Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Also see

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop/Proposed principles
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings of fact

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Question to Tony Sidaway

With respect to this edit, who are you talking about and what is the basis for your belief? Fred Bauder 17:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The talk page edit I referred to was this. This and this should also help to answer your question. If not, I suggest a chat with Mindspillage, who I understand is recused from this case, for background on Juppiter's campaign against a bot run by Carnildo to remove images that are in Category:Images with unknown source and Category:Images with unknown copyright status from articles. Here is an example of how he pursued his campaign. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop/Proposed principles

Proposed findings of fact

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings of fact

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Carnildo restored to Administrative status

.5) Exercising our continuing jurisdiction in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Carnildo effective September 5, 2006 Carnildo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is restored to Administrative status, subject to review by the Arbitration Committee in November, 2006.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is my belief that consensus did fail in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3. Fred Bauder 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think it is a good proposal. It would return legitimacy to Carnildo while sendind a signal that closing RfAs out of consensus is wrong abakharev 23:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I gave my reserved support at Carnildo III. However, there have been some good arguments against the reasoning of the closure of that RfA. At this time it would be too much to ask Carnildo to have to run again. He should be held safe from further inconvienience pertaining to this matter until his review period has passed. Hamster Sandwich 00:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No sanctions imposed

1) Upon consideration of all of the evidence and circumstances and due deliberation, and without endorsement of any of the questioned user conduct, no sanctions are found to be necessary against any of the involved parties. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

We have done this before, and this is what I will propose, with one or two exceptions and additional admonitions. Fred Bauder 01:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This won't really satisfy anyone, I think. Kirill Lokshin 23:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh as per Kirill. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is going to walk out of this satisfied. It's been a miserable few weeks for all concerned. But I don't think that another week of finger-pointing followed by formal ArbCom sanctions against various users is an answer to anything here. Others may disagree. Newyorkbrad 00:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Newyorkbrad. Already much harm is done and many editor-hours are lost. The policy discussions are outside the scope of arbcom abakharev 05:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I can live with this, if some sort of "lessons to be learnt" essay is grafted together. No-one smells of roses coming out of this, but who does when the excrement hits the fan? Steve block Talk 19:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway

2) The resignation of User:Tony Sidaway as Clerk of the Arbitration Committee is accepted with thanks for dedicated service. Tony Sidaway is urged to resume the performance of his other administrative duties, subject to the restrictions imposed in his prior arbitration case. He is urged to be mindful of the observations of other users in this proceeding and to consult with other administrators before taking potentially controversial actions. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The wording of the first sentence is supposing that Tony is ready to resign. I'm not taking a position on whether he should be forced out or not. Newyorkbrad 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Tony's now noted above that his resignation is agreeable and permanent, so the draft stays as was. Newyorkbrad 00:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway is warned

2.1) Tony Sidaway is warned again in the strongest possible terms to avoid insulting and incivil remarks. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole

2.2) Tony Sidaway is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If my civility really is an issue (and I think this is certainly arguable) then this would be appropriate. A week out is enough to make any contributor of good faith think twice. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Taxman, yes I mean that a week out is enough to make any contributor of good faith think twice. --Tony Sidaway 05:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Given the distinct failure of past warnings, something more to the point may be appropriate; wording from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. Kirill Lokshin 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with this one as it is too vague.--MONGO 20:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I support a lot of your positions, but your approach is often awful. Clearly your civility is a problem based on past arbitration and multiple conversations in many places. Just tone it down, please, for the good of everyone. Also, can you expand on what you mean by your last sentence of 04:12, 27 September? Do you mean the a week out would be enough to make you think twice before being incivil in the future? - Taxman ^Talk 22:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, see the discussion under 4.2.19 ("Tony's incivility") above. I find myself in the awkward position of complimenting Tony for his candor while being unsure what to expect next from him (although dealing with that issue is not sufficient reason to keep this mess of a case going much longer, in my personal opinion). Newyorkbrad 22:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole

2.2a) Tony Sidaway is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If it reached five blocks, I'd either appeal or give up. That would mean that either my incivility had reached such crisis levels as to threaten the project, or we had quite a few trigger-happy administrators. --Tony Sidaway 04:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, you're not wrong in your inferrence. :) - Mailer Diablo 09:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Revised version, which I think is nessecary because this is chronic. Take your pick. - Mailer Diablo 04:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole

2.2b) Tony Sidaway is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits, including edit summaries, which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It will be noted that Nandesuka frequently uses precisely the same language to describe the actions of others that they have used to describe the far more serious behavior of a third party. This is a well known trolling technique; its purpose is deliberately inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway 05:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the correct measure. I'm particularly sensitive to edit sum abuse; not everyone actually follows links, although such failure is a dereliction. Also, since edit sums cannot themselves be edited, it's particularly important to avoid a tone here that we may later regret.

I see nothing trollish about this remedy; the language is exactly the same as in many RfArbs. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander -- even sauce for the chef's assistant.

I'm tempted to accept Tony's statements of regret on this page as sufficient; I hope ArbCom will not succumb to this temptation. It is vital to the health of our community that all editors see clearly that there are significant consequences for habitual misbehavior -- and absolutely essential that these are applied with neither fear nor favor to all members of our community. John Reid 10:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Incorporating 2.2a and 2.4. If accepted, the former two will be superceded. - Mailer Diablo 10:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that this remedy cuts to the chase quite neatly. Tony has a problem with using language intemperately. Just as his administrative 1RR has helped him curb his problems with wheel warring, I believe that this civility parole will help him curb his problems with using hostile, warlike, statements that overstep the bounds of civil criticism by a wide margin. Nandesuka 18:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Tony, I occasionally use the same language you use to describe others actions to describe your actions. I hardly ever do it to anyone else because hardly anyone else makes it necessary. The purpose is didactic. If you feel it is "trolling" to publically point out that you describe Geogre's measured discussion as "warlike" while lauding your own turns of phrase such as "malodorous filth", "paranoid ravings," and "disgusting rabble" and "fuck off" as "frank expressions," "not incivil" or, worst of all, "pithy," then I suggest that your remedy should be to not use such outrageous, plainly incivil, and completely unacceptable language. Your choice of words is not "pithy." Your choice of words is harmful. If you don't want widespread criticism of your choice of words, then make them beyond reproach. Since in several years of editing and, by my count, approximately 372 hojillion complaints from respected editors, you are unable to do this by yourself, I believe you should be forced to do it. Nandesuka 12:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway blocked

2.3) For repeated incivility despite many warnings, Tony is blocked for one week.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A stronger version of 2.1) -- Grafikm_fr 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't address the problem. I come back and start upsetting people, and then what? --Tony Sidaway 04:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Tony. Useless and harmful bloodthirsty measure. --Irpen 09:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is overpowered myself, but one has to propose a full spectrum of solutions for the arbitrators to choose from. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I suspect that Tony is just about ready to make a sizable donation to Wikipedia in exchange for a week block. Not a sanction at all but a reward for hard service as clerk. On second thought, support -- if Tony pays up. John Reid 10:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a half-way-pregnant sort of solution. We really shouldn't be in the business of making a block long after the fact, and this does not put in place any long term solutions. brenneman ^{L} 01:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not see how it will help abakharev 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and this proposal seems to be what I mentioned earlier, and that is arbcom shouldn't be used as a methodology to setlle scores or to "out"/"oust" an editor as some form of retribution.--MONGO 20:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Pft. This block would be unjustified, and merely a way to satisfy certain indivuals who deserve blocks more than Tony does. Daniel.Bryant 08:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Just...no. This is retroactive, vindicative, and doesn't help anyone go forward, least of all Tony. -- nae'blis 21:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, this would be utterly pointless. I don't like punishment blocks- they ought to be used for damage control. If such a remedy is intended to send a message of some kind, that message should be conveyed in words, not in a block. Friday (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this. However, I would argue against the point MONGO makes, in that long or permanent blocks are generally meant and intended as retribution for unacceptable behaviour in WP space. But in this case, such a block is not called for. And since so much time and discussion have taken place concerning the issue at hand even a short block is unneeded. If any user is acting rashly, block them for a few seconds, let them know that they should cool off, discuss the matter which has provoked them so. If M. Sidaway or any other user is being thought of as patently incivil, then there are dispute resolution processes (here we are...) to deal with the transgression. My oposition to this proposal can be read as somewhat of a "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it" type of thing. Hamster Sandwich 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate edit summaries

