Revision as of 05:51, 28 September 2006

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

X) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Courtesy

1) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgment while enforcing this policy. Personal attacks are not acceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Needs to be edited, but basically sound. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Fred Bauder 12:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Direct from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. - Aaron Brenneman 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

2) Editors may be blocked at the discretion of administrators for disruptive editing. Repeated disruptive behavior may lead to bans or other restrictions. The community has made it abundantly clear, over the course of many discussions that they do not feel it is appropriate to "troll" on Misplaced Pages, or to engage in disruptive behaviour. While there is some dissent over method of enforcement, and over whether individual Wikipedians are or are not engaging in "trolling", there is little or no dissent over this underlying principle.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, except disruption can mean almost anything, while Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy is rather limited with respect to what is considered disruption. Trolling, agitating really, can masquerade as a policy discussion or legitimate criticism of others actions. It is probably impossible for administrators, even if they are working together well, to shut off a well established user who has fallen into a pattern of trolling, habitually keeping everyone upset with sniping and criticism. Such cases need to go to arbitration, especially if the user is an administrator. A balance must be struck between useful criticism and disruptive agitation. Fred Bauder 12:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is still territory on which Misplaced Pages policy is developing. The blocking policy will no doubt elaborate the policy in due course. At present, it's only wise to observe that all administrators should use their common sense but tread carefully. "Here be dragonnes." --Tony Sidaway 01:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Is this 'disruption' section referring to the discussion and expressions of discontent over some of these issues? I have sometimes seen strong and healthy (if somewhat robust) discussions labelled as 'trolling' and disruption. What some people see as an irrelevant disruption, others see as a necessary and important discussion. Maybe it would be helpful to clarify the best ways to air and discuss grievances (and issues in general), and recommend that if people engage in such discussion in inappropriate places, or at great length, then the better response is to point people to the right places to have such discussions, rather than label the activity 'disruption' and use this as a justification to impose a block? The general principle I would like to see upheld here is that encouraging discussion towards a consensus should be preferred to blocks and calls to "get back to work on the encyclopedia". ie. No-one should avoid engaging in lengthy discussion when needed. Point people to the right place, rather than blocking. If you think the discussion has run its course, explain why you think this, rather than just saying it. Carcharoth 10:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lir. - brenneman 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Following on from the thread of "except disruption can mean almost anything" I'd like for the ArbCom to consider giving us a metric for disruption. - brenneman 03:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrators

3) Misplaced Pages:Administrators of Misplaced Pages are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies. They have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users cannot execute. This includes the power to block and unblock other users or IP addresses provided that Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy is followed. Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administrators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted, although it is a bit wordy Fred Bauder 12:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The important bits are the last three sentences. All the rest is unnecessary padding. --Tony Sidaway 01:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

From from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, principles 1 to 3. - brenneman 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus and consistency

4) As put forward in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines. Those editors charged with determining consensus should do so in a consistent and transparent manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is somewhat tendentious, being apparently aimed at the Bureaucrats who disappointed expectations by approving the Carnildo 3 RfA. I think they have adequately explained their reasoning. Whether it was wise is not for the arbitrators to determine. Fred Bauder 12:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Are we trying to adopt a principle that follows from or illuminates policy, or make new policy? I think it would be a bit much to expect consistency in a complex social environment. In closing AfDs, for instance, we have long had a principle of administrator discretion, and an administrator is expected to use his common sense. An analogous principle has long been applied to the decisions of bureaucrats in RFA. --Tony Sidaway 04:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

From Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/GRider, my additions embolded. - brenneman 00:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Goodness. I think that it's quite clear from the input of Fred Bauder to date that claims of my partisanship or bias are somewhat incongruous. This principle is a restatement of a very simple concept: People want things to work the way they worked before. If the rules are going to change, tell us they are going to change. If we cannot agree that it's in the best interest of everyone involved to demonstrate this basic level of mutual respect, please do just close this arbitration now.
brenneman 13:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't redact that, but it reads rather more harshly than I intended. This principle does not in any way preclude the Bureaucrats from excercising discretion, it merely points out that if, in doing so, they have made up some entirly new rules they are bound to ruffle feathers. The comparison to deletion discussions is quite apt: The range of administrator discretion is actually quite small, and any adminstrator who strays outside it does so with the understanding that serious questions will be asked. - brenneman 13:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The first part of this text does not reflect actual practice. See current revision of Misplaced Pages:Consensus . Guidelines are formed by consensus, of course. Consensus is not formed by guidelines. Tacking on an additional requirement for people determining consensus is really odd indeed. Misplaced Pages is NOT a bureaucracy. I don't think this description/interpretation of consensus has consensus :-) Kim Bruning 19:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't a bureaucracy, no, but it does have bureaucrats. I think in areas where consensus is determined by editors through a closing mechanism, mostly XFD and RfA, there's a need for transparency. I'm not convinced for the need for consistency. One wouldn't expect bad mistakes consistently, and I don't agree that Misplaced Pages should follow a precedent based system. I would hope we are flexible enough to evaluate on the merits of the case. Steve block Talk 20:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• There's a huge chasm between behaving consistantly and being bound by precedent. Consistancy mearly implies that an editor can expect something similar to happen next time as last time. To use the flogged-horse of articles for deletion again, while we don't have a consistant outcome on (for example) video game deletions, we approach them in the same manner every time: Debate, discussion, slagging match, decision. This principle is mearly meant to support a "wikipedia is not anarchy" feeling. - brenneman 23:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom-l

5) Discussions on the Arbcom-l mailing list are confidential. Confidentiality aids candid discussion of issues and protects confidential information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 02:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

If only because the Committee must, amongst other things, consider evidence that contains confidential information. --Tony Sidaway 02:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with any serious calls to move the Arb's discussion into the public view. The only concern expressed widely was who and why engages into the ArbCom-l discussions and how appropriate is for the dismissed and especially recused (presumably due to an interest conflict) arbitrators to participate in specific case discussions. Occasional private communication with single or several sitting arbs from a party of the case or anyone is one thing, but being able to engage into such discussions on permament basis wields significant and extra-procedural influence. Tranparency calls only implied the tranpsarency of the rules and procedures, not of the specifics of the discussions. More is available at this Policy change proposal. --Irpen 09:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Two arbitrators have commented on your proposal, both rejecting it. This is unlikely to fly. If I can discuss a case with an arbitrator, I don't see why any other Wikipedian shouldn't be permitted to do so. Being an arbitrator isn't a ball and chain. --Tony Sidaway 16:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Seems to me however, that these discussions shouldn't even be referred to outside of the list, since it causes bad blood to even know some topics have been discussed. That confidentiality cuts both ways. It shouldn't be flaunted but should be respected on both sides. I'm quite happy for that stuff being confidential, but no-one should be in a position to tell me I've been subject to discussions on the list. I'd hope the arb-com can see that such circumstances lead to an understandable call for full disclosure, and this is perhaps an area the arb-com needs to consider. What do you do if such discussion is flaunted? The community is bound by confidentiality it has no power to remove. Arb-com have imposed this confidentiality, surely they either have to declare how to deal with any breaches or they have to allow the community to work an answer out. Steve block Talk 21:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is troublesome when someone on the list discloses that a subject was discussed (but of course what we discuss is self-evident. We discuss most controversial issues which concern us, and some that don't). It is seldom that the discussion did not include more than one point of view on a matter, as otherwise discussion would not be worth having. A report cannot duplicate the entire discussion, thus is almost always somewhat misleading. However a rule requiring full release if there has been an accidental or imprudent release defeats the purpose of confidentiality, freedom to discuss matters candidly. Fred Bauder 12:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I take your point. I would hope, however, that such disclosures aren't condoned. Steve block Talk 14:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The provacy of arbcom list has never been contested. What was contested is the controversial access of former arbitrators, outvoted or even fired, to it. And what's more, there is no provision for recused arbcomers to be dissociated from the case. (the matter was already raised on WT:RFAR#Question_on_the_recusal and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_policy#Recusals, with quite uncertain conclusions. -- Grafikm 21:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The matter of participation by recused arbitrators in discussions of matters they have recused themselves from troubles me too, but our practice allows it. Perhaps an issue for the next ArbCom election. I find most input by ex-arbitrators useful. Fred Bauder 12:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

6) Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions. They are responsible for closing Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 02:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In my view we should be satisfied that the people they promote are those that the community believes should be administrators. This means that those people should have the qualities the community expects to see in an administrator and is not likely to bring the role of administrator, or Misplaced Pages itself, into disrepute. When I referred to RFA as a "disgusting rabble" it was precisely because I felt that it had been degraded to a "beauty contest" largely influenced by confederations of Wikipedians who should never be allowed to have a controlling influence on granting of the bit. It was for this reason that I believed, and still believe, that the task of the bureaucrat is a difficult one, and we should not treat attempts to strongarm them lightly. --Tony Sidaway 01:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I shall resist temptation to soapbox my viewpoint here. It's enough to repeat the text found at WP:BCRAT:

• (Bureaucrats) are bound by policy and current consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, usually after a successful request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship.
• (B'crats) are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions upon request and in a civil manner.

Thus I find the wording of this principle insufficient and weak. John Reid 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree. I'm not entirely convinced that the Carnildo case was a really difficult case originally. The way I see it, the difficulties arose from closing it as a promotion with an unprecedented low percentage. At any rate, the principle is relevant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue is whether they are bound by the view of consensus which requires a super-majority. They have decided that they are not. They seem to have taken into consideration the relative gravitas of supporters and opposers. But their abbreviated explanation does leave me in the land of speculation. Perhaps it is best to take them at their word . Looking at that, I can see they gave considerable weight to the opinions expressed by the arbitrators. There has been reluctance to desysop any good user because of the nature of RfA which seems to trade absurdly on any misstep the applicant has made. We do not intend desysopping someone to be a permanent brand of shame which would effectively prevent regaining sysop status. Fred Bauder 13:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• The current climate at RfA (right or wrong) is such that a nominee who has been de-adminned by ArbCom will face a very difficult test in attempting to regain administrator privileges. Few succeed. If ArbCom intends a de-adminning to be indefinitely temporary, ArbCom should consider specific duration temporary de-adminship as a means to avoid RfA. Indefinite temporary de-adminship such that an editor would need to go back through RfA should either not be used or used exceedingly sparingly until the climate at RfA changes to match that of ArbCom intentions on this point. --Durin 13:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Evidence doesn't seem to support the statement that RFA is "very difficult" for former admins. >Radiant< 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I do not concur with that evidence. For example, your conclusions regarding Guanaco's RfAs are I think not inclusive. Looking at User:NoSeptember/Desysop, of the ten admins forcibly de-adminned who re-applied, only two became admins again. One of these is no longer an admin. The other, Carnildo, was highly controversial. Only one re-application received more than 70% support. --Durin 13:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• My evidence is based on that page. At a first glance it is obvious that most former admins have failed to be reinstated; but on closer inspection you can see that the reason for their failure was unrelated to the demotion. For instance Stevertigo's re-RFA failed because of his incivility - any non-admin who made an RFA in that manner would fail. >Radiant< 14:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• And I disagree with your summation of the reasonings. It's ok if we disagree. --Durin 14:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think the bureaucrats and arbcom agree that re-RFA's are hard, otherwise they wouldn't have supported resysopping several people without RFA after they voluntary desysopped. (or sysopped Sean Black at 72%, or ...) --Interiot 23:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with Durin that if the arb-com mean for a desysop to be only temporary, maybe in future they should do that. We already block for a period of time, why not desysop? Blimey, why not even parole admins under suspended sentence of desysop? It opens up possibilities. Maybe leave the resysoping up to arb-com rather than go through RfA's? Steve block Talk 20:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrator conduct

7) Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Misplaced Pages. Administrators must be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 13:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wording from Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Front matter. Kirill Lokshin 03:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Second chances

8) Users who have violated policies in the past will be forgiven, restrictions will be removed, and privileges and responsibilities restored if there is substantial evidence that violations will not be repeated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 03:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think Fred's comments show a keen appreciation of the issues, no doubt gleaned from long experience. The key word is "substantial". We don't forget, but we can forgive when we're sure that this would be in the interests of Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 01:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If this were a general statement of community values made in a neutral context, I would support it. However it appears here to be an attempt to shore up Carnildo's outprocess promotion. I agree that the community ought to be willing to give second chances; I do not agree that this principle ought to provide our trusted servants with greater latitude to ignore community consensus. John Reid 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree, but if we are talking about Carnildo getting a second chance (which incidentally, I think he deserved, due to his continued dedicated service and grunt work for Misplaced Pages, even after the desysopping), I think there would have been much less controversy and ill will if the re-adminning had been through an appeal to ArbCom instead of through a community-based RFA where a lot of people got the impression that the ~40% opposes would be disregarded because of the bureaucrats' opinion. ArbCom should perhaps abandon desysops with "elegible to reapply on RFA" as a remedy unless they intend the de-sysopping to be permanent. If they want an indefinite, but not neccesarily permanent, de-sysop an "...upon demonstration of good behaviour, RogueAdmin may appeal to the ArbCom to have the sysop-bit restored" remedy might be more appropriate. By delegating the decision of when to give the second-chance to an WP:RFA, the ArbCom appeared to give the community the power to decide that, and at present, large parts of the community were not ready to grant the second chance yet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, we supposedly learn from experience. However, when we resysop someone if the face of substantial opposition, that is not good either; because we don't even go through the motions of gathering feedback. I think it is probably better to give people a chance to discuss the issue, which was had. This matter is troublesome, but the alternative of hushing it up might be worse. I have never been "inside" a group where there was not some sentiment that decisions should be made by an inside group, then sold to the rest of the membership. But that is the old "keep em in the dark and feed em horseshit" system. Good for mushrooms. Fred Bauder 13:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A side comment, could you please elaborate on your last two sentences? Metaphores always were my weak point... -- Grafikm 13:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bearing grudges

9) It is a violation of Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith to indefinitely bear grudges for past wrongs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 03:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what I am getting at here is sustained hostility over a period of years. Fred Bauder 13:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Beat me to it! My wording was: Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Misplaced Pages discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. All editors are expected to use the dispute resolution mechanisms and tools provided. --Tony Sidaway 03:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nonetheless, saying that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior is not neccesarily a violation of WP:AGF. Saying "I really don't think this person has learned from this mistake" is legitimate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the best way to predict the weather, but unless we throw someone out completely, they continue to participate in the community. If someone is part of the community assumption of good faith is important for smooth functioning of the project. "Never forget, Never forgive" is the slogan of a fictional tribe. Fred Bauder 10:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea in theory, but doesn't that go directly against WP:AGF's statement that "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think much of that statement, but if Carnildo starts banning those who oppose open advocacy of pedophilia again perhaps we should drop any assumption of good faith. Fred Bauder 13:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bearing grudges and fighting battles

