Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 5 July 2012 (→‎Motion to remove administrative tools from User:Carnildo: enacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 12 July 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 12 July 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Clarification request: Noleander none (orig. case) 11 July 2024
Amendment request: Durova Motion (orig. case) 4 July 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox none none 10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings none none 12 July 2024
Motion name Date posted
Motion to remove administrative tools from User:Carnildo 5 July 2012

Motions

Shortcut

Motion to remove administrative tools from User:Carnildo

For the purposes of this motion, there are 14 active arbitrators, so 8 votes is a majority.

Carnildo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

For exercising long term poor judgement in his use of administrative tools, including his recent block of User:Itsmejudith, User:Carnildo's administrative tools are removed. Carnildo may regain the administrative tools in the usual manner via a successful Request for Adminship.

Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support
  1. Following SirFozzie's comment below, I've modified the wording to include a mention of Carnildo's block of Itsmejudith. PhilKnight (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We're probably going to have to explain this more in the motion itself, as most onlookers will have no idea of the exact incident that's the cause of this motion (and the preceding ones that built up to this incident), but we do need to take action here. SirFozzie (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This block was poor, but after history of misuse of admin tools going back to 2006, it is necessary. (The history can sort of be seen in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano) Courcelles 17:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I understand comments below, but I can't see how a statement is going to ameliorate matters to a degree where I would not support a desysop at this point. Some links to background will be forthcoming. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I will support this, but I believe that for a third such offense, a ban is a more appropriate outcome. This should not be construed as endorsement for any other party's action in this case, but Carnildo had been told privately and directly to never intervene in the area again in lieu of a 2008 desysop'ing for his second offense. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Having looked through all the details, including this specific 2008 warning from ArbCom to Carnildo: "You are therefore warned that any further use of blocking or unblocking tools in relation to pedophilia, of any kind, or use of undelete/unprotect or the like to reverse "salting" of a pedophilia related matter, may (and quite probably will) result in rapid summary desysopping", I support a desysopping. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carnildo, you state that you are aware that ArbCom does not trust your judgment in these areas. Presumably you were also aware of the warning above. While I can understand your actions to not bring this up at ANI and to close at least part of the discussion (although I'd have closed all of it, especially in light of this IP's history of sexual and trolling questions at the RD, which you haven't given any indication that you looked into), in light of those two facts you should not have been the one to undertake any administrative actions in this situation. The fact that you did so demonstrates very poor judgment and a repeat of past instances of poor judgment. As such, I see no alternative but to revoke your administrative rights. I don't think this quite goes to the level of a ban as Jclemens suggests, but let's just say it would be a very good idea for you to avoid any situations involving pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy henceforth. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] 13:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 06:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per my comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments
  • I'm deeply concerned by Carnildo's actions and am presently inclined to support the motion, but we should give Carnildo an opportunity to make a statement before we vote. Carnildo should respond to the Committee on this issue as soon as he is back at the keyboard, and should not take any further administrator actions (especially not any related to this topic) until this motion is resolved. Carnildo's statement should address, among other things, why he thought it appropriate to impose this block of an experienced good-faith editor without any consultation, particularly in light of the fact that his judgment in this particular area has consistently been questioned since 2006. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are very strong arguments for desysopping here. Carnildo took an action that he knew would be highly controversial, in an area where he is aware that his judgment has been very widely questioned, not least by this Committee. I find it unfathomable that he would have intervened in this situation in this fashion given everything that has happened before. It is unquestionable that Carnildo must not take any further administrator actions in this topic-area, read very broadly indeed. The only arguments against desysopping are that he did report the block to us at the time of making it; that he has presented a sincere and thoughful, albeit deeply misguided, explanation of his actions; and that his administrator actions in other areas, to the best of my knowledge, have been sound. In view of this mitigation, if an alternate motion were proposed for some sort of administrator action topic-restriction, and if Carnildo publicly and unambiguously stated that he would abide by the restriction, I would consider that as an alternative to desysopping. If that does not occur I will support the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too am deeply concerned and am inclined to support this motion. I concur that Carnildo should have an opportunity to present his position. I think we should also be considering a topic ban from anything to do with paedophilia. Risker (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting until the history is fully laid out and Carnildo has had a chance to explain myself, but I share their deep concern that an administrator who has been sanctioned in the past would ever think it would be a good idea to revisit a problem area and take action without apparent consultation. Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've dug up and posted a sufficient outline of the history to assure myself that a desysoping is the right outcome, and as Carnildo has had a chance to explain himself, my self-imposed barrier to voting has been removed. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not familiar with the history just yet myself, but even a brief glance at the IP's history in this instance should have shown that Itsmejudith was not simply throwing idle accusations. This was clearly a very poor block, and if there is a history of these judgment calls, then desysopping is likely the way to go. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2006 RfA had an unusual clause that his admin status was "on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom." Does anyone know if that review was done? SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was, although I am not quickly finding a link. The arbitrators of the day did review Carnildo's administrator actions during the two-month probationary period—they were focused pretty heavily on copyright-related issues—and found that they were satisfactory at that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