2.4) Tony Sidaway is required to make valid edit summaries for the period of three months. Should Tony Sidaway fail to make an edit summary or make a comment that could reasonably be interpreted as a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, any administrator may block him at his/her discretion for a maximum period of one week for the first five violations, increasing to a year thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This doesn't make any sense to me. Nearly every edit I have ever made has had an edit summary. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Tony. All his edits have a very well descriptive edit summaries. Don't see an issue. --Irpen 09:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose in detail, see revision. John Reid 11:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. From Theodore7. - Mailer Diablo 05:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is valid, but doesn't need to be on its own. This could simply be included as the words "including in edit summaries" in the proposals above. - brenneman ^{L} 06:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, done. 2.2b above. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Should Tony Sidaway fail to make an edit summary..." Hmm... If Tony ceased using edit summaries altogether I don't see what harm it would cause, in fact I'd suggest that a portion of the "problem" would be solved. Surely a null string is preferable to any phrase or sentence that might even border on being uncivil? —freak(talk) 07:29, Sep. 28, 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate edit summaries

2.4a) Tony Sidaway is required to make valid edit summaries for the period of three months. Should Tony Sidaway fail repeatedly to make edit summaries or make a comment that could reasonably be interpreted as a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, any administrator may block him at his/her discretion for a maximum period of one week for the first five violations, increasing to a year thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The only difference is that total failure is now plural. Technical error can cause an edit to be recorded without summary and there is no way to fix this, not even in the next moment, not even with the best of intentions. It sets a bad precedent to set any editor up as a target in a shooting gallery. Tony needs to show continued neglect of edit sums to invite sanctions under this proposed remedy. And per Freakofnurture above, sometimes (rarely) the best edit sum really is none at all.

Technical error cannot, of course, insert hostile edit sums. John Reid 11:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This just won't work, per above. It'll just be another area where certain issues will play themselves out. And are edit summaries really the greatest failing on offer here? Steve block Talk 19:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't understand these two (presumably I'm not required to voice this on both). Tony seems to have automated edit summaries when he doesn't customize them, so it seems wholly without a target. -- nae'blis 21:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway is forbidden to block established users

2.5) Tony Sidaway is forbidden to block established users (with more than 500 edits) for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I do not see a point in blocking Tony from editing and while he uses quite a colorful language in his edit summaries, IMHO they lack sufficient venom to really hurt people. What does hurt people though and causes an excesive amount of drama is his using blocks on established users that in hindsight sometimes do not appear to be done in good judgement. This indictment should not prevent him from blocking anonymous vandals and sock-puppets, nor to perform unblocking, deletion or undeletion or any other administrative tasks. If there is a need to block an established editor Tony could contact any administrator. The additional time required for such a contact as well as a judgement from another admin could benefit to the thoughtfulness of the blocks. The 500 edits threshold is an arbitrary number, I do not mind to increase it to 5000-10000 or something, but 500 edits limits is just easier to check - just see if the contributions of a user fills one 500-edit page. abakharev 06:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to object to this one strongly. Plenty of "established users" are validly blocked, and if Tony is to retain his sysop bit, this restriction is entirely too arbitrary. I understand what the intent is, and it would be better served by "disruption parole" or something similar.
brenneman ^{L} 06:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed plenty of established users are validly blocked. If Tony wants to block an established user he will only need to ask for it on #wikipedia-en-admins or on WP:AN/I or go to a talk or wikimail page of an administrator. If the case is valid he would almost certainly quickly find somebody to perform the block for him. If the case is not so valid we might be spared from much of a wiki-drama. The handicap for his administrative duties is minimal, the benefits are quite real (especially if the alternative is desysopping). abakharev 07:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable. It implies a privileged status for regular contributors, suggesting that they can get away with behavior that others, who may be less familiar with how Wikipedia works, do not. --Tony Sidaway 00:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally with Alex Bakharev on this. Disclaimer, I was never blocked by Tony. --Irpen 09:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No, this proposal serves no betterment to Wikipedia. Tony is already on administrative 1RR anyway, so if his block is seen as wrong, it can be reverted. I haven't seen evidence that he makes blocks that are consistantly wrong, and every very active admin who makes difficult blocks are expected to post them for review. In the case of the block Tony placed on Giano, he did bring it to review and it was overturned, yet I take no position on that block except to state that it forever appears on the block log of said editor, which may be an insult.--MONGO 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, blocks hurt people. They are emotionally damaging, especially for long-time users. Undoing a bad block does not undo that harm. I do not believe Tony can be trusted with the block button; this is a good proposal. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not that interested in monitoring Tony's administrative actions, but his block of User:Ghirlandajo on September 5, 2006 for Unreasonable and defiant response to request to tone down after multiple instances of gross incivility was in my opinion no more helpful than his block of Giano. Two blocks in a short span of time is a sort of pattern. If it is impossible to segregate established users from newbies, socks and anons, lets ban him from the block button all together. abakharev 01:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This matter had been discussed on WP:ANI and the IRC channel, and the block was reviewed and was not reversed. Even if it was a bad block in your opinion, it had been extensively discussed both before and after action was taken. --Tony Sidaway 04:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the summary of my abuses. That's what followed it. I believe the only result of this block was radicalizing Giano into posting statements that led to his own block by the same admin. As a sidenote, in both cases, RfAr was launched within a very short span of time by a seemingly uninvolved editor with little experience in Wikipedia and little interest in further prosecution of the case. The first one openly acknowledged that his actions are sometimes dictated by IRC advices.[1] I personally find starting an arbitration on adviсe from one of the arbitrators quite disturbing. Judges are not supposed to instigate proceedings against a person they don't agree with. But this was already discussed in the past. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If a block is appropriate, it will take little extra time to get someone else to do it. Either way, it will avoid stress if any block is applied by a 3^rd party. There are more valuable uses of Tony's time than disciplining other users. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway on administrative parole

2.6) For Tony Sidaway's mis-use of administrator powers on past occasions, he is hereby placed on administrative parole for six months. Should the Arbitration Committee deemed to have found any further abuse of administrator power by Tony during this period, he shall be de-sysopped immediately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If my judgement is poor I shouldn't have a sysop bit. Halfway remedies are not much use. I think my judgement is good but others may differ on this. The sysop bit is not a badge of rank or authority. My edits and comments on Wikipedia would carry just as much (or as little) authority without the sysop bit. --Tony Sidaway 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any point in this measure. --Irpen 09:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others