9.1) Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Misplaced Pages discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. All editors are expected to use the dispute resolution mechanisms and tools provided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is excerpted from WP:NOT and in the current context it focuses more on Giano's nursing of a grievance, which was encouraged by his friends who frequently came back to the central complaint that Carnildo had never apologised. Giano's statements make it plain that this is a personal grievance and not just a negative evaluation of Carnildi's suitability for the sysop bit. . --Tony Sidaway 07:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If I read Fred's statement correctly, I don't think I would refer to Giano's actions as trolling. I think he got very upset and lost his sense of proportion. His actions became somewhat damaging in my opinion, but we've seen behavior like this before (Alienus, for instance) and where personal feelings are involved I would not quickly assume unreconcilable malice. I would rather "hate the sin, and not the sinner". Unfortunately I think that Giano's feelings towards administrators had been irreparably damaged and, if we are to keep him, it might in this case be pragmatic to take into account his unblemished record before the Carnildo affair. Had I appreciated this before, my approach would have been much lighter. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Actually, I think this covers a lot of comments made in the debate at the admin's noticeboard. There were some points made which seemed to suggest a perceived division between those who edit articles and those that don't. I think that sort of view helps "nurture hatred or fear". I think a lot of the debate falls foul of this section of WP:NOT. I would think the whole debate should be looked at with regards to this clause. It quickly descended into what appears to be a lot of people piling into an issue which had appeared to be resolved rather quickly, after 15 minutes I'd say the initial block of Giano was near enough settled, Tony noting 15 minutes after opening the thread: "No problem. I think it had gotten far beyond the stage where asking him to cool it would have worked, though. We'll see how it goes." --Tony Sidaway 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC) How and why the debate floundered as it did is perhaps not for me to comment, but I'd wonder if this section of WP:NOT is not considered relevant. Steve block Talk 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree and a decision need to be made as to the scope of this arbitration. My intention now is to limit its scope. If the trolling continues, those doing it can be brought up in a second case when everyone is good and tired of it. Fred Bauder 13:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm confused as to what comment this is replying to. What are we talking about when we say "If the trolling continues" exactly? - brenneman 03:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Where is the scope currently limited to? Up until Tony's block? Steve block Talk 20:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Debating frankly

10) Comments and ideas can and should be debated frankly, as long as opponents do not engage in personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, except these can better be separated into two principles. Fred Bauder 13:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Grafikm 08:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Enthusiastically support -- to the point of desiring to strike the personal attacks clause. For one, this principle is stated independently; for another, charges of personal attacks have come to be used as a way to invalidate serious discussion. I would rather read a direct insult on my talk page than a week's worth of byzantine intrigue. John Reid 04:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Settling scores

11) Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 10:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Nurturing fear and whatnot is a two-way street. An insufficiently sensitive person may, finding a dispute ridiculous, say Qu'ils mangent de la brioche, and exacerbate feelings of alienation felt by valuable and well established editors. (Yes, I've read the Misplaced Pages article but this is a metaphor, not a history lesson). --Tony Sidaway 14:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it's impenetrable. What other metaphor? My point is that one can unconsciously provoke hatred and all kinds of other weird stuff simply by not understanding why the other guy is so full of fear, hatred, etc, and thus acting in a way that exacerbated his problems. I don't think there's any solution to this. This isn't supposed to be a psychiatric hospital. --Tony Sidaway 01:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. However, just as it is unwise to provoke patients in the violent ward, it is wise to be courteous to those who are obviously upset here. Characterizing them in a profoundly negative way may and did cause trouble (and provide ammunition for those trying to cause it). Fred Bauder 13:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, mea maxima culpa. I do not come well out of this. --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What history lesson? This is an impenetrable metaphor. At least the 'other metaphor' was in English and not in French! At a guess, I'd point to Marie Antoinette and Let them eat cake. Carcharoth 01:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How silly. This thread is split between two sections. I guess I should have replied in the "comment by parties" section, but I thought I shouldn't, as I'm not a party. I now see that anyone can post anywhere, but the initial comment should be by an arbitrator, party or other, for the respective sections. The other metaphor I was referring to was the one that got you blocked (or at least was the final straw that got you blocked). As for the fear, hatred and I'd add paranoia here, I find the best method is to simply ignore such things and keep your own comments reasonable and rational. Either the other guy will start engaging with you, or they will give up and go away. If you later encounter the same attitude in the same user, again and again, then it may be worth following up and investigating such behaviour. Carcharoth 10:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you may reply beneath a comment. Yes, the attitude again and again and again... Fred Bauder 13:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism welcomed

12) Criticism of administrative, arbitration, and bureaucratic decisions is welcome.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

All criticism is welcome; it's all information; all useful. Fred Bauder 14:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As Sjakkalle. Agree with Badlydrawnjeff as far as it goes, but accusing the entire operational machinery of Misplaced Pages of gross malfeasance isn't so much criticism as, well, a sign that one needs to have a sit down and a nice cup of tea. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But you didn't give him a soothing experience. I don't know exactly how you could though. Fred Bauder 14:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's just say I was not the right man for the job. Giano has said that we're best dealing with trolls and vandals, and others have said the same. When a good contributor comes unstuck, we need to get together and discuss things more carefully. --Tony Sidaway 02:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This principle is essential to our community. Attempts to invalidate criticism should always be suspect. I don't deny that people do troll to foolish or disruptive ends but the label is applied gratuitously. Anyone who reads my contribs -- including those to policy-related issues -- can see that I'm here to work, not play. I'd rather be called a fuckhead outright than have my serious inquiries into community values labeled trolling. And I'd rather have them labeled and be answered than see them deleted out of hand with nasty edit sums. John Reid 04:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sure, just add "constructive" at the start of the sentence, and I'll agree. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Constructive," however, is woefully subjective. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To reply to Tony, that's exactly the type of belittling of one's argument that turned this tempest into a poopship destroyer. When you have an otherwise worthwhile editor see that he was originally a) blocked poorly, b) looked down upon for expressing an opinion regarding the blocking admin's readminning, c) blocked for that opinion, and d) actually see some quibbling as to whether his being unblocked for that is the right move, it does bring into question the entire operational machinery. I'm sure he's not the only person to believe it, and I'm not doubting for a second that he has every right to feel that way, given his experience. To say that it's nothing more than "a sign that one needs to have a sit down and a nice cup of tea" is essentially saying "you're a loon, go do something else," whether that's the intent or not. When it's the same people time and time again, it only adds to it - why else would, for instance, Kelly Martin be dragged into it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying to control the "mob" is a losing game. Fred Bauder 14:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'd rather all administrative, arbitration, and bureaucratic decisions are open to question. Steve block Talk 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Strikes

13) A strike by any editor is the declared decision to withdraw his freely given labor in protest at a grievance that he believes is not capable of being resolved by the dispute resolution machinery of Misplaced Pages. A strike, or agitation for a strike, is a legitimate form of peaceful protest on Misplaced Pages, universally recognised as the right of any Wikipedian.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think this question is outside the scope of this arbitration. Generous of you to concede the point; however, I'm not sure how "agitation for a strike" is to be differentiated from disruptive trolling. I think we will cross that bridge when we come to it. Fred Bauder 14:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I've observed peaceful (and somewhat successful) attempts by Geogre and others to make their point by withdrawing their highly valued voluntary labor, which they felt was under-appreciated by a growing bureaucracy of non-editors or infrequent editors. We don't really have anything about this, perhaps because it's so blindingly obvious, but I think we should have this principle so as to clarify what this dispute is not about. --Tony Sidaway 14:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely not about the relative status of editors and administrators. That is a policy issue. Fred Bauder 14:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify for Sjakkalle, I think it's basically "right to leave" but more explicit about the "freedom of association" aspects. We rightly take a pretty hard line on people campaigning on real-life political issues (at least I like to think we do), but sometimes there are "wikipolitical" issues that may need to be addressed. One form of political power the primary producer can exercise is withdrawal of labor. An analogous case occurred recently in the Irishpunktom case, where User:Dbiv succeeded in using peaceful ban-defiance as a persuasive political protest against a remedy in that case that banned him from editing an article in a subject on which he is an expert. In the hands of unimpeachable producers of good content, these are persuasive methods of protest. We admins are perhaps becoming like police officers, always ready to shoot. If we shoot good people, we're aiming the wrong way. --Tony Sidaway 15:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We make mistakes, and sometimes we correct them. Refusal to go along with a decision sometimes results in its reversal. Fred Bauder 14:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a downside to this I'd like to see addressed. When someone strikes or exercises their right to leave, the community will often seek someone else to blame. I don't think a strike should be allowed as a reason to overturn an administrative action. If the strike upholds a principle that others find valid, that principle should be the reason, but "we want so-and-so back should not. --InkSplotch 14:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sure, no problem with this. More or less m:Right to leave. And providing that they haven't done anything egregious, anyone has a right to come back as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

