point, that people state clearly what they wanted, but that might be slightly different then drafting a list of charges. Mackensen (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is anybody questioning Geogre's use of admin buttons, and if not, why was this brought up at all? Zocky | picture popups 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I believe the primary cause was the Proposed Decision calling for Geogre's desysoping. All stems from there. We've moved on to a more general discussion that has in some respects been fruitful. Mackensen (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess you both got inadvertently trolled, since you seem to be arguing over things that you agree on. I have no reason to expect any bad faith arguments from either of you, and neither of you looks stupid enough to abuse their powers and authority. But you should both remember that this is in large part about appearances, especially appearances to people who don't know you. Especially, you both need to be concious of your authority and take into account that people will misread every inclarity in your comments, especially in heated situations. Aaron used a great word up there: decorum. Zocky | picture popups 03:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the first sentence. Who is doing the inadvertant trolling here? Is it possible to inadvertantly troll someone? Carcharoth 12:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, Geogre and Mackensen were having a heated discussion over some of Fred's proposals, although none of them agrees with those proposals. So, they were "trolled", but since that wasn't Fred's intention, it was "inadvertent". Zocky | picture popups 16:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A few more thoughts.

(Apologies for the length, I'm trying to say this as clearly as possible and be done with it.)

I volontered as a mostly uninvolved party on this case because I made a few comments in the debate on WP:AN, although nobody seems to have found them problematic. I tried to contribute constructively to the workshop. I have remained calm and civil throughout, and I advocated no sanctions against anybody. The only issue I had previously with any of the participants was Tony's incivility, and particularly the inappropriate block of Aaron over a conflict between the two. And even then, I'm not unsympathetic to Tony, and have no problem whatsoever with him remaining admin if he stops being incivil and trigger happy.

In the underlying issue on this debate, my position has remained unchanged for years - I believe that if we want to build a high-quality and neutral encyclopedia, the process of writing it must be neutral and transparent. If working on the project consists of reading snide comments and vulgarities, how do we expect anybody who isn't interested in that to stay around? If project policy doesn't accommodate people who think that methodical process and transparency are important, who do we expect to write complete and truthful articles?

That said, I'm not obsessed by rules and red tape. The purpose of doing things in pre-agreed ways is to avoid misunderstandings and remove personalities from the debate, both of which help save time and energy. But in an open community where anybody can participate, unexpected situations do occur, and sometimes doing the right thing does indeed involve ignoring all rules. I have been known both to write essays like Wikipedia:There's no common sense, and to hound off an established editor by threatening an indefinite block in a highly curt tone, and meaning it.

I've been around since before ArbCom, and I was sceptical when it was introduced. It actually turned out alright on average, IMO, and in the few cases where I was tangentially involved, it made the right decisions. I never ran for any elected position, had no interest in becoming an admin before the main page templates were protected, and have no desire to be powerful on Wikipedia or elsewhere. I hang out on IRC enough to be in top 25 users of #wikipedia without ever wishing to become an op.

So, having established my lack of grudges, non-extremism, non-existence of political ambition, and lack of fear of IRC, I must say that I'm deeply unsettled by the proposed decision. I have trust that other arbitrators will ammend it and vote down the inappropriate proposals, but I'm compelled to share my view on this: the proposed findings and decision are not only non-neutral, they are self-contradictory and tendentious. Here are some of the glaring issues:

• "Geogre has engaged in an extensive political struggle based the position that the administrative structure of Wikipedia is oppressing those who do the editing" - this is simply not true:
  • the "political" bit is cited from "WP:NOT a battleground" and is meant there in the sense of party politics and ideology. The "struggle" that Geogre engaged in was about project issues, not ideological or political issues in the sense of WP:NOT, nor in the sense of politicking for power.
  • "the administrative structure of Wikipedia" is administrators and bureaucrats, possibly Danny. Many administrators were involved in the whole issue on both sides, and in any case, Geogre spoke about individuals, not the collective. ArbCom, whom Geogre did mention, is not an administrative body. Unlike the administration, it is made up of a small number of individuals who often speak in the name of the whole committee, and neither them nor the committe are immune from criticism.
  • "oppressing" is a serious misrepresentation of Geogre's position. His argument has been that certain admins, encouraged by some ArbCom's decisions and some arbiters' comments, are interfering with the process of writing the encyclopedia, which is what we are here for. "Politics" and "oppression" are meaningless terms in this context. This is not a state.
• Geogre, a user in good standing who has not abused his administrator privileges is permanently desysopped, while Tony Sidaway, who has inappropriately blocked several users and was already subject to ArbCom warnings is desysopped for one month.
• JDForrester, who made an unfortunate remark is chastised, while Kelly Martin who repeatedly used, shall we say, undiplomatic language and escalated the debate is thanked.
• John Reid, an established editor is blocked for a week, while Tony getting blocked for 1 day is described as extreme. Note that his request for reconfirmation of allegiance to consensus would have been easily met in good humour by the bureaucrats, had they not put themselves and the whole administration in an impossible position by overriding a long established custom in a controversial case.

These amount to false imputations, unfair dispensation of justice, and beating the child for calling the emperor naked. I respect Fred and the amount of work he puts into arbitration, but it is my belief that these proposals are a result of preconceptions about issues and persons on his side. In my opinion, it would have been best for the project and for everybody involved if he had recused himself at the outset of the case.

To conclude: power and authority must be excercised fairly and competently because of the encyclopedia, not because we want a shiny-happy community. If we're not writing the encyclopedia and deciding how to write it in a fair and transparent way, how can we ensure (and convince others) that it is neutral and any good? Zocky | picture popups 05:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the above well-presented and thoughtful summary. I would also urge those discussing some of the proposed decisions not to forget the other proposed decisions. If the wording and content of some of the proposed decisions is proving so controversial, then all of them should be carefully examined. Carcharoth 12:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It was not my intent to divert attention; yes, please discuss the other proposals. Fred Bauder 14:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly think there's a point being missed. There are generally two sides in a battle. Hiding Talk 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiding, I agree with you here (and with Zocky, but I shan't go around endorsing people who endorse me, as I hope this isn't about me, but about policies). As the kindergarten teacher reminds people: "It takes two people to have a fight." Therefore, I would assume that it's not possible to sanction one person for "not a battleground." Geogre 20:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly my thoughts on the issue. I can see instances where one user would engage in a battle, but I would think that would be dealt with as disruption. This whole discussion quickly settled into what I can only describe as a fight between two camps, and as such was a battle. That's why I think Wikipedia is not a battleground applies and why I think the people involved, yourself included, need reminding of the dispute resolution process. This should not have escalated out of hand the way it did. Hiding Talk 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree in the main with what's been said. I would argue that the thanking of Kelly Martin is predicated on the belief that she's left this project (otherwise it's perverse). Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is based on two things, gratitude and not being mean. I expect this is quite painful for her. Time enough to examine her errors in detail if she comes back. Fred Bauder 14:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding out-of-band communication and blocks

I notice some disparity between WP:OOB (Out-of-band communication considered harmful: i.e. don't make consensus on IRC) versus WP:BP#Controversial_blocks ("If possible, contact other administrators informally to be sure there are others who agree with your reasoning. The administrators' noticeboard, IRC and email are effective tools for this.")

Would it have merit to suggest removal of the IRC and email options? ~Kylu (u|t) 07:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry for top-posting, but "IRC" in that case simply means the general IRC channel, and by no means an invitation-only channel, and it is applicable for emergency controversial blocks. How do I know this? When the blocking policy was written, there was no "invitations to our friends" IRC channel, and I don't think it could have been imagined. As for how it applies only to emergency controversial blocks, it makes no sense whatever to rely upon any medium that leaves no trace and cannot be examined for seeking to justify a controversial block, above all, unless it is a last resort and an emergency. Geogre 10:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of band communication considered harmful is an essay written in one draft by User:Friday. The Blocking policy is official Wikipedia policy and cannot be superseded by Friday's personal opinion. You have been criticised for seeking advice on IRC. The mere fact of the existence of criticism does not make the criticism valid. --Tony Sidaway 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the policy shouldn't be encouraging editors to look for support on IRC. Doing so has caused a lot of trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This could be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. However I think it very unlikely that current practice would change even if we changed the written policy. Discussion prior to blocking is good. --Tony Sidaway 07:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Colluding with friends on IRC is not good and the policy shouldn't encourage it given the amount of trouble it has caused. That doesn't mean that any use of IRC is bad; as always, it's a question of using common sense, but sadly not everyone has it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem here really is in your use of inappropriate language. Seeking advice becomes "looking for support" and then in the next comment it becomes "colluding with friends". Discussing a block prior to applying it is a good thing. It causes no trouble to do so. --Tony Sidaway 07:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Given some of the behavior I've seen on IRC, "colluding with friends" is entirely appropriate language. If blocks need to be discussed, there's usually no reason not to do it on AN/I; and on the rare occasions a discussion needs to be private, e-mail is available. I can't think of a single reason IRC would be preferable to either of those. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm this. *Especially* in the "elite", semi private #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Some have treated it as a haven for attacks on those not-in channel and as a forum for daring each other into making controversial blocks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's more timely than email or wiki. While on-wiki discussion is sometimes considered advisable prior to blocking, a quick sanity check on IRC doesn't do any harm. I think a lot of bilge is said on-wiki about IRC. It's very useful indeed. --Tony Sidaway 08:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen personal attacks made against editors (including against you) on IRC that sometimes makes it hard to tell apart from WR. It encourages a herd mentality, where people engage in or support behavior that they probably wouldn't engage in as individuals. I don't see why it should be more timely than e-mail or wiki; if people are around, they tend to respond regardless of the medium. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

IRC has its faults, but it enables an ongoing dialog that is different in quality from email. It has been used for years for very much this kind of purpose, and it fits well. Sensible discussion of any kind preceding a decision to block is a good idea. --Tony Sidaway 08:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've personally never witnessed a sensible discussion of a block on IRC. Although I don't doubt that they occur, there's no evidence that it's the norm, and the editors who discuss issues sensibly on IRC could do it just as easily elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo and Danny frequently use the admin channel for urgent requests (and sometimes blocks are involved). Glancing at my admin channel log I see records of requests for blocks on open proxies, and on editors making legal threats, a proposed block on an article spammer (the response was "not yet"), discussion on operational aspects of the username block policy, and some autoblock clearances. This all comes from a few hours worth of log about three weeks ago. This is normal. --Tony Sidaway 08:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo and Danny sometimes use it, not frequently, and I'm not saying it's never used correctly; I'm saying that it's regularly misused (and there's no question of that; I've witnessed it), and therefore our policy shouldn't suggest it to people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I sense there's an elephant in the room but I'll let him be. What witness most often in the admin IRC channel is the discussion of Dr. Who episodes. The problem isn't the discussion, the problem is anyone who uses IRC as a justification to block. Encouraging sysops to block without consultation is not the right direction. Mackensen (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to discuss the block in Wikipedia talkspace rather than on IRC, so that other people could chime in. In many cases, the reasons for blocking are not clear for the blockee. A note to him that "it was discussed with other admins" is not very helpful, too. We have seen an instance when one IRC guy asked his friend to block his opponent without bothering to provide explanation on-wiki. This practice is deplorable. Furthermore, when an editor is called on IRC a "demon bitch from Hell" or someone speaks about a prized editor "going bananas", it is considered normal and does not influence on-wiki processes, while an informal discussion between two admins results in an unexplained block. We should determine whether IRC discussion predetermine administrative actions in Wikipedia and, if they do, in what way. --Ghirla ^-????- 08:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

admins can communicate 'out of band' all they want, that just doesn't go towards justification of their on-wiki actions. With or without OOBcom, they need to explain their actions on wikipedia, and in unclear cases ask for review on AN, as if their OOB talk had not taken place. I think this is too obvious to even require pointing out. Unexplained blocks remain unexplained blocks even if two dozen admnins talked about it on IRC. What is harmful are implications of behind-the-scene discussion towards the blocked user: implying "a certain number of influential admins are watching you, and boy, their opinion isn't favourable" towards any user us unacceptable, and I think with some good faith and common sense, it should be clear where such implications were being made. dab (ᛏ) 10:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Amen. IRC cannot be submitted to Wikipedia as evidence. Therefore, any approval, consultation, or reasoning on it is not Wikipedia. I agree that the blocking policy needs to be clarified. IRC would be a last resort in the case of a controversial block and could only be considered if it's a true emergency (if user Geogre got ticked off and had decided to plaster penis pictures everywhere, etc.). Actually, most emergency blocks won't be very controversial, so perhaps it's better just to say that IRC discussions can help one talk things out. Geogre 10:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone would disagree with the above, least of all me. IRC allows the seeking of input, but that's a useful function, not a problem. Mackensen (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's very useful, compared to AN/I, but it's somewhat useful, so long as we're talking about open access IRC, where plaintiff and defendant may both be present. Once we start getting into private, members-only areas, any potential usefulness is nullified. Once we go beyond that and get to members-only mailing lists, we're even more useless for discussing blocks. A person said, "If they don't have diffs, fuck 'em!" Well, I kind of think, "If it can't be referred to, it don't exist." Geogre 11:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think there should be any encouragement at all in policy that admins use IRC to discuss anything, just as we don't add to policy that they ought to discuss blocks with each other in their local pub, though some might. I object just as strongly to an entirely open channel being used, where hundreds of people might be watching the editor be personally attacked, and yet no one knows who the watchers are, and because there's no formal logging, the victim might never know what was said about them. Mackensen, I'm not aware of any elephant in the room. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Frankly, I'm not bothered by the idea that somewhere beyond my scope of vision people are discussing what a worthless [insert favored term here] Mackensen is. People will harbor these thoughts regardless of what we say. I'm more concerned that admins make blocks in a vacuum, particularly new admins who haven't learned the ropes yet. I'm not that concerned about logging anyway; someone's always doing it anyway and you can always count on an individual to leak said material, even when policy specifically says they oughn't. The wiki doesn't keep its secrets particularly well. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
          • You don't know whether people would harbor the negative thoughts anyway. Editors are picking up cues about who it's okay to attack and who they ought not to. I've watched it happen time after time. A certain name is mentioned negatively on IRC. Ten minutes later, a mini swarm turns up on WP to cause a problem for that editor. If this is done openly on Wikipedia, the victim and others can trace the origin of the attack (and it wouldn't be done for that reason). If it's done by e-mail, at least the damage is confined only to the people the e-mail is sent to. But IRC represents the worst of both worlds: public without being accountable, operating outside WP policies, and full of personal attacks, some of them serious, often with no factual basis; just the casual smearing of other people for the fun of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing that's not being mentioned here, that I'm certain anyone who has ever communicated on a closed IRC chat is that people are frequently discouraged from making stupid or rash actions on IRC. I have both discouraged others from foolish action as well as been discouraged from rash actions taken in anger and frustration. In fact, more often than not lately, I use the channels on IRC to bounce decisions and considerations off of other people, rather than on-wiki, where every word one ever says shows up months and years down the road. Things like:

You've said all sorts of INCIVIL things. See [1] [2] [3] [4], etc.

One wonders why every discussion doesn't take place on IRC. Bastiqŕe ^demandez 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Transparancy is helpful. Records of who said what and what their justifications were are helpful. We should have a strong bias towards on-wiki discussions for important matters such as potentially blocking users. Johntex\^talk 00:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Tony "When baited he consistently fell into the trap" finding

I don't recall seeing evidence to support this. - brenneman ^{L} 14:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, nothing on the Evidence page showed anyone baiting Tony. Perhaps Tony's private statement, to which he alludes, has some allegation, but that was not presented in open court for consideration. However, this is just another "judgment" Fred has offered that was not part of the complaint or the evidence. Geogre 15:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone cares about manifestos and ideology

Just for anyone who wants to know how I think I've been consistent and organized around policy, please see user:Geogre/Ideology. Geogre 17:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Question for Raul

Raul654 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC) - I see this princple, combined with principle #25 (productive editors can be banned) as an attempt to retroactively justify the emergence of a class of administrators who rarely or never edit articles. This is antithetical to the creation of an encyclopedia.

Does that mean there is presently no justification for the existence of administrators 'who rarely or never edit articles'? Should they then depart wikipedia?

I, with a few exceptions, now rarely edit articles except to deal with vandalism or OTRS related problems. It has been my judgement that my existence as an administrator on Wikipedia is of benefit to the project. Are you suggesting that there is no justification for my existence, and that it is antithetical to the encyclopedia? Am I not 'productive'?--Doc 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, I don't see how picking articles to appear on the front page is writing the encyclopedia either. --Cyde Weys 18:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to aim straighter.

In my experience, the possibility of reaching one of the featured content categories is a strong motivational factor that encourages certain editors to write and improve content. Which improves the encyclopedia, naturally. Plus we need something to appear on the Main Page, so picking one of the better articles as an example is a pretty good idea. It shows people how good this encyclopedia of ours gets, and encourages them to join in too. Which improves the encyclopedia, naturally. Inevitably, that article needs to be chosen by a person or a process. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, writing the encyclopedia is only the first step: we are writing it so others read it. I expect may readers enjoy seeing what gets put on the Main Page from day to day, and end up reading a good article on a topic that they would otherwide never bother to read about. I certainly do. Surely part of our mission is to encourage people to learn something new (and perhaps even enjoy themselves at the same time). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I intended by my comment. I have clarified it to make my reasoning more clear. Raul654 18:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And not that you have to justify yourself, but it's not like you aren't up front about your contributions anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I tend to agree somewhat with Doc, I get about in the article space a bit more, but I'm not prolific. But the opposal does imply an assumption that editing articles is the only way to build an encyclopedia, which is a flawed premise. It would be WP:POINT to demonstrate, but if all admins withdrew their not article editing actions, would that hinder the creation of the encyclopedia? If we're hoinest, we have to answer absolutely.

• I'm also querying the opposal to 25, Administrators and other high status users, including productive editors, who seriously disrupt Wikipedia may be briefly blocked. In extreme cases they may be desysopped or banned.