This is a new form of proposal. De-sysop is too harsh, so we may want to try something intermediate. - Mailer Diablo 07:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Tony occasionaly creates problems not because of his bad faith but because of the poor judgement. I will be very reluctant to desysop somebody acting in good faith. If he is allowed to block established users he would screw up now and again and every time we will be in the same situation - do we really want to desysop Tony for a good faith but badly thought block. Just ban him form the block button all other actions are reparable and with his 1RR on admin actions they are quite easy to repair. abakharev 07:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Just ban him form the block button..." won't be feasible, especially since you had already objected to 2.5., and sysop tools historically usually come as a set together. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of it. He's on administrative 1RR- if one admin disagrees with any action he takes, it's immediately reverted. Ral315 (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good proposal, but not suited to the case at hand. Maybe an idea to take forward in some form, perhaps even into some form of de-admin process. Steve block Talk 12:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway de-sysopped

2.7) For Tony Sidaway's repeated misuse of administrative privileges in the past, he is hereby de-sysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am thinking about a one month suspension. Not so long as to discourage him or deprive us of his valuable services, but plenty long enough for him to get in touch with editing again. Fred Bauder 22:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed. Removed discretionary clause. If my judgement is poor I should not be an admin. Ever. --Tony Sidaway 06:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse -- but let it be understood that I don't consider this an extreme sanction. Adminship is no big deal; we should be slow to promote only because it's a complex set of duties and not everyone is suited to the office. We should be very ready to recall any admin who comes up short; there is a fresh crop of candidates on RfA every week and we don't need to take (or keep) second best. It must be well understood that good editors do not always make good admins -- and for that matter, good human beings do not necessarily make either. Adminship is not a reward, a badge, or a certificate of general worthiness; it is more like a shoe that either fits or does not. By the same token, recall from adminship must never be taken as anything but a simple determination that the shoe no longer fits.

Tony is permitted to reapply at RfA -- to get in line with the rest of us, be pushed around a bit and tested, to weather the storm and answer difficult and sometimes biased questions (about every single edit he's ever made) in a level, friendly, nonconfrontational tone. And I wish him all the best when the time comes. John Reid 11:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed; quoting Tony above: "If my judgement is poor I shouldn't have a sysop bit ... I think my judgement is good but others may differ on this." [2] ~ PseudoSudo 23:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no, and a thousand times No. I'd like to see some decent reasoning here. — Werdna talk criticism 07:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 100% advocating this move (or even 20% at this point), but his history would certainly warrant it. There's certainly a strong argument to be had that the way he interacts with people, his repeated incivility, his lack of respect for basic administrative processes, and his eschewing of our basic tenets regarding consensus make him unfit. Whether that's the right move here, I can't say, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John Reid that this is not an extreme sanction. I'd rather see this than a blocking injunction- if someone has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with the block button, there's no reason in the world to give them continued access to it. Friday (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Hamster Sandwich 21:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't that RFA yet, you know. -- nae'blis 21:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• This IS an extreme sanction. I think a new Tony Sidaway RfA six months from now would cause just as much bad feelings as the recent Carnildo RfA did. We need to end the cycle of contentious resysopping RfAs. ArbCom should keep control of this, probation or temporary desysopping for admins = OK, yet another Resysop RfA = No Way! If ArbCom is unwilling to forbid a new RfA (as with Guanaco), they should only temporary desysop with the decision to resysop left to them. NoSeptember 22:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony may agree per "no half measures" but this seems a bit much here. ArbCom are welcome to endorse it, of course, but Tony does do good work as an Administrator; he just also has the unfortunate tendency to get himself into arguments and sniping contests. I don't know why, but some sort of mentorship/parole is likely to be more beneficial to the project as a whole. And, lest you think I'm going easy on Tony, it's easier to quit, than to change your behavior. -- nae'blis 21:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy. We can't (and probably shouldn't try to) fix people. It's one thing to help editors understand what kind of behavior is expected here, but Tony knows full well how editors are expected to behave, he simply chooses not to do it. Friday (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Friday except that on the issue of whether I think I know what is required of editors. I think I'm one of the best assets Wikipedia has. I'd say that Friday simply misunderstands Wikipedia so comprehensively that he makes incorrect statements, in all honesty believing them to be correct. If I'm wrong I should certainly not have a bit and I should probably not edit at all. Ever. That's basically what I told Jimbo before this case started. My opinion on this has not changed. --Tony Sidaway 23:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually endorse the suggestion made by User:Nae'blis in this space, one I have already made in another, found here [3]. I'd suggest a proviso something to the effect that "M. Sidaway retains the use of administrator priveleges, but that all such (umm..) executive actions by him will be discussed on such administrator notice boards as are appropriate to the need of his immediate intervention." Something like that. Hamster Sandwich 23:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kelly Martin

3) Kelly Martin's voluntary resignation as an administrator and relinquishment of her Checkuser and Oversight access on the English Wikipedia are noted with thanks for her dedication and record of extensive contributions. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The Signpost has reported that Kelly unsubscribed from the mailing list. I expect she'll resubscribe if and when she feels able to continue participation in English Wikipedia. We mustn't ever let bullying prevail. --Tony Sidaway 09:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I shudder at the thought of shadow admins, shadow officers. If Kelly has resigned, let all special access be revoked, per Guettarda. This has nothing to do with Kelly and everything to do with transparency. John Reid 11:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand. Kelly resigned from the arbitration committee months ago. There are rather a lot of former arbitrators on the list, apparently, or at least with the right of access if they wish. I can't see a problem with that unless the current arbitrators think they shouldn't have access, in which case they should just kick the former arbitrators off it.

I think that your suggestion of shadow admins is apposite to this discussion. What would you say if you were aware that there exist non-administrators who have a very high success rate of persuading administrators to perform administrative actions? Would this bother you? What if I told you that Wikipedia facilitates, even encourages, confidential communications between admins and non-admins. I even boast of it on my talk page. Yes, I welcome Wikipedia-related email and regard it as one of my duties as an administrator (1) to observe confidentiality of private, non-threatening, emails and (2) to remedy mistaken actions by myself and intercede in occasions where another admin has apparently erred. This wouldn't be seen on the wiki. Not everything done within an organisation is transparent. You also have the right to engage in confidential Wikipedia-related communications. To suggest otherwise would be intrusive and absurd. --Tony Sidaway 16:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There was a discussion somewhere in which it was suggested that Kelly still has some residual privileges, eg access to mailing lists. Is that the case? Ben Aveling 11:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If one were to make an argument on this issue (which I am not making at this point in time) it would be something along the lines of: "KM's actions have put into doubt her trustworthiness to the community at large. The arbcomm mailing list is used to discuss sensitive matters. There appears to be an unwillingness to clarify whether she remains on the arbcomm mailing list. This uncertainty undermines the faith of a portion of the community in the arbitration process. In the interest of restoring the faith of that portion of the community in the arbitration process, assurance must be made that KM is no longer a member of the arbcomm mailing list." Guettarda 23:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For me, the arbcomm have the right to seek input from whoever they want, including Kelly. But that input should be done through the wiki. The judges' discussion must either be completely public and open to all, or completely private, closed to all but the arbcomm. Mostly private, except for a few selected souls, would be wrong, and I would be very grateful if the current situation could be clarified. Kelly? Can you clear this up for us? Thanks, Ben Aveling 10:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not the right approach. Mindspillage lives with Gmaxwell, we're not going to say they can't meet at the dinner table and discuss arbcom issues (or that they have to summarize their dinner table discussions on-wiki), because that's ridiculous. However, if previous members' presence on the arbcom mailing list gives an impression that they have official influence that other friends-of-arbcom don't have, then just for perception reasons, it might be appropriate to limit the list to only current members. But even that isn't so clear (eg. it comes down to how important the arbcom thinks the appearance of fairness is, and how much editors think it gives the appearance of unfairness, and whether ex-members can really have all that much undue influence with so many ex- and current-members (most of whom are highly trusted) watching). --Interiot 17:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• What is the problem here? Does she have access to the list or not? What privileges, if any, has she retained? It's a simple question so a simple answer will do Giano 12:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Kelly Martin is no longer subscribed to the arbitration committee mailing list - she cannot see anything that gets posted there (unless someone CC's her or forwards emails to her). Raul654 18:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for clarifying that, Raul. -- nae'blis 21:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, thanks Raul. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin is formally de-sysoped by the ArbCom