With Fred, I don't see this as relevant here. I am always very wary about myself becoming a model for others to follow. However, given that there are inevitably going to be people who have a grievance against a formal decision on Misplaced Pages, it may be constructive to show them a way of opposing the decision without actually leaving. So long as this path is not in itself disruptive, that would help keep valued contributors on board and therefore benefit the project. David | Talk 14:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yours was an exceptional case. You took a gamble and won. I've seen many others roll those particular bones and see nothing but snake eyes. --Tony Sidaway 16:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Reputation

14) Certain roles necessary to the running of Misplaced Pages, namely bureaucrats, arbitrators, checkusers and clerks, require individuals of the highest reputation within the community. Even the appearance of impropriety may cause great damage. Factionalism must be avoided by the office holder and, where the exigencies of the role make it possible, he must strive for transparency in his dealings, and avoid all reasonably predictable conflicts of interest. --Tony Sidaway 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 14:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I think perhaps this wasn't so keenly recognised when the clerks were instituted and three of those chosen were, everybody acknowledges, some of the most controversial editors in the English Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

However it is just secretarial work. Fred Bauder 14:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't how it's seen by the community, really. Aaron's view that it was "a gold watch for failed arbitrators" isn't uncommon. Perceptions are important. But it is just secretarial work. Heavy lifting. An arbitration clerk is a stevedore of words. --Tony Sidaway 02:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed. John Reid 04:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorsed wholeheartedly. With regard to the clerks, I've also proposed a remedy that might help. Newyorkbrad 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed. Appearances do matter. Catchpole 07:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re to Fred (secretarial work); I believe there is some mention on the arbitration and clerk pages about refactoring and summarizing evidence. Clearly some people thought at the beginning that it was a "gold star" or junior arbitrator position. Perhaps, having now had 9 months experience with clerks, the written job description should be clarified so people know it is purely clerical, and not particularly easy or rewarding at that. Thatcher131 15:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerks commonly refactor the arbitration pages, and occasionally evidence has been summarised especially in large and complex cases where a summary is necessary to save the arbitrators' wading through 64kb of what any sane person would admit is pure drivel (the rejected Wayah sahoni application comes to mind). This is unusual but it is a clerical function and not one that has proven as controversial as originally thought, perhaps because it is a function that has been exercised with great parsimony. --Tony Sidaway 02:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Decisions are final

15) In the absence of a successful appeal, a decision by the Bureaucrats such as the closing of a Request for admin is final.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I have added by bureaucrats because I assume that was Fred's intent, and I think it answers Aaron's question. --Tony Sidaway 23:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What is this tautological statement meant to say? All decisions are final unless they are revised. Do you mean revised by the arbcom, by b'cats, what? Is this leading up to "just shut up and go back to work?" Please give us something to feed off here. - Aaron Brenneman 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The question of how an appeal would be made remains, but what it means is that the decision is final. I'm not telling you to shut up, at least not now. I oppose any attempt by the Arbitration Committee, in this case or any other, to overturn a decision by the Bureaucrats. Whether they would agree to review a decision themselves is up to them. One can always appeal to Jimbo. Fred Bauder 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely this is not tautological, but self-contradictory: "Decisions by bureaucrats are final except if they aren't". David | Talk 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like an explanation myself. Steve block Talk 22:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I cannot help but note that, after all the stink that I've raised about being forbidden to edit other people's proposals, and how explicitly I've been told not to do so, that Tony edits Fred Bauder's quite cavalierly. Can we have some consistancy, please.
  brenneman 07:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point, and as usual I didn't like what he did. However, I almost always catch these things and they do little harm. You, on the other hand, went too far. You were trying to express a viewpoint, in the usual wiki editing way. Fred Bauder 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Any editor who sees me carping along this line any further please do smack me with a trout. - brenneman 04:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Does this therefore mean crat's are judge, jury and executioner? They can deign to refuse an appeal? If Misplaced Pages isn't a bureaucracy, I'm unclear how all this chasing ultimately works. I agree with the idea that if you have a grievance, at some point you have to let that go if you can't get consensus, but I'm not sure a crat's decision is final pending a successful appeal. It still feels like catch 22. Steve block Talk 20:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Decisions are final

15.1) In RfAs, any changes or decisions by the Bureaucrats are final.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 15:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Sorry, but I find both statements semantically empty unless stretched to a point I hope is beyond the authors' intent. Either that or they restate the obvious. I hope they do not repackage a radical viewpoint.

When a b'crat closes an RfA as failed, it's over. That candidate can always reapply, without prejudice; there is no formal latency period, either. When a b'crat closes an RfA and promotes, it's over. The new admin will succeed or fail; if the latter, he may later be de-adminned. Either way, the RfA closing is not subject to any sort of appeal.

Having taken either action, the closing b'crat may however be called upon to explain himself -- and must do so, in whatever detail is required by the people for whom he works. Given the sensitive nature of the task, the b'crat must go to the limit before dismissing criticism as mere noise. This may be extremely tiresome, since most criticism will be crybabyism from disappointed supporters or opponents. All I can say is that b'cratship requires patience, tolerance, humility, stability, and a great deal of work.

At the extreme, a b'crat who fails in his duties including this dialog may be de-b'cratted, having lost his community mandate. However, even his most recent actions stand by default. A successful recall of a b'crat does not itself reverse his last 1, 3, or 10 actions. If the community feels its consensus was disregarded, it may take new action to re-establish it.

That said (and you know what's coming next), I take an extremely dim view of b'crats who tread dangerously close to the limits of community tolerance. I don't like radical action taken in the knowledge that it cannot easily be reversed. WP:BOLD is rooted in the wiki mechanism of easy edits, easy reverts, and transparent page history; the user privileges mechanism is technically rigid. RfA is not a place for bold and novel action. I will be entirely content with a b'crat who mechanically promotes every 80%, fails every 75%, and flips a coin for those in the middle. He will not be the best b'crat but neither will he be a danger to the community. John Reid 04:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Revised to clarify above. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Acceptance of decisions

16) Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith extends to the actions of the Bureaucrats. Criticism of their decisions, even strong, possibly unfair criticism, is welcome, but graceful acceptance of their decisions is expected in the absence of revision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Sorry; but I can't accept this at all, as a written principle. I do accept actions, in general, as they happen; process is not all but without it we have chaos. Incessant criticism of anyone's actions is just throwing sand in the gearbox.

But I want to ensure that anyone who throws stones at a critic -- any critic, anywhere, anytime, of any action -- not be given any firmer ledge to stand upon. We have far too much griping, sniping, and whinging -- but the cure is not to condemn griping in general; this only puts a weapon in the hands of metagripers, who are far worse than the gripers. John Reid 04:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Seems a sort of non-sequitur to me: a decision may be wrong even if taken in good faith. Also, what would be the contrary of a graceful acceptance? I suggest rewording this one. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Successful agitation and resistance leading to its overturn. Fred Bauder 15:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But if the decision is overturned, doesn't that mean the decision is wrong? If there is a strong enough vocal element to overturn the decision, doesn't that imply there wasn't a strong enough consensus to support it in the first instance? I don't think graceful acceptance is the right term. That amounts to telling people to just swallow it. Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith extends to the actions of the Bureaucrats. Criticism of their decisions, even strong, possibly unfair criticism, is welcome, but resentment of the decision in the absence of revision is not acceptable within the bounds of assuming good faith. Steve block Talk 20:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If a decision to overturn is made because there is a consensus that it was the wrong decision, that is fine. If a decision to overturn is achieved "by force of arms", that is not good. There was a somewhat ugly, unwikipedian nature about the recent fuss, which was clearly informally orchestrated by a small group of editors. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think resentment at such decisions is certainly wrong, I don't accept that acceptance should be expected. I get your point, but again, that's got to be case by case. Rather than say we should gracefully accept all decisions by the arb-com crats, we should say, look, you're out of order here. Maybe what I'm getting at is that we should criticise civilly. We shouldn't have to gracefully accept, we should be free to grudgingly put up with, that's my point. I know we don't do grudges, but we can do good natured dissent. If we're trying to contain bad natured dissent, that's a civility issue, to my mind. Steve block Talk 21:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Furthermore, I'm sure if a decision were overturned by a force of arms, Jimbo would knock heads per the paedophile issue. I don't think the forse of arms is an issue. Steve block Talk 21:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Jimbo turning up and knocking heads together isn't intended to be a part of the normal operation of Misplaced Pages. Nor is arbitration. When those things turn up, there has been a serious problem. I don't agree with Fred that one should "gracefully accept" all decisions that one disagrees with, and "grudgingly live with" is just fine. --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I would hope overturning decisions by force of arms doesn't become normal behaviour either.  :) Steve block Talk 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