• Raul, does your opposal indicate the rise of a class of untouchable editors, because that's how it reads to me. Hiding Talk 18:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Raul for responding, but you clarification still leaves the impression that administrators who write articles are to be privilaged, better treated, and other types of administrators are somehow illegitimate. If that's even partly right, I'll resign immediately, and allow Feature writers to take over my OTRS tasks.--Doc 18:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It's not that I oppose blocking either productive editors or admins - I can see *limited* circumstances where blocking either could be warranted. However, I believe a number of very productive editors have been mistreated in this case - mistreated by admins who do little (if any) article editing. The finger wagging at Tony over falling was malicious and mean spirited, but there was more-than-a-little truth in the accusations. I the light of these facts, several of these principles worry me. Raul654 18:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If people, whoever they are, have been mistreated, then they shouldn't have been, and the perps, whoever they are, should be sanctioned. Should it not be irrelevant who the 'victims' are, or who has mistreated them? I'm very worried by your implication that 'productive editors' (sic) attract some form of immunity to sanction by admins who rarely edit articles (=non-productive??? wow!). This is caste system you are implying. Frankly if these principles are unacceptable to arbcom, I question my future with this project. --Doc 18:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Productive doesn't necessarily refer to writing, but to making contributions to the encyclopedia, and of course we should favor people who do that. Not give them free passes, but extend them the benefit of the doubt and show some minimal respect, which in this case was absent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The clarification is here. I also still don't quite understand it, partly because many of us don't have access to Ambi's comments. Does this mean that all admins who rarely edit articles are looked upon unfavorably? --Interiot 18:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope Ambi will not mind me saying so, but she made the observation that on a previous open-source project she had worked on, the emergence of the 'contributors are replacable and therefore expendable' attitude was the death knell for that project. Principles 23 and 25 go a long way towards legitimizing this attitude. Raul654 18:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We do seem to be experiencing some sort of new uprising of admins who think that other admins who don't spend as much time writing articles are worthless. Let me respond to that accusation. I don't spend too much time writing articles. Why? Because anyone can do it, whereas not everyone can program. To the people claiming that my contributions aren't valuable because I'm not mostly devoted to working on articles, I respond with this: you go add significant functionality to pyWikipediaBot. --Cyde Weys 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Anyone can do it?" Are you serious? Of all the signs of the apocalypse, surely claiming that "anyone can" write well has to be one of the most telling. Really, look at a featured article. Look at WP:FAC and watch all the people who can't do it. Anyone can program to the same degree that anyone can write. Anyone can program well to the same degree that anyone can write well, but, whereas the writers don't venture to tell the programmers that they're worthless, you have just announced that the writers are absolutely unimportant...and in the context of complaining that you're being persecuted, too! I promised myself I wouldn't comment further, but don't you see the insult you just handed out? Geogre 19:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, before I'm misread, I am not trying to put down Cyde in this. I value all the programming work, but it's work "outside the covers" of the encyclopedia. It's not better than the work inside the covers, and yet Kelly has essentially mounted the argument on several occasions that she does clever programming work, and that makes her more important. I'm sorry for my tone of astonishment, but Cyde's comment really opened up the heart of things. I do understand how difficult good programming is. It would be nice if he understood how difficult good writing is and didn't see writers as these replaceable little ants without necessary skills. (E.g. I try to get a whole article written, just as a private game, from start to finish, including references and categories, in a single edit. I've only succeeded once, but having no typos, good parallelism, good sentence variation, a nice mix of context and analysis, plus an interesting presentation is hardly easy. I suppose I could increase edit counts by hacking at the same piece of wood 20 times in a row, but the challenge is otherwise.) Geogre 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we all feel undervalued. Group hug, everyone, now. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... *hug* -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, much better. Shall we try some validation too? Repeat after me: we are all good people; well all respect and value each other; we all assume that the others are acting in good faith; we are all building an encyclopedia. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. Two things are being objected to: (1) that a very small knot of admins think they can lord it over users who have a history of substantial contributions (whether as writers or anything else); and (2) that some people think, as you wrote above, that "anyone can do it" when it comes to writing articles, because not everyone can, and in fact very, very few can do it well, so it's best not to scare them off with disrespect and aggressive blocks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In my mind, there's a big difference between saying "all admins who rarely edit articles are looked on unfavorably" and "admins who rarely edit articles may have a higher tendency to cause damage". If Raul654 means the latter, maybe it would be better to add a alternately worded principle. --Interiot 18:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not that admins who rarely edit articles are looked on unfavorably, but that admins who (a) don't themselves contribute to the encyclopedia in some fashion, and who also (b) abuse those who do, are looked on unfavorably, because they're damaging the project. Anyone who does that is looked on unfavorably. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's one thing to be an admin who doesn't edit articles - it's going to happen, and long term wiki editing tends to move you away from the article side and more toward the rest of the wiki. It's another thing to be an admin who doesn't edit articles, and then harp on those editors who not only edit articles, but have damn good contributions and don't deserve to be belittled or have their motives be put into question by people who show no interest. It's one thing that Raul (for an example) doesn't contribute as much to articles as he once did, because a) he does extremely positive things for the encyclopedia, and b) he doesn't talk down or belittle people who do more articlespace work. To be rather blunt, there are a number of people who could learn from that example. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Raul, you wrote "It's not that I oppose blocking either productive editors or admins - I can see *limited* circumstances where blocking either could be warranted." If that is your belief, I am troubled as to your opposition to 25, which states pretty much the same thing. I'm also still not clear on your opposition to 23, which seems to indicate you believe some users are untouchable. To me, nobody is bigger than Wikipedia. I'm not convinced that the productive editors weren't giving as good as they were getting. Hiding Talk 19:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a touchy subject where well meaning users can disagree. However, my beliefs are best encapsulated by: Raul's 12 law of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a forum for Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee exists to help the encyclopedia, not the other way around. All Arbitration Committee decisions involve some sort of cost-benefit analysis. Users who have a history of improving the encyclopedia can expect more consideration than those who do not. Sannse's corollary: However, good behaviour does not in itself excuse bad behavior. -- User:Raul654/Raul's laws (emphasis mine) Raul654 19:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem with you bringing this up here, indeed why I find it actually offensive, is that all parties in this case (whatever their problems and past) have a long history of commitment to the project, and have put in many hours of hard work. Yet you seem to be using a 'cost-benefit analysis' to protect one side in this fiasco. Which seems to imply 'more consideration' should be given to feature writers than to admin work-horses. Paint it as you like, it seems to neccessitate that certain people should enjoy special exemptions, or at least preferential treatment from arbcom scritiny. If it doesn't imply that, and behaviour is all that differentiates the parties to this case, then I really can't see the relevance of your remarks. Without defending any of the parties here (I am of the belief everyone has behaved badly), if an arbiter is admitting that systematic partiality should guide assesment of the case, then my confidence is crushed.--Doc 00:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Doc, no one has anywhere said that writers will get preferential treatment over people who contribute in other ways. That's a straw man argument. What was happening is that a very small knot of admins were acting very aggressively toward trusted and established users. It has been going on for some time, and was thoroughly demoralizing, particularly when the admins who were doing it appeared themselves not to be contributing (but if they had been, that still wouldn't have made the behavior okay). The Arbitation Committee and the overwhelming majority of admins have always cut some slack for productive editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Your reply confuses me totally. Look I'm not here defending anyone. But I'm very troubled by the principle, actually to the point of resigning from wikipedia. You say writers will not get 'preferential treatment', then you say 'cut some slack for productive editors' - which is it? That's contradictory. Is one party here being 'cut more slack' then the other? If they are, then writers are being valued over those who contribute in other ways. If not, and both sides are being judged solely on their behaviour, then why is Raul citing his laws at all? Why is 'cutting slack' relevant at all, if all productive editors are equally allowed it? --Doc 01:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
          • There are different ways of being productive, Doc; writing is only one of them. The point is that admins shouldn't treat someone with 20,000 edits the same way they treat someone with 20; and that means, for example, we should hesitate longer than usual before blocking a productive editor for something that could be dealt with in some other way. Giano was blocked in the same week he had two FAs on the main page. I don't know whether you've ever taken an article through the FA process. It's very, very challenging (rightly so), and to have two on the main page in one week is quite something. To block that editor that same week for an offense that was anyway quite subjective is extremely provocative, and sends a message that we don't value our good contributors. No one's saying they should get free passes, just some slack. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
            • And should admins who have demonstrated their commitment to the project in other ways not also be allowed the same slack? Answering complicated OTRS complaints, performing checkuser, or dealing with libels and legal issues is hardly childsplay either (and many write articles in their spare time). I won't patronise you by asking you whether you've ever tried these things. But if all editors in this case are valued, and all are being 'cut some slack', then I still fail to understand the relevance of Raul's remarks.--Doc 01:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I don't think there's any satisfactory way of comparing people's contributions and I don't think we'd want to. What happened here was very simple. For quite a long time, a number of admins have been treating good editors disrespectfully. Some of those good editors finally objected. It was to be expected. The management of the Encyclopaedia Britannica don't go around referring to their best writers as boils that need to be lanced. If this were a business, the good writers would get paid more than the bad ones; the active admins more than the ones who do very little, and so on. Here on Wikipedia, where we're all volunteers, all we can do is offer respect in recognition of valuable contributions, howsoever delivered. When that respect isn't there, trouble breaks out eventually, as it did here. That's really all there is to it. So all that's being said is that, when we approach situations as admins, we should try not to treat long-term users as though they're vandals who arrived five minutes ago. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Raul, in your "oppose" vote to #23 "A mixed system", you refer to "Ambi's observations on the arbitration mailing list". That would be Ambi the former arbitrator, yes? Just checking, since at least part of the argument elsewhere on this page is about whether that list should be open to any but the current ArbCom.
And in response to your thought, it occurs to me that having any user regard themself as "irreplacable and non-expendable"—and therefore justified in behaving how they will without fear of retribution—is in the longer term far more dangerous if not downright poisonous. Given how "some of our most productive users" are in the habit of treating the less-experienced, this is an important principle. It's all very well saying "Don't bite the newbies"…we shouldn't be biting anybody who wants to contribute in good faith. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate the reply. I take your points, but I still cannot see that they amount to opposing the principle. I think you seem to have a different reading of improving the encyclopedia to me. I think perhaps Wikipedia is factionalising, and that's making itself apparent even on the arb-com. I know we are an encyclopedia and then a community, but without the community there would be no encyclopedia. To aid the creation of the encyclopedia, disputes should be settled as peacefully as possible and disputes should not escalate to the point that Wikipedia becomes a battleground. Doing so is disruptive, and in such circumstances blocks may be issued, regardless of which side of the battle one sits. I hope I've made my points understood well enough. I don't see that anything I have written breaches your law. But all that siad, I'm not clear on what it means for this principle to fail. Would the failure of the principle to be adopted imply it is not true, and that we can't block certain users? Hiding Talk 20:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is not that some admins don't edit articles, but that some admins think they're superior to the "fickle populace" ((c)Kelly Martin) because they're admins, while they're basically doing janitorial work. Yes, it is 100% needed - vandal fighting, CSD and stuff, but just because you can block anyone you want to does not make you superior. And anyone can do vandal fighting, but not all people can write good articles... That is the core problem. Like I said when Carnildo was re-promoted, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. It's not anyone who can do vandal fighting, I find it distasteful. And writing good articles is somewhat subjective. Having recently been involved in an FA, I've realised it's mostly a question of meeting the tastes of those people who hang around FAC. I'm not positing that to be spiteful, but I think we have to realise that the FA system suits those people that built it. That's not a slight, it's perfectly reasonable. If I built it it would suit my tastes. I don't disagree that some admins wear their status in a manner of superiority, but let's agree that there is a similar view held by some at FA. People who feel superior will do so regardless of their status. The question is how we discourage those people from their views. Arb-com doesn't seem to be working. Hiding Talk 20:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Mmmm, can you elaborate? FA standards are common sense to me... As for your last two sentences: yes, it's the main problem... As someone said, we may need Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship... but this is out of scope of the present case. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant" is a subjective clause. I've been involved in an article which was criticised for not having a section referenced, when an obvious reference was in the references section. The clause on "Factually accurate" does not dictate the ref markup has to be used. And the fourth clause seems redundant when everything under the first clause is considered. I can understand the clauses, and why they exist, but they allow subjectivity in, and that subjectivity means you have to beat the people who are watching FAC or FARC on any given day. Writing a good article is something most of us can do, but whether it gets featured depends on the mood of a panel as much as it does the meeting of the declared standards. Hiding Talk 21:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hiding says "Arb-com doesn't seem to be working." Balance of power arrangements work better. Let power to block and ban be in the hands of admins. Let ability to add or remove the sysop bit be in the hands of nonsyops. WAS 4.250 21:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not convinced that would work any better. I think we also would have to look at de-cratting as well, if more power is being put into the crats' hands. Hiding Talk 21:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

None of you is an idiot

So please, everybody, stop arguing before thinking. There is truth in what every one of you has said, and I'll try to make a summary that everybody should eventually be able to agree on, even if it takes them reading it more than once.

• No job can be done by anybody - writing articles, fighting vandals, determining copyright status of images, etc., are all (sometimes) hard and (sometimes) tedious jobs, and being good at them depends in large part on personal talents.
• Writing articles is not just another of many tasks on Wikipedia. It is the central task. Indeed, it is the goal of the project. Within the context of Wikipedia, fighting vandals is important because it allows us to write articles without them getting destroyed, but writing articles is important in itself.
• Fighting vandalism requires admin tools, and that's the reason that one of the widest roads to adminship is through vandal-fighting. It's an easily observable fact that the psychological profile of people who enjoy fighting vandals is not always good for being an admin, but most vandal-fighters don't abuse their admin tools and don't cause damage to the project. Still, this creates an imbalance in the prevailing opinions of administrators, who are on average more concerned with maintaining order than other constructive editors.
• Because of the natural (and at least at first approximation, correct) assumption that people who have been confirmed by the community are worthier of trust, this has affected project debates, policy and procedures, which have over time become more concerned with maintaing order and less with writing the encyclopedia.
• Writers are not stupid. They know that fighting individual fights takes a lot of time and energy, and many of them prefer transparent and consistent policy and process because they're not the kind of people who are likely to win a flamewar or use any power they have to gain an advantage.
• Non-writing admins are not stupid. The vast majority realises that the goal of the project is writing the encyclopedia, and that they have absolutely no power above other editors. Unlike writers, who are often unaware that their words carry weight, non-writing admins know that their contributions to the project are technical and peripheral. This leads some to introspection and excellence in their work, and others to over-reaction to criticism.
• Experience with maintenance is crucial for establishing and running efficient maintenance processes. Regardless of their contributions to articles, experienced maintainers should be respected and trusted on maintenance issues.
• Writing articles is the purpose of Wikipedia. Fihgting vandalism isn't. In project policy discussions, experience with writing articles is crucial. Without knowledge of how the main, indeed, the only goal of the project is getting achieved, one cannot offer suggestions and opinions which are likely to be good for the project in the long run.
• All of us are volunteers, regardless of our talents and specialties. The right and privilege to have a say in the project cannot be derived from the kind of work someone does. It is right and just that they are a function of their individual contribution to the project as a whole and of their personal wisdom. Zocky | picture popups 21:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with this summary right out of the box. It's very good. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think the wrong people are on the arb-com. There are people here who are making a better fist of it. I broadly agree, but from my point of view I'm not arguing but discussing points with people that seem germane to the issue. My summation would be that all contributors should be judged on their contribution records. Period. That includes block logs, deletions, article edits, talk page edits, reactions, civility and so on. And you weigh the good contributions against the bad contributions. But you balance that weighting to the situation. Where people go off the rails, you look at the circumstances, you look at the number of occurrences, you look at the impact. Hiding Talk 21:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In the context of the current case, a large part of this makes no sense at all. I'm not conscious of ever having engaged in "vandal fighting", and I'm not sure Kelly has either. Zocky is of course right to emphasize the value of all to the encyclopedia. Sadly I think the Committee is going to miss this point. The "Mixed System" proposal, which in my opinion would be a very good way of emphasizing the essential unity of Wikipedia which the insurrectionists have apparently been successful in breeching, does not seem likely to pass. This is a temporary setback; in short, Wikipedia is now too large and complex for factions to gain ascendancy for long. We either work together or the enterprise fails. --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I have to ask you again to stop calling people you disagree with "insurrectionists." As for your last point, I agree completely, and what has happened over the last few days is that one "faction" has at last seen the truth of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of being asked a first time. I don't call people I disagree with "insurrectionists", but to avoid confusion I'll avoid using that word again. I'll not argue with your second point because I think it's somewhat premature. The Great Moment of Clarity, when it comes, is likely to be nothing of the sort. It will be somewhat drawn-out and come in tiny increments. There will be a time, I suggest, when most editors involved in this silly spat will look back on it, and wonder how Wikipedians could be gripped by such paranoia as to accuse the arbitration committee, the bureaucrats, and even the clerks of being involved in some kind of conspiracy against the interests of Wikipedia and the wishes of the community. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my above summary was about the argument in this top-level section. That's why it's in a subsection. Not necessarily relevant to this case at all, just to the writer/non-writer discussion. Zocky | picture popups 00:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Respect for roles of different types of participants; Or, Newyorkbrad's Peroration

The issue of which participants in the project, or types of participants, should feel the most valued and garner the most respect, should not be a divisive one.

Article contributors must be respected and appreciated. They provide the content to the encyclopedia we are writing; without them, there's no reason to be here. Creating even a solid stub as a foundation for a future article is a valuable contribution: every article starts somewhere. Creating featured article content is of course a major contribution to the main reason we are here.

Administrators must be respected and appreciated. Dealing with user conflicts, malicious vandals, verbal and legal threats, sensitive situations, the most complex deletion fights, and all the rest is taxing and tiring and essential.

Developers and programmers must be respected and appreciated. The software didn't just grow here; hard-working people created it and nurture it and improve it. It wasn't always the case that any of us could sit down at our computers and contribute to the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Someone wrote the code that put it here.

RC patrollers and newpage patrollers and Wikignomes must be respected and appreciated. Someone needs to deal with the petty vandalisms and various types of silliness and even the typographical errors and the inartfully worded phrases, hour after hour, day in and day out.

Bot operators and bot programmers must be respected and appreciated. They do the mundane things, saving us human types for our best and highest uses.

People involved in the governance structure of the project, to the limited extent we have one, must be respected and appreciated. Being an arbitrator or a bureaucrat or the coordinator of a special function (feature articles or bot approvals or whatever) is a complex and sometimes tiring role. These people garner scorn when they are perceived as having messed up; rarely are they praised for having done a good job.

This is a collaboration. We all come to the project as newbies, look around the place, and figure out what role we can play best. Hopefully, most of the time, each user assigns himself or herself a role or set of roles that best fits his or her competencies and interests. I contribute to articles in my fields of interest, and occasionally I contribute a thought to an administration or an arbitration page. Those are the things I feel comfortable doing; they are not better or worse or more or less valuable than things anyone else feels comfortable doing.

As was said above, we are all volunteers. (I was thinking of being other than a volunteer, but User:Brad Patrick already invented my dream job.) Jimbo said recently that one of the goals here has to be for the contributors (all contributors, in the broadest sense, I'm sure he meant) to be having fun.

Samuel Johnson said that "no one but a blockhead ever wrote except for money," so I guess we are all blockheads here. If we can't write here for money, the least we can do is do what we respectively enjoy, and do it well, and appreciate the efforts of all the others who are doing what they enjoy, and doing it well.

The project doesn't belong to the bureaucrats, the administrators, the best editors, the developers, the technophiles, the gnomes, the patrollers, or to any one group of us. To those of us who want to write about virtually anything, whether it's Poland or polar bears or poetry or Pokeman or Poe or polar coordinates. It belongs to all of us who are working together in an unprecedented collaboration to build an encyclopedia, and to get to know some of one another, and to have a good time while we're here.

Unlike some, I thought this arbitration case was a mistake from its inception: guaranteed to be needlessly divisive and to continue, rather than to resolve, some of the feuds that were needlessly dividing the community. Time will tell whether my instinct was right or wrong. It will certainly prove right if we continue sniping about whether the arbitrators are evincing scorn for the worth of a group of contributors just because they aren't comfortable with one single-sentence summary abstraction or another.

I won't suggest a "group hug" as User:ALoan - the initiator of and chief contributor to yesterday's featured article - proposed above. But as one who has contributed too, too, too many words here, can I say to everyone, can we stop the bickering now, finally, at long last? I say it to those whom I have agreed with in the past few weeks, and those I have disagreed with (and there is no one at all whom I've agreed with in all respects, as a lot of people I respect have gotten carried away in a lot of different directions, nor I suspect does anyone agree with everything I have had to say). Everyone with something to say has said it by now. Can we please, please stop brawling and get back to why we all are here. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. What he said. I'd give him a barnstar, but I did already. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"under cloud" - wording

In several paragraphs of the /Proposed Decision drafted by Raul654, reference is made to administrators giving up their sysop privileges "under cloud." The principle is announced that an administrator who voluntarily desysops "under cloud" must go through a new RfA if he or she wishes to be an administrator again, and then findings are made that Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin resigned their adminships "under cloud." I believe that describing some administrators as giving up their privileges "under [a] cloud" may be divisive, may lead to unnecessary disputes in the future, and as applied to individual users may be unnecessarily hurtful. A more neutral wording, such as "under controversial circumstances" or "while an arbitration was pending against him/her" or the like might be more appropriate. This is a general observation, not a comment on the circumstances of any specific user. Newyorkbrad 22:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Newyorkbrad, and would also suggest that "must get them back through the normal RFA channels" should be changed to "must reapply through the normal RFA channels", as otherwise it suggests that the obligatory thing is that the sysop status must be restored, rather than that the editor must go through another RfA (if s/he wishes to be readminned). AnnH ? 23:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that the proposed text has already been changed along these lines. Zocky | picture popups 23:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm the kind of person who isn't easily hurt, but I've no problem with the finding that I relinquished my bit "under a cloud" (or as it has now been put, 'under controversial circumstances'). If I were now an arbitrator, I'd happily vote on that motion, and on the associated principle and remedy, as long as the principle continues to contain the wording "Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion." I don't want to see a situation where a bureaucrat's determination is (as I believe was the case here) casually tossed aside by a small number in the community and made the subject of a personalized and exceedingly petty campaign, to the detriment of Wikipedia. I hope that the Committee will take steps to ensure that this never happens again.

I feel that our great encyclopedia has been afflicted, these past few weeks, with an unseemly and destructive paranoia. Having seen what damage that can do, the least I can contribute is an assurance that the bit matters far less to any one of us than the wellbeing of the project. The insurrectionists have made their point, and I hope that they will now drop those nasty sharp knives and get back to working for the project. --Tony Sidaway 00:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could lead the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my ability, I have never, ever done otherwise. --Tony Sidaway 00:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is a better remedy. If Tony objects to a "... a small number in the community..." being involved in the decision, the obvious solution is to make the whole community involved. Anyone who gives up their admin or other rights under ANY circumstances should be required to get them back through the normal process. Why should they be able to go to one friendly beuracrat to make a decision for them? Let's eliminate all the back-door dealings and let's require such people to start from scratch at winning the trust of the community. If they are worthy, they should have no trouble with this. Johntex\^talk 00:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • RFA is not representative of the community, sadly. There are other provisions in this arbitration which deal with that adequately. --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you could advertize any future RfA for yourself at the Village Pump if you wish to recieve broad community participation? Johntex\^talk 00:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I do not intend to apply for a sysop bit ever again. I'm concerned about what happened in the Carnildo RFA. The tail wagged the dog. That must never happen again. Can Village Pump help with that? No, I don't think so. The Bureaucrats should be permitted to use their common sense. Attempts to subvert that "by force of arms", as happened here, apparently with the inadvertent cooperation of a divided arbitration committee, must not be permitted to thrive. --Tony Sidaway 01:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I think there is some disagreement about who is the tail, and who the dog. Xoloz 01:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I hope we can agree that the encyclopedia is the dog, and the objectors to the promotion of Carnildo the tail. --Tony Sidaway 01:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Absolutely not. The user failed to gain consensus for being made admin and therefore should not have been made admin. Johntex\^talk 01:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
            • The encyclopedia is magnum opus and greatest love of a very smart dog, the community of its editors, at the tail of which one finds the "dramatists" who protest against the imposition of sensibility and civility -- that's my view, I guess. Xoloz 01:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following this right, but of the entities mentioned in this section, surely the community is the dog and bureaucrats are the tail? Zocky | picture popups 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Geogre de-what???