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think I will propose a suspension of her powers until she has satisfied the Arbitration Committee that she can display appropriate respect for other users. Fred Bauder 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this on any particular evidence or findings in this case? As Bishonen has noted, very little has been said about her in this case. --InkSplotch 22:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings_of_fact#Input_by_Kelly_Martin; we can probably find more. Fred Bauder 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Could I then propose something similar to what you're thinking of for Tony? Something like, after one month Kelly can request her powers back from a Bureacrat without having to go through a new RFA? Unless there's a larger amount of evidence of incivility from Kelly Martin than Tony that I'm unaware of, this would seem more balanced to me. In other words, approach it as, "what if Kelly hadn't resigned any of her positions?" --InkSplotch 22:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Unless there's a larger amount of evidence of incivility from Kelly Martin than Tony that I'm unaware of . . ." Tony has been known to admit he was wrong, to apologize properly (not just in a "mistakes were made" way), and to post a kind message to a user that he had treated too harshly. I do not think the same could be said for Kelly, though I would welcome evidence that I'm mistaken. Yes, I certainly wish he'd think more about the dignity of other users, clean up his language, and limit his blocking to vandals, obvious sockpuppets, and clear 3RR violations, but I do not think that he normally provokes so much ill feeling as Kelly did. Just my opinion. AnnH ♫ 23:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to Fred, the evidence he cites seems to be pretty much what I'd expect a respected sysop to say. The intention is clearly to bring Wikipedia to its senses. It may have been misjudged, but equally it can be said that it was so grossly misread as to beggar belief. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Kelly Martin turned in her sysop bit voluntarily and left the project before this RFAR started, and now there seems to be a general feeling that since she's left it would be tactless to criticize her (see for instance [4]). I assume this means, according to precedent, that if she should return she will be re-sysoped and generally re-installed in her powers and privileges on request. Yet I believe that this RFAR was accepted in part precisely because of KM's behavior, and therefore the arbcom ought to evaluate it, especially her contemptuous style of communication and dismissal of community concerns as detailed in "Input by Kelly Martin" on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings of fact (sigh) page. The arbitrators need to take a stand, I argue, on the issue of her adminship and perhaps other powers too--not sure what they are, but the arbcom does, I'm sure. "Formally de-sysopped" probably isn't the correct way of putting it, but what I mean is: "if she's perceived as having misused her formal or informal powers, please make it so that she's not re-sysoped and generally re-installed in her former position for the asking, but only after review and community discussion." I bet there's some way it can be put. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

Doesn't seem to be any reason why Kelly Martin should not reactivate her sysop bit when she wants it. This looks like part two of the same bullying campaign that hounded her off the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to step back from that sort of personal attack within an actual ArbCom case, Tony? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Once and for all Tony, watch my lips, and watch well: There is no campaign, there never was a campaign, with me what you read on the wiki is what you get, there is no more to it than that. No IRC, no emails, no secrets - nothing. Just obviously a common agreement on a subject.Giano 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there was a campaign to persuade Kelly to desysop herself. This is well documented and a number of people asked her to do so. This fact is not a matter for debate. it may be a justifiable campaign, though I've seen no evidence to support this. In the absence of further evidence, I see repeated calls by a small number of otherwise reputable editors for her to desysop. No good reasons are given. I think this is bullying. It must never prevail. Basically, pull yourselves together and stop trying to tear this project to bits. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, Kelly was not bullied off Wikipedia. She provoked a lot of people unnecessarily, and then put Bishonen and Geogre in a very unfair position, singling them out by name, and saying that she'd resign if they and two other admins requested it. That automatically meant that if they didn't take her up on her offer, they'd be making a tacit statement that they supported her adminship, and if they did, they'd be seen as the "baddies" in this game. They hadn't suggested any such thing; nor did they immediately jump at the opportunity. On occasion, some anonymous or newly-registered vandals behaved disgracefully towards her, but since "bullying" normally implies having more power than the victim, I'd be reluctant to classify such trolling as bullying. The attempts at dialogue made by Bishonen and Geogre were certainly not bullying, and neither of them suggested desysopping as first solution. If I post on my talk page that I'll give up my admin rights if so many admins request it, and the requests start coming it, I won't call it bullying, or a campaign. AnnH ♫ 23:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I do think that Kelly placed herself in a ridiculous position by attempting to stare down Geogre and Bishonen and whatnot. I don't think she should have taken any notice of their ridiculous and ill-founded bullying, which preceded that silly "double dare" scenario. Obviously they possessed more power than Kelly ever did. By their deliberate and unjustified actions they bullied a valuable editor off the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 23:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I can't imagine any bureaucrat re-sysopping Kelly Martin without an ArbCom case or an RfA. I noticed that Taxman refused to re-sysop someone recently because that person had left in relation to some kind of trouble, and insisted instead that the person go through an RfA. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a re-sysopping upon asking would be an astoundingly bad idea. However, I've no confidence that this means it wouldn't happen. So, having the arbcom make an explicit statement on this issue might be helpful. Friday (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

While this should happen, is this the correct case for it to occur? My reservtions are similar to the Sidaway desysopping one - a case can be made, but is this the proper time? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Clerks

4) The Arbitration Committee expresses its thanks for the work of its Clerks, past and present. To reduce the potential for any further misinterpretations of the role of the Clerks, future communications from Clerks to users shall, after the Clerk's signature, contain the words Arbitration Committee Clerk, and the word Clerk shall be Wikilinked to the project page describing the Clerks' role. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Perhaps a yellow star Fred Bauder 21:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred, that was remarkably unhelpful and offensive. All I am suggesting is that official communications from Arbitration Committee clerks be signed "Clerk" to avoid the type of confusion that has occasionally arisen in the past. I am dumbstruck by any user, much less an Arbitrator, having suggested this analogy. Newyorkbrad 21:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if there is a possibility of ambiguity it is good if there is identification of the role of the speaker. Fred Bauder 22:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

All official communications from clerks contain a form of words such as "For the arbitration committee" or "On behalf of the arbitration committee." Most of those forms are embedded in templates used by the clerks. Using the signature mechanism to do this would not be easy (clerks would have to change their preferences frequently) and in the circumstances would be unnecessary.

In short, this is a poor solution in search of a non-existent problem.

Aaron's suggestion is impracticible. Non-clerks do not in practice perform the heavy lifting. While I'd be the first to agree that non-clerks can and should open and close cases, in practice this is not done regularly enough to be reliable, and when it is done it is sometimes somewhat inadequate. It's left up to the arbitrators, who already have lots of things to do. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I see Newyorkbrad's reasoning more clearly now. The point is to distinguish statements made ex officio by clerks from those made ex officio (or perhaps ex cathedra) by arbitrators. Yes, this could be done easily by creating a set of templates to be used exclusively by clerks, containing words to the effect that the person delivering the information is a clerk and not an arbitrator. --Tony Sidaway 01:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Solution in search of a problem. Yes, users have a right to know who is talking -- admin, b'crat, ArbCom, etc UBX should be mandatory. No need to stick a fez on anybody's sig, though. You either follow the link and see for yourself or you don't.