which was clearly informally orchestrated by a small group of editors" Wrong again Tony, I don't do IRC (where I believe schemes are planned occasionally!) and I barely email anyone - perhaps I'm telepathic - you've not charged me with that one yet Giano 21:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't suggest the use of email or IRC. Please read my words again. Second thoughts, perhaps the word "orchestrate" confuses you. Try "whipped up". --Tony Sidaway 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh! You mean some people were making statements on the Wiki that were leading other people to agree with them! Is that really forbidden behavior? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well people didn't agree with them (else my changes to the RFA front matter would have encountered serious opposition). They charged on regardless. Really I think this illustrates the difference in the approach. I sought to clarify existing policy and achieved this successfully by consensus, resulting in a quite radical change to the front matter of RFA explaining how it works. Giano and a few others simply tried to whip up a lot of hatred of their chosen scapegoats, the arbitration committee, the bureaucrats, and certain named individuals who really had nothing to do with the case. Their method failed, and so here we are. --Tony Sidaway 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Appeal of decisions of the Bureaucrats

18) The Arbitration committee is poorly positioned to review decisions of Bureaucrats when they act as a committee. How a decision by a caucus of Bureaucrats could be reviewed is up to the Bureaucrats. A appeal may be made to Jimbo.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We have considered allegations of misbehavior by Bureaucrats. Fred Bauder 14:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The principle is comity. Fred Bauder 15:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Committee is a good word. Caucus is another one if that isn't thought suitable. There is, I'm told, at least one on-line thesaurus that may be useful for finding other names.

The suggestion that decisions of the bureaucrats should be reviewed by bureaucrats is good. This is one case where some degree of separation of powers is helpful. If the arbitration committee cannot influence the decisions of bureaucrats then this reduces the scope for damaging allegations that the bureaucrats and arbitrators act in concert. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The opinions of the arbitrators was cited in the closing of the Carnildo RfA . I think that, in general, we do work in concert, consulting with one another when appropriate. But neither group controls or supervises the other. Fred Bauder 15:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we're disagreeing over terms rather than facts. I cede the wording to you. --Tony Sidaway 02:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. I find support of this principle as revolting as opposition to it. I can't find a place within myself to speak to the issue in comfort without starting 5 more essays on related topics.

I have, from the very beginning of my involvement, felt ArbCom a mistake. Its members have too much power, too great a workload, and insufficient guidelines to appropriate action -- or rather, far too many flimsy, conflicting guidelines. ArbCom's power devolves from above; this makes it an agent of the Board, empowerered to uphold project interests at the expense of the community. That said, the tasks set to ArbCom are vital; I don't have a fully developed replacement mechanism in the wings; and we must work with the tools we have. ArbCom has outperformed expectations.

B'crats should never act as a committee; b'crats should simply never take any action that depends on that level of doubt. B'crat actions are narrow in scope and community mandate is limited. Admin promotion is a highly biased action -- I speak in the technical sense, in that it is technically difficult to reverse a promotion, extremely easy to promote a mistaken failure. Therefore, the default action must always be not to promote -- and that should take much of the pressure off b'crats. Petty whinging by failed candidates and their supporters should be dealt with in another way than by forcing b'crats to spend 10 times as much work to determine consensus in marginal cases. Adminship is no big deal and nobody should really care if his RfA fails -- and I've made it clear than any editor who really, really needs to be an admin most certainly should not be promoted.

There is no need for any appeals process for b'crat actions. As I stated earlier, done is done. There may well be room for a new process for de-adminning and de-b'cratting those editors who have failed to maintain community trust; but this is new action, not an appeal of an old one. Appeals just slap another layer of mud on a messy situation.

Finally, no appeal to Jimbo -- not from any action anywhere. No more begging Jimbo to have the final say; no more dissection of obscure mailing list posts; no more editing the same, hauling them out of context to support a viewpoint Jimbo never heard of; no more slaughtering small animals and examining the entrails for clues to the will of the gods. It is about 2 years past time to allow Jimmy Wales to enjoy a well-deserved retirement and allow him to devote his full energies to his personal projects. Let the purely honorary title of "Jimbo" be granted for yearly terms to highly trusted, well respected, entirely presentable Wikipedians who can then go on talk shows and lead the anniversary parade. It's long past time for us to grow up and take responsibility for project and for our community. John Reid 05:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Having served in both roles, I believe this makes sense. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Committee seems to be the wrong word here. It was more of a consultation among several bureaucrats. "Committee" suggests some sort of more formalized process. If I consult with several admins of my choice on an issue, I would not turn around and say "a committee of admins has decided...." NoSeptember 15:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think this principle is not such a good idea. The ArbCom has been, and should be, the final place for dispute resolution. Therefore, if there is a dispute with bureaucrats, it must be resolved by arbitration, or there would be no place left to resolve it (for we all know that Jimbo as the "ultimate figure of appeal" is very busy with other things). Additionally, I agree that "committee" or "caucus" is the wrong term here. It implies that the 24 current bureaucrats made a conscious decision to hand the matter to a small number of them, which simply isn't the case here. I am not at all suggesting that the 'crats should be censured or anything, but if and when such is necessary the ArbCom must be willing to consider it. >Radiant< 11:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see how you think it implies all 24 bcrats were involved, a committee can be three. But replacing that with "a group of bureaucrats" would solve the semantic problem. I suppose I'm undecided about whether the arbcom should review a decision we've made. I guess there's a benefit in a second level of oversight to prevent real problems, but I don't think we should turn it into a court where the arbcom decides on each bcrat decision somebody doesn't like. - Taxman 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree we shouldn't overreact on this. But as a general issue, the ArbCom doesn't act on decisions "that somebody doesn't like" even though they would have the authority. Being the last step in dispute resolution, the ArbCom tends to limit itself to the extreme issues. You'd probably agree with me that 99% of RFA decisions are not controversial, and I'm sure the ArbCom would e.g. reject a request from some random user to overturn their failed RFA. >Radiant< 12:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• And I grant there were unusual enough circumstances that are unlikely to ever come up again. - Taxman 12:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My worry is that I think it risks threatening the ability of the bureaucrats to make reasonable, independent decisions. We've seen here that it doesn't really take many dissenters, if they're noisy enough, to raise a stink, and the next logical step would be to try to escalate the decision to arbitration. I don't think it should be a job of the arbitration committee to set aside a reasoned, fully explained judgement by the bureaucrats, except where there is clear evidence of improper behavior. --Tony Sidaway 16:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Judge, jury and executioner time. Jimbo is fairly hands off and would probably expect the community to sort it out. That would imply it's in the community's hands, not the crats. I think if we tread down this path too much it will lead to decratting process proposals. Why not just accept this was a one off, and that circumstances on occasion force tough decisions, and it's up to people to work out how to deal with them. I'm not sure arb-com should be conferring any special powers on anyone here. They should just be looking at the issues. The issue is that bad blood built up over a tricky decision. The crats could have proposed the probation rather than imposed it, for example. Steve block Talk 20:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see what the issue is here. The bureaucrats are supposed to determine the consensus of Misplaced Pages, that's there job. If they fail to explain their decisions adequately, ask them to do so. If you don't think the explanation was adequate, marshal a consensus on Misplaced Pages to the view that this is unacceptable conduct. If they give a good explanation that you don't happen to agree with, well tough. It isn't the end of the world. They are allowed to disagree with you, and you with them, as long as the consensus on Misplaced Pages is that the bureaucrats are generally doing a good job of interpreting consensus at RFA. Which I'm sure you'll agree is certainly the case. The principle of discretion a is longstanding one on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 20:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sincere apologies