This section will be used to assemble facts already known to the arbitration committee informing our decision in this case. Since many of these involve actions taken many years ago, the outcomes of various discussions are not necessarily congruent with what might be expected under current standards:

  • Carnildo was desysop'ed by the committee for administrator conduct related to the Pedophilia userbox wheel war (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Carnildo) in February 2006.
  • In March 2006, a second RfA yielded no consensus to return the tools.
  • In September 2006, he was resysop'ed in a controversial re-RfA.
  • In 2008 he undid a pedophilia advocacy block of User:VigilancePrime. This action was referred to the arbitration committee, who, after an email discussion, sent an email to the account from which he had previously corresponded with the committee which concluded, in part "You are enjoined to put all such matters in the hands of other admins for action"

Response by Carnildo

If Itsmejudith had left it at the "pro-pedophile trolling" comment ([1]), I would have let it pass, as it's a possible interpretation of User:140.180.5.169's comment ("Sex with infants obviously causes no mental damage."[2]) or (at a stretch) User:Bastard Soap's original question [3] (it's unclear from the indenting who the comment was intended to reply to), and 140.180.5.169 does have a history of expressing unusual views on sexual activities. However, it was followed up on the RefDesk with

"I'm in the UK and if I fail to denounce this prima facie paedophile to the authorities I am myself guilty of a serious criminal offence. The IP geolocates to Princeton University and I am, we are all, duty bound to email them. International police protocols apply"

— Itsmejudith 22:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC), [4]

and on Itsmejudith's talk page with

"The only evidence is the comments, which are not evidence that any offence has been committed but indicate that there ought to be an investigation....The refdesks should carry a warning that if a poster confesses to having committed a serious crime or gives other comparable indication, the authorities may be informed."

— ItsmeJudith 07:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC), [5]

The first comment makes it clear that Itsmejudith is referring to the IP. Further, my interpretation of the first comment, especially in light of the second, is that Itsmejudith is making the specific accusation that 140.180.5.169 has engaged in illegal sexual activities with a minor (the only "legal duties to report" in the UK that I'm aware of are specific knowledge of felonies, and suspicion of child sex abuse).

Reasoning for my specific actions:

  • The block: I blocked because Itsmejudith indicated they were unwilling to refrain from future accusations. False accusations of child abuse, even if they are immediately withdrawn, are extremely damaging to the accused. Since Itsmejudith seemed to be acting in good faith, I gave them the opportunity to either retract the comments or substantiate them. They declined to do either, and worded their response in a way that made me think they would continue making accusations in the future, so I blocked.
  • The length: To my knowledge, this is the only time Itsmejudith has made this sort of accusation. Blocking for one week would let the question get archived off the RefDesk, removing the immediate temptation to make further accusations, while giving them time to reconsider. The other block time I considered was an indefinite block, with an unblock condition of pledging not to make such accusations in the future, but I considered that it would cause more drama and be less likely to work.
  • The block comment: I described the block reason in generic terms to keep the log entry from standing out, to try to reduce drama.
    • Itsmejudith's comments were disruptive, as they derailed the RefDesk discussion into arguing about 140.180.5.169's actions and motivations rather than discussing the question that had been asked.
    • They were unfounded accusations, as neither I, nor the commenters on the RefDesk, nor Itsmejudith saw any evidence that 140.180.5.169 had undertaken the activities that Itsmejudith was accusing them of.
    • I didn't include "making legal threats" despite mentioning it in the initial comment to Itsmejudith because, on further review, I felt that Itsmejudith's wording fell into the grey area of "legal consequences will take place", and there isn't clear community consensus that that such statements are blockable legal threats.
  • Informing ArbCom: I know ArbCom takes an interest in pedophilia-related activity, and that they don't trust my judgment on this, so I forwarded my action to them for review.
  • Not informing AN/I: It's got a well-founded reputation as the "drama board", and I was trying to minimize the on-Wiki spread of Itsmejudith's accusations.
  • Closing off only the "pro-pedophile trolling" branch of the discussion: I found the question to be a reasonable one to ask, and the discussion was producing sources that could provide answers. I was trying to get the discussion back on track.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnildo (talk • contribs) 23:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