But Tony never advertised himself as ArbCom, ArbComClerk, ArbComThug, or anything else when throwing his weight around. He intimidated without a fez, through the strength of his personality more than anything else. This proposed remedy would have done nothing to affect this.

On another note, Brenneman may be right or wrong about eliminating the fez entirely but this is really not the right place for the discussion. This promises to be one of those octopus RfArbs that ends with everyone in the project involved and every process called into question. John Reid 11:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This will make huge signatures... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we eliminate "clerk" hierarchy? This group has no powers or authority, and on at least one occasion a clerk has overstepped the mark thinking that he did have special status, why not just relegate "clerking" back to a normal editing function? The people who want to do the work keep doing it, without the fez and the tiny car. - brenneman ^{L} 01:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Brenneman, you slay me. I can't get the fez out of my mind or stop laughing long enough to edit. John Reid 11:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

When a case is opened, someone has to be responsible for notifying the parties. When a case is decided, someone has to notify the affected users. The notifications have to come from someone with some reasonable authority to be making them (as opposed to "yo! look over here what they wrote about you"). Someone has to open the pages when a case is opened (there are special formats, etc.). The arbitrators are backlogged enough and it's good that there are experienced individuals who volunteer to help them with these tasks. Newyorkbrad 01:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This appears to misunderstand the intent of my comment. The clerk's position certainly appeared to be a gold watch to failed arb candidates, and the position is utterly useless. Just as we don't have a "CounterVandalism Head" or a "Captain of Deletion," we don't need clerk positions to indicate what work needs done. Let normal people do normal edits, and enough already with the layers and badges of honour.
brenneman ^{L} 03:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Aaron abakharev 05:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hear hear. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Brad, do you mean that the clerks should have the signature only when communicating with people in their role as clerks or all the time? I would recommend the sig when communicating as clerk, plus maybe a userbox on their user page linking to an explanation of the role. TheronJ 13:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As TheronJ says, only when acting as the Clerk, and not when they are acting as an individual editor (or administrator, where applicable). Newyorkbrad 14:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Tony Sidaway, I had no trouble understanding what were official communications from the clerks or not, so I can readily follow your reasoning, but enough other users have raised the issue, and so I thought why take the chance any more, although this proposed remedy is hardly the crux of the case. I'm not particular about the wording; but you're right that such communications have a standardized template form, so I don't see the downside of adding two or three words to the template. The word "Clerk" could be added to the template so as to appear before the signature rather than afterwards, if there's a technical issue about the templates. Newyorkbrad 01:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Again to Tony Sidaway: To your second comment, yes, that's exactly what I meant; sorry if it wasn't clear. Newyorkbrad 01:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No. This is not the place to make new guidelines. This is a fairly bad idea in general. I think people should convince people based on the merits of their argument, not by their shiny badge.

Though, it's getting annoying enough that some people seem to prefer shiny badges, so I'm not as convinced of this position as I used to be. I've still managed to maintain a personal no-shiny-badges policy though. (Not even an admin bit set for the past year almost. How's that for clean? )

Wait, perhaps ... If you want a shiny badge, apply for one from JRM. Officially he's still the lord high assigner of titles, since no-one has countermanded that particular decree ;-) Kim Bruning 21:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User Account of User:Giano

5) There being no possible doubt that User:Giano II is the same individual as User:Giano, Giano II shall, upon request, be furnished the password to his original Giano account so that he can resume making contributions under such account. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

How did he lose his password? Fred Bauder 23:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Giano scrambled passwords to his Wikipedia accounts and associated e-mail account in frustration over what followed his block. I'm not qualified to speak on his behalf, but I feel that destruction of the password is regrettable and that sending a new password to his current e-mail account would be in order. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This should be a doddle if it's ordered by the Committee. It's just a few SQL statements to merge the accounts. --Tony Sidaway 01:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

IRT Fred Bauder: afaik he scrambled it (and disabled his mail). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost: I believe he scrambled the password as he was (intending to be) leaving forever, and never had e-mail enabled on that account, so he couldn't write in for a new one. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no technical way to "furnish" him a password. All passwords are hashed and salted in the database. Ral315 (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure a new password can be hashed, salted and updated into the database, and this password can be mailed to him to use and change. Or, his email address could be inserted into the database and marked as validated, so that he could use the "email a new password" button. Zocky | picture popups 05:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is technically doable, then it is to be done abakharev 05:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an SQL expert, but it should be technically trivial to overwrite the date/salted password on the Giano account with the date and salted password from the Giano II account, and then he can log into his Giano account using the same password as the Giano II account. Raul654 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Expungement of Block Logs

6) Recognizing the number of other priority tasks before them, the Developers are urged to develop a mechanism by which unjustified blocks or inappropriate language in block descriptions can be permanently expunged; and when such mechanism is available, the February 2006 block of Giano for "hate speech" shall be so expunged. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is actually quite simple. Anyone with access to the database can do this manually. Sounds like a good idea in unusual cases. Fred Bauder 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is a reasonable request, to my mind. Nothing is served by this block log entry, or the entry recording my block of Giano for that matter, because the community judged both blocks to be unacceptable. As long as the facts of the blocks, and their invalidity, are recorded, nothing of value is lost and we gain by removing something that is widely viewed harmful and hurtful and causes a valued editor much distress. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And while we're at it, lest history repeat itself, I apologise unreservedly to Giano for any distress my inappropriate and ill-judged actions and comments may have caused him. --Tony Sidaway 01:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Support adding comments but violently oppose total expungement, per Carcharoth. In general, I support a new method for adding retroactive comments to edit and log summaries. This should be used wth discretion but is acceptable in some cases. Direct log editing is evil.

Logs are what they are for a reason -- an accurate record of what really happened. They should never be edited directly, although there is no problem with adding comment to them. The notion of editing logs, rewriting history to suit anyone, even to right a great wrong, is an Orwellian cornerstone. And if all others accepted the lie which the party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became the truth. John Reid 13:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are negatives to my suggestion (and I'm hardly the first to suggest it), they should be fully discussed, but calling the expungement of a mistake "evil" and citing to 1984 hardly advance the discussion. Newyorkbrad 21:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I feel we're burying the thing a bit too quickly... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This was Giano's original grievance that started us down this whole road. Newyorkbrad 23:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the purpose of this? I don't think we should remove all mistakes everyone once did to keep their image clean, we all make mistakes. --Conti|✉ 23:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't that the blocked user made a mistake, it's that the blocking administrator made a mistake (and has acknowledged it). As Giano has pointed out, his block log will "forever" state that he was blocked for engaging in "hate speech" when there's overwhelming consensus that he didn't do any such thing. The more problematic aspect of the proposal is that ArbCom would be deluged with request for expungement of every borderline 3RR block, so expungement would have to be reserved for extreme situations. Newyorkbrad 23:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I also was talking about the blocking admin. Giano's block log also states that three admins undid that block. Nonetheless, I can see that having this in a users block log doesn't look very nice, but I don't like the idea to start removing log-entries because it's against someones personal pride. --23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. This opens up a huge can of worms, as Newyorkbrad acknowledges. (I'm not sure the developers are able to do this anyway, but we'll leave that for the moment). I declare an interest in this because of what happened to me, and in fairness, what I did, in the middle of February. I attempted to find an (utterly inadequate) way of countering it on August 4. It is a Bad Thing that users might draw a mistaken conclusion from a block which is subsequently shown to have been wrongful, but I think the better way of getting round that is to caution everyone against making judgments against productive editors based on block log contents, without looking in more detail at the circumstances. David | Talk 23:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