19) Sincere apologies are an essential component in dispute resolution, and in general, result in more positive effects than punitive actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

That would be good, but I'm not into ordering apologies. Fred Bauder 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I have hurt Giano, compounding harm done by Carnildo. I have apologised to him . We should all, always, make an effort to apologise and make amends where we do harm. The only reason we're here is to advance the production of the encyclopedia, and anything that gets in the way of our common goal, particularly exacerbating personal grievances, pursuing or engendering grudges, should be left at the door. --Tony Sidaway 02:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel very poorly handled in this issue and will welcome any hand extended in my direction. For my part, I apologize to any b'crat who feels personally attacked by my inquiry -- which will nonetheless continue. Our community has a right to question b'crats and get clear answers in return; b'crats have a right to be respected for the sheer amount of work they do. For that matter, even if I instigate a recall of any b'crat, I hope it is never considered a comment on him as a person but only on the degree to which he continues to serve community needs. A square peg in a round hole is not a bad peg. John Reid 05:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I can not get around the feeling that if Carnildo had apologized to Giano, we would not have been here. Probably needs a lot of tweaking. -- Kim van der Linde 15:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not ordering, just noticing that apologies in general do often a lot of good if sincere. -- Kim van der Linde 19:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Editor morale

20) Since Misplaced Pages is run mostly by volunteers, the morale of those people is very important to the project. Any action with obvious short term effects can have oft-overlooked long term effects by how it is perceived by the community. Any action that would be good in itself but can cause strong community dissent and/or editors leaving needs to be considered very carefully.

(For example, blocking an editor can cause that editor to leave the project. For your average vandal, that's not a problem, but for good editors it is)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Quite general, but as applied to an improvident 3 hour block, spot on. Fred Bauder 15:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Spot on. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Grafikm_fr has apparently misunderstood me. I mean solely that its application to my conduct is "spot on". I've no idea whether it applies to other editors and I'm not intersted, in this case, in whether it does. --Tony Sidaway 20:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree in general but disagree with "as it applies to" blocks. I think every editor should be blocked once in a while; blocking should be no big deal either -- any more than a timeout given to a child at home should be thought of in the same category with leather strap beatings. All of us need time to rest and reflect; admins, b'crats, and ArbCom members should be blocked more often than other editors because they need the rest more. Editors who leave the first time they're blocked are better gone.

It's vital to reverse the general atmosphere of hatred and contention that pervades every discussion. Under cover of superficially polite language that barely skims under the WP:CIVIL radar screen (or not), editors are consistently nasty to one another; the cited page only acts to ensure that editors shoot at one another in cold blood rather than hot. Many critics of Misplaced Pages have mentioned this highly charged, vicious atmosphere and it serves to keep many knowledgable people as far away as they can get.

I'd rather be blocked than have my serious criticism dismissed as trolling; I'd rather be called a fuckhead directly than deal with a constant rain of lukewarm whinging that generates a feeling of personal worthlessness; and I'd rather be reverted directly, even without a polite comment, than subjected to snippy demands that I think otherwise than I do. John Reid 05:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

We need to pay more attention to this. Feel free to reword, by the way. Radiant! 17:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is, it also works the other way of what Tony thinks it does. His incivility is a bummer for the morale of some people (see diffs in Evidence). -- Grafikm 20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Editor morale redux

21) Per the above, if it is decided that a controversial decision is nevertheless for the good of the project, it must be handled very carefully. Comments along the lines of "put up or shut up" only serve to aggravate the situation. Unhappy editors are not good for the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A controversial decision may require considerable explanation and patient dialog with those who oppose it. Fred Bauder 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Absolutely. And here let me say that I mean by this "this principle applies to my conduct." Nothing more and nothing less. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Has someone called some other editors idiots? --Tony Sidaway 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this is a reference to Jdforrester's post captioned "You're All Idiots" on WP:AN (see proposed findings below). Newyorkbrad 23:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm sure someone will post examples in /evidence about things that should have been said in a different way, or by a more diplomatic person, or not at all. Radiant! 17:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, calling other editors "idiots" sure does make some unhappy... <_< -- Grafikm_fr 20:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, attempts to short circuit discussion of a controversial decision are apt to aggravate the situation. Fred Bauder 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration should not be used as an effort to "out" fellow Wikipedians

22) Deliberately seeking "diffs" and attempting to pile-on random evidence not directly related to a current Arbitration hearing should be viewed as attempts to "out" a fellow Wikipedian, especially if said individual has an axe to grind from a previous unrelated encounter such as a block, bad disagreement of for not getting what they wanted in a previous dispute proceeding with said individual.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If there is a pattern of behavior, it is Ok to bring it to our attention. Fred Bauder 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Arbitrators are human and arbitration is a human process. We trust them to try their best to make the best decision in the interests of the project. Whilst it may sometimes happen that an editor may use arbitration as a means of settling scores the effect of this principle, if adopted, could only be to deter editors from presenting evidence lest they might be thought to be pursuing a vendetta. Arbitrators aren't stupid, they should be able to see through such attempts if ever they are made. Moreover, "diffs" that present an unequival picture of problematic behavior should be welcomed. The arbitrators may be able to suggest a remedy. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but since arbitrators can't be expected to know about all past situations, what mechanism is utilized to make it clear that a contributiong editor may simply be trying to settle a score.--MONGO 21:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In this instance, the arbitrators can be assumed to know a bit more than one might otherwise imagine. --Tony Sidaway 23:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by MONGO--MONGO 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better worded as a simple "Evidence presented during an arbitration case should be germane to the hearing at hand?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about those that have had prior dealings who use arbitration cases as an opportunity to "out" someone as a form of retribution. So germane is possibly part of my comment, but I emphasize that this applies mainly to those with an axe to grind.--MONGO 20:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear what this has to do with the present situation in any case, as there's no previous arbitration (aside from the userbox wheelwar one) in which any of the involved parties participated. Kirill Lokshin 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about those that go to an arbcom case to deliberately attempt to out a fellow wikipedian due to a past grievance (and this applies in the Workshop and or Evidence sections of an arbtration proceeding) and using that as a platform to seek retribution.--MONGO 20:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather curious how you believe this principle is relevant to this particular arbitration case, though. Kirill Lokshin 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In the case of some editors who have had to deal with problematic users in the past, I am concerned that these users may use the Workshop and Evidence pages as a forum to post diffs in a deliberate attempt to get retribution. So my proposal applies to all cases, but in the case of Tony Sidaway, who has had to deal with many problematic editors, this issue is pertinent to this case. It may also apply to Bishonen who has been dealing with at least two problematic editors who could potentially use this siutuation as an opportunity to try and get some form of revenge.--MONGO 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh. If the diffs are relevant to the case, I don't really think it matters why editors may or may not be motivated to provide them; and if they're not relevant, I assume the ArbCom will simply ignore them. Kirill Lokshin 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is adopted, I don't think the verb "out" is quite what the proposer means. That term typically refers to revelation of private or non-public information, which is not at issue in this case. Perhaps the proposer meant something like "oust" from the project. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Out, oust, well, in this case, which is big, the opportunity to add diffs and other information in the workshop and evidence pages in an attempt to (get rid of?) an editor, may be an issue, maybe not. I do have faith in arbcom to weed out obvious attempts at this, however, I have concerns about the lingering shadow effect that may endure. If this isn't adopted in this form or by any form, that's fine.--MONGO 21:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Recognition of contributions to the project