Having followed this case silently for its duration, I'm a bit surprised to see such a stiff penalty suggested against Geogre. Where did this come from? Apparently, several arbitrators share my confusion. (I know it came from Fred, but I am wondering what evidence he thinks justifies this draconian remedy.) Xoloz 01:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

An apparently successful attempt to rule Wikipedia by Geogre-law. --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony, please stop the sniping. It only makes it look like you have a grudge. Zocky | picture popups 01:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I hold no grudge. I do think we should recognise that this was a very effective and, for the moment, successful campaign to subject Wikipedia to a kind of coup. --Tony Sidaway 01:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

To call it a "coup" is to suggest that people who were in charge were overthrown. Who was in charge, in your view? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The bureaucrats are in charge of determination of consensus after an RFA. The initial target of the coup was to overturn their decision. While this initial objective failed, the campaign was escalated to encompass wild accusations at the arbitration committee (in charge of dispute resolution), which apparently was divided against itself and has folded neatly. Not a pretty sight. --Tony Sidaway 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see... Conspiracy and cabal talk... you blocked Giano for airing the same opinions. --Ghirla ^-????- 07:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What you call "folding," I call "being reasonable." Xoloz 01:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't reasonable to exile a highly valued former arbitrator. checkuser, oversight operator and administrator without very good reason The Committee may be allowed some latitude because there may exist some evidence to which the rest of us do not have access. In any case, this is "folding", an admission of extreme weakness before a really quite laughable and ridiculous campaign. --Tony Sidaway 01:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to remove authority from any editor with Ms. Martin's history of gross incivility. Xoloz 01:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No one has been "exiled." The ArbCom has proposed to uphold the bureaucrats' practise of not automatically re-sysopping admins who leave voluntarily but under a cloud of controversy. You've argued that the bureaucrats should be in control of RfA, and this reinforces that control. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So, bureaucrats should be afforded discretion and not second-guessed, while it's appropriate for you to second-guess the ArbCom? Zocky | picture popups 01:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The bureaucrats and ArbCom haven't lost any of their authority, and I've no idea what you mean about the ArbCom "folding," so the coup analogy is not a good one. All that happened is that a number of good editors stood up against an atmosphere that they felt was poisonous. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to return to my original question, please, since Tony's cryptic answer makes no sense to me. Why suggest de-sysopping Geogre? Xoloz 01:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to be cryptic. Because Geogre has engaged in aggressive campaigning against the apparatus of Wikipedia for a long, long time. --Tony Sidaway 01:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You must stop trying to smear Geogre. It won't work, because too many people respect him. It is simply untrue that he has "engaged in aggressive campaigning against the apparatus of Wikipedia for a long, long time." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't untrue. He himself is quite open about it. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia have a fixed apparatus against which to campaign. We aren't a bureaucracy, are we? Xoloz 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem here IMO is one of ballance. It seems that people are so angry with Tony and Kelly (and now Fred) that they are unable to see any fault in the other side. Certainly, Geogre should NOT be desysopped. However, whereas after the Carnildo resysopping there were very legitimate questions that should have been asked (perhaps an RfArb at that point would have been good), certain people conducted an intemperate shouting match - abusing the crats and even, at one point, comparing the arbcom to the instigators of the French Revolutionary Terror ('Committee on Public Saftey'). That was incendiary language. Kelly, Tony, and to a lesser degree JamesF, unwisely fought intemperate fire with, arguably, worse fire. The whole thing exploded into what looked like a massive flame war. With personality isssues drowning out the real debate. Kelly and Tony have now both fallen on their swords (and I wish Tony would get off this page), both have to some degree admitted mistakes. What I find distasteful now is that others are not able to admit at least some mistakes of their own, and some bystanders are not able to see that party one was not wholely innocent here. No I don’t think Geogre needs desysopped, and I’m not calling for bans, just a little humility; a little less ‘winner takes all’; a little more willingness to say, ‘yes, it takes two to flame, and flaming is unacceptable. Next time, we’ll try to stay calm and stick to the issues’. Is that too much to ask? I’ve already acknowledged that my own comments foolishly overheated in this debate. Can some others do likewise?--Doc 01:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Doc Glasgow's words are wise. Raul654 01:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And with that (and thanks to Raul and Doc) I'll take this page off my watchlist. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Certainly there was unpleasantness all around (and, as a whole, Doc, I agree with what you've said here). I think it's fair to add, though, that there were some actual, important issues at the heart of it all, and they're issues that do need to be dealt with. If addressing these issues happened in an overly-distasteful manner, well, perhaps it's partly because there were some distasteful issues involved. Whether those issues have been dealt with in any way in this case, probably only time will tell. Friday (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I may be the original originator of the "Committe for public safety" comparison. In fact, I wrote m:Young Jacobins two years ago, and people on whom the description is based said that their point of view is accurately presented. Nobody ever called me incivil or inflamatory for writing it. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the way the expression was used, I'm just pointing out that the usage has a history and that it isn't meant to imply that any of these people would send anybody to the guillotine in real life. Zocky | picture popups 01:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to pull out diffs and point fingers, there's been enough of that. But read through AN and ANI over those days. Take a look at Geogre's contributions [2]. Brilliant rhetoric, by the way (in all seriousness - he's got a prose style I could read all day - no wonder he's a feature writer). Consider what happened on the crat's noticeboard. Let's take as read that Tony, Kelly, JamesF et al were out of line (me too). Let's not ask 'who was worse?' But let's just admit that the fault was not all one-sided. Geogre's biting irony, as brilliant as it was, was not the best way to conduct the substantive debate. I really believe, and I'm not point scoring here, that the only way we make sure we never go through this type of thing again is that all sides, no matter how wronged they may feel, humbly self-reflect. Humility is always better than sanctions. --Doc 02:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc, I agree with what you are saying, and I'm sure that almost everyone involved, including Geogre, would have with hindsight and in a calmer situation said things differently. Nobody should be humiliated by the arbitration, and everybody should in the end shake hands and agree to continue working together in peace. As long as we don't fall into the trap of trying to achieve that peace by ascribing equal fault to all sides, regardless of facts. Zocky | picture popups 03:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't agree on the interpretation of the facts. But frankly I'm now quite uninterested in comparing scars or trying to work out what percentage of the blame lies where. But two people have now fallen on their swords, pretty well the ultimate propiciatoty sacrifice a wiki-adict can make, is it too much to ask that some others (even if they feel their sins were much less) to say 'mea (a little) culpa'? Or at least, if they can't find it in them to do that, the wider community to aknowledge that it take two sides (even if unequally) to escalate this type of flame war.--Doc 03:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for heated words are always welcome and helpful, but they can be made only by people who owe them. (I don't think that I owe anyone an apology over anything I said, but if anybody feels they were wronged by me, I have no problem reconsidering.) That said, a major problem in this whole issue has been a misunderstanding. One side thought that it was about how the project should work, the other thought that it's about Tony and Kelly. I don't think that main proponents of "side one" think that Kelly leaving the project and Tony losing adminship is victory. Zocky | picture popups 03:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you feel you have done nothing wrong (and I'm not saying you have - franky I don't remember you at all) then why are you the one responding to my challange? I call other others out, if they have the courage.--Doc 07:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't remember you performing vandalism reversions, although I have a huge watchlist and 40K mainspace edits. On the other hand, I remember you engaging in incivility. That you or me don't "remember" someone is not a reason to dismiss his arguments. There's no need to repeat Tony's mistakes. Please tone it down a little. --Ghirla ^-????- 08:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm genuinely trying to help here. I'll apologise for the remark on Tony's page, if either Tony or Aaron asks me to. But actualy, I regard them both as friends (my friend's enemy is my friend too), and they both know that the remark was given in that tone. I'm not dismissing Zocky, I was simply saying tht I wasn't asking HIM to apologise for anything - as I don't remember him doing anything wrong in this case. My challange was to others. As for the rest, yeah, I'm sure your's is bigger than mine,;) so what?. Perhaps we'll constructively cross paths some day.--Doc 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not realize it was a challenge. I thought it was an excercise in trying to see the other sides POV. Zocky | picture popups 14:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, response to Doc) Agree with much of what you say, and I think that your last point applies equally to User:John Reid, who is the subject of a proposed one-week ban that currently has the support of two arbitrators, as well. Newyorkbrad 03:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (breaking my self-promise that the "Peroration" above would be my last word here)

I agree with Newyorkbrad's point here. Let's not focus on defending Geogre so much that other sanctions slip through without discussion. Georgre has said that the proposed desysopping is inconsistent as he did not abuse admin tools. Others have also pointed out that an editing ban (even if temporary) is in some ways a more fundamental punishment than removing a sysop bit - as it forces a complete cessation of activity. With this in mind, there are various other combinations of sanctions that might be more equitable. I won't suggest them, as I agree with the sentiment expressed elsewhere on these pages that minimal or zero actual sanctions, accompanied by a clear declaration of the principles, is best here. Carcharoth 10:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling for any sanction of Geogre whatsoever. An edit ban of such a productive editor would be crazy anyway. I'm just calling for a little more recognition that his tone during the debate was unhelpful. I'll settle either for him aknowledging his errors (I've aknowledge mine) or a 10 min symbolic block by arbcom. But we have to say that intemporate rhetoric is not the way to go.--Doc 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc, for the record, I did not compare ArbCom to the Comittee for Public Safety. I compared the characterization of an ArbCom that could not be questioned to it. It was provocative, no doubt, and quite seriously meant to lay open what was infuriating about the people who kept telling everyone to be quiet. They were arguing not for peace, in my view, but quietism, and so, yes, I compared their vision of a "mother" ArbCom to the Committee for Public Safety. I made no personal reflections, no accusations of improper actions of any member. Instead, I was lashing out at the people who I thought were advising everyone to ignore the flames and trust that the house was just a little warm. I do apologize if it seemed that I was insulting people. I did intend to stir action because it was my judgment and remains my opinion that we needed action. Geogre 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am getting a headache trying to understand what Geogre is saying here. --Ideogram 19:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what he's saying is very clear. I'm not sure of the point of this, Ideogram. As Doc Glasgow has said elsewhere, it's time to start the healing process, or at least to stop the arguments. The case has been made and the ArbCom is voting on the issues it regards as important. Further comments are not obviously helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, the ArbCom is voting now and further discussion on this page is pointless. That goes for all of us, Geogre included. --Ideogram 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is always slightly ironic when people make a comment saying that no-one should make any more comments. ::::::::Actually, I have found this thread more depressing that the flamming we had earlier. Starting with myself, I called for a little humility and self-reflection. But apparently there is no need. One side were 100% wrong, and the other were purely victims - absolutely justified in all the enhansed rhetoric and diatribe they have used, with noting to regret. Their method of dispute reolution was a model that all good Wikipedians should follow in the future. If anything seemed to anyone like an attack or deliberate provocation, or even melodramatic, that individual is simply wrong. We should assume the absolute good faith of this side throughout (praising their 'productivity') - whilst accepting their analysis that the purpose of the other side was deliberately manipulative, insulting and downright evil. It should not be enough that two protagonists fall on their swords; we need to pick up thier swords and run them through again, just to make sure they stay dead (you never can tell with this type). Fred's criticism, naturaly, has no basis in reality whatsoever, and shows nothing other than that Fred is delusional, and should be sanctioned, if not sectioned. Is it just me, or is this self-righteous attitude a little hard to square with the reality of what has just transpired????--Doc 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(how many colons is that?) For the record, then, Doc, I apologize for saying anything which lead anyone to think that I was trying to characterize the current ArbCom as a kangaroo court or star chamber. I have explained my intention in writing, explained that, in the context of the comment, it was coherently not aimed that way. I am not being condescending when I say that people are entitled to their umbrage. They are. I can declare my intent innocent and, in fact, salutory. I cannot control anyone else's perceptions. If, on the other hand, the words themselves were dramatic (intended) to the point where they were incendiary (not intended) and went from rousing-to-action (intended) to inspiring-vilification (not intended), I apologize for seeking such an expression. Geogre 22:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(one less colon than this) That's a start. Thanks.--Doc 23:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc, you asked for people to stop but now you're the one continuing it. The voting has begun, so please allow the ArbCom to do its job. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call for a stop. I called for a change of tone, a little more humility and less patronising. You up for that? --Doc 21:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you're not practising what you preach. You seem to be saying it's time to attack the other "side." The best thing would be to let it drop for now and allow the case to close, then residual issues can be resolved when things have calmed down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I 'seem to be saying it's time to attack the other side'? Well, if that's not an assumption of bad faith, I don't know what is? Where did i do that? Please supply a diff. 'Not practiced what I preach'? Again, a diff please? I began this 'sermon' by admitting my mistakes, and called on others to do likewise. How is that an attack? Is implying that there is some measure of wrong on all sides now an attack? Humility has to start somewhere. If my questions are unanswerable, then I'll accept your apology for that last remark. --Doc 21:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc, enough. Comments like "Is it just me, or is this self-righteous attitude a little hard to square with the reality of what has just transpired????" are hardly conciliatory. I'm going to practise what you preach now and not comment in this thread again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not good enough. You seem to think if you repeat a claim enough, it becomes its own evidence. You made a very specific accusation that I was calling for attacks on the other 'side', please have the decency to retract it. Further, you have again implied I'm being hypocritical by posting here, but I didn't call for an end to this dialogue, I called for all of us (me as well) to have the humility to admit at least some mistakes.--Doc 21:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Last word from me until anything changes or anybody says anything new (not that I've said anything new in last 24 hours): Doc, according to the side you speak for, the original sin of the other side in this affair was forcefully demanding an apology, which they called an attack. Let's not go down that road again. Zocky | picture popups 22:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent] Ugg. I speak only for myself - can we avoid these generalisations. I'm demanding nothing, I'm inviting a little humility. Are you implying that both they, and I, are wrong to value apologies? Anyone who knows me knows that I self-reflect and apologise when I overstep. I am only 'preaching' what I 'practice'. And I'd still like an apology from SlimVirgin misrepresentation of me. But I guess I'm whistling here. No-one will admit that they are even partially wrong. Oh well. --Doc 22:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc, sorry for misusing the language. I meant "speak for" in the sense of "asking for understanding for them", not in the sense "speaking in their name". Zocky | picture popups 23:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread ...

So I'll be a fool.

There have been tens of thousands of words written and hundreds of hours spent reading them before, during, and even after this arbitration. Nothing seems to have been resolved.

This discussion has had no focus, no progress, and no communication. It seems like dozens of people want to say things and all of them are saying different things.

Geogre seems to be a focus point. Certainly Fred's proposed remedy implies that.

So I want to talk to Geogre. I don't want to hear from anyone else, for now.

Geogre, what are you fighting for?

And Geogre, keep it under five hundred words. Fred may have been a bit snarky when he asked you to repeat things less than a dozen times, but he had a point.

Everyone's cooperation in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

--Ideogram 05:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, if you ask me, and probably several others, Fred is incorrect in saying that I'm a focal point. If you wish to know the principles that I think are involved in, I have laid them out, fully, on the /Evidence page. For a broader set of principles, I did write user:Geogre/Ideology precisely to explain what I believe is worth fighting for. Fred's allegation that I am focal is, I think, a personal one -- hence the outrage, above. Trust me: I lead no one. Geogre 11:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for joining us Geogre, I don't think we can make progress without you.

Geogre, you lead by example. Your words carry weight because you are eloquent. You acknowledge this yourself in your Ideology essay and shrug it off as "not your fault". Regardless of whether it is your fault or not, the fact is you have power and that power is a responsibility.

This affair would not have grown so large without your involvement. Your intelligence and articulation gave a voice to many dissatisfied people, even if they may not have fully understood your views.

At this point I do not want to talk about principles. I want you to express, as simply and clearly as possible, what specifically is wrong with Wikipedia and how you would fix it. --Ideogram 11:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Seriously, "Stop folks who are being abusive of extant policy. Don't ask ArbCom to create policy, but rather determine whether violations of present policy has taken place. Gently remind anyone who unconsciously or consciously invokes language of power that we're all equal in fact, and not in dream." In other words, if the injunctions against Kelly and Tony go forward, the aggravation of past violations will be less likely to occur in the future. The uninvolved people need to step away from all secret modes of communication when it comes to planning on-wiki actions. "No power without accountability" is pretty clear. Geogre 12:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Who was abusing extant policy? Was it only Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway? Who asked ArbCom to create policy? What is the language of power, do you have quotes? What do you mean by no secret modes of communication? If I choose to send you email will you reply? --Ideogram 12:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I have answered these questions already, to the degree that they can be answered (e.g. the matter of private communication). See the /Evidence page. Let's not rehash, lest I be accused of saying things more than once (a cheap shot from Fred who kept saying "I thank Kelly" over and over again and "Tony was trolled by everyone" in one form or another on the /Workshop pages and so got answered each time and then proclaims that the other guy is repetitive!). Look above for ArbCom creating policy: "not a battleground" is part of the article pages. "Disruption" and "point" cover what Fred wanted to invoke, but he chose to fashion a new policy by citing an irrelevant (but graphic sounding) article guideline. Geogre 12:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A simple yes or no was all I was looking for. I presume now that if I send email to you you will not answer. --Ideogram 12:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Geogre is probably the best place to ask Geogre questions, but, as he himself says above, User:Geogre/Ideology is the answer to your question. Zocky | picture popups 05:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I only want to talk to Geogre, it is my hope that everyone interested in this case will listen. My aim is not just to understand Geogre, it is to achieve a shared understanding of Geogre so that we can end the conflict.

The document you linked to is highly abstract. I would like to ask Geogre to describe concretely what is broken about Wikipedia and how he proposes to fix it. Again, concise and to the point, please. --Ideogram 05:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is not a private chat channel. Everyone is free to post here. I'm not Geogre but I may answer your question. It's pretty obvious what we took a stand against: the principle of secret courts, self-identified elites, the creation of power differentials, and "government." People who signed up to a peer editing project will not be governed. People who came here to "govern" others should understand this once and for all. --Ghirla ^-????- 07:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked for your cooperation, you chose not to cooperate. I am not interested in your opinion, I want Geogre's opinion. Since you are trying to sabotage my goal, I will not further respond to you. I urge others who wish to have a focused discussion with clear progress and effective communication to do the same. --Ideogram 07:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ideogram, if you want to talk to Geogre and only Geogre, it's probably best to e-mail him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I answered this suggestion in my response to Zocky. My purpose here is not to have a private audience with Geogre, it is an attempt to channel the discussion in a useful direction, and as such everyone interested needs to be listening during it. After all, wasn't one of the points raised that on-wiki communication is preferred? Of course I could just have an email conversation with Geogre and copy the contents here when I am done, and I may well try that if this approach fails. --Ideogram 08:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine too, but if you want to have it in public, you'll have to accept that others may join in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

For several weeks now we have seen what happens when everyone tries to talk at once and no one listens. I am offering you a chance to try something different. --Ideogram 08:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree and I'm not trying to be awkward; I'm just pointing out that this is a wiki, and we can't ask some people to respond and require others not to. By all means, fire away, and perhaps Geogre will reply when he sees the thread. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not requiring. I'm asking. I will get around to asking other people (yes, even Ghirlandajo) for their opinions. But for the sake of the community we need more listening and less talking. --Ideogram 08:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just noting that we have a process for structure discussion of conflicts on Wikipedia, and that in this case it has almost run its course. IMO, a new rehashing under somebody's direction is not going to be useful. Zocky | picture popups 08:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you have to lose? Do you think the discussion up to now has been a success and is done? --Ideogram 09:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I know you are not talking to me [3] but as I'm still talking to you, I think I should tell you that you really are now flogging a dead horse, everyone (I certainly am) is sick to death of this whole topic, and can't wait for the matter to be closed. I don't think it has been a waste of time, it has aired many grievances which needed to be aired, and many people have taken quite a lot of on board. How useful it has all been remains to be seen, so we shall just have to be patient to see how attitdes have changed in general Giano 10:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano, I am not really mad at you anymore. I still think what you did to Kylu was inexcusable, but I am prepared to move on.