They can. It was done for me for a bogus 3RR over a year ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Fred Bauder, if it's really "quite simple" to do this, I wish we'd all known it months ago. //sigh// Newyorkbrad 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The devs can remove logs (which are important to transparency here) without leaving any trace. Just because it can be done quickly doesn't mean that it should be the first solution that's considered. --Interiot 04:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. This obviously can be easily done by the right people, but I doubt that retouching history is the right way to make amends. Zocky | picture popups 04:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we could do it once in this extraordinary case. Should not be done routinely though as it prevents administrators accountability. abakharev 05:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If rewriting history is a problem, then don't expunge the block logs. Instead, modify the block log to give what is retrospectively decided to be a fair summary of what happened (though in practice, given the length of the discussion, one will also need to provide a link to a few pages that explain what happened). Normally, people would read the next few block log entries to see what had happened, but in this case, the aggrieved party wants more than this to happen (whether this would set a bad precedent is another matter). ie. Change from "blocked for hate speech" to "blocked for hate speech - NB. This was later <give date> deemed an unfair and inaccurate block summary. <insert history and verdict on the block here>." Ideally, the text added to the block summary will look different and it will be obvious that it was added after the original, and it will be obvious what the original summary said, but no more will only the original summary be available. In any case, despite fears that this block summary will remain "until the internet crumbles to silicon dust", erasing it would be the worse sort of rewriting of history. It happened, and there is too much history there now to try and erase it. It reflects badly on Carnildo, and erasing it would remove some of his history as well. Leave the history alone, and concentrate on delivering a verdict on it. Carcharoth 10:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - this is something Giano wants from the community to clear his name, I believe he's said as much without any express concern regarding the consequences to Carnildos record. Carnildos record has a bruising RfA and, well all of this in addition to a small books worth of Wikipedia server space to add to history - one line in a block log pales into insignificance next to this. If we agree Giano was wronged by Giano, why not allow Giano this? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean Carnildo in that last sentence. I am thinking of the future situation of those who later come across other parts of these discussions, and go looking for this "block log" to see what happened with their own eyes, and then find it is not there. Unless they read enough to find that it was expunged, they could reasonably conclude that something fishy is going on here. I find such erasing of records (even with the best of intentions) ends up being one way to promote more uncertainty and suspicion further down the line. People start thinking - "how do I know this hasn't happened before" etc. At the very least, replace the said entry with text saying "this entry has been expunged" - or something similar. Carcharoth 09:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with "this entry has been expunged". --Mcginnly | Natter 10:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What? We now use oversight on administrator action logs? The only legitimate purposes for such a feature would be to erase all record of creations (and subsequent blockings) of usernames that may contain personal information, e.g. "User:Jenny's_phone_number_is_867-5309", or to remove deletion log entries for similarly vicious attack articles, etc. Using it to re-write the history of interactions between established users/admins would be highly inappropriate, even in the most grievous cases of judgment error. I've likely witnessed over a hundred administrative actions more regretable than this one. Maybe I've made a couple myself. It's something we have to deal with, if there's to be any expectation of accountability anywhere. —freak(talk) 07:52, Sep. 28, 2006 (UTC)

This thread on Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical) addresses this issue. I strongly support this remedy, since I suggested it there as well. I'm not sure arbcom can "force" developers to implement a feature though, but it is clear to me, anyway, that if a malicious or just plain wrong entry is placed, it is a good thing to get rid of. I recognise others may not agree. ++Lar: t/c 01:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Giano's block log already makes it clear that all his blocks were considered wrong by the community and overturned almost instantly, and Carnildo's block is called "ridiculous". Zocky | picture popups 16:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"A good theory slain by an ugly fact." Redaction should only be for extreme/legal cases as mentioned above, not as a form of revisionist history or can't-we-all-just-get-along. Anyone looking at Giano's block log at this point can see what the facts on the ground are surrounding his hate speech. -- nae'blis 22:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal is absolutely unacceptable; only in extreme cases of legal danger or privacy issue are logs to be tampered with in this fashion, not on for this kind of whim. Will not be fulfilled. --Brion 01:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Concluding remark

7) While the events of September 2006 have not been Wikipedia's finest hour, all involved users are urged to move forward in a civil and mutually respectful fashion and to continue making their respective contributions toward building the encyclopedia. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Archiving discussion

8) People are strongly recommended to not attempt to archive or otherwise close an ongoing discussion in an attempt to calm down the situation, as this has been shown to backfire.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 21:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

There are exceptions. I think my archiving of the John Reid stuff worked extremely well. Bureaucrats' noticeboard returned to its usual placid and civil business. Let me make it plain that I don't think it's wrong to question the bureaucrats' judgement. I do not, however, think it's remotely acceptable to say things like the chillingly mccarthyesque "Let the record show that this bureaucrat "left the room" rather than endorse a statement of our core value of consensus." To those who criticise me for uncivility, I say that that was what I would regard as an uncivil comment. Maybe my mother taught me wrong (shrug).

As it happened, I had discussed this on the administrators' IRC channel and was asked to go ahead and clean it up. After John Reid restored it, one of the bureaucrats again removed it under the edit summary "remove trolling again. do not repost." I believe that the bureaucrats may be presumed to exercise reasonable discretion over what is permitted on their noticeboard. --Tony Sidaway 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the proposal. --Irpen 09:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong endorsement (no surprise). I should shoulder a bit of the burden for rabble-rousing but indeed, it does no good to whitewash political graffiti. At best, you only give protesters more ammunition for charges of cabalism. Don't do it. Thank you. John Reid 13:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. >Radiant< 16:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. If a discussion is on AN or AN/I, it is best to leave it there and let the bots archive it when the conversation stops. If there is a lot of back and forth, that's because there is something to discuss.--MONGO 21:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that even if a discussion is on your own talk page, removing critical comments or questions is to be avoided. - brenneman ^{L} 05:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In response to Tony, the John Reid discussion was not archived but moved to a subpage because it was getting too long. There's no problem with that. (well, ok, it was first removed entirely a couple of times and reverted - my point is that that doesn't work). Radiant! 12:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The first suggestion was just to remove it, I carried this out and someone objected, then I archived (or "moved it to a subpage". Isn't this what archiving is?). It didn't really matter as long as the rubbish was removed. --Tony Sidaway 06:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Giano

1) Giano is cautioned to remain civil and assume good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on the comments which led to his block. No one has approached this yet, but however justified his anger may or may not have been his comments did cross the line. --InkSplotch 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Come off it, Aaron. We all know that Giano accused the entire top level of Wikipedia, and some named individuals, of involvement in a massive conspiracy to subvert community consensus. This was completely unacceptable. If this is a quibble about the contents of the evidence page, then add it to your evidence. --Tony Sidaway 04:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Thatcher131, if this remedy came to the proposed decision it would have to be supported by a finding. I'd add all the paradiddles if I thought this remedy was necessary, and I'm sure that if I didn't then an arbitrator would do so if he was minded to. It's just a bit tedious to argue at length about form when this is a wiki and there's nothing to stop anyone from actually adding the bits that they acknowledge are missing. --Tony Sidaway 05:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever Giano said, he said things in a civil form no matter what one thinks on whether he was wrong or right on the issues themselves. --Irpen 09:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is simply incorrect. Giano's false, baseless and extremely damaging accusations were not remotely acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia at any time. They were among the most grossly uncivil statement this wiki has ever seen. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but so far, the most grossly incivil statements i've seen (things like "for fuck's sake", "giano is a wanker", "you could fucking whistle" and "stupid fuck") didn't come from Giano... :( -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Now now. Did "stupid fuck" come from me? I admit to losing my cool at one point and saying I should have told Giano to stop being a wanker instead of blocking him. I immediately reverted that becase, yes, it was the first really uncivil thing I've said on Wikipedia in nearly two years. No, Giano's accusations and wordings were far and away beyond this. They amounted to seriously damaging accusations that, if not immediately withdrawn, would amount to libel. That's not a legal threat, by the way, because I have neither intention nor standing to sue. 'That, not the playground stuff, is gross incivility. --Tony Sidaway 17:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent examples of Tony not having said an "uncivil thing" on Wikipedia in "nearly two years":