23) While all editors of Misplaced Pages are entitled to respect and consideration regardless of the nature or volume of their contributions, the work of long-standing and dedicated Wikipedians is particularly entitled to recognition and respect. This is so regardless of whether the user's contributions consist primarily of article creation, editing existing articles, or performing administrative functions, as all of these roles and many others must be performed for the project to succeed. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this is divisive because it suggests a hierarchy. --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Totally support. -- Grafikm_fr 20:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Tony Sidaway, the intention was to say exactly the opposite of how you read it, but I'd be glad to see another wording. Newyorkbrad 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. I'd also suggest that if you argue that long-standing users are treated with greater respect, then you'd also have to state that they should be held to higher standards of conduct. I think we should all be treated the same. Perhaps along with Misplaced Pages:Don't bite the newbies we need a Misplaced Pages:Don't revere the elders? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve block (talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

Revere, no. This was designed to set up the next numbered paragraph. Read together with that, it may (or may not) make more sense. Newyorkbrad 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I still don't like it. How about, um, While all editors of Misplaced Pages are entitled to respect and consideration regardless of the nature or volume of their contributions, an editors contributions can enhance their importance to the project in the eyes of some? Steve block Talk 20:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Recognition of contributions to the project

23.1) While all editors of Misplaced Pages are entitled to respect and consideration regardless of the nature or volume of their contributions, the work of long-standing and dedicated Wikipedians is particularly entitled to recognition and respect. This is so regardless of whether the user's contributions consist primarily of article creation, editing existing articles, or performing administrative functions, as all of these roles and many others must be performed for the project to succeed. However, good behavior does not, in itself, entirely excuse bad behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Divisive because it suggests a hierarchy. --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Newyorkbrad's basic sentiment is valid, but I'm just not happy with the wording. Sorry I can't be more forthcoming. This is a bit of a minefield. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Last sentence added to the above; could probably use some wording cleanup. Kirill Lokshin 21:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Tony. Steve block Talk 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Tony. This would stratify editors by their quantity of contributions. The first time editor may be every bit as valuable to the project, in future terms, as an editor who has been here for years. By suggesting editors with substantial contributions are somehow more worthy, we create a currency of experience on Misplaced Pages rather than respecting the expertise of the real world and applying that knowledge here. --Durin 12:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Consideration of a user's contributions in evaluating user conduct

24) A user's history of valuable contributions to the project does not entitle the user to violate Misplaced Pages policies or procedures. However, such a history may be extremely relevant in assessing the user's behavior and in determining that the user's administrative actions and/or editorial comments and behavior were undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We're all grown ups. I think this is sort of implicit in the wikipedia process. Nobody gets a free ticket to harm the encyclopedia or piss off the community. A good contributor may nevertheless be a serious problem to the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This works. Steve block Talk 20:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Conduct of project-page discussions following contentious decisions

25) Discussion of community-related issues on project pages, like any other discussion within Misplaced Pages, is to be conducted within the framework of the project's policies endorsing civil behavior at all times and forbidding personal attacks. Aspirationally, the same high level of civility and courtesy would prevail in any discussion at any time, anywhere across the project. Nonetheless, in project-page discussions following a highly contentious decision, it is understandable that strong feelings may be expressed by those on all sides of a given issue. It is particularly understandable that long-time editors and administrators, being the most heavily invested in and dedicated to the project, may express their views forcefully at such times. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 20:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is worded horribly. "Aspirationally?" Basically we're saying that robust discussion is to be expected following a controversial decision. I agree. I'm less inclined to agree that old-timers can be excused where we err. I think we owe a duty of care to the community and should provide leadership at times of crisis. --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reasonable basis for project-page comments

26) In contentious discussions on project pages, users are entitled to comment on the role of administrators, bureaucrats, members of the Arbitration Committee and other prominent members of the community in a candid fashion. Comments on the performance of official duties by persons holding such roles are of direct relevance to the functioning of the project and do not constitute personal attacks. However, in all cases, such comments should be supported by facts or by reasonable inferences from the available facts. Adverse comments about another user's conduct or motivations that are based exclusively on conjecture or speculation should be avoided. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Personal attacks and discourtesy may be forgiven under some circumstances. Fred Bauder 20:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators should avoid taking administrative action against those with whom they are in a dispute

27) The well-recognized principle that administrators should avoid taking administrative action (such as blocking) against a user with whom the administrator is embroiled in a dispute, typically applied in the context of content disputes on article pages, is equally applicable to meta or interpersonal disputes on project pages. When an administrator believes that a block may be appropriate in these circumstances, the views of uninvolved administrators should be sought. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The extension to meta-disputes is spurious. In this case it's simply fatuous. I was aware of no interpersonal or meta disputes with Giano at any time, except in the sense that he seemed to have singled me out as someone who was involved with him. I wasn't. To me he was just a particularly noisy person in a public order situation. I was barely aware of his existence. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible, when reasonable. Should not make it easier for problem users to subject the admins to trivial attacks implying the impunity. PA should not be considered as involvement that bans an admin from blocking a troll. Rule definetely applies to good-faith content dispute and civilly, while bluntly, expressed disagreement over the parties' actions. --Irpen 09:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Impossible. The very action of taking administrative action places you in dispute with someone. Are we only allowed to interact administratively with each other user only once? Interpersonal disputes are hard to properly evaluate in that context. That said, I'd counter argue that Tony followed what was required of him by bringing the block to the admin's noticeboard and accepting the overturning of the block. Steve block Talk 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Consultation should have preceded the block. Fred Bauder 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On wiki or off? And I'm not convinced that is the case. We've seen situations resolved like this before, many times. Steve block Talk 20:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Every time an admin confronts a user who is behaving inappropriately, he or she is in a dispute with that user. I'm referring to a narrow subset of these situations ... I will give some thought to coming up with a better wording. 00:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucratic decision is subject to Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change

28) The role of a bureaucrat is, as defined above, that of "administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions." Therefore, they determine the consensus of the community, and that consensus is therefore subject to Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change. That consensus may change after a long period of time, but the bureaucrat's decision may in fact provide the catalyst for that consensus to change.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not sure how this relates to the matters at issue. Fred Bauder 20:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed Steve block Talk 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It was my attempt to understand what you meant by Decisions are final, um, point 15. I'm not clear that your proposal at 15.1, "In RfAs, any changes or decisions by the Bureaucrats are final." is correct. An RfA is to my understanding, a debate to see if a consensus exists to give admin status to an editor. That consensus can change, and so the crat's decision is not final and should not be treated as final. Steve block Talk 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To relate it to the issue at hand, it appears relevant to the fact that the crats made a decision which broke with what their mandated power is. If it is, as described above, "to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions", then they stepped over that with the probation they issued. I think a crat's decision cannot exist in a vacuum, and it has to be recognised that they determine consensus, and equally, that it's possible they will determine consensus incorrectly at some point. I don't think we should dictate that either our crats are infallible nor that they are ultimate arbitrators of community consensus. That consensus is defined as fluid, and thus the two are in conflict. Unless, of course, the system allows for a desysop process in which the crats determine consensus? That appears the only way to balance the two principles. The community must have the ability to either change its mind or declare a crat wrong. Steve block Talk 20:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The community has no process by which to register a changed consensus regarding an admin's status

29) Whilst Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change guides that "It is important that there is a way to challenge past decisions, whether they have been reached by poll or consensus. Decisions should therefore practically never be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back", the consensus granted by the community within an admin's promotion is not currently subject to this through any clear process which is practically available to the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed Steve block Talk 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of controversial decisions