If everyone is tired of the subject, they can simply remove this page from their watchlists. I personally don't feel anything was resolved, and that new wounds were created that are going to fester. There are many people upset that Kelly Martin left. Tony Sidaway has been told to shut up. Even Fred (Fred!) seems to have lost his equanimity over Geogre. Do you really think these people have heard your grievances and the issue is settled? Do you really think you have solved the problem by wearing down your opponents until they don't want to talk to you anymore? --Ideogram 10:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I was out of town when the proposal to demote me came up. The initial response happened without my knowledge. So, coming back into down after 7 hours of driving a sick relative, I find that I'm to be demoted if Fred is given his head. I see, also, that twenty folks have protested on the only place they can (since they cannot engage Fred directly, and his comments here have amounted to neither explanations nor rationales). It's really only Fred, as far as I can see, who thinks I'm focal.
• Suppose, however, that I have gotten into de facto leadership because I have been saying, "What oft was thought but ne'er so well express'd" or just that I'm the only one with stature willing to be the stuntman or just because I was the most manic. Whatever the reason, let's suppose that I ended up in front of an army I never marshalled. Now, why did I personally act? Kelly Martin probably thought that it was a safe bet that my natural reluctance to engage would lead me to conclude that she should keep her administrative status, but I felt that a central principle was at stake that was greater than personal likes and dislikes.
• I loathe personalizing conflicts. I think Fred has personalized, but that's just me. I think, to some degree, your question is personalizing as well, but I don't want to judge your motives.
• It may be unusual, but it shouldn't be incredible that I really am what I appear. If you or Fred thinks that I write long, that I insert windy philosophy, it's because I really am that guy. I really am the idealist. I really am the socialist who thought that Wikipedia would demonstrate, once and for all, that competition is not the best method of determining worth or achieving quality, that cooperation was superior. I really am the guy who has loads of academic experience and so has neither interest nor energy for games of screen name grabass on IRC channels. So long as the younger age and non-professional bias of Wikipedia editors doesn't end up trying to interfere with the peer editing and peer managing and cooperative basis, I figure it's no big deal that they like to play and I do not, they like to argue and I do not.
• You asked for a "why I fight": Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway were creating a clique that asserting its own importance (which I find personally disgusting but hardly actionable) and acted upon its own claims to screen one another from the repercussions of hurt feelings, policy violations, and decreased editing. That's it. The rest of us have a 3rd party block people we're arguing with, but Tony consistently said that he didn't need to. The rest of us act with respect toward one another (and have to fear Tony or Kelly blocking them for so much as saying "booger"), but Kelly has called names, told everyone that she is the center of the project, and tried to stop the central business of editing. If Kelly Martin has a long, happy life in blogs and chat rooms and Wikimedia and Wikipedia, I will do nothing but bless her. The same is true of Tony.
• This isn't personal. This is simply about behaviors. If they stopped the behaviors, I'd go back to happy writing and singing songs. Then again, I'm hardly important. I admit that I've punctured Fred's statements (the real "Geogre is the center" is on the /Workshop page, which ought to be immune from being evidence, as it's part of the dispute resolution), so I have no doubt that Fred is quite ticked off at me. You should look through the morass yourself, though. The big signature total in the protest is independent, and, I think, based on the illogic of Fred's proposal on the fact that I haven't been battling, not that I am their leader. (That they could be lead is almost silly itself. These are very, very independent folks.) Geogre 11:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Another way to put this is that you have been speaking for a lot of people (similar to, but not quite advocacy or lobbying), and had a lot of people agreeing with you. But this in no way equates with the organisation implied in leading people. There is a fine line, but I see leadership as being a co-ordinating role. In contrast, you mostly just talk a lot, and other people have aligned around your comments and provided their own. It could develop into more, but I guess that depends what happens in this case and in future cases. Carcharoth 12:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a very nice and seasonable summary. As for developing into anything, it can't. Trust me: I'd run like Hell if anyone wanted me to be more than some dude with an opinion. If someone wants to argue 18th century facts with me, I'll get really snippy (see talk:Oroonoko, at the end, when I blast a hole through someone who's probably a colleague), but if it's more than that, I'm not interested. Sooner or later, I will say something stupid, or "booger." Geogre 14:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, I hope you will forgive me for intruding, but I feel I must remind you and everyone present that you have power because you are eloquent, whether you want it or not. --Ideogram 14:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That was quite a bit longer than I had hoped for. Geogre, I just want to know in detail what is wrong with Wikipedia and how we are going to fix it. Are you saying that the problem was focused on Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway? Do you think that the problem is solved by Kelly Martin leaving and (eventually) Tony Sidaway leaving? --Ideogram 12:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • N.b. I wish them long and happy lives on Wikipedia. I don't personalize. These two were leading by dint of will and being vocal, but the people they were leading were a faction that liked to act and then insist that it was "for the good of the project" and in disdain of what they called "process" and the rest of us call "policy." Will it be solved? The ideology remains, but I don't care what people think, only what they do. If people think they're better than the rest, then Heaven help them. If they act on that, then they need opposition. I've known for years the feelings of those two, and more, but I did not "battle." It was the action. If those who look up to Tony and Kelly begin to act similarly, then they will need injunctive remedies. If Tony and Kelly obey the same rules as others and don't try to humiliate and denigrate other editors (literally denigrate, not figuratively), I think they can look forward to my never having another ill thing to say to them. I'm not in charge, and I don't care about their persons. Geogre 12:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above statement by Geogre. If people think they are above policy, that is sad for them. If they act like they are, then they need to be shown the door. Kelly and Tony have repeatedly acted as though they are above our policies. This has been so damaging to Wikipedia that the damage far outweighs any positive contributions they may have been making to the project. Johntex\^talk 16:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was of the opinion that this particular discussion is closed. I hope the rest of the interested parties agree with me. --Ideogram 16:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly hope not. It would be a shame to close off that important part of the conversation when some people do not yet seem to have learned from it. Johntex\^talk 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel that faction is large? Are there a lot of people here who think they're better than the rest? What is the best way to find them? Could you help with that? What should be done with them when they are found? Is there any solution other than ejecting them from Wikipedia? --Ideogram 12:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't bait other users. I get your point, but you go too far. Fred Bauder 12:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, now everybody hates me. Will you believe me if I say I was not aware that was baiting? Can you (briefly) explain to me how that was baiting? --Ideogram 13:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your questions imply witch hunting. Fred Bauder 13:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred, do you really want to have this conversation now? Or do you feel it would be wiser to take Carcharoth's advice below, close the case, and give people a breather before continuing? --Ideogram 13:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I just suggest here that assuming Ideogram's good faith would help here? I can understand why Fred considers this baiting (that was my first thought, too), but that is something that was probably best left as a thought. A politer way to say "stop baiting people" is to say: "We have had parts of this discussion already. Please do not widen the debate at this point. We need to concentrate on bringing this case to a close". In general, I would agree with Ideogram that there are wider issues that still haven't been clearly pinned down or answered. But I also think that the case here needs to be resolved before such wider debates are (very carefully) started. And a slower, more considered debate, if possible, would be better than the brawl that was AN and BN, and the tangle that the Workshop pages became. Clear ground rules, clear summarising, slow but steady progress. Ruthless elimination of 'flame' threads. But a period of normalcy would be even better, to allow people to gather their thoughts. Carcharoth 13:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I hope no one minds if I participate when the time comes. --Ideogram 13:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Have I ever, anywhere, and your bias is far too clear here, ever proposed "ejecting" anyone? Please, please, please show me where. Please show me where I have even proposed or agreed to a block, even the shortest one, of any of these people! Your suggestion and sarcasm is utterly disgusting. I am no hypocrite.
• As for how many, I don't worry about plots and factions. I worry about actions. Again, your sarcastic accusation that I simply must be a hypocrite shows either a lack of imagination or astounding bad faith!
• I am entirely done speaking with you. If you will not read the Evidence I have offered, if you will misread comments, and, most of all, if you will so perniciously imply that I have any desire to see anyone "ejected," then you have nothing to say to me at all, and I do not believe that reading your words is profitable. Kelly Martin, let us remember, left. Tony Sidaway offered to give up his administrative status. Kelly's action was exactly the same martyrdom she has done before, so I am unmoved by it. I would be anyway, however, because no one called for it, her personal psyche has never been my concern, and it was done with so many conditions and strings as to be meaningless.
• You may continue to query, but even with an apology, I no longer believe you are interested in honest answers nor reading answers honestly, and I do not "battle." Geogre 12:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, please believe me when I say I intended no sarcasm. Please believe me when I say I did not mean to imply that you proposed anyone should be ejected. Perhaps I should have asked instead, if these people refuse to reform, what should be done? Please, I never used the word hypocrite to describe you and do not intend to.

Geogre, I simply don't have the time or the patience to read back through the mountain of text that the Evidence page has become. I am asking you to help me understand you, directly, without sifting through all that junk. If I misread your comments, I am sorry, but if you stop talking to me I have no way of correcting my error. Again, I never meant to imply that you have any desire to see anyone ejected.

Geogre, please assume good faith. --Ideogram 12:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, I'd like to talk to you about pie. I'd lik to request that everyone else please stay out the conversation for now, because I don't think we're going to make any progress on the pie question if everyone tries to talk at once.

Geogre: to start, I'd like to know your position on the apple-versus-cherry debate, and whether an open-faced pastry can really be considered a "pie". I maintain that although the term is abused as "pie" as some, such a creation is, by definition, a tart. Your response? Nandesuka 12:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I like Tarts, but I find that they rarely satisfy me. I much prefer a good pie that I can count on. Tarts are too much bother for what they give you. Geogre 12:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for a "Finding of fact"

There is some opposition to the first "Proposed findings of fact". We need something there. Would this be better:

"1A) User:Carnildo was desysopped as the result of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Carnildo.

1B) After continuing in good faith to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, User:Carnildo was re-nominated for administrator with the support of the Arbitration Committee by User:UninvitedCompany after [several/the] members of the Arbitration Committee confirmed that they had no objections to the renomination."

"Proposed findings of fact" 3) goes on to record "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 had strong support, including support votes from some of the arbitrators who had desysopped him". Would it be helpful to provide names (I see 5. User:Mindspillage and 36. User:Mackensen and 58. User:Sam Korn)? -- ALoan (Talk) 08:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hup - Morven seems to be suggesting something like the above. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Question on "Carnildo restored to Administrative status" remedy

What happens if this remedy does not pass? Does it mean that Carnildo is desysopped for failing his third RFA and not being restored by the ArbCom, or does it mean we just leave it as status quo (i.e. stays an admin as promoted by bureaucrats/RFA/whatever, but without explicit endorsement from ArbCom?) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I mirror your concerns. The RFA was probably the primum mobilus (mobile?) of this mess. On the Workshop pages, one area of relative agreement between all sides was that a way to defuse that situation was either to modify the prior ArbCom demotion or to bring in the beaurocrat's actions against consensus as previously defined. We have part of that proposed (the part Fred agreed to), but, if it doesn't pass, the lack of any other proposed finding leaves us right back where we started: with a grumbling hive. Geogre 12:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, our final decision my be imperfect, but please don't start agitating again. Fred Bauder 13:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Huh? I was trying to just say what you and I had both agreed on, as well as, so far as I can tell, everyone else. It's just a logical demand. There are three discussed options: 1) status quo, 2) the prior demotion modified by ArbCom, 3) ArbCom tasks the 'crats with an action. No one much likes #1, #2 is not getting strong support at present, and #3 would necessitate a new ArbCom action and generate enormous ill will. I'm not agitating. If people want #1, fine, #3, fine. You and I had both preferred #2. (My personal "perfect world" solution would involve codifying beaurocrat behavior with promotion, but everyone else recoils from that in horror, so I'm not advocating it nor "agitating" for it.) Geogre 14:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Problem being, some arbitrators dislike the option of making resysopping an Arbcom function. As a principle, it may be sound. The effect in this case is to leave us at status quo ante (#1). Assuming that remedy 1 and principle 10 fail, that leaves you with principle 9, "Decisions are final." Taking for granted that "No one much likes #1", what do you envision happening next? Thatcher131 14:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Me? I just hope that we're not left there. If we are, then it is likely that some people will prefer to leave the project than to see more "discretion" get consolidated into the hands of those without review, under the principle of "No power without accountability." What would likely happen is that AN would open a new discussion, started by one person or another, to try to summon a mass demonstration of consent to an alteration or revocation of the principle of "discretion" in appointment of administrators. Let me make it perfectly clear that this is my Cassandra-like prediction and nothing that I will lobby for, and it is based only on reading the stated opinions of people in various locations. I have seen a few people argue that the status quo (discretion exercised independently or without constraint of consensus), but a quite distinct minority, so I'm really just predicting where the fissue lines would be. I don't know how I will react, but I really hope we're not put into such a position. I don't like any of the three solutions much, but #2 at least defuses this particular case, so it is the most expedient. Geogre 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me clarify the position of the Arbitration Committee a bit. While some of us occasionally participate in policy discussions, as a Committee we don't make policy, generally taking it as it is at the time we consider it. As to RfA, right now it requires consensus. I suggest you, or anyone else that is interested in how RfA works or how Wikipedia defines and uses consensus, to engage in policy discussions about it. We will, to the best of our ability, track the policy which results. What I don't think you should do as an administrator, and "wheel", is to embark on another program of agitation condemning the "power structure" (or the pretenders thereto}. Such campaigns are extremely disruptive. Fred Bauder 15:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• That's a bit of a non sequitur. I was asked what I thought would happen. I made my prediction. <shrug> As for my "campaigns," I honestly don't get it. I have been describing the way we are supposed to be, according to our policies, and I have only "campaigned" against people who have, in my own view, attempted a change without discussion. You don't agree with me, but it's not germane, here: I was asked what I thought would happen. ArbCom ruled that Carnildo be demoted, and thus it was. Carnildo was restored without change of that ruling, and this brought out a crisis. If ArbCom amends its prior demotion ruling, the crisis is defused. If it doesn't, the crisis remains. The crisis will continue to provoke users. Me? I haven't decided how I'll react. You? You have to decide how you'll react (as you were for amending the prior decision). Others? My view is that someone will broach it again, probably on AN, and the people there will probably try to enunciate a policy. I don't know if it will succeed or not, but you could predict reasonably that I would be on the "side" of those who say that discretion is not license, that consensus is determinant. Were that to occur, would that be a battle? I doubt it. I don't think it can be forestalled by any comment, warning, or injunction against me, though. Since I never set out to have a battle this time, don't think there has been one, and don't think I'm fighting people now, I don't see what this "don't have a battle" could refer to. I say it again: I am not leading. At best, I'm a stuntman. Geogre 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • • Ahem, let me butt in. I too wish that Geogre would ease off a bit and let the matter settle (as I was once commended for saying, people are more likely to change their mind if you let them do it in their own time). But Fred, these are issues that have been around for 2, maybe even 3 years, in any case since before Kelly or Tony even joined. Many, if not most, editors dislike ad-hoc decisions, unquestioned discretion and incivility, and they indeed followed the expected channels, including reasoning, dispute resolution and ArbCom elections to express their preferences and dislikes. Many have given up and left the project. Others exploded and self-destructed. Did it achieve anything? Did the behaviour stop? Did the attitude disappear? No, it didn't. What's more, it was encouraged by the appointment of its most visible proponents at the time to a position of trust. So now, after 2 years of vitriol, distasteful uses of IRC for co-ordinating on-site attacks (and I'm talking #wikipedia here, not #wikipedia-en-admins), provocation, troll-baiting, process-wonk bashing, off-site battling with detractors and former editors, etc. the claim that the discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive#Admins who don't edit articles is a community-dividing problem that we should worry about can't be taken seriously. Zocky | picture popups 16:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Zocky, you raise points that need to be addressed, but I hope we do not need to start a discussion of those issues now. I firmly believe in Carcharoth's suggestion that we need to close this case and take a breather before addressing the wider issues. I know I have been speaking too, but I only address Geogre, and that only to register my objections to his assumptions, and since he is not speaking to me, I do not expect a discussion to break out. Let's all try to get this case closed as quickly as possible. --Ideogram 16:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I was hasty and my intent wasn't clear. I think that the whole thing should be deescalated and I wanted to point out that using the word "agitation" wasn't helpfult for that. I'll shut up on this now before I make another unhelpful comment. Zocky | picture popups 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In an ideal world, everyone would stay. You say some people will leave if you don't get your way. Have you considered the possibility that other people will leave if you do get your way? Are we now reduced to choosing who leaves and who stays? --Ideogram 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Required majority

Let's see, I believe there are a total of 14 arbitrators. The /Proposed Decision indicates that 3 are inactive and 3 (JamesF, Mindspillage, and now Dmcdevit) have recused themselves, leaving 8 arbs to decide this case. So the required majority is still 5, right? Newyorkbrad 12:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is some confusion and overlap here. Possibly there is overlap between the recused arbs and the inactive/away ones (eg. Mindspillage both recused and now away). Also, I remember seeing Raul (Mark) marked as "away for now", but he is now active again. I think we need the clerks to clarify what is happening here. Carcharoth 12:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There are ten arbs on the active list, two are recused, so the majority is still 5. (Kat, who is recused, is not on the active list.) I expect nearly everyone will chime in though, as they seem to do on big cases. Thatcher131 13:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Giano

Well, I was hoping to talk more with Geogre, but he is apparently unwilling. Giano, I would like to talk to you as well, are you willing? --Ideogram 12:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop agitating Fred Bauder 13:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred, under what circumstances am I allowed to speak again? --Ideogram 13:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

When you are no longer "after" people, I guess. Fred Bauder 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Will you believe me if I say I had no idea the conversation with Geogre would turn out that way? I honestly wanted to understand his point of view. True, I intended to ask him some hard questions, but if he chose to answer them fairly I was intending to try to explain his point of view to his opponents, such as, presumably, you. I really didn't understand why you proposed he be desysopped and it seemed like a new controversy was brewing over that. --Ideogram 13:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have expressed myself fully and completely (some may even think more than fully) So my views are well known. Please read my evidence for a brief synopsis. I have not been impressed by your behaviour over the Kylu affair, and can't say I care for you greatly. I know this feeling is reciprocated so I see no need for further debate between us. I am sure you mean well by delving deeper, but frankly over the last week I feel I have personally been delved into quite enough. So now I would like to pull back from the public arena and return to editing for a while.

I think the proposition to de-sysop Geogre is wrong and the proposition to re-unite me with my former account and expunge the block log will not happen because the developer has refused to do it, so that proposition is futile. Obviously Developers are answerable to no-one - I don't understand these things so I haven't a clue what they do anyway, but I'm sure it is valued and important.

I'm not that bothered about it anyway - contrary to common belief I do not count my edits, so I'm not greatly bothered, the only thing I miss is my watch list but it was far too long, but annoyingly I have lost a couple of half finished pages because I can't remember exactly what I called them, but that is my own fault for scrambling the password while angry, so it will teach me restraint. The other myth which I hope people realise is rubbish is that have nowhere have I demanded the famous "free pass" for high edit editors being uncivil. However, I think it is a pity that incivility cannot be limited to obscenities, swearing and really vile insults, as sometimes hot headed debate and incivility can be confused, and a good argument can often clear the air - if the two sparring can be left to their own devices. Anyway that is a debate for another day - so please no-one start it here! Beyond that I am not unhappy with the outcome, I was never sure what the outcome was supposed to ne anyway. Only "Inksplotch" knows that. I hope this can be my last comment on the subject. Giano 13:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano, you are welcome back on my talk page any time you feel like it. Despite all I have said, I know that honor is important to you, and I apologize if some of us do not seem to follow the same high standards. --Ideogram 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano, two points:

• (1) I believe (though I may be wrong) that Brion was referring only to the expunging of the block log when he said 'no way' (to paraphrase). I don't think he was rejecting the possibility of regaining access to your 'Giano' account, and several other people did seem to think that this would be possible. Also, having examined your block log, I see that the other logs do make clear that the 'hate speech' comment was unjustified, and there is probably enough other evidence around now to make it unlikely that people will misunderstand this.
• (2) I don't know of any way you can access your watchlist without your password, but there may be ways to rebuild it based on an analysis of your contributions list. That is still available to anyone at Special:Contributions/Giano. You can also use that contributions list to find these half-finished pages you have mentioned. I'm sure if you scan the list, the names will jog your memory.

Hope that helps. Carcharoth 13:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it absolutely clear, it was Giano himself who scrambled his own password and gave up his other account, so we are under no obligation to go to extraordinary lengths to help him reverse his own actions. That being said, I do run my own MediaWiki site, and I did have to recover a user's account password recently. That was very simple; it required a single MySQL statement. So this is probably possible if someone feels like getting around to it. As for the block log, that is another entire can of worms, and wouldn't be nearly as easy to deal with, and I suspect (and Brion seemingly confirms), it's not worth the trouble to modify. The password is stored in its own field whereas the block log is stored in a dynamic data structure and might require some care in editing. Brion has better things to do than hack up a block log to remove a block from months ago when he could instead be adding new features to MediaWiki that benefit everyone, not just one user. Just my opinion, of course, but I feel that it's an opinion that many other people share. --Cyde Weys 14:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• if you read my edit just a couple of centimetres above you will see you are merely echoing my thoughts entirely. So you have no need to anguish on behalf of wasted time by developers or anyone else. You may relax. Giano 19:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Giano. --Ideogram 20:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Remedy # 8

8) Per principle #27 ("Return of access levels") the Arbitration Committee finds that Kelly Martin gave up her sysop, checkuser, and oversight access under controversial circumstances and must get them back through the normal RFA channels.

Does this needs some clarification? Checkuser and oversight access are not granted through RFA, so it's unclear what this remedy means in regards to those. Is the remedy trying to say that those who do grant checkuser and oversight access are encouraged not to restore those rights until at least such a time as Kelly Martin passes a new RfA? Or something else? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how the word RFA slipped in there, but the decision currently says (and has always said): Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. User who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Raul654 15:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Raul, I believe he's referring to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision#Kelly Martin's sysop/checkuser/oversight access, where the word "RFA" is still used, probably because it was copied from Tony's remedy. Zocky | picture popups 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oversight and CheckUser privileges aren't granted by the community anyway. They're far too prone for abuse to be handed out willy-nilly like that; instead, they are handed out by stewards, Danny, Brion, etc. (And for what it's worth, Kelly used those privileges to great effect and never once abused them). I don't particularly see any ArbCom jurisdiction over this one. If Kelly comes back and wants to regain her adminship she'd have to go through RFA, that's fine. But it doesn't work the same for Oversight and CheckUser. For instance, Kelly's gotten temporary CheckUser on a few other projects from Danny because there was a problem and the project didn't have its own resident CheckUser, whereas Kelly's very familiar with the tools and knows how to use 'em. --Cyde Weys 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your statement ("never once abused them"), Geogre alleges above (based on evidence that he says cannot be published openly, but which has been forwarded to the appropriate persons) that Kelly Martin has indeed abused those rights at least once.

I have not seen the evidence, so I can neither confirm nor deny, but the allegation has been made and not refuted, as far as I can see, by anyone who would know. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of your claims have been noted. --Ideogram 17:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

To be clear - the claim is not my claim - I was just pointing out what Geogre has said above, which, if true, flatly contradicts User:Cyde's "never once abused". I have no reason to doubt Geogre, and would tend to believe him, but I also have no evidence to back him up either. I'm not sure what the second of "both of my claims" is.

I also note the passive taking of note. Were you passively noting on your behalf, or for someone else? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

By "both of your claims" I meant Cyde's claim that Kelly Martin had never once abused and your claim that Geogre alleges something different.