• "But honestly he's an obvious nutter ... Let's just tell him to fuck off." [5]
• "I sincerely suggest that "fuck off" is almost too kind for this pernicious and stupid troll." [6]

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Naughty naughty. Both were very adequately descriptive of Prometheuspan, a known troll, and our community's rightful attitude to persistent timewasters, which can be summarised as "fuck off". Pithy use of the vernacular is not incivility. --Tony Sidaway

Pithy, perhaps, but it's awfully colorful. Words which are banned by the FCC from broadcast in the US are, by and large, considered incivil in common discourse (with no comment from me on cause/effect). I think it'd be safe to say a majority of editors find "fuck" a very startling, and yes, incivil word in common discussion. --InkSplotch 19:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Colorful, I'll accept. It's not part of polite discourse, it's a vulgarity. It would be a bad idea to encourage its routine use. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There is nothing on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence page to support this. - brenneman ^{L} 03:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that "Come off it" isn't very nice. There isn't even a finding of fact saying "Giano was uncivil."' I must have misunderstood the quibble, because surely if a finding doesn't have evidence to support it the burden is on the person proposing? - brenneman ^{L} 05:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, we saw what he said but we both know that conventionally in arb cases, remedies need to be supported by findings of fact and FoF must be supported by the evidence page, neither of which is in place. This proposed remedy is cart before the horse, as I noted below. I think that if someone cared to compile a list of diffs, he/she probably has a fair number to choose from. But as Fred has suggested that this is going to be "no action for the time being" kind of case, there's no point, really, until and unless some more specific case is presented. Thatcher131 05:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hey. May we please have a civil discussion of whether we were sufficiently uncivil to be cautioned to remain civil? Thank you. John Reid 13:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Giano on civility parole

1.1) Giano is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. Tony Sidaway is prohibited from enforcing this or any other remedy relating to this user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A stronger version, and one I don't feel is necessary. --InkSplotch 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If any remedy is contemplated for Giano, then if I am still active as an administrator at the end of this case it should be explicitly stated that I must not be involved in enforcing it. This is analogous to the exclusion imposed on Snowspinner with respect to Everyking. My judgement has been called into question and it would be best for Wikipedia for that to be admitted by all of us. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A reasonable request. I've updated this one, but not the other version as it doesn't call for any sort of encforcement. --InkSplotch 00:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, I think if you mess him around you're going to lose him. As Fred suggests, if further problems arise they can be dealt with in subsequent arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 05:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Civilty is not at all a problem of Giano. --Irpen 10:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He was civil. Angry, and rightly so, but civil. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think comments like these: [7] [8] cross the line, by implying and assuming ill intent on behalf of many different parties (some not even involved in things). I may be in a severe minority to believe this, but I wished to raise the point. --InkSplotch 23:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Grafikm, Giano's behaviour is the result of specific and unresolved circumstances, if his block record was amended, certain individuals dealt with and some kind of reconciliation attempt by Carnildo had been made then I don't think things would have come to this - sanctioning him adds injury to insult. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't want to see Giano sanctioned. If a remedy needs to be directed at Giano, I prefer my first entry. I believe we're ultimatly responsible for our own actions, not circumstances...but circumstances all but drove him to the scene of the crime, put the gun in his hands, and shouted "pull the trigger" in his ears. I.E., I feel it was a very minor transgression, but I believe it was a transgression. I'm not digging myself deeper, am I? Anyway, I feel the same about Tony actions, but that's for elsewhere on this document. --InkSplotch 00:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be simplistic here, but if even the party filing the case believes that even the most contentiously involved parties committed only very minor transgressions, does that mean it's time to go home? ((more just below)) Newyorkbrad 01:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For this to fly you first need a finding of fact "Giano has been uncivil" with appropriate diffs, which means you need an evidence section "Giano has been uncivil." There's a lot of putting the cart before the horse going on all over this case. Thatcher131 00:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 is right, of course. A lot of us have jumped straight to the Workshop page rather than post the Evidence ... perhaps because many of us feel like we know the evidence by heart (which may not be true for many of the arbitrators). So the parties and others would need to adjourn to the evidence page and start compiling diffs and doing the heavy lifting -- that is, if there is a useful purpose to proceeding with all or any part of this sprawling case, which I was never sure of to begin with and which I am increasingly coming to doubt. Newyorkbrad 01:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with Grafikm. Nothing Giano said deserved such a strong reaction. Just a warning to him would be OK (If he found to be uncivil)abakharev 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

All involved parties cautioned about civility

1a) All involved parties are cautioned to remain civil and assume good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Nobody was entirely civil in every comment. John Reid 13:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree with John abakharev 00:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Preview edit summary

1) Recognizing the number of other priority tasks before them, the Developers are urged to develop a mechanism by which the "seen form" of an edit summary may be viewed by utilizing "show preview".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This belongs on Village Pump, I would think. What does it have to do with this case? --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

First, if anyone can think of a better way to say it, please feel free to edit : )

Personally, I've been known to typo text, and since the edit summary can include markup, etc. having a change to see it before it's "final" would be helpful. I include this in this discussion because perhaps if someone saw how their edit summary would actually look (especially long ones which don't fully show at once in the edit summary edit box), then perhaps they might take the opportunity to "self edit". I would think being given a chance to think twice about use of language would likely be a "good thing". - jc37 11:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Tony Sidaway: Read my comment above, specifically after "I include this in this discussion...". There were several comments about incivility in edit summaries. Hence this suggestion. - jc37 12:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nearly all of my edit summaries are precis' of the added text. If I remove something I explain why. I don't remove anything that isn't inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway 00:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the intent here to curtail "editorializing" in the edit summary space? Hamster Sandwich 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Taxman

1) Taxman is reminded that bureaucratship is an office of trust. He is not to close any RfA against the expressed consensus of the community which has reposed that trust in him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is what set it all off. John Reid 13:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a "you must stop beating your wife" kind of remedy. It presumes that Taxman has promoted editors to administrator where there is no consensus for this within the community. --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