Shouldn't there be some evidence to such a strong allegation of "long term poor judgement"? This kind of comes out of nowhere, and has no context whatsoever presented. I'm sure there's a good reason behind this, but it would be kind of nice if said reasons would actually be provided. :) --Conti|✉ 17:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes probably. Anyway, it was the recent block of Itsmejudith (talk · contribs) which triggered this. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured this out by now, though I don't see how that warrants immediate desysopping, that's why I was asking for more information on "long term poor judgement". Some searching led me to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Carnildo though, so I suppose that's an explanation. --Conti|✉ 17:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that is indeed rather enlightening.
If there were not such things in the background, then I would be tempted to ask if the topic area on which ItsMeJudith was commenting at the time of the block, is in some way exempt from the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. It would be nice to have clarification that this motion does not imply that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much along the lines of what Demiurge said, I'm concerned that if you guys don't spell out exactly what's gone wrong, what you'll be passing is a motion that implies that personal attacks/threats of contacting the police are permissible, as long as they concern pedophilia. If you're desysopping someone for misusing his tools long-term in pursuit of a POV - which is my best guess for the rationale for this, based on the case links people have provided above - you want to explain that, not just say that you're desysopping him for having "poor judgment" in regards to a block of someone who was issuing personal attacks/legal threats that may or may not have been founded. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, and some of us (by which I don't mean to imply that I am...) are working on full details of the problem and history, some of which predate the personal knowledge of most of the committee. Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Itsmejudith was told "I will block you for personal attacks, legal threats, and disrupting Wikipedia." But NLT blocks are indefinite, and this was not an NLT block as confirmed by the block reason, "Disruptive editing: making serious unfounded accusations against another user". Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you notified me about this page, I will post my response on this drama.
First, I have no interest in participating in a witch hunt against anybody--not myself, not Carnildo, and not Itsmejudith. The eagerness of some people to put detailed thoughts and motivations into other people's heads is astounding. Wikipedia is a global project. I grew up in a country that's probably 10000 km away from yours, differ from you in age by as much as decades, had experiences completely different from yours, and have developed an odd combination of intellectual interests that very few people have. How can anyone on the other side of the globe possibly conclude, from ONE assertion of fact on the Reference Desk, that I'm part of the pro-pedophilia lobby who's trying to put on a reasonable face? There might be a reasonable correlation in a town of 1000 people, but it's absurd to extrapolate that to the world's 7 billion human beings.
Second, it's true that I'm interested in learning about unusual human and animal sexuality. I want to know about the full spectrum of both human and animal sexuality, about the role of evolution vs. human culture in dictating human sexual mores, and about our similarities and differences from the rest of the natural world. As far as I know, it isn't a thoughtcrime to be interested in this topic, nor is it against Wikipedia policy to research it.
For what it's worth, I'll state my opinion about this ArbCom motion. I find Itsmejudith's accusations and (especially) legal threats to be baseless, and they reveal more about her tendency to stereotype than about my thoughts. I disagree with Carnildo's block--I disagree with what Itsmejudith is saying, but she has the right to say it, especially on controversial issues like this. I disagree with the desysop motion--I believe that Carnildo has good intentions, and ascribing motivations like "the blocks/unblocks in this topic area appear to be pushing a pov" unfairly suppresses legitimate debate about controversial blocking decisions. Finally, I disagree with Cardamon's suggestion, as I have not violated Wikipedia's policies.
Please, everyone, stop the accusations, the finger-pointing, the distrust, and the witch hunts in general. Go out and celebrate Canada Day, even if you're not Canadian, and give this a break. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this all cart-before-the-horse? Make a motion to desysop him and then come up with evidence to support it? Really? Really?? Evidence should inform a decision, not the other way around. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of past problematic administrator behavior exists and is known to the committee. It's not a matter of "coming up with" evidence, but merely articulating that which underlies the decision. Having said that, while I do not fault my colleagues who already have enough information to make an appropriate decision, I am holding off until the various past incidents are Wikilinked in to demonstrate the pattern of behavior. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Moved from voting section. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)] I have asked exactly 3 questions on the RD, only one of which was sexual (and it was about animal, not human, sexual behavior). The second question was about how conscious perceptions of the world change with age, and is not even remotely controversial. The third was about an Italian stereotype--I asked whether the stereotype exists, not whether it's true, not why Italians are such despicable people. That's hardly a "history" of sexual and trolling questions, and in any case, nobody has shown why my questions could not have originated from a genuine interest in the subject. Furthermore, I was not aware that trolling entitles other users to make baseless accusations of pedophilia and threats of contacting the police. I had previously believed that two wrongs don't make a right, and that violations of policy by one user, no matter how egregious, do not justify violations by others. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your characterization of your questions is inconsistent with the reasonably expected emotional responses generated by posting them to a widely viewed page, read by any number of Wikipedians with vastly differing backgrounds. The two possibilities that immediately come to mind is that this is either intentional trolling or gross ignorance of how such sensitive topics would be reasonably perceived by Wikipedians. In either case, there does not appear to be any benefit to Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of topics resulting from your lines of questions. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So basically, because he has different questions than the norm and didn't waste time with tedious qualifications and insultingly condescending self-distancing and because the helpdesk is "widely viewed", he's a troll? For a supposed "global community", this project has a ridiculously arrogant sense of the importance of its own personal norms and mores - and then you all wonder why editor retention rates are in the fucking pits. 108.28.224.136 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to comment that, if I was an admin, I would have also immediately blocked Itsmejudith, though for NLT reasons. This seems to clearly breach NLT. SilverserenC 23:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Silver, the WP:NLT policy relates to litigation, and in my understanding Itsmejudith didn't threaten litigation. Also, the WP:NLT policy says "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." Otherwise, I suggest you have a look at WP:Child protection, which I think is the applicable policy in this instance. PhilKnight (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, this got me curious. Is it okay/acceptable to say "I'm calling the cops on you" on Wikipedia, or implicitly threaten such an action? I suppose it's true that it's not technically a legal threat, but I would have assumed it violates that policy in spirit, at the very least. --Conti|✉ 20:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are cases, such as responding to threats of harm where our best practice is to take stuff out of the realm of Wikipedia and place it firmly in the hands of the police and other authorities, yes. In that spirit, Itsmejudith would have done better to deal with the incident through similar channels, and not on-wiki at all. It possibly is being dealt with via such channels, right now, for all that you or I know. Doing things that way means that the police and prosecutors don't get armchair quarterbacked by people on wikis with pseudonyms such as "Uncle G" or "Silver seren". Uncle G (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Conti above. Saying one is going to inform the cops about another user should more or less fall under NLT. At the very least, it is causing chilling effects. Furthermore, as i'm sure you well know, I think Child protection is one of the stupidest, most misinformed forced-on-the-community policies we have, though I also don't see how it applies in this situation at all. I'm not seeing any threats to children here, nor am I seeing the user in question making any advocacy of pedophilia in his comments. This comment is neither, as it is just continuing the conversation on what causes psychological damage to children who are sexually abused. And the conversation seemed to be quite serious by those involved. But none of it was advocating for sexual abusing children. SilverserenC 21:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are not one but three policies that apply here: Wikipedia:No legal threats, Wikipedia:Child protection, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. All of the stuff in the infobox arbitration case mentioned above applies, too. Navigating a course when all of that lot clash in such an unfortunate way, as in the case at hand, is difficult, and it would be wrong not to acknowledge that, even if the real rationale here is that the incident at hand doesn't stand alone. Uncle G (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • From Wikipedia:Child protection: "Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel. You should raise your concerns only by email; questions or accusations directed against a particular editor in project space may result in a block for the editor who posted them." 169.231.53.116 (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • ... and no arbitrator has said that anything that Itsmejudith has done was appropriate. The issue leading to the desysoping motion is not the sum total of conduct in the case, in which I personally find three separate users who exercised poor judgment, but only one of the three who was currently an admin, having been previously desysop'ed for intervening in the topic area, and also having been explicitly told in 2008 to never act as an administrator in that topic area again. One thing that was hinted at by Itsmejudith that hasn't been addressed in these comments, however, was the self-made assertion that he or she is a mandated reporter with a duty to report such suspicions. I note that, as a mandated reporter myself, I have a specific authority to whom I am required by law to report such suspicions, and Wikipedia is not it. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Can you explain to me exactly what comment in the Reference Desk discussion would be something you would be mandated to report to the police? Because i'm not seeing a single thing, unless talking about pedophilia historically and the mental effects of it on children somehow automatically makes one a pedophile. It is this exact sort of thing that I was concerned the Child protection policy would lead to, a drastic expansion of what would ever fall under it in the first place. SilverserenC 23:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can't, because I didn't see anything there that is direct enough to trigger my ethical duty to report under the laws that apply to me. Itsmejudith mentioned a different jurisdiction, however, (although I'm not remembering if that was in email or on-wiki, so I'll just not mention either one by name) so that may mean nothing in particular. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Jclemens: If the same block were made by a different admin, would it have been a good block? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Not Jclemens, but as I see it, the block wouldn't have been an optimal course for ANY admin to take, but without history, including being told to never, ever take any admin action in this area ever again, I would sure as hell not be supporting a desysop for this one incident. The history of this admin is what makes this such a tipping point to be talking desysopping. Courcelles 23:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You're really going to explain to me how saying that you're going to contact the police about another user doesn't fall under NLT or NPA? Because I fully believe it falls under NLT and, thus, would deserve an indefinite block until it is resolved, which I would wholeheartedly support. SilverserenC 23:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The only question that the committee has addressed as a whole from this incident is the use of the block button by an administrator who had been essentially topic banned from acting as an administrator in such disputes. The others of us may differ over whether the block would have been appropriate. I have some sympathy for the level of emotions involved in the topic, and if personally presented with the situation as it had devolved by the time of the block would have blocked the IP for trolling (normal, expiring, trolling block, NOT a CHILDPROTECT block) and counseled Itsmejudith to remove the accusations and contact authorities off-wiki if she believed it mandated by her local laws. Mind you, that's with 20/20 hindsight, and solely my opinion, rather than that of any of the rest of the committee. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Quest For Knowledge, I'd suggest that he was already under a topic ban and had been for several years, even before I was on the Committee. Risker (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker: You "think" and "suggest" they were under a topic ban? Jclemens says "essentially" they were under a topic ban. Why the ambiguity? Either they were topic-banned or they weren't. The committee could have avoided creating such a gray area by issuing a clear ruling which specifically stated that they were under a topic ban. Anyway, this doesn't really concern me, so I'll leave with repeating my previous sugestion: If they do good admin work regarding copyright-related issues, it might make more sense to give them a (clear and unambigious) topic-ban rather than a desysoppying. Have fun, folks. I'm outta here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The words "you are topic banned from the area" were never used. That was, in my estimation, an improvement that this committee observes could have been made--the politeness of our predecessors exceeded their precision. Also, note that in four years, roughly the tenure of my Wikipedia administrator experience, the concept and execution of topic bans has changed substantively. However, the current iteration of the arbitration committee has not, to the best of my recollection, imposed any topic bans on administrators, opting instead to desysop for conduct that would result in a topic ban in a non-administrator who had engaged in the same conduct. And, note for the record that neither of the arbitrators who were primarily involved in handling the 2008 matter remain on the committee, although both are active on Wikipedia and have provided input via email to the current committee. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to take too seriously the comments made by those who do not post under their User name. Bielle (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A history lesson

This quote by Giano from here [6] may shed a little light on Carnildo and Wikipedia's long and often less than glorious history: " Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war This was the first case, I was involved in, and resulted from the first time I was ever blocked [7], but there is no record of it in my block log because after ages of battling and having to change my name to lose it, they eventually agreed to to wipe it as the block was not only unjust but the citation for it defamatory "Blocked for hate speech" (This is the hate speech in question [8] and [9]). The blocking Admin was desysoped within hours of the block. However, by the time someone called Brion (who had previously refused) [10] agreed to wipe it, I was long gone from that account; its password and lying block log sent to hell." Wikipedia's abused and disgraced Admin system is the reason why so many people have gone. ToujoursDejaVu (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=500808863"