I felt I had to respond in some way to your comment to assure both of you that your statements had been read and will not be forgotten. I am doing this in hopes of preventing another long-drawn-out-tangential discussion at this time. --Ideogram 18:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what this claim is about, and I have conferred with Jimbo and other ArbCom members about it, and they have all said that the claim has no merit. Does anyone find it a little bit funny that this claim is being bandied about and being used to try to discredit Kelly, even though nobody can speak of it and it is clearly false? It's not enough to just say "Geogre thinks Kelly did something wrong. He can't say anything about it, but I trust him, therefore it's legitimate." That certainly violates every open process Geogre was earlier clamoring for. --Cyde Weys 04:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, stop trying to appear to know more about this than you do. You do not know, and you have not "conferred with", in any meaningful way, anyone who does know. Your best bet would be to stop talking about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your lies in an attempt to discredit me are most unseemly. Just ask Jimbo; we definitely discussed exactly this issue. --Cyde Weys 18:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You're now going too far. I am aware of what you said (as is everyone else in the Western world, practically), but you did not know what you were talking about, then or now. This is not something that anyone who does know is going to discuss with you, so please drop it, and stop insulting people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) SlimVirgin, you keep asking Cyde to drop it, but you appear unwilling to drop it yourself. Can you please explain this? --Ideogram 18:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) "stop trying to appear to know more about this than you do" does seem rather inflammatory. Cyde, can we drop it for now? --Ideogram 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but just as you won't accept hearsay from Geogre, it is not reasonable to expect people to believe second-hand information from you. It would be better if there was a formal way to bring a complaint about mis-use of Checkuser, and to let those involved in overseeing the process respond. No offhand accusations and defence that no-one knows whether to believe or not. The process should be private, but the reason for removal of checkuser or oversight access (or similar stuff) should be recorded in the logs (ie. voluntary or forced), just as the reasons for de-adminning are. The list of those with Checkuser access is here. Hey. That's interesting. En has: 14 Checkusers, 24 Bureaucrats, 146 Bots, 1 Steward, 0 Import (whatever that is), 7 developers, 3 boardvote (election officials), 23 oversight, 1015 admins. Carcharoth 13:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Cyde, you do not know. Your source of information, whatever it may be, is either out of date or properly keeping privacy. Had you been paying attention to the whole case, or if you had been reading my words, you would have seen exactly where this came up and exactly how, into public discourse, and you would have seen that I do not mind if the bystanders, such as yourself, don't believe me. The black and white, unambiguous, zealous, "Kelly has never, ever done anything wrong with checkuser access" is flatly incorrect. Geogre 09:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Geogre, but I flat-out do not believe that you know more about this than I do. Unless you're going to discuss anything substantively I suggest we just drop this line of argumentation, as each person is basically saying the other person is wrong without being able to offer any evidence. It's not productive. If the CheckUser ombudsman is to be done in private it should remain so without these veiled accusations from you and others about Kelly having done something wrong, but not being able to back it up whatsoever and forcing us to "take your word for it" (which I am unwilling to do, because I don't see why you would know more about this than I, since I am more connected to the main actors in it). --Cyde Weys 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I will not let this stand. You are not in any way connected to the "main actors." You have been told nothing by anyone who is in a position to know. The ombudsman is not investigating anything. Geogre does know more about it than you do. Your comments are completely off the mark, as was the gossip you spread around. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we're talking past each other. I guess we both haven't the slightest clue of what the other person is claiming they're talking about. I would really appreciate if you lot would keep on insisting that I don't know anything about matters though. Without even saying what matter is under discussion you have absolutely no way of even knowing whether I know what's going on or not. Anyway, just to clear things up, I was talking about Kelly's CheckUser. What were you talking about that you and Geogre claim I know nothing about? --Cyde Weys 05:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) Since no one making statements on this issue is able to prove anything, I do not see what you hope to accomplish by making further statements. --Ideogram 06:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I do trust Geogre, but I have been quite open about the fact that I don't have any evidence for or against. How am I to judge whether the claim is "clearly false" unless someone with the ability to know - like Jimbo Wales or one of the checkusers - publicly confirms or denies that "the claim has no merit" (if they have, please point me to it, and I will gladly shut up). -- ALoan (Talk) 09:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA has been struck from the text. But isn't it ArbCom that grants checkuser on en? Zocky | picture popups 16:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you address remote contingencies. Fred Bauder 17:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oversight and CheckUser rights are regularly requested by ArbCom members [4] [5], so they surely should have jurisdiction over this. --Conti|✉ 17:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I for one am happy enough with the change made to the text of the remedy; I was just looking to have the ambiguity cleared up. Certainly ArbCom could say more about the future status of Kelly's checkuser and oversight permissions, but I can't think of a compelling reason why they need to. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you user:SlimVirgin for removing that. Whoever put that up was in grave violation. It's not worth it, folks. I know someone was trying to provide evidence, but that evidence cannot be provided in a public forum, and violating that privacy is to be exactly as bad as anything Kelly Martin may have done. Please, please, please, please, please, no one who has access to the evidence do that again. Geogre 19:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The page history now looks a bit odd. Can I assume some edit got suppressed somewhere on some oversight principle? Carcharoth 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Lord, I hope so! (If I'm Mr. "Let's be transparent," I hope I can be trusted when I say that this oversighting is a thing done well and properly.) Geogre 22:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

While not suggesting that I feel the need to have seen whatever it was, this is exactly like when someone says "Ohhh look, a shooting star" when you are facing away. - brenneman ^{L} 05:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention anyone can type anything they want into an edit box. --Ideogram 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• It would be my hope that the ArbCom rules that neither of these users may re-gain any special rights until at least after they pass a successful RfA. And by "successful" I mean one where consensus is actually to grant them adminship. Johntex\^talk 20:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Majority? Close?

Is 4 a majority? If so, does that mean many of the proposed resolutions are carried? How long do we wait for the others to be passed or failed? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

When we have done what we can to resolve any disagreements between ourselves and whoever is going to vote has, we will move to close the case. Expect about 2 weeks. Fred Bauder 12:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"... is not a sockpuppet"

Without implying that Inksplotch is anybody's sockpuppet (and I'm not sure why Kelly's name is brought up in connection with this), Checkuser can't show that somebody is not a sockpuppet. Maybe the finding should read "Checkuser did not indicate that Inksplotch is a sockpuppet", or something along those lines, if such finding is useful at all. Zocky | picture popups 14:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, people with a checkuser access are not expected to have trouble in keeping their secrets from those performing checkuser. User:Bonaparte used to run a sockpuppet farm, editing each account from a different IP, and was not exposed until he made a single slip. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No one can prove a negative, of course. Each person is entitled to his or her own beliefs about the others, so long as no one attempts to harm, block, ban, etc. I can think that Fred is a sockpuppet of Giano, if I want, so long as it's just my thoughts. Geogre 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been brought up because of public accusations that InkSplotch was KM's sockpuppet. It's important to clear the air. Mackensen (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between an expression of opinion (all are allowed) and an accusation. It has been my stated opinion that InkSplotch is Kelly Martin, then that it wasn't, then that it was Phil Sandifer, etc., but every time I have stated that opinion, I have said, "It really doesn't matter." My opinions can be expressed. An accusation would be a checkuser request, and we never sanction people for making checkuser requests that turn up negative. An accusation would be a move to get the words of the user removed. None of that has taken place, and I don't personally mind if I'm thought of as being a sockpuppet of whomever. (I've been thought a sockpuppet of Bishonen and Orthogonal before. Did it require an ArbCom ruling to establish that I am not?) It's an extraordinary remedy to something that isn't a problem. Geogre 15:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Geogre's accusation was here, "The resolution, the only gesture of resolution, was coincidentally taken by Kelly Martin when she lodged this Rfar". Fred Bauder 15:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That was an allegation? It looks a lot more like a mistake, to me. I make mistakes pretty often. I famously thought Giano had become an administrator, and he and I have been editing together for about two years. Why didn't you correct me? It's not like I said, "Was started by user InkSplotch who is a sockpuppet of Kelly Martin." I just made an erroneous statement. Whatever. Geogre 17:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, that was what the fuss was about. Fred Bauder 17:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If such accusations were made on wiki, this is probably relevant. But saying that checkuser proves something it doesn't surely isn't the way to clear the air. Zocky | picture popups 15:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Zocky. If you read user talk pages across the entire wiki, you will find virtually everyone accused of being a sockpuppet of someone. If the accusation were made in this case, it would be logical in this case to clear the air. I'm sure you remember all the wondering about whether I was a sockpuppet of "Earhurts." On the other hand, one can spend all day on IRC accusing everyone of being Lir, and that would not require checkuser? The standard is illogical: was it a charge in this case? If so, let's clear the air. If not, it's irrelevant. Geogre 15:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with clearing the air. My only problem is with the current wording, which will not achieve that, because it's not a true statement. Zocky | picture popups 16:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I thought I was Orth's sock? ;) Zocky | picture popups 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Findings of fact should be worded in a factual way. Friday (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

On a point of pedantry - The title of the FOF is "Inksplotch is not a sockpuppet" and the text immediately below says "Inksplotch is not a sockpuppet of Kelly Martin" - shouldn't the title be rewritten - it's misleading as stated. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive? Move discussion?

This page has gotten very long, and much of the debate is not concerned with the proposed decisions, but is rather about the "incident" and general policy issues. It is important to let this case conclude properly, and as Fred says, it's not expected to be closed for another two weeks (a welcome time to catch a breath, if you ask me). Since the general debate seems to be slowly dying out, it might be opportune to archive the general discussion, and continue that elsewhere, so this page can be used for its intended purpose.

What I suggest is copying the whole page to an archive, and replacing the general discussion with one-sentence summaries and links to the sections in the archives, and leaving the discussion that is directly about the proposed decision. If nobody objects, and the discussion doesn't pick up, I'll try to do that later tonight. Zocky | picture popups 14:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if conversation, if needed, go to another venue, but I'm again not thrilled with archiving. I would prefer that this remain with the decision. The fact is, this case has been the hottest ever, I think, and there is nothing wrong with the ugly sister being chained to the bride, if the bride only got there by carrying the sister with her. If we're dying out (and I hope we are, too), then there's no actual harm in having the extant record, even if we need to pick up elsewhere. Geogre 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Objection noted. Zocky | picture popups 15:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think archiving this is only productive if people are having technical difficulties with the page length (and if they are, heaven help them with the workshop(s)). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Unproductive discussion

I was of the opinion that further discussion on this page was not productive, and that we should hold off on discussing other issues until the case is closed.

There seem to be many people who do not share this opinion, including but not limited to Geogre and Giano. --Ideogram 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just what we need when the discussion calms down.... Zocky | picture popups 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how your comment helps calm the discussion. If you wish to continue posting, I may as well respond to you. --Ideogram 17:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the most recent posts to this page were from less than ninety minutes before my post. You have an interesting definition of "calms down". --Ideogram 17:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I can think of no reason you would expect discussion here to not continue, as new proposals are put forth. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We are in the voting phase. The place for discussion was the Workshop phase, and we indeed have had a lot of it. --Ideogram 18:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This talk page serves a useful purpose for discussing those items being voted upon. For example, sometimes proposals are worded in such a way as to be ambiguous or confusing, and this page is the place to ask for clarification, or rewording. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that this page was the place to ask for clarification or rewording of findings placed on a page that we are not allowed to edit. Is that policy, or your opinion? --Ideogram 18:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Still reading it. Fred Bauder 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It happens to be my opinion that a discussion page that gets too long will be read by nobody, least by arbitrators who have many tasks to perform. --Ideogram 18:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's as strong as "policy", but stronger than opinion. The boilerplate text at the top of the Proposed decision page says "Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page." I think that says it all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Right Fred Bauder 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly anyone may comment here. Whether it will be read is a different matter. If the discussion is not concise and to the point, no one will read it. Don't waste the reader's time. --Ideogram 19:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave you to your self-satire. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand this. I'm totally serious. --Ideogram 20:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ideogram, the discussion has indeed calmed down and we are talking about the proposed items in an entirely civil and friendly way. There's no need for police action, and especially no need for name calling. I have no reason to suspect you mean to troll, but please stop anyway. Zocky | picture popups 18:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I see, and police action is not an instance of name calling. Noting that Geogre and Giano do not share my opinion, is in fact name calling. You feel free to post here and ask me to stop posting. --Ideogram 18:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to stop posting. I asked you to stop what amounts to trolling, regardless of whether that's your intention. Zocky | picture popups 18:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I see, I am trolling whether it is my intention or not. A neat way of accusing me of violating Wikipolicy while avoiding violating it yourself. And let's not forget the name calling. --Ideogram 18:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at what's actually been going on, Giano has barely commented and his only comment in last 24 hours was almost 12 hours ago. Geogre has made a few deascalating comments and contributed to a perfectly civil discussion about one of the proposed findings. Nobody is continuing the heated debates we had yesterday. And then you come in, name them, and imply that they're somehow prolonging some bitter brawl. And then we have a rather long slightly heated debate about your post. Whatever your intention was, it's fair to describe the effect as successful trolling. I'm done. Zocky | picture popups 18:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you are done. I never was clear on who was name-calling. --Ideogram 18:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else's sockpuppet

FoF 17.1 says "CheckUser does not indicate that InkSplotch [...] is Kelly Martin's or anyone else's sockpuppet." - I don't get the "anyone else's" bit. I may be misunderstanding how Checkuser works, but surely to confirm that an account is not "anyone's" sockpuppet, you have to cross-check with every other user? Unless there is a way to say that no-one else has edited from the IP address(es) pertaining to an account? Carcharoth 19:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I will be interested in the answer to this, too. Mackensen can tell us, I'm sure, if it's not sensitive information, whether checks go against only particular, posed IP's or all IP's of all users. Geogre 20:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkusering a named account generates a list of IP addresses used by that account, which may be one or several, depending on the means by which that user connects to the internet. Running checkuser on an IP address (usually the second step) generates a list of edits (and other actions) originating from that IP, in reverse chronological order, accompanied by the user account under which each was performed. See also m:Help:CheckUser. I would assume that a statement of "it's not anybody's sockpuppet" is equivalent to "We determined which IP(s) it used, and were unable to find any other users editing from the same IP(s)", given the perceived level of certainty. On the other hand, could be a shared/dynamic IP situation where it is not possible to conclusively link it to a "main account". If the latter case is true, all I've got to say is keep looking. —freak(talk) 22:50, Oct. 7, 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible to say based on check user that an account isn't someone's sockpuppet. All you'd have to do is e-mail your posts to a friend and ask them to post for you; so long as you're not posting often, this is perfectly feasible. We have one notorious sockpuppeteer who's often posted logged out and the IPs are from many different cities across the U.S. and the world, and don't appear to be open proxies, yet it's clearly the same person. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement is worded very carefully. It does not say "Checkuser proves that Inksplotch isn't someone's sockpuppet", it says "Checkuser does not indicate Inksplotch is someone's sockpuppet." This says the claim that Inksplotch is someone's sockpuppet has no support from Checkuser, while leaving open the possibility that he is emailing his responses to someone with a different IP as you claim. This distinction seems perfectly clear to me. --Ideogram 02:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Checkuser is not for fishing. NoSeptember 20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• What is all this fuss about? It is perfectly obvious to anyone of minor intelligence, that this person is the sock of someone. Many people can and will make an inspired guess. The truth (whatever it is) matters not one jot, those that need to know - do know, and those that suspect they know also know. Inksplotch can edit wherever he/she likes, it matters nothing. S/he can even apply to become an admin, and if they have proven their worth they can become one - who cares? Those who have been around for a while know the truth, and as long as every one knows that those concerned know - who again cares? It is really up to the arbcom, on this occasion, to decide what information to release to the general public. Giano 21:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You know all that I know Fred Bauder 21:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

(to Giano) Well it is not obvious to me that "this person is the sock of someone." Perhaps it is because I am not of minor intelligence. --Ideogram 02:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that has ever been in doubt Fred. Giano 21:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You implied that there are things the arbcom knows that "the general public" does not know. There seems to be a conflict between that statement and this one. --Ideogram 02:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

May I recommend a slightly decreased emphasis on "sockpuppet" and an increased emphasis on "content" ? WAS 4.250 00:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? It's the content of InkSplotch's comments that has made people think that it's a sockpuppet. It's the content of the FoF that has everyone questioning its author, as no one "alledged" here and the sentences don't make sense unless CheckUser possesses super x-ray vision and knowledge of the identity of the typist(s). Geogre 00:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for being less than clear. I tend towards spartan speach when a more fully elaboated response is better. Sorry. I am speaking of the more general case and you are responding as if I was refering to the specific case in front of us. I could go on but I'm hoping I have sufficiently identified my meaning. If not, say so. One more word to try to avoid the possibility of miscommunication. I think of this thread as basically dead as far as its original purpose and useful mainly in terms of more general issues. Thus my comment on sockpuppets. WAS 4.250 01:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I think you touch on something pretty ... highly charged. It would always be possible (and rational) for one group to say "prove every word," and the burden would never be met. We're best not chasing that topic at all, here and now, and that's why I have been unhappy with the finding of fact. I thought it was a diversion at best, and then stated so unequivocally as to force people to ask questions that would only introduce static. Geogre 03:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I simply don't understand Geogre's comment. Geogre, do you agree that "this thread is basically dead as far as its original purpose and useful mainly in terms of more general issues"? Again, a simple yes or no will suffice. --Ideogram 03:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the suspicion that InkSplotch is someone's sockpuppet? Obviously CheckUser doesn't reveal anything, but we have some people who still seem to think InkSplotch is a sockpuppet. What is the evidence? Does he edit in the same pattern as another user? This is a bit of an extraordinary claim, and we all know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I can give my own perspective on this one too, as I was accused of running a sockpuppet once. Of course, I wasn't, but the allegation was hurtful nonetheless. --Cyde Weys 05:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• As I have repeatedly said, it really doesn't matter to the average editor whether Inksplotch is a sock or not. Giano 07:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Then there is no need to repeat yourself, or claim that he is a sock, as you do above. --Ideogram 08:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy?

Comments by Geogre, Giano, and SlimVirgin, among others, seem to indicate they feel there is a conspiracy at work here. I'd like to ask them here publicly, once and for all, whether they feel there is a conspiracy at work behind the scenes of Wikipedia. A simple yes or no will suffice. --Ideogram 03:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ideogram, your posts are not helpful, so I won't be answering, except to say that I'm not aware of having alleged any conspiracy anywhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, forgive me for saying so, but I also find many of your posts not helpful, such as your attack on Cyde, and I will feel free to continue pointing out such posts of yours as I find them. In particular, it seems obvious to me that your explanation for how to get around Checkuser requires a conspiracy of at least two people, namely whoever is posting as Inksplotch and the person he is a sock of. --Ideogram 03:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised you wish to assert you have not alleged any conspiracy while refusing to simply say "no". --Ideogram 03:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ideogram, when did you stop beating your wife? What you're doing is called the fallacy of many questions. It is not proper to answer "no," because you imply several "yes" answers in your questions. You are asking several people to answer for your impressions of readings of comments. I don't think anyone has to. Geogre 03:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, I am glad you are talking to me again. I don't think I implied any yes answers. I am asking you to correct any misimpressions of your comments I might have. You clearly don't have to answer, but in that case I will continue to hold false beliefs about you. Is that what you want?

It seems like a simple question. Do you believe there is a conspiracy at work here or not? I am not implying you will answer yes. I am not implying you will answer no. There is no assumption that you are beating your wife in the question. Please feel free to identify and criticize any assumption you feel the question is making, and I will try to reword it. Yes or no. --Ideogram 03:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I really can't understand how it is not proper to answer "no". If you don't believe there is a conspiracy at work here, all you have to do is say "no". What else could your answer possibly mean? --Ideogram 03:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why you're not telling us when you stopped beating your wife? Geogre 03:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, I asked you to explain to me what invalid assumptions such as "beating your wife" my question was making, so that I could correct myself. I ask for your patience in correcting my error. --Ideogram 04:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Or when you stopped being a troll. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly not a helpful comment. If I am a troll, by far the best response is to ignore me. --Ideogram 04:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I recall you giving me civility warnings for far less than calling someone a troll. Please try to keep it civil? --Cyde Weys 05:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

She didn't call him a troll, Cyde. She demonstrated the reason why his "question" couldn't be answered, as did I. I.e. we have answered him by demonstrating the logical fallacy he's employing. Geogre 12:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It was implied. SlimVirgin, am I a troll? Geogre, please explain what invalid assumptions my question makes. --Ideogram 13:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, am calling his edits trolling. Ideogram: please stop trolling. Thanks in advance. Nandesuka 13:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I ask the same of you. --Ideogram 13:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a conspiracy. In fact, there are many conspiracies, many of them overlapping. People do talk off this page, you know. But nobody has alleged that there is the conspiracy. I, for one, am sure that neither the Queen nor the Pope are in on this one, and we can't have the conspiracy without them, right? Zocky | picture popups 12:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a productive comment. --Ideogram 13:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ideogram, someone has to say this so it may as well be me. You are becoming tiresome here. Your comments are unproductive. Basically, you are in the way. It might be a good idea to find an outlet for your talents elsewhere. Giano 14:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You have had several weeks of unproductive debate. How can I possibly make things worse? --Ideogram 14:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

By reiterating it and asking people to repeat it. What people want to say, they have said. What they do not wish to say, they still do not wish to say. You're free to go through the 6 /Workshop pages or the /Evidence page. Most folks have explained whatever they wish to explain somewhere in there, and you can't ask to archive this page in one breath and complain that no one is repeating things in the next. Geogre 15:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, it is no longer necessary to post anything to this page. I'm not asking anyone to repeat anything. If you all stop posting, I will be perfectly happy. --Ideogram 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

revert-warring

It seems very rude to revert my comments off the page. Why are you denying me the right to speak? --Ideogram 04:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Other people have commented on the need for archiving. We can of course discuss what should be moved to the archive, but to simply revert my attempt seems unproductive. --Ideogram 04:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that this RfA has a finite life, I'm not sure I see the need for archiving anything, and certainly not for mass archiving the whole lot. What do you suggest archiving, and why? Regards, Ben Aveling 04:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion seems to be ongoing. There is a lot of old debate that I doubt anyone will read through if they haven't already. I was hoping all threads which are no longer active can be archived. Anyone can copy an old thread from the archive back to the active page if they wish to respond to it. --Ideogram 04:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the page is undesirably long. Rather than bulk archive, perhaps we could use Werdnabot to do the archiving in a neutral fashion? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. --Ideogram 05:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Give it a day or so in case anyone else wants to comment, and I'll try to add the necessary. How does automatically archiving anything over 7 days sound? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole page is less than 7 days old. --Ideogram 05:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I know. I was originally going to propose 14 days. Maybe archiving isn't the solution here - a lot of people have a lot to say. More headings and more sub-headings might be of more use than archiving conversations that are probably still alive. Maybe even sub-pages if there are some things that only some people are interested in. This is a bit of a tar-baby of an issue, it is draging in a lot of sort-of-but-not-really related issues. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are proposing a solution that doesn't solve the problem. How about two days? --Ideogram 05:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Such a quick archive could cause more problems than it resolves. The underlying problem is that people have a lot to say. Archiving can help, but it isn't a magic wand. Maybe inserting extra subsections might help. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) If seven days does nothing, and two days is too quick, surely we can arrive at a number in the middle. I seriously doubt anyone will consent to reorganizing what is already on the page. --Ideogram 06:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

People generally cope with having sections added, so long as it doesn't change the meaning of anything. If we archive at 7 days, then threads will start being archived in the next few days. Until a thread has been quiet for that long, who knows if there's more to say or not? What does it hurt if this page is a bit big anyway? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you are not interested in archiving anything at all. I can live with that. --Ideogram 06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Note also that SlimVirgin chose to revert not just the archiving (which would have been easy) but in fact to revert off my last two comments to the page, a completely unnecessary act. --Ideogram 04:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's something which is best discussed on SlimVirgin's talk page, not here. I realise there's already a lot of discussion on this page about contributors to the discussion, rather than advancing the discussion itself, but I won't add to it further. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood. --Ideogram 05:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding the subheading "overenthusiastic revert" carries with it an editorial opinion. I suggest you avoid adding subheadings to already existing dialogue. --Ideogram 06:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding subheadings expresses editorial opinion. So does archiving. Perhaps we just need to accept that anyone who wants to deal with this page has a lot of reading to do. This conversation seems to be adding more to the problem than to the solution. Ben Aveling 06:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I also hope no one will try to revert anyone else's comments off the page. --Ideogram 06:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wording suggestion.