He did. It's a finding of fact. The finding of fact will be endorsed; I so predict. John Reid 01:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I do not think this should be limited to User:Taxman alone, but to all bureaucrats. However, this proposed remedy lacks clarity. The underlying issue is "what is consensus?". This is highly subjective and has suffered substantial debate at WT:RFA. There is an ongoing schism on this issue. ArbCom needs to be very careful in applying any sort of remedy that addresses this issue. --Durin 14:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is more basic than that. It is said that admins are editors trusted with certain tools - but trusted by whom? Do we mean trusted by the community? Or by the bureaucrats? This came up during the ANI debacle where some people asserted that the community could not be trusted with this decision. >Radiant< 17:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever I may feel about the relative merits of the candidate in question, there clearly was no consensus to promote. While we may debate at length the wisdom of the promotion and if it was good for Wikipedia, there can be no question that this was a non-consensus outcome. - brenneman ^{L} 00:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidently three bureaucrats thought otherwise, and felt able to grant probationary adminship on the basis. You could ask them to review the decision. --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, at least Fred and I appear to agree on this one thing. As I have yet to see anything resembling evidence or an argument that this was consenus, I will debate no further on this issue. If anyone is willing to provide something other than Tony Sidaway's say-so that this was consensus, I'm happy to revisit the issue. - brenneman ^{L} 00:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the most we can say is that there was not a supermajority on the RFA, and I've proposed a new finding (1.2) to this effect. This isn't the only method used by the bureaucrats to determine consensus. My clarification, RFA is not a vote, was accepted very readily and is now an integral part of the RFA page. Thus we have consensus on Wikipedia that the bureaucrats are not limited in their to duties to determining whether a supermajority has been attained (although previously this seems to have been the case). Policy changes over time. We rewrite the written documents to keep up. --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tony here, broadly speaking. What effectively happened was that at the same time as giving Carnildo the bit back, the crats asked arb-com to open an arbitration case on his admin status, and arb-com agreed. The crats get to determine consensus, which they did, and arb-com opened an arbitration case, which they are allowed to do. I don't see this proposal as that disputable though, since a crats job already is to determine consensus. There was a rough consensus there. Looking at WP:CONSENSUS, I find this section instructive:

In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it.

I'd say the bureaucrats found out where the consensus lay when they determined it. I'd reckon everyone agrees that there were "some vocal and unreconciled folk" after the consensus was declared, but not enough to dispute a rough consensus existed. I'm unclear how one presents evidence that a consensus exists. Do we count all the votes of people like me, who accepted the decision without expressing such approval? And I'm not clear on the reason why Fred objects to the word successful, that could be due to the promotion being subject to review. It could therefore be argued it isn't successful until the review is completed. Steve block Talk 12:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While there is a strong feeling that there is something to remedy here, I think we should really concentrate more on this arbitration as a healing process. I'm putting out my recollection of what happened, based on my thoughts and feelings at the time, and I've tried to be self-critical, which I think is appreciated and reciprocated by others of good faith.

In my view the main problem was that some Wikipedians perceived themselves to be at war with the arbitration committee, and felt that some administrators were out of touch because, whatever else they might be doing for the project, they were seldom editing articles. They took steps consistent with pursuit of a civil war rather than a debate. Other Wikipedians took it further, accusing the Arbitration Committee and some other named individuals of actual malfeasance. Some administrators had to deal with that and may have overreacted; other administrators kept a cooler head.

We are all, every one of us, Wikipedians, and we have nothing to prove so it would be pointless to wave our achievements around as badges. We can learn from this and move forward. If there was ever a war, let it end here, and let this be our equivalent of a hearing before the Truth and Reconciliation Committee (I do not mean to imply from this comparison that no remedies should be passed). --Tony Sidaway 18:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'd like to ask arbitrator input on the issue of forked "findings of fact." It appears to me that this is more about controlling the release of facts than about crafting clear and neutral statements. Is there any substantive reason that editors cannot be called upon to work on a single cohesive finding of fact, rather than the puerile squabbling that's already taken place? - brenneman ^{L} 05:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to this, let me suggest that it's highly inappropriate to add material that, in effect, substantially changes the intent of a proposed finding of fact, particularly given that you didn't bother leaving a note on the talk pages of Fred and Tony saying that you'd done so. Ral315 (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually referring to this which was arrived at only after a traversal through this and this.

• I'm gobsmacked at the suggestion that I leave a note on the talk pages. Do we not have watchlists for goodness' sake? Do we believe that those two will never look at the page again? It's borderline nonsensical.
• As to the intent of a finding of fact, isn't it to, erm, FIND FACTS? Forgive my incredulaty at thinking that adding facts changes the intent, unless we're agreeing that the intent was to present a highly biased reading of events.
• Reasonable editors should be equipped with the tools to work together to present clear, concise versions of the actual events that transpired. Once we have in place the statements that are without dispute, we work towards interpretation, without supressing inconvenient facts. If that is not what we're attempting to do here, please do explain what we are working towards.

brenneman ^{L} 06:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I defend Tony's actions, but you edited something that they endorsed. Letting them know so they could make a decision on whether they endorsed your re-wording or not would have been polite (especially given that they don't endorse your re-wording).

As far as findings of fact go, yes, they're to find facts. However, these are all valid proposals. If a finding of fact is absolutely biased, a simple "This statement is biased; see my proposed alteration below" in the General Discussion section would have sufficed. The Committee's job is to read through and decide whether the proposals are truthful, not parties inside or outside the dispute. Ral315 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've stated my resignation to this sad state of affiars on the talk page, but I'll say it again here: Enough people have told me this way is "how it works" that I'll stop complaining, but it's still a bit sad. The facts speak for themselves, and it seems vile to me to allow encourage people to present their own version of the truth. But, yes, through complaining. - brenneman ^{L} 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Should this continue?

At this point, I'm not sure that this case is serving a useful purpose and I'd like to open a discussion on whether the proceedings should continue. Please see here on the talk page. Newyorkbrad 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You may propose a motion to that effect if you wish. However you are not a party. Fred Bauder 11:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was considering requesting to intervene as a party for the purpose of offering such a motion, but rather than do so unilaterally, thought I should call for discussion on this issue on the talk page, which I did two days ago. From that discussion, there appears not to be a consensus in favor of such a motion, at least not at this time, so I won't make the motion at this stage. Newyorkbrad 14:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This case should continue because its primary purpose is to clarify the role of the bureaucrats. This is essential. The other stuff is, while entertaining and potentially of interest to some individuals (particularly myself) really just a sideshow. --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I intent to reaffirm that we use consensus to make decisions and for very good reason. This one failure does not form a basis for adoption of a top-down command structure. Users can get that at Citizendium, if they [mistakenly] think it practical. Fred Bauder 23:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't propose a top-down command structure. But see my proposed principle "Wag the dog". --Tony Sidaway 23:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but is the ArbCom the right body to clarify the role of the bureaucrats? Just a rhetorical question; no answer required; we'll see what evolves. Newyorkbrad 00:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, it's not up to you to declare what the primary purpose of the case is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, part of the Arbitration Committee's function is to clarify policy. SlimVirgin, anybody can declare what the primary purpose of an arbitration case is. That is in my view likely to be the most important question to be considered by the Committee. --Tony Sidaway 01:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye, anyone can say what "what the primary purpose" is, but unless they are on the committee, they'd be talking through their hat. I've asked it once on the talk page, but I'll ask again: Can Tony Sidaway make some effort to limit his comments where they represent viewpoints as being other than his own? I understand that he is a fan of rhetorical devices like the royal we and the pathetic fallacy, I too occasionally fall into this trap. But if we could all say things like "I think foo" or "I believe bar" as opposed to sweeping statements, it would be preferable. - brenneman ^{L} 01:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, this case is primarily about the role of bureaucrats in consulting the community, determining community consensus, explaining their decisions, dealing with objections to their decisions, and reviewing them. While this is my personal opinion, nor is it so out on a limb as to merit serious objections (qv). --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Tony, specifically this case is about whatever the ArbCom wants to make it about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Quod vides. I merely observe what it has become about (personality issues aside). --Tony Sidaway 21:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think it has to continue and declare. At the very least Wikipedia is not a battleground. We have dispute resolution processes. Steve block Talk 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course had Fred Bauder not to mention the all-powerful Uninvited Taxman Committee (amazing how they were able to manipulate Danny) been blocked for hate speech, we/Tony would not be having this conversation. It's all about personality politics by no content, process editors. 66.225.253.130 20:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)