Hi, This is just a technicality, but can I suggest that "must get them back" be changed to "may only get them back" in proposed remedies 4A and 8? Regards, Ben Aveling 04:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ideogram on this page

I invite people to review User:Ideogram's recent contributions to this page, if they have not done so already. They are universally nonproductive and show an unhealthy controlling impetus in my opinion. I urge him to stop this behavior, but others have done so to no effect, so I also urge everyone else to please ignore any further similar posts by him: stop responding to him here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see, you are tag-team reverting me now. How ingenious. --Ideogram 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how the discussion on this page has degenerated, I invite you all to stop editing here, as, at this point, I do not feel it will have any meaningful effect on the final outcome of this case except in that it will reflect badly on all those who disregard this message. Raul654 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(Note - the above comment was not directed at any person in particular, but to everyone who has been using this page to bicker.) Raul654 17:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have one exception to note only: When a new proposal is made to the decision, if there is a need for explanation or, and I really hope this is never the case, comment, we be expected to lodge such queries or comments here (as opposed to splattered over a dozen talk pages). (E.g. if there is a new proposed decision point: "User Bob banned for eternity to the outer darkness for reverting on foo," it would be profitable to ask who Bob is and why Foo is involved here rather than elsewhere.) I assume you imply this, but it's worth stating it overtly, given the way people have been misreading each other. Geogre 18:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

John Reid

Concerning proposed remedy number 2 and finding of fact number 8, both concerning John Reid: the impression I get from this is that the 'battleground' here is more than just the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. Is it possible to get clarification on whether the battleground being cited here is just the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard, or whether past behaviour is also being considered here? This would also help clarify exactly what qualifies as a 'battleground', as I am uncertain from all this exactly which part of 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." has been violated. Thanks. Carcharoth 10:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not take into consideration past behavior, I did not investigate it. It is not so much a particular label like Battleground or baiting that is involved but what he did. Please look at his edits and consider whether what he was doing was doing Wikipedia any good, or a lot of harm. Fred Bauder 12:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I too thought he went too far for my taste in the stridency of some of his comments. But the community seems to be making progress toward getting past the events of the past few weeks, and I don't think that enforcing a ban against a sincere, good faith contributor, who, importantly, appears to have ceased the troublesome behavior, will be helpful or necessary. I'm mindful of the admonition above that this page has grown too long already, so won't say more. Newyorkbrad 13:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Newyorkbrad and ask folks to ask themselves whether words were caused by the exceptional circumstances of this case or by a failure of character. If the former, perhaps a good source of healing would be to be as forgiving as possible and not perpetuate the battleground by striking back. If the latter, then, by all means, a rememdy would need to be in place to prevent future bad acts. My view, of course, is that some pretty provocative stuff was going on and that a bad act cannot be considered anything but a bad reaction to bad circumstances and actions. "He hit me first" is never an excuse, but it is some mitigation. Geogre 14:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the remedies proposed was to discourage future outbreaks, not to punish past ones. Fred Bauder 18:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was uncivil but my questions were valid and important; their simple asking was treated with an astonishing lack of respect. The question needed to be asked and the b'crats needed to answer; it still does and they still do. I think you should ban me if it helps you in some way, Fred; but I guarantee it will not deter me -- nothing will. The question stands -- unanswered. John Reid 07:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't, then, Principle 8 apply, unless there is evidence of continuing or repeated bad behavior, along with an indication of future bad behavior be lodged? I ask because Principle 8 explicitly says that the user need only show by behavior that the mistakes will not be repeated and does not have to promise or apologize. I don't intend to argue, here, and this is not a backhanded slap at the FoP, which is apparently aimed at the Carnildo case, but, given the statement of evidence was a single action in the past, it seems that a week's block was predicated upon a past behavior and not a future one. At least that was my reading, in the light of FoP 8. I'm just one reader, though. Geogre 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put into evidence some differences which may suggest the latter, but since they involve myself I must declare that bias. I agree John's behaviour since has improved. Hiding Talk 15:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've objected [6] to the presentation of that evidence within this ArbCom; it's not germane. Hiding, if you thought I was wrong you should have blocked me on the spot, not lectured me. I would have respected the block. You have the authority; use it. John Reid 07:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're well within your rights to object. That said, I've only ever been involved in two rfarb's before, but both times it was made clear any and all instances of behaviour deemed inappropriate are germane to a case. I think there was a proposed principle regarding Tony's prior behaviour. It's not uncommon. Hiding Talk 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, was that workshop just BS? Because it seems that very little of the proposed decision was aired in workshop and exposed to comment. I don't suppose it has to be but then, why burn up our time in workshop? John Reid 07:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If John Reid gets banned for a week, then Sidaway should be banned for at least a MONTH! I guess being a mighty, magical former arbcomm clerk grants him certain immunity privs huh? This particular "remedy" you endorse, Fred, will only open new wounds. It is punishment intended to silence critcism of the regime. If you seriously believe it otherwise, then you are seriously misguided.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it. Criticism is welcome. Endless agitation and sustained baiting is not. Make your case as forcefully as you can; incorporate it into policy using our consensus decision making process if you can convince the rest of the community, but play fair, be courteous to those who have other perspectives, and don't carry things so far that you're creating a major disruption. Have the confidence that you will prevail if what you advocate advances the project. Fred Bauder 14:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, indeed, I don't get it. I don't get how you can go on about policy and consensus decision making process, when this entire mess was brought on by 3 B-Crats (with the tacit blessing of the arbcomm) acting well outside of established boundaries of consensus and redefining established policy on their own. I also don't get, why John Reid should be singled out for Endless agitation and sustained baiting, when there are plenty of other parties, such as Kelly Martin and Sidaway, who are equally guilty of these offenses, if not moreso! Finally, I don't get why the Arbcomm does not make better use of this opportunity to clean up some of the mess it has helped create and regain some of the respect and confidence from the community it has lost...but instead it engages in selective, punitive scapegoating.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Folks, let's take this away from the personal, please. John Reid and RDH, I think, should try not to focus on the personalities or say that they themselves will X or Y. I agree wholeheartedly with them that Fred's position is likely to backfire, but solely because he has defined a crime (battling) but said that it is up to an unspecified Other to decide when criticism becomes the battle. Given his view that my own attempts at policy debate were battles, and his view that I said what I have never even thought (that administrators are abusing editors in general), I'm very uncomfortable with it, because it seems to suggest a priviledged class of judges whose own sensibilities are to trump everyone else's. However, saying, "I will not be stopped" is unhelpful. The issue, the issue of power differentials and the assumption that there is power, will not be salved by any ruling that institutes "battleground" as a violation or by blocking John Reid for a month. The underlying disquiet is not over John Reid or me, but with whether or not we answer to the population of the project, and to what degree. I do think that the event that provoked this crisis will be partially settled by the alteration of the previous demotion of Carnildo, but the gesture behind that event -- the appearance of saying that a small group trusted by a slightly larger group can tell the gigantic group who they trust and who they do not -- cannot be remedied by an injunction on one speech or another. The only thing that will solve that is, frankly, the ongoing practice of each of us to answer to the community over our own preferences and private judgments. (E.g. I think high school substubs ought to be nuked. If they win an AfD, I leave them. I know what's right, but I also honor the policy. I think Pokemen are a joke, but I leave them in peace. I think we are all trivialized by infoboxes with porno actresses' bust sizes and blood types, but I don't write a bot to kill them all.) Some humility on both sides would be a great salve. Geogre 14:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, I read everything you write multiple times, and I still don't feel I understand what you are trying to say. And since you won't answer my questions, I can make no progress. I do agree with you that humility on both sides would be good, but as Doc observed, your side seems to be lacking in humility. --Ideogram 19:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel you speak for the population of the project? Do you feel the group that votes on RFA's is representative of the entire Wikipedia community? --Ideogram 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The question of "sides" and "factions"

Some humility on both sides would be a great salve. I strongly concur, Geogre. Unfortunately, this lot seems hell bent on opening wounds rather than allowing them to heal. Politics and personalities are too strongly bound up together to be easily separated. So it's going to come to more tears, I'm afraid my dears. Oh and Ideogram, a quick word of advice-Trying to bully, badger and bait George, a)is not a good idea and b)won't work. Please trust me on this, I've tried...and failed, as have many others. Learn from our examples and avoid our mistakes.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want wounds to heal, you would do best to hold your tongue, as I recommended many times (how that amounts to trolling is beyond me). Instead this debate has been quite one-sided, with many people continuing to criticize past behaviour (see Doc's comment about your side thinking it is 100% right) and present decisions without any response from the other side, except for Fred. --Ideogram 12:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And you would do best to set the example by "holdung yours" first. Especially seeing as your comments are now boarding on trolling. This entire "Your side vs My Side" mentality is what has brought on this mess along with too many others. So maybe if "your" side gave it a rest and stood down, "my" side would do likewise.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a very childish attitude, not to mention that it is demonstrably not true. Every time there is silence, it is broken by "your side" first. I didn't participate at all for the first several weeks of this imbroglio, and "your side" carried on quite well. Even after Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway left, you continued to bicker. It just amazes me that you feel it necessary to attack anyone who seems to disagree with you. I simply cannot take any of you seriously anymore. --Ideogram 11:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well someone on "your side", BunchOfGrapes, is right above when he describes your comments as counter productive. He's being generous...they're, now, clearly trolling. So go find your snacks somewhere else and waste others' time.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I like to think of us all as being on the same side, even if we can't always agree in which direction we should kick. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a side or a party. I have an issue, and it has been the very same issue for years, now. I've said it a number of ways, but the best one is perhaps this: I trust no one, and therefore I trust everyone. I do not want any person, no matter how well meaning or wise, to decide without check on any matter, much, and certainly not on complex issues, and therefore I trust only those issues where a wide variety of voices weigh in and consent to the action. The more complex the issue, the more we need more people. There are problems with executing this vision, though, problems inherent in Wikipedia.

Whenever you require consent from a huge population to enact something, you get status quo and unhappiness, unless it's a blazingly obvious move. Therefore, people begin to segment the voices that they'll hear. Some things that are "policy" were approved by small numbers (e.g. IAR, or even AGF) or by top-down fiat. So, some people (ok, many people) have come to the conclusion that the only way to "fix" things is to act with smaller numbers of sages. This introduces an expert level to the encyclopedia without experts.

I'm no more immune to this frustration than anyone else, but I cannot accept the experts who are self-appointed, who act and then battle, who decide on very small margins what's "right" and decide that what's "ride" is much more important than what's allowed by policy. If we really, really, really need top-down structures, then those up there have to at least be chosen by some method other than self-selection and backslapping. The fact that, for example, an article expert is no more a coding expert than a code expert is an article expert should automatically have invalidated the notion of comrade power loci. It should have been blindingly obvious, if we had had anything but self-annointed with one's own fluid of choice as chrism, that there should be some rational basis for membership.

Without, however, any process for deciding who's "clueful," without any encoding of an exact purview of oversight, without any limitation on the actions possible, I will have none of it. Invisible, unindictable, unaccountable, unconsented rulers are, excuse the language, tyrants, cabals, and juntas. When power derives from consent of a small group against another small group, the charge of "OMG cabal" is easy to defeat. When it is a small group acting willy nilly against any and all and then employing every loophole to ensure lack of accountability, there is nothing left but crisis. At present, there is no "power" but consent, and I think that Tony Sidaway acted without consent or written standard repeatedly, that Kelly Martin did so as well. There is no side. There is an issue, and personalizing and demonizing isn't going to help at all.

It's natural that people concur and show up together if they agree on the issue. Given that the issue is "I am elect" vs. "There are no elect," to suggest that there are sides is nuts. Neither of those "groups" likes groups. Geogre 14:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, a more or less coherent expression of your issue. There are instances of using short cuts when confronted with difficulties in achieving consensus. Sometimes this is driven from the top, for example with the userboxes issue, where Jimbo played a major role. I viewed all that as a total waste, since I like userboxes, even silly ones, but the precipitating issue seems to have been pedophile userboxes. There have been other instances where there have been top down initiatives, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a good example of a policy refinement which originated from Jimbo, and others. I think though there are some problems with your approach, however, both the Bureaucrats and the Arbitration Committee are elected, or appointed after a showing of substantial support. All in all your view seems quite conspiratorial imagining that people are up to something, when what I see is people trying to solve practical problems. From my view, the question is defining and using consensus appropriately, not letting that preferred decision making process bog us down. Fred Bauder 15:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Conspiratorial? No, although it is collusive. The top-down decisions have largely occurred because consensus was impossible given the definition of franchise as well as length of time for deciding, and this was balanced against degree of need of action. So, in the pedophile case, we could have hashed it out in general, had we remained focused and not gotten into that wheel war. Once the war began, the need trumped all. The same is absolutely not true of something like the reappointment of Carnildo. To claim that a previous exigency opens the door for general shortcuts is a huge mistake, and one that carries huge consequences in terms of the good function of the project.

ArbCom and the 'crats are not, in fact, defined in any document, policy, or process as having power. They are each licensed pretty carefully to perform assigned tasks. Arbitrators are supposed to determine findings of fact and resolve the most beneficial remedy in cases of policy violation. They are not allowed to act without a case on the dockett, for example, and are not allowed to set policy. Like the courts in the US, they can only interpret existing laws. The fact that they were somewhat elected is a red herring, unfortunately. The elections were partial, and the vote totals and ending vote ranks were kept secret. No one knows whether, for example, Fred got more votes than Sam Spade, although I would hope he did. The drawing down of the veil at the end was the worst possible action by Jimbo and the board, in my opinion, because it left the disgruntled with the idea that something fishy was going on. No one can precisely know how "selected" vs. how "elected" the members are, and so the idea that there is a mandate is destroyed at the very same time that the idea that these are delegates of Jimbo is destroyed. By being neither fish nor foul, the current ArbCom system licensed the disaffected.

We must be as transparent as we can, and when we cannot we must enunciate our reasoning as well as we possibly can. However, with or without transparency, we cannot allow any group, such as Kelly or Tony, to cite "IAR" (which they don't read) as they do what they consider best. We cannot have experts without having some consent to the expertise, and, if we are going to do that (and, by the way, I've been in favor of more echelons for years), we need to define a rational basis. In the absence of that, need invites and excuses the "bold"est and rashest stepping in to act first and battle later.

I agree with anyone who wants to say that our policy mechanism is virtually impossible to use. I agree with anyone who wants to say that RfA picks the wrong people and bashes the right people. I agree with anyone who wants to say that novel circumstances require action. I agree with anyone who wants to even say that some people are more "clueful" than others, but all of that argues that we need to reform and rethink our basis of policy, our versions of consensus, our establishment of quorum, and our examination of credentials. If we don't do that, then we end up with, quite literally, the most aggressive being the ones who assert themselves, and aggression is not what we need. Geogre 16:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. That is why I left Wikipedia. But insisting on onerous requirements before a decision can be made also creates opportunities for action that is not agreed on. Fred Bauder 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

See, I think you're wrong there. It creates the occasion for aggressive action only if we kowtow to it or say, "What you did was against policy, but you were right." The moment we find ourselves in that position, we have to reverse the action and start the reformation of the policies. The ends cannot justify the means, and not because of anything philosophical, but just because everyone has to be on the same sheet, if we're all volunteers. When we have different rulebooks for different users, the common editor, the unpriviledged, is encouraged either to compete for chic by acting as belligerantly as the "cool kids" do or to begin warring. That's why we have to reverse even the correct action taken against the policies. No one asks me my opinion of the answer to the problem, but I'll offer this: when populations grow too large for straight democracy, the answer is not autocracy, but republic. We can make things move more smoothely, and the proliferation of "projects" on Wikipedia is the natural creation of republics. They need some ground rules for how they behave with one another (if there were a Turkish history project and an Armenian history project, they could easily clash, and we can get what "battleground" really referred to: real world political fights taking place on articles), but their natural development is an outgrowth of talking to everyone being too difficult.

Anyway, I'm not trying to invalidate ArbCom by pointing out that its process was invisible. Instead, I'm saying that the amphibious process was a result of the tension over democracy versus expertise and it has left us with a difficult justification for any given member now. It's possible that the "selected" were all the top vote getters or that they were bottom vote getters, but the secrecy over it was partially, as I recall, an effort to prevent people from trying to say that there were superior and inferior arbitrators, or at least that was one offered rationale. It can also be that it was an effort to have peace and to stop the arguing, because there was a great deal of arguing. I'm not sure, but it has had consequences that continue to bother us.

By the way, the selection by Jimbo method is probably something that Jimbo wouldn't want to keep at, because it gives all prospective candidates an incentive to make sure that they are known to him. It basically makes for a race to polish the apple on teacher's desk, and I can't imagine he wants more e-mail from Wikipedians. I don't know how much time he spends in the dirt and briars of the project, so I don't know how accidental his knowledge of various users is, but this is why I prefer that we have some clear rationale for our echelons, if we're going to have them anyway. Geogre 21:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Selection of the arbcom

The elections were partial, and the vote totals and ending vote ranks were kept secret.

I can't find the results now, but they were posted. Fred Bauder 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I'm not being jaundiced: they really were not revealed. At least it was a thing that came down, that they would be kept private. If that got changed later, then I applaud that, but as I recall the decision to keep the totals secret came from Jimbo himself. I can understand why we might want them secret (as I said above) and why we might not (again). We don't want to arm the disputants. At the same time, because they were partial it comes into play for even the non-disputatious (which is normally me). Geogre 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The votes were always public, and still are. You'll find them here: [7] Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Final results were posted Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-01-23/ArbCom_election. Jimbo's email announcing the outcome is here. The final decision was Jimbo's. It was approximately what the community voted for, but not exactly. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how you measure it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't everything?  :-) I take it you think the community did get exactly what it voted for? Certainly, what happened was not contrary to the vote, I'm just observing that some executive discretion was exercised at the margins. But how would you measure it? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was never clear how it would be calculated; a number of methods were suggested, including overall percentage, and Support - Oppose votes. They gave significantly different results, and one can make a good argument for either method. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The votes were public while underway. The final results were, at least initially, obscured. I'm glad that Signpost had them. My argument was/is that the mix and mix up were indicative of the hokey pokey (one foot in, one foot out) of our process from the beginning. This is not to argue for one answer or the other, but for clarity so that all know what they're dealing with and have clear expectations. The specific application is that a bad number of people have concentrated on claiming to be friends of Jimbo's or being genuinely known to Jimbo, on the one hand, and the disquieted have been able to claim that there is some rotten fish. The more we rationalize and explain, the less power the disgruntled have and the more likely we are to get disgruntled people. The philosophy that suggests there is a top-down every day is inimical to volunteer work. Geogre 09:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

All the polls with the votes are still available here although it takes a bit of searching to find them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

H. L. Mencken said, "Democracy is the theory that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it, good and hard," but the problem is that when it's abrogated, there needs to be some more reliable procedure in place. As for the trolling and insults recently removed -- shrug. The user who wrote them is obviously disturbed by something, but it's not me. Geogre 09:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about Geogre's position on democracy. People like to think that democracy and egalitarianism is an absolute good, but the American Founding Fathers were suspicious of unfettered democracy and rightly so. Anyone heard of the "tyranny of the majority"? The Founding Fathers chose to restrain the power of the populace because they were suspicious of irrational mobs. It would be denying human nature to say mobs cannot be irrational. --Ideogram 16:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I love how Geogre doesn't want to speak to me but feels perfectly fine insulting me in the third person. --Ideogram 16:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

wiki-break

• Oh, and for the record John, I'm not clear on how you're the only one who comes out of this with a ban. That seems off to me too, rest assured. Hiding Talk 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's a vacation, not a punishment. I work hard, I deserve a break. My Real World workload is backlogged but I just keep coming back for another hit of instant achievement; WP is horse for workaholics. I'm about ready to request a month block, just so I have an excuse to tend to my personal business. Now if Fred wanted me to put $50 into the kitty for my sins, that would be onerous.

I'm sure somebody has already pointed out the general absurdity of trying to fire volunteers or punish them by telling them not to come in. It's like trying to push a nickel across the table with a strand of cooked spaghetti; you have no leverage. I think you get far, far more attention if you say, with respect, I/We think you were way out of line on X. We wouldn't do it that way because Y. Please don't do that again. The harshest effective punishment that can be given out is an official reprimand, e.g.:

1. You are reprimanded.
2. A copy of this action is attached to your permanent record.

If somebody is judged a threat to the project you can always ban him forever but since the front door is always wide open, that remedy isn't always too effective; see WoW. Perhaps fortunately, WP:CIVIL is binding on all here, from RC patrollers through Arbitrators, right on up to the Jimbo. Since nobody really has the power to enforce anything, we really do need to ask politely. If that doesn't work, we're screwed. John Reid 00:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If I believed in barnstars, I'd give you one, John, for accepting all this with such good grace. You could teach some other people a lesson in how not to get too upset or to throw their toys out of the pram (see current imbroglio on WP:ANI). Carcharoth 01:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

wrestling naked in lime jell-o, ha ha. This is all reading like vintage Marx Brothers or Three Stooges, or any other of the wonderful old surreal, absurd attacks on the cult of propriety. "Arrest that man!" "Your Honor I object!" "I object to your objection!" "Arrest the bailiff!" "You're out of order!" "You can't tell me what to do!" "Arrest the judge!" Harpo squeezes the clerk's butt honk and Curly squirts water through his nose at the judge woo woo woo woo woo. All we need now is a Fred Bauder block war to totally destroy the "dignity of these proceedings". John Reid 06:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, you don't believe in barnstars? I suppose you don't believe in fezzes, either? John Reid 06:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• John, I do find myself slightly amused. You've asked me elsewhere why I did not block you but rather asked you to cease behaviour I felt incivil, and yet here you enunciate precisely the reasons I had for not blocking you. I do consider your words here to be in contrast to actions elsewhere. Hiding Talk 10:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

John, your humor and positive attitude towards your scapegoating is inspiring. Be warned, you are fast in danger of becoming one of my favorite wikipedes;> A "WikiBreak" is an exxxxcelent idea! When the time for your week-long, enforced sabbatical arrives, I think I'll take one too. Solidarity and respect--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

InkSplotch finding of fact clause lacks a corresponding clause in "proposed principles" section

The Inksplotch clause in the finding of fact that obtained the Majority support of arbitrators now says:

Checkuser on Inksplotch does not find sockpuppeting

17.1) CheckUser does not indicate that InkSplotch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Kelly Martin's or anyone else's sockpuppet.

However, missing is the corresponding clause in the "Proposed principles" section. If there is no formulated principle on the sockpuppetry here, it is unclear why it matters whether InkSplotch is a sockpuppet or not.

A suggestion for a related Proposed Principle (Use of Sockpuppet accounts in Arbcom procedings) was given at the Workshop (See here). The alternative proposals were:

• Use of Sockpuppet accounts in Arbcom procedings is strongly discouraged, all participants are expected to edit from their main accounts or disclose their main accounts.

Or a more strict:

• Use of Sockpuppet accounts in Arbcom procedings is considered extremely malicious and is subject to severe consequences, all participants are expected to edit from their main accounts or disclose their main accounts.

Would not it be logical to have an appropriate principle in the final ruling? Otherwise the "finding of fact" seems disconnected from the rest of the case. --Irpen 21:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A mixed system - opposed?

I have difficulty understanding why there is almost unanimous opposition to this section in the Proposed Principles. It should go without saying that Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Consensus is important but it should also go without saying that the Wikimedia Foundation gets to make the final decision. Hopefully, they will let consensus rule unless it's doing something really, really bad. And, that's what the text seems to say. --Richard 23:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is the opposition to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Proposed_decision#Respect that gets me. Fred Bauder 12:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think if you'd stopped at the word "respect", everyone would have agreed with you. :-) The bits about "political struggle" don't seem to have been very popular. But the case isn't over yet, so I'll stop talking like it is, in case that prejudices things. Carcharoth 14:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not terribly sure opposition matters in that case. If it involves a Foundation issue or anything that the Wikimedia Foundation later chooses to make a FI, the role of the community in that decision is greatly diminished. Now, if the labor (us) staged a massive stoppage in revolution or something, I could see the Foundation deciding to negotiate, but ultimate since they own the servers, I don't see why they couldn't do whatever they felt like. Me, being new, would probably have to have someone explain why this idea is not correct. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think ArbCom opposition to a proposed principle doesn't imply that they agree with the opposite principle. They could simply be rejecting the current wording as not precise enough, or too vague, or too broad. Also, the principle is rejected as a whole, which doesn't imply that they reject specific parts of it (the Foundation sentence). You are right in that this sentence goes without saying.

On the broader issues that Kylu raised, theoretically I don't think there is anything to stop the Foundation at some point yanking the plug and saying "thanks, but that's it now", and then employing experts to do the final clean-up stage before publishing a "Foundation Wikipedia". This won't happen at the moment because (a) there is no indication they want to do that; (b) they do respect the community; (c) they can't afford to pay enough experts at the moment; (d) a lot more volunteer work in writing and cleaning up needs doing; (e) future updates by the community is an important part of the model; (f) other stuff I've missed out. Also, what would likely happen is that someone would, quite legally under the GFDL, start a Wikipedia fork and continue the current way of doing things, but just on different servers, and the community would migrate there. Even the operating software (MediaWiki) is all free source. Sorry, went a bit off-topic there. Carcharoth 11:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your first paragraph has it. Also, it's not ArbCom's job to set policy. Even though at times they do, it's not their job or within their powers to say X is the structure of Wikipedia, or even X is not the structure. When, however, the decisions are sculpted on an underlying premise of hierarchy or non-hierarchy, it can certainly seem as though ArbCom is setting policy. This has been one of my objections -- that an assumption is at work that needs to be dispelled, although in the form of "the current members of the arbitration committee do not believe" rather than "the engraved truth is...." Geogre 11:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It should go without saying that Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Sorry; but: What a weird thing to say! It should go without saying that the Wikipedian Community runs Wikipedia. We're all volunteers and WMF has no funds to hire replacements. WMF Board is pretty much limited to dealing with the outside world, coordinating different WM projects, and doing what they can to lecture from the bully pulpit. If the whole Board packed up tonight, few WP editors would even notice; in the long term, we'd have to elect a new Board -- it does serve essential needs. If Florida slid into the Gulf, the entire community could easily pick up a backup of the project corpus and install it on a new server cluster -- money would come, never fear. But if the community quit editing, WP would die. Uh, I think Tony called some of us "insurrectionists" but the revolution happened around here before I even joined. John Reid 00:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Resysopping

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.

Surely it is up to the community to decide who is valuable, and to decide who is seen as having reformed? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Provided a less poisonous procedure can be found. As it is now a past transgression makes it very difficult. Fred Bauder 00:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If a better procedure can be found, let's use it for all RfA, not just re-RfA. But why is it a problem if re-RfA is difficult? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Did you see Radiant's evidence? They generally succeed at the same rate as first time RfA's do, if not better. Also, if there is something wrong with the system we use, that's an argument to reform the system, not bypass it to get a particular result. No one can tell the community who it trusts except the community, so, either we need to change the definition of an administrator, or allow the wide votership to endorse those whom it trusts. Even if I think the community should trust someone, I can't force it to, and no one else can, either. The principle of trust is vital because we're all volunteers. If we ever justify the trolls with the biggest possible heap of fertilizer (appointing administrators based on minority views), we're going to see massive desertions, or, at the least, the violation of Wikipedia's founding principles. Geogre 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Geogre here. From my perspective it's a pity some people can't forgive and forget when a de-sysopped user comes back to rfa, but there's actually no reason why they should. An RFA is an imprecise mechanism designed to gauge whether a user has the trust of the community. That's the community's trust to give, not the bureaucrats or arb-com. If some people can never trust the user again because of past transgressions, then those are the breaks. We are admins because we have earnt the trust of the community, and perhaps people should bear in mind how hard it might be to regain the tools before they act in manners which may cause them to lose the toolset. It's kind of similar to losing your driving licence through speeding offences. You don't get a free pass back there. Hiding Talk 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To put not too fine a point on it, it is not immediately obvious what is "acting in a manner which may cause desysopping". And some admins who have been in constant trouble remain, while some have merely had an off day and been desysopped. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think those are problems indicative of issues elsewhere, namely with the de-admin procedure. De-adminship used to be exceptional. I think the paedophile wheel war caused ripples which are starting to crash now as small waves. That said, I don't like this under a cloud principle. I'm unclear why arb-com aren't simply de-adminning the users in question and requesting they seek re-admin through normal channels. Still, it's all fixes on fixes, and as long as we don't lose sight of that, I'm not sure it all ultimately matters. I'm not sure this arb-com will settle much, to be honest. As John Reid said elsewhere, not much discussed in the workshop has appeared here, and some of the principles being rejected seem odd. I think arb-com should really limit itself to issues of behaviour, rather than issues of what policies mean. I don't see that we need arb-com to tell us that political campaigning is ruled out by the battlefield clause of WP:NOT. That's a community decision. Arb-com should just say, look, this behaviour was disruptive, or incivil, or a personal attack. If people discuss issues civilly, I don't see where there is an issue. Still, never mind. Hiding Talk 12:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

Hey, I have a great idea. Let's get a bunch of people together, and when someone posts something we don't agree with, let's make a big noise, regardless of how civil they are. Then, when they refuse to shut up when we tell them to, we can blame them for making the big noise, which is trolling, regardless of what their intention was. Too bad I wasn't the first to think of this great idea ... --Ideogram 16:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Impending ban of John Reid

As discussed above, the /Proposed Decision bans User:John Reid for one week based upon his comments on WP:BN in the wake of the Carnildo re-sysopping. This proposal currently has the unanimous support of six arbitrators, and given that one of the arbitrators has now moved to close the case, will presumably take effect within the near future.

For what it's worth, I personally found the tenor of John Reid's comments on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard in September to be unpleasant and excessively strident. However, I did not and do not believe that his behavior should result in a formal ArbCom sanction, much less a ban. In fact, John Reid was not even a subject of this arbitration case as originally filed by User:InkSplotch, but joined the case voluntarily after his name was mentioned in another user's evidence. Most important, the troublesome conduct on the noticeboard occurred (and ceased) weeks ago, and none of the concerned users (including the bureaucrats whose noticeboard was affected) sought any form of sanction against him then or thereafter. There has been no showing of any prior form of dispute resolution, which is generally considered a prerequisite to ArbCom sanctions based upon objectionable user conduct.

In the extensive /Workshop discussion here, no one proposed any sanction, must less a ban, against John Reid. When I noted Fred Bauder's initial proposal of the one-week ban in the discussion on this talk page, although this issue was to an extent swallowed up in the discussion of the proposal to desysop Geogre (which has been rejected by the other arbitrators), several commenters indicated that they strongly opposed the proposed ban of John Reid and none indicated that they supported the proposed ban.

I respect the views of the Arbitration Committee and I note in particular the fact that all six participating arbitrators have unanimously voted in favor of this proposal. I also note that in discussion above on this page, John Reid has been highly philosophical in reacting to his proposed ban and accepting an enforced wikibreak. So I would understand a quick consensus here to let the decision take effect without further ado and drop the matter. At the same time, the process issues involved here are sufficiently troubling to me that I thought it appropriate to consider one further round of dialog on this issue before the /Proposed Decision becomes final.

I will add that I am considering the possibility of bringing this issue to the attention of Jimbo pursuant to the "executive clemency" prong of the arbitration policy (which I believe might have been the first to use if only I had done it two days ago, but I've now missed my chance to be a pioneer in this area), and would welcome any thoughts (including, of course, those of John Reid who may urge that this idea be quickly dropped) on whether this is a sensible suggestion.

When InkSplotch filed this arbitration case, I was unsure that any useful purpose would be achieved. Only time will tell whether this case solved more issues and healed more wounds in the community than it has created new ones. I know that the arbitrators - even those whose proposals I have disagreed with, sometimes strongly - have given things a lot of thought and done their best. But I do not think that banning John Reid - or anyone else - as a result of the events of several weeks ago will serve the purpose of moving forward. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• It will surprise no one that I agree with Newyorkbrad, here. Fundamentally, there are two troubling questions. The first is how such a block would be preventative rather than punitive, and the other is the general way that proposed decisions emerged without any indication in /Workshop or /Evidence. The latter may be something that arbitrators themselves have to police with their votes and by creating other proposals. The former, though, surely shows a hair trigger. Has the user been continuing in raising his left leg at the beaurocrats, in being nasty, etc.? Is there a reasonable expectation that his history and current practice suggest that a week of quiet is needed? What bothers me is that the prevention seems to be to prevent future bad behavior aimed at the beaurocrats. In other words, is the trigger weighted because of where and who received the inappropriate speech, and therefore is the injunction to prevent other users from following suit? I hope not. In general, this Rfar was weirdly launched, weirdly framed, and weirdly conducted, with any number of first time actions and procedures. I think everyone wants it to close, even those who don't agree with the conclusions. Geogre 10:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• • There's probably no point in even posting now, as the motion to close has started, but I agree as well. I cannot see that the benefits (if there are any) of this ban will outweigh the harm, the ill feeling. This case and everything connected with it, from Carnildo's "hate speech" blocks to Tony's "lancing of boils", to Kelly's departure, has generated more poison than any other case I have seen since I joined Wikipedia. I did not post in support of Bishonen's proposed blocking of Fred (although I shared her reaction to some of the things he wrote), because I've read over and over and over again since I joined Wikipedia that blocks are not supposed to be punitive. But it does seem to me that this is a punitive block and the "warning to others" argument is just being used (as A.C. Bradley says, "sincerely, but not truly") to make it seem preventative. Note, I am still not urging a block of Fred, but I do think that for an arbitrator to write "no need to look at your cunt" is so extraordinarily vulgar, so outrageous, so unbecoming in any Wikipedian (and so much more so in an arbitrator), and so harmful to the image of Wikipedia that I would like someone to explain why it would not be appropriate to block him now (as a warning to others, and to discourage him from repeating such behaviour) if it is appropriate to block John. If it's because we don't block for offences made in the past, I agree — but that applies to John as well. If it's because it has stopped and not been repeated, I agree — but that applies to John as well. If it's because it would cause more ill feeling and would accomplish little or nothing, I agree — but that applies to John as well. Could someone please explain what the difference is, other than that Fred is an arbitrator and that John isn't? I don't wish to stir up trouble, and wouldn't even mention Fred's ugly post so long after the event, except that I'm just baffled that people who ignored that would want to carry out an unnecessary and apparantly punitive block on someone else for something that was far less harmful to the image of Wikipedia. AnnH ♫ 11:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• I also disagree with the proposed ban of John Reid. I didn't agree with his comments at the time, or the way he made them, but the matter was quickly dealt with and was over. At most, an admin could have stepped in to issue a brief block if necessary, but it wasn't necessary. I therefore don't see the point of this ban, and the length of it seems disproportionate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody aside from the ArbCom think this is a good idea? Everyking 12:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is for ArbCom to close the case (which they are doing), and for someone (Newyorkbrad seems to be offering) to ask Jimbo to read these comments and review the decision. Otherwise we will just have yet another round of hurt feelings and angry comments. If anyone feels other actions and issues need comments, keep it separate from this. Carcharoth 12:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think there are quite a few decisions being voted on, and likely to be carried that are plain daft and pointless. Banning John Reid being one of them. I am unsure why he is the only one being singled out for censure here, but then I don't understand the point of this case and never have. If it had objectives they have never been apparent so are not likely to be achieved. This proposed block is at best futile, at worst it could be construed at spiteful and vindictive, allthough I personally think it is just misguided. If anyone should be locked it should be those who promoted Carnildo against consensus, and those admins who threatened and issued blocks to silence those who opposed their views. Giano 13:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems 6 of them felt they needed to punish someone in order to make an example. Since they won't punish any of their own culprets and can't punish anyone more involved in the case without risking a greater firestorm, they select a lesser known dissenter only marginally involved. Their message is Don't intercourse with the Arbcomm, you proles! Suffice it to say I pretty much agree with the outrage so far expressed and have further thoughts on the matter here.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are comparing this case with Scapegoats of the Empire? That's just silly. You seem to have lost a bit of persepctive. Carcharoth 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No more silly than praying for Jimbo to come down from Olympus and set everything right. I have perspective and from here it looks like a Drumhead court-martial.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad (as usual), and would like to second the comments of SlimVirgin and Geogre. Too much time has passed for this to be considered preventative and not merely punitive. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That argument could be used for a lot of ArbCom cases. By their nature they take a long time to reach their conclusions. Some of the decisions could be seen as delayed implementation of blocks that should have happened after the original incidents. Carcharoth 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, RDH and Giano - you do realize that Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin resigned a whole slew of powers -- clerk, admin, checkuser, possibly even participation in the Wikipedia -- during this case? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of those were voluntary. And clerk is not a position of power. It is a (vital) secretarial job, acting on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Any power there comes from ArbCom, not from the person holding the position. Carcharoth 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(Oooh, let's please not chase sticks. I say so as I go after one.) The voluntary resignations would have been ultimately meaningless without the "under a cloud" rulings, as what is set down may be picked up again. They are still somewhat irrelevant to whether wrong actions and words were taken. Anyway, ArbCom takes a long time, and that's why it's best to use rfar's on cases dealing with serial problems and standards of behavior that are continually questioned. Thus, it would be useful if the issue were "blocks based on private understanding and without conferral" (which is what I focus on) but not "blocked me and called me Nancy," or if it were "vows to merge all articles on AfD and redirect to shortcicruit deletion" but not "deleted my favorite user page." It's on that basis that people are questioning the block for a week of John Reid here, as you know, and as you agree, Carcharoth. We really ought to leave the little round bombs of verbiage at the door and concentrate on whether this particular remedy is remedial. I fully endorse any appeal for clemency here. Perhaps there is a preventative rationale for the block and Jimbo will deny clemency on that basis, but I cannot conceive of one now. Geogre 15:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well some good did at least come out of this. Unfortunately, not nearly enough to resolve the underlying issues nor salve the ill-feelings and distrust--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the rainbow-coloured crazy-wacky randomness of the findings and remedies in this case (what on earth is happening on the mailing list for "Contributors are valued" and "Respect" to fail, and yet bans based on, well, "Respect" to succeed), we can always hope that all of the admins exercise that now-legendary Common Sense and just decline to enforce that particular provision. -Splash - tk 19:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sadly there are quite a few buzzing little admins/IRC fairies (barely able to string two word together in an article) hoping to curry favour and eventually be arbcommers themselves who will be only too delighted to execute the orders from above Giano 20:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic

Oh, heavens! Why on earth would someone revert Giano's statement? Sheesh! What is this, the World's Most Dangerous Man or Enemy of the People? I actually think that Splash may be right, and the amount of grief attendant on this rfar might make anyone cautious, but then someone goes and seemingly proves Giano's point by removing his comment? (Names not used in case it was just an accident.) That is not the path to tranquility. Geogre 20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

General comment, not addressed to anyone in particular: I don't want by any means to appear to be seeking to own this thread, but if it could be kept somewhat focused on the specific issue of John Reid's proposed ban (and the pending alternative proposal presented by an arbitrator today), I think that might be helpful in this instance. Newyorkbrad 21:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi all! I removed the comment with the rollback button, which has apparently caused a bit of confusion. I should have used a personalised edit summary. Sorry for the troubles. My revert was due to the inappropriate and obvious snarky comment made about admins who are barely able to string two word together in an article and are hoping to curry favour and eventually be arbcommers themselves who will be only too delighted to execute the orders from above. The entire comment is unwarranted and seems to have been made for no other reason but to instigate and antagonise, as it certainly doesn't have anything to due with the case itself. Simply because one is involved in an ArbCom or any other dispute resolution case does not give him/her license to rant nonsensically. I thought it best to simply remove the silliness, with the hopes of heading any conflict off at the pass, so to speak. Again, apologies for not making my intentions clear in the edit summary by using the rollback button. Giano, apologies to you as well, as I didn't intend to cause you any stress; I simply hoped to remove your comment with the hopes of allieviating any potential conflict (seems a bit ironic, though, no?) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, sorry to Newyorkbrad. Feel free to format or remove my comments at your leisure so we stay on-topic (which was my original intention by removing Giano II's comment) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Your roll back has merely proved what I have been saying from start to finish throughout this prolonged and ill founded RFA. What exactly are you admins trying to prove? I am sick and tired to death of "whoops I didn't mean that" from Admins who in my opinion should never have been allowed within 100 kilometres of a washing machine button let alone and admin's one. Please do not justify your lack of understanding of procedure with "obvious snarky" because when I want to be "obvious snarky" you will be the first to know of it. Giano 21:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There's obviously some external issues affecting your response to my appropriate reversion of your silliness. As such, I've responded on your talk page so as not to continue to stray off topic hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• And here we are back to square 1 [8] If this is yet another of the IRC concocted plots to provoke me, and subsequently ban me, you will find it as ill thought out as previous attempts. Why have you suddenly butted into this mess - I wonder? Giano 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please. Let's just step away from an increasingly hostile thread and try to stop making matters worse. Please? Jonathunder 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Then please ask Hoopydink to keep his fingers and opinions away from my edits, or better still have him de-sysoped, as was suggested of Geogre for less on this very page. Giano 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just politely asking both of you, and all of us, to not keep inflaming things. This thread is off-topic: can we just let it drop? Jonathunder 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's do drop this, and we can drop it by keeping our hands off of everyone's edits. It's not Hoopydink's place to decide what others get to read, nor mine. It's profoundly disrespectful to remove someone's comments, and far more disrespectful in general than anything anyone can say about anonymous "admins" who can barely write. It's baiting. It's arrogant, and it is, at this point, either tremendously ignorant or overtly designed to disrupt Wikipedia by being provocative when you decide for everyone else that a contributor's words should be erased. It's also to the point of this thread generally. John Reid said ill-tempered, ill-advised, and improper things. So it was. They could be examined by all. They can be weighed and weighted. It then takes a full ArbCom consideration to determine what is an appropriate response. No overly zealous defender of dignity could jump up, revert them, and then claim to have been serving the community by telling ArbCom that his own judgment was superior to its consideration. When words stay, when they're examined, we move on. When they're rolled back, we roil on, continuing the ugliness, leaving the wounds raw (if not salted). Geogre 01:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

John Reid on ban of John Reid

Thank you all for your support. Time off is good. I can't imagine why anyone would think of a week off from Wikipedia as a punishment. The atmosphere is consistently hostile and the fuck-you/attaboy ratio is way, way too high. If I do right, I may find a solitary "thanks" on talk a day or a week later; if I offend, I expect a shitstorm on my talk inside the hour -- a shitstorm that often drags on for a week. The disproportion is absurd; nobody could possibly stick around here if he paid much attention to criticism. Editing is stressful and largely unrewarding; I edit from a sense of commitment to the project, not for personal amusement. I'm looking forward to time off; I have plenty to do in my Real Life.

I did speak harshly on BN. However, the situation is and was harsh. I daresay I will speak harshly again someday when similarly provoked. If I were a better person I would discuss everything in level terms; instead I'm merely human. You'll note that I managed to avoid calling the bureaucrats cunts, fuckheads, traitors, or insurrectionists.

Yes, I am about to be unjustly banned by ArbCom. You shall judge a man by his foes as well as by his friends. (Joseph Conrad). I shall wear my ban as a badge of honor. I intend to respect the ban -- a social measure -- in both spirit and letter. However unjust the sanction, we must uphold whatever system we have. Better not to cast away our only garment, however tattered, until we have chosen a new robe. I shall be insulted when some meddler blocks me -- a technical measure -- I shall not provoke this. Such a block will be unwarranted, a deliberately confrontational personal attack.

Please do not unblock me; I urge all admins not to wheel war. If you feel I am unnecessarily blocked, please discuss this with the blocking admin and ask him to unblock.

I was disappointed that Tony failed to add me to this RfArb, so I added myself. Now, as it shakes out, I am the only one sanctioned -- rib-splitting, ROTFL and choke-on-your-bagel amusement for political geeks everywhere. All other involved parties get off; they voluntarily stormed out of the building, threw down their fez, and got off with a warning or none. On the gripping hand, we have all been abused by these pointless proceedings in which our comments are ignored and nothing is done about the substantive issue.

If any Arbitrators are listening to me anymore, I urge you not to do this -- not because I can't use the vacation but because it makes you look ridiculous and petty. I'm not being banned for harsh words on BN; I'm not even being banned for confronting a rogue b'crat -- I'm being banned because I participated at length on /Workshop.

This entire case has played itself out as a massive misdirection from the substantive issue: Carnildo was promoted against community consensus. Bureaucrat Taxman has rebelled against the authority of our community. He has yet to admit fault in this, indeed he seems to have stated that he does not answer to us. At least this one holder of the community's trust has decided that he is an independent authority. It seems apparent that he did not act alone; that he did so with the support of both bureaucrats and arbitrators. All are tainted with the suspicion that they no longer work for us.

Perhaps some will find my comments once again abrasive; well, this is an unpleasant issue. Is there any way to state this issue in a kinder tone without coating it in ambiguity, indirection, and sugar? Any editor is free to educate me, to refactor my comments so as to improve their tone and preserve their intent.

This isn't about me but it's come out that way. I suggest that we will all do well to concentrate on substantive issues and refrain from metastasis. Those who comment here out of concern for me personally will favor me by stalking my contribs: If I edit wrongly, fix it; if I direct your attention to an area, consider it; comment freely from a rational viewpoint on the substantive issue; and edit this page. John Reid 10:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A straw poll on the proposed ban of John Reid

I've been tracking this page and the associated RFARB process pretty closely but have posted little as others have said what I felt better than I could have expressed it. However, I feel that it is time for me to weigh in on this particular issue.

I think John's comment above on the proposed ban is admirable. However, despite what John Reid says about his welcoming the ban because he will benefit personally from an enforced WikiBreak, I feel that the ban on John Reid is unjustified and sets a bad precedent, reflecting badly on the arbitrators who voted for it.

For the record, I do believe that John deserves some level of censure for the abrasive and hostile way in which he made his points and demands of the bureaucrats. However, in the context of all the bad behavior by others, it is hard to reconcile the idea that he is the only one to get banned. Why not ban Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin, Geogre or Giano? All were vociferous and at times nasty in their comments. I won't say "equally" so as I'm sure you could argue that some were worse than others. However, I think singling John out for this extreme punishment is just bad form.

It's not too late. The case has not closed yet. I propose that we start a straw poll with the clear understanding that the result has no binding effect on ArbCom. The intent here is to attempt to apply moral suasion on ArbCom by sheer force of numbers. It is very possible that they have gotten into "groupthink" mode and have convinced themselves that this ban is appropriate. If enough Wikipedians indicate that they do not concur, perhaps they will step back and rethink this step. (Kind of a "lack of consensus" to support the proposed ban)

Let me suggest that we NOT discuss the merits of the ban below. Just indicate support or opposition to the proposed ban. If you wish to discuss the merits, do it above or below this section. I'm just wondering how many people, outside of ArbCom, support the proposed ban.

So... let me start this now...

Should John Reid be banned for one week as proposed by Fred Bauder and ratified by four other members of ArbCom?

Support

1. If the arbcom decide that he should be blocked for one week, then he should be blocked for one week. Having thought this over, this poll is trying to roll two questions into one. The first question is, should he be blocked for a week. I'm said my piece on that earlier. The second question is, do we accept the umpires call, put the incident behind us, and move on? I strongly encourage people to do so. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Richard 17:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2. I don't feel that strongly about it, but what feelings I have on the matter are negative. A block this long after the fact looks pointlessly punitive. PurplePlatypus 23:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. And shame on you who are abstaining. Everyking 09:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I don't think we should poll this. We're where we need to be for dispute resolution. My feelings are attested, above, but I'm still an optimist. Geogre 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2. My first inclination, of course, is to strongly oppose. But straw polls here are meaningless to the WPISNOT:Democracy crowd. My feelings are also made clear enough above, and below are some proposed measures which could help clear this mess up.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Abstain. On the one paw, blocks should be preventitive, not punative. If the point is to deliver a public smack, why not a 7 second block? It still makes a permanent public statement that whatever it was he said was unacceptable to the point of being punishable, without taking him offline. On the other paw, maybe a little time in the 'Big blue room' would do him good? Overall, I'm not across the issue, and I'm happy to let people who are do the deciding. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Trying to take a straw poll on an ArbCom decision is rather ridiculous. They are the authority here, not some random straw poll. They've individually put a lot more work and consideration into the case than all of the possible respondents to this straw poll combined. --Cyde Weys 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   I don't believe in removing personal attacks, but Cyde does. I have done a strike-through of his personal attacks. Suggesting that people here are "random" and suggesting that the people on this page know less than the arbitrators is disrespectful as well as untrue. I cannot believe that a comment like that comes from anything other than ignorance or a desire to insult. I would prefer, therefore, to believe it is ignorance. Geogre 02:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

   A bit ironic given the kerfuffle and your subsequent involvement about my reversion of Giano II's exponentially more volatile ranting, no? I suggest a removal of your strike through, comment, and my comment, Geogre. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

   It was intended to be ironic. I fundamentally disagree with removing personal attacks and always have. However, the people who disagree with it are always at the mercy of those who do. I was violating my own belief intentionally to demonstrate that the halo is often stuck on with chewing gum, that the people (not you, but Cyde) who complain about personal attacks make personal attacks. That's probably WP:POINT, but I left the comments in place, with only a strike-through code. Geogre 02:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. My perplexity has been quashed, if only from the image of the halōs gumma. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Again with this stuff? My plan, and I'm sure the creator of the poll's as well, was to have a useful and understandable discussion here for arbitrators to look at if they follow up on my suggestion to look at this page and vote on the pending motion (please see below for my most recent comments on this, if they can be found - I suppose I will add a subheading for clarity). This sort of dialog is interesting but isn't helpful to that purpose (and hence I guess neither is this paragraph (see self-reference, infinite regress, paradox...). Newyorkbrad 02:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, that IS what I had in mind but hardly anybody seems to think this was a good idea so I guess I'll give it up. --Richard 05:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

   Tell you what, how about we remove this side discussion to the talk page? Wait a minute, this is the talk page...... Newyorkbrad 02:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I think my view on this proposal is evident by this point, and in fact has been since October 3, when I posted about this proposal when it was first made, near what is now the top of this page. Polling per se isn't the right procedure but I think the consensus of editors on this page is clear, although it's the consensus of editors on the adjoining page that gets to cast the votes that count. I'll add that I'm disappointed the case is apparently going to be closed without a discussion of the revised motion. Newyorkbrad 19:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Me, too. If it weren't for the week's block of John Reid, I think even the most disgruntled could be soothed to let this close, at least. Sure, we might agree that the central issue wasn't addressed, but this was a reanimator's corpse of an rfar to start with -- launched by an uninvolved party with unspecified aims and undocumented evidence, blown up like agitated flubber on the /Workshop page by the most shrill arguing by one of the parties and refutations here and there by the other parties (140 posts in 24 hours by one person?), had /Evidence that presented a damning case against things and people and practices not part of the framing, and then had a proposed decision that looked disconnected to either of those pages. How on earth could the central principles not be missed? It would be a miracle that any of them got grazed. So there is more discussion to be had and more remedy to seek, perhaps, but not over dispute resolution at this point, except for the block of John Reid, which seems excessive to most of the commentators here but appropriate to most of the arbitrators. Geogre 01:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, cutting Mr. Reid some slack is certainly helping...though I must confess, I was looking forward to that week-long vacation:( However, there are still a number of important issues which are still left unresolved. If you would be so kind, George, please tell me what you think of the proposed findings at the bottom of this page?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, that'll teach me to lose faith. I hadn't thought ArbCom members would switch votes on a RFARB that looked to be closed all except for the shouting. I am much heartened by that change. However, it seems to me that ArbCom would not support R.D.H.'s proposed findings below. In particular, they just haven't seemed much interested in supporting the rule of consensus with respect to Carnildo's RFA. It seems that they have leaned towards ratifying the decision of Taxman and the other b'crats who participated in the decision. Thus, although I supported R.D.H.'s proposed findings, I don't see what practical use they have given ArbCom's expressed stance on the question. Unless you're planning on running this by Jimbo after the case closes? --Richard 22:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Between this page and what I've spent the past half hour writing on John Reid's own talk page, I've probably done more than enough "meta" for awhile. I am pleased that several arbitrators were willing to reevaluate their positions at the end of what I'm sure has been a time-consuming and complicated case.

I do think that the ArbCom resolved an important issue in this case, at least as much as things can ever be resolved on a Wiki. One point of view on the Carnildo resysopping was that "the bureaucrats' decision defines the consensus; what the bureaucrats decide is the consensus; the comments and !votes are input for the closing 'crat, but ultimately it's a discretionary call." Others said "the bureaucrats' role is to determine whether the RfA has attained an agreed-upon measure of support; other than weeding out sockpuppetry and the like, the !votes are the only relevant input; actual bureaucrat discretion exists only in a small minority of borderline cases." We still don't know exactly how much discretion the bureaucrats have (and frankly, I never thought this was as important an issue as most of the other people who have been writing about the subject for the past number of weeks), but with the ArbCom's finding of fact that consensus was not achieved for Carnildo's re-sysopping, the former view has been definitively rejected by a unanimous vote of the Arbitration Committee, which is a stronger result (I won't say a better or a worse one than I expected from this RfA). That, coupled with the firestorm that raged in September, I think means that as a practical matter, "incorrect closes" on all but the most borderline RfA's are unlikely to be a serious problem for the foreseeable future. Newyorkbrad 22:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I understood you correctly. Are you saying that, because ArbCom determined as part of "fact finding" that Carnildo was resysopped outside of consensus, that they are basically saying that Taxman et al were wrong to re-promote Carnildo but that, rather than directly rebuking or censuring the b'crats, they effectively said "since the end-result of resysopping Carnildo is what we wanted anyway, we will ratify the action of the b'crats by making it an ArbCom decision as well"? Thus, the ramification of the ArbCom decision will be that, in the future, out of consensus resysopping will likely be done by ArbCom rather than by the b'crats?

If I have read you right and the preceding paragraph is on the mark, then I am very satisfied with this result. Somewhere among the megabytes of postings on Carnildo's RFA, I said that this is what ArbCom should do. And, I think some other people said the same thing. ArbCom desysopped Carnildo. If they felt that he should be resysopped despite the lack of consensus, they had and have the power to re-open the case and just resysop him. All the big hooha about "RFA is not a vote" could have been avoided if they had done so. If ever we get this kind of unusual situation again, hopefully things will be done in a smoother way so we can all spend less time, energy and heartache on process and focus on product instead. Which is what? Oh yeah, I think we were working on an encyclopedia or sumthin'. --Richard 01:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Response here will get totally lost in the pounds of typing; will answer on your talk. Newyorkbrad 01:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the perceived futility of the straw poll

On the one hand, I feel like my proposed straw poll has been an exercise in futility because (1) there are more abstentions than anything else and (2) it only remains for a clerk to notice that there are 4 net support votes for the motion to close so this RFARB is closed in everything but name.

But I disagree with Cyde that "straw polls with respect to ArbCom decisions are meaningless".

If there is any intent to appeal this particular part of the ArbCom decision (i.e. the 1 week ban of John Reid), it would help to be able to point at something more than lots and lots of words opposing the ban. I think an actual count of people who are willing to line up to oppose the ban would help. More importantly, nobody has supported the ban yet. I was wondering which way the straw poll would come out (unanimously opposed or mixture of support and oppose). I think this would be valuable data for Jimbo to consider if we could get people to stop abstaining and "vote their conscience". Moreover, if this vote gains any momentum, I would suggest advertising the vote on WP:RFA, WP:AN and WP:BN. I'm willing to accept that the consensus that develops from advertising this straw poll might run towards supporting the ban but I would rather swallow that than this seemingly "gone off the rails" ArbCom decision.

--Richard 23:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Current status (as of October 26, superseded now)

Several arbitrators voted to close this case either before a revised remedy against John Reid was proposed yesterday or (understandably) without noticing that a new proposal was pending. This morning, I left messages on their respective talk-pages and so far one of the arbs has voted (restating his support of the ban, but at least it's a decision). Although the case is technically eligible to be closed right now, I am hopeful that the three other arbs can weigh in on the new proposal before a clerk officially closes the case.

In general, Cyde is correct that arbitration cases are beyond the purview of straw-polling. On the other hand, most of the people who have commented on this and the other pages for this case have put serious time into their analysis, and if there is a strong consensus against a given remedy, then I submit that the remedy may very well not be a good idea. In this instance, I think the strong weight of opinion on this proposed ban is already fairly clear.

Regarding an appeal to Jimbo, I asked John Reid, who is after all the subject of the proposal, on his talk whether he would discourage me from pursuing that step. His response didn't discourage me but didn't encourage me, either. An arbitrator wrote this morning that an appeal to Jimbo should come from the editor in question directly, and I know that John Reid is not going to do that. Thoughts on this are welcome.

And for the record, I still don't agree with everything John Reid said or did on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard last month, nor are our views in synch even on all the issues in this case (he called one of my proposed remedies "Orwellian"). That's not the issue. Newyorkbrad 00:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically, I suppose, the ArbCom themselves can pass the matter to Jimbo. And even if you can't appeal directly, you can still bring it to Jimbo's attention. But I'm inclined to let the matter drop, which is why I didn't even abstain (except by default). My final observation is that I am slightly surprised that the ArbCom let this situation develop, where one person gets a week's ban, and that person is the person you would expect to wear the ban as a badge of honour or martyrdom or whatever, that would gain him a lot of sympathy. This was entirely predictable. I for one saw John's speech down below up above coming a mile off. Even though it was a good speech, the ArbCom practically gave John a soapbox to stand on. Carcharoth 00:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and this is one of the reasons that I disagree with the idea that John Reid needs to appeal. That sounds altogether too much like the situation for an apology, and when a preponderance of users think that an apology should not be tied to the block, then it's likely that the user, too, will not apologize. It should never be about demeaning anyone, and suggesting otherwise seems to me still to be punitive rather than preventative. Even comments by those who reject the "strongly censured" indicate something like a punitive desire. "Too weak?" If we're talking about prevention, strength or weakness is not an attribute we look for; "effective" and "ineffective" are the attributes of prevention. "Weak" and "strong" are attributes of punishments. Cyde's comment was both unnecessary (since those against the block had already voiced their dissent with a poll) and inflammatory (the insult levelled at everyone other than those whose apples he polished). I would say that you should make the appeal, Newyorkbrad. If it is not going to be heard because it comes from you, then so be it, but this is an interesting situation and not at all average. Geogre 02:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A return to substance

Well the case is about to close, everyone's just sick of it all because of all the ad hominem stuff that's been thrown around, and in all the confusion, John's quite right - the substance of this case has been obscured.

1. Carnildo was promoted against community consensus (finding of fact)
2. Arbcom don't want to sign up for Appeals of a decision by Bureaucrats
3. The role Arbcom played in this promotion is as obscure as ever "Perhaps we should say with the permission of the Arbitration Committee. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC) - Perhaps, I remember an exchange which was at least favorable to the idea. Fred Bauder 18:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)" - Who? Where? When? What? Why?

So the community is left with the situation that anyone can be promoted at the discretion of the bureaucrats and the community cannot even appeal it. The argument seems to be that once desysopped, it's very hard to get resysopped through RfA. This is hardly surprising, but it's a problem that doesn't need arbitrary decisions by bureaucrats to fix it. The Arbcom can chose why and who they desysopp, the fact that the sanction now carries the added penalty of making resysopping very difficult should simply be a consideration of Arbcom before they do it. If the action was a one-off mistake, then why did Arbcom desysopp in the first place, if it's a behavioural pattern, then the fact it's such a terrible sanction should chasen potential rogue admins in the future - surely a good thing.

The case isn't closed, it's not too late. The community needs to know where they stand on this issue. Arbcom have already ruled Carnildo was promoted against consensus and haven't told us that consensus is no longer the way we decide things. So how is the circle to be squared? No one want's this dragged out for any longer, but the precedent it sets is worrying. I'm a pragmatist, let Carnildo serve his probabtion and doubtless receive his permanent adminship, but don't let this happen again. Finding of fact - promotion against consensus will be voided by the Arbcom in future. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Potential, if legalistic, way forward:
• Here is why I have stepped back from pressing this issue. Having come this far with everyone on the issue, I want to be clear in explaining why I am OK with how things stand now.
  1. Carnildo was promoted against consensus.
  2. Beaurocrat "discretion" was cited, whether properly or not.
  3. ArbCom members were involved.
• I believe that the beaurocrats involved wish they hadn't done it, that the ArbCom members who were involved recognize that it was a mistake. However, to do any more would mean a separate RFAR on that issue alone, with documenting a number of things that can't be documented on Wikipedia (due to the use of IRC and e-mail and listservs that cannot be cited). I was and remain livid about the use of untraceable and unaccountable media for actions on-Wiki, and that issue has been dropped. Nevertheless, the technicality being invoked here to avoid any further prosecution of the issue is to amend the prior ArbCom demotion of Carnildo to allow re-promotion without RFA. That moots the RFA entirely, and it moots the re-promotion against consensus.
• This allows all to save face, allows us to stop trying to argue what cannot be proven or refuted, and (and this is why I'm not bothered) removes the case from precedent for beaurocrats. I.e. it never happened. It cannot be cited as prior practice for future appointments without consent, just as it cannot be ruled illicit in this RFAR. If you believe, as I do, that everyone involved in the re-promotion regards it as poorly handled and mistaken, then you can go on.
• I would love to see a separate motion to limit what never before had expansion: beaurocrat "discretion" to go against consensus, but it would be a separate issue at this point.
• I fully understand if no one agrees with me here, and I am not arguing that it is the best solution. It is a solution, though, and I'm relieved to get out of the spotlight. Geogre 13:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguities remain. Let us go on and try to solve the problems presented. Fred Bauder 14:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How would you suggest this is done? In which fora (forums?)? By whom? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mailing lists, policy talk pages, arbcom elections, arbcom decisions. For example, just how is policy made using consensus? Fred Bauder 17:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the events of the past couple of months make it every unlikely that there will be any RfA promotions without the usual level of consensus for a long time. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, editors can judge for themselves. From a formal perspective the state of the ArbCom decision isn't perfect (Fred Bauder's initial proposal was to declare that the promotion didn't have consensus, which is a rejection of the position that consensus is whatever the RfA closer says it is, but to recognize the promotion via ArbCom ruling based on continuing jurisdiction over the old case; the other arbitrators endorsed the first of these prongs but not the second). Nonetheless, under all the circumstances, I think things can be left where they are. Newyorkbrad 14:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In regards to acting as an appeals court for RFA - I don't think most of the arbcom would object to the arbcom handling the very rare, exceptional cases like this. The problem is that if the arbcom agrees to do it, it puts the camel's nose firmly into the tent and the rest of the camel will soon follow. Raul654 14:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I hope you're wrong, Raul, about their desires, because in practice it would be inifinte and in theory it would be a rewriting of our most fundamental principle of government by consent and communal will. That's not a camel: that's a dinosaur, and it doesn't belong in the modern age, IMO. Geogre 15:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• • And just as consensus can change in the community, it can eventually change in ArbCom as well, as both the composition and opinions of these bodies change. Carcharoth 16:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The long and the short of it is, as long as some Arbcom members continue to do business , and openly discuss Arbcom business with "others" on not very secure IRC channels, and then forbid others who come to hear of it mentioning it here, there will continue to be a problem. The Arbcom should be upfront and honest about it's actions and reasonings. Giano 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This case, as it now stands, will resolve NONE of the underlying issues which led to it, and will only create new ones by the punitive exile of a dedicated and highly articulate Wikipedian. It was a case full of sound and fury, resolving nothing. But since we are trying to return to substance and no one is paying any attention anymore to the Workshop, just for the hell of it here are some more "findings" and "remedies" to consider:

RFA IS a vote

Admins are elected by the consensus of the community, as measured by a vote, to serve the community.

Definition of Consensus in RFA's

Through time and practice, Concensus in an Rfa is generally defined as 75% of the vote supporting promition. Bureaucrats have some discretion in deciding which candidates are worthy within plus or minus 5% of this. So a candidate may pass with barely 70% or fail with just under 80%.

Contested RfAs

An RFA which passes or fails under such circumstances, may be considered contested, and challenged through a direct appeal to the Arbitration and/or Mediation Committees, A Stewart, Jimbo Wales, or on the Beuraucrat's Noticeboard. They may then decide, based upon the merits of the case, to uphold or overturn the results, call for a new Rfa or grant the candidate a probationary adminship.

Transparency and Openness

Transparency and Openness are essential to the making of policy and the formation of consensus. Therefore, the use of unofficial, off-Wiki channels, such as IRC and mailing lists, to try and influence policies and work around consensus is strongly denounced and discouraged. Any "decisions" made in such a manner, are illegitimate, unofficial and must not be allowed to have any bearing or impact upon the formal, governing mechanism of the project and community.

Acting Outside Consensus

With only 61.2% support, candidate Carnildo fell far short of even the acceptable minium consensus of 70%. Promoting him, despite this fact, was a clear violation of long established policies and practices. Moreover, given the highly controversial circumstances of the candidate's desysopping, the decision to promote was even more unwarrented. The candidate did not resign voluntarily, nor express sincere contrition for the acts leading to revocation of his privillages.

Violation of Transparency and Trust

This decision also violated the principles of Transparency and Openness, and hence undermined the community's trust in its processes and decision makers.

Bureaucrats Admonished and Cautioned

The three Bureaucrats responsible are hereby strongly admonished and cautioned not to again subvert the policies and practices of Wikipedia. Further such actions will result in the loss of the privillages and/or bans.

Carnildo's Probation Extended

Carnildo's probationary adminship is allowed to stand, but is hereby extended a year to the 5th of September 2007.

Dust In the Wind

Is all we are.

1. Accept. These proposals won't satisfy everyone, but no one is punished, made a scapegoat or made to write I will not promote without consensus a thousand times on. It is all about the compromises, my friends. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. I support all of the above except the extension of Carnildo's probation. I might have argued for extending it to 3 months but I think it is easier to just let this stand as I really don't think 2,3 or 12 months will make any difference. He'll be OK and debating the length of the probation doesn't add anything substantive.--Richard
3. Support all but extending Carnildo's probation, as he then becomes the scapegoat and martyr while the true offenders have just a slap on the wrist. So forget Carnildo. Give a slap where it's most deserved and we all make note of the truth for future reference. Giano 19:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
4. It's a mixed bag, but more good than bad. I like 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. I most strongly oppose Carnildo's continued adminship, for even another minute. Everyking 09:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)