30) If a controversial decision is made extended discussion is to be expected. This discussion may include strong statements of opposition. Those who made or support controversial decisions should be prepared to patiently and courteously explain and support the decision. Attempts to prematurely close the discussion are ill-advised.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is a public order issue. Sometimes bad behavior must be dealt with so that civilised discussion can be nurtured. You can't hold a discussion while a lynching party is being assembled. --Tony Sidaway 03:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Fred. --Irpen 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Patience is the key. - Mailer Diablo 09:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Summarise off-wiki discussions

31) If discussions on off-wiki venues (eg. e-mail, mailing lists, IRC channels) lead to groups of administrators, bureaucrats, or arbitrators deciding on a course of action (eg. archiving a thread, intervening in a dispute, blocking a user), then said discussion should be summarised or linked somewhere appropriate on the wiki to ensure transparency and accountability. Proposed by Carcharoth 10:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Discussions on #wikipedia-en-admins are confidential, but are available to the administrators who subscribe to that channel. --Tony Sidaway 15:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

But admins should always be prepared to follow up on-wiki actions with reasons and justifications, and be aware that they may have to repeat arguments they have just had off-wiki. If someone asks why such-and-such an action was taken, just saying "it was discussed on this mailing list" or "in this IRC channel", is an inadequate answer. Fears of breaching confidentiality must not be confused with failing to provide transparency. In other words, discussion of non-confidential material on a confidential mailing list is a bad idea. If something is not confidential, either discuss it on a public mailing list that you can link to, or discuss on-wiki. Do you see what I am driving at here? If admins get used to hanging out in confidential areas, they may fall into the bad habit of discussing everything there. And then they have to disentangle the confidential stuff from the non-confidential stuff when they are asked to justify their actions on-wiki. Carcharoth 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your feeling, but here there was no problem. I performed an edit, somebody reverted it, a bureaucrat reverted it back and that was that. It is, after all, the bureaucrats' noticeboard. Had anyone asked us at the time why we were getting rid of this horrible stuff, we would have said (a) it's horrible stuff and (b) we discussed this on IRC and decided it would be best to get rid of it because this is a bureaucrat's noticeboard, not a Usenet newsgrouop called alt.flame.bureaucrats. --Tony Sidaway 04:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The reasoning behind this is that blanket statements like "discussed on IRC" or "following discussion on <x> mailing list", are rather unhelpful, and failures to reveal what was discussed and how conclusions were reached, leaves a big information gap and disenfranchises those who were not privy to the discussion. It also increases the perception that "real discussion" is taking place elsewhere among a nebulous, ill-defined group of people. Carcharoth 10:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of Sockpuppet accounts in Arbcom procedings is strongly discouraged

32) Use of Sockpuppet accounts in Arbcom procedings is strongly discouraged, all participants are expected to edit from their main accounts or disclose their main accounts. Sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists, thus, a user named as a participating party of the case cannot take part in the case by editing from another account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on WP:SOCK with trivial changes. abakharev 10:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Should be rephrased to "is considered extremely malicious and is subject to severe consequences". ArbCom is no playground for silly or insidious games. --Irpen 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This applies generally to all sock edits. It serves no purpose to make that general policy into a more specific rule. --Tony Sidaway 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What do sockpuppets have to do with the current case? Kirill Lokshin 15:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is bizarre to me, too, but I know Kelly Martin has admitted to having a number of socks. Perhaps this is about that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware she had done that; but they're not, as far as I can tell, participating in the case, so that doesn't make too much sense. Kirill Lokshin 16:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See this diff "a significant fraction of my recent encyclopedic edits have been on a different account", the full text of which is currently residing at the Giano thread subpage of WP:AN, ie. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Giano - BTW, it took ages to find that. I assume the Giano thread will be put back in the 'proper' archives at some point? Carcharoth 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

InkSplotch seems like an obvious sockpuppet account, so the proposal is clearly relevant. SlimVirgin 17:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I get that a lot. Sad, no one's told me yet who I'm supposed to be. Anyway, not that I could stop it but I happily invite anyone to submit a checkuser request. I post from two primary IPs, work and home. It might be possible there's duplicates on the work IP, but I'd be surprised. I, the person behind this account, have one and only one account on Misplaced Pages. I am not a sockpuppet, and I do not have any sockpuppets. --InkSplotch 17:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you list which other accounts you have ever edited with? SlimVirgin 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I can repeat, I have one and only one account on Misplaced Pages. I have never edited under any other account than this one (which I thought was implied, my apologies). --InkSplotch 18:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just so unusual for a new editor to have only 295 edits over a period of 9 months, with only 17 of those to articles, and to be so interested in admin actions only, and to have been present at the most controversial RFAr's during those 9 months. --Interiot 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say my interest lies in the way in which Misplaced Pages works. The policies, processes, and ways people interact day-to-day that keep this place functioning. Other media outlets keep saying this project can't possibly work, or if it works it can't possibly succeed. And yet, it's doing quite well. This fascinates me, so I observe it all closely and when I interact with the system, it's to try and make things better. I know starting an RFAr after such a contentious event hardly seems an improvement, but I think real progress is being made here and I hope good things will come of it. --InkSplotch 20:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You're definitely not me. This is getting a bit surreal. Could we get Kelly to do a checkuser? Oh wait...--Tony Sidaway 19:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's probably poor form for someone involved in an RfAr to do a checkuser for it, whether she has the ability now or not. --badlydrawnjeff 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was obvous that I was joking. Apologies. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Inksplotch's edits, I'd say he seems to be quite interested in me, and he tends to have views broadly sympathetic to mine. He isn't me, though. Who else he might be, if one assumes for a moment that he's lying about this being his sole account, I have no idea. Surely not Jimbo. --Tony Sidaway 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think InkSplotch is Tony's sock but strong, although, circumstantial, evidence of his/her being someone's sock is there. Even the checkuser is not a fullproof. It is not difficult to start the Firefox from a remote computer in any part of the world (not even an open proxy) if one has an account and can ssh to it. With fast connections on both ends, editing would be seemless. However circumstantial, the evidence that InkSplotch is either a sock or a reincarnation is pretty strong. The user just created an account and heads on to WP:ANI, RfA voting and WP:Arb like a newborn turtle to the sea. Ever since the user made no edits (8 to be exact) to the Mainspace but hundreds of edits to Misplaced Pages and Wikipedia_talk namespaces. Then the user opens one of the most controversial ArbCom cases, apparently "on his/her own". We can only wonder about the private communication that were involved, but it seems obvious that this is not just an account like many others. --Irpen 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it ultimately matter? The arbcom will decide based on the merits, not based on the support of the mob assembled before them. I mean, I think if anyone does ever use a sock on RFAr or other important policy places, that it's pretty poor form, but I don't know that it's all that important to take this RFAr on a detour over basic suspicions. (also, Kelly had significant experience with checkuser, and a lot of technical knowledge besides that, so if she's a suspect, it's not like a checkuser would necessarily be the least bit conclusive). --Interiot 21:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can only state that however strongly I have disagreed with some of InkSpotch's statements I have never had anything but respect for the manner in which they were presented. I find him reasonable, civil, and thoughtful. I'd object to any checkuser here, as sockpuppets are only a problem if used in an abusive manner, and I've seen no evidence that this has been done here. Further, if in fact some ill-advised checkuser turns up the this is am alternate account of a known user, I won't give a rat's arse that he "lied" above in saying this was his only account. - brenneman 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Respect

33) Administrators are expected to demonstrate respect for other users. Repeated expressions of contempt toward users or any group of users is incompatible with administrative status. Fred Bauder 00:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, the missing link Fred Bauder 00:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Absolutely. It seems to me that this is a big part of what this is about. Nandesuka 01:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Carnildo's promotion

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3

1) The successful request for adminship made by Carnildo, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 had strong support, including support votes from some of the arbitrators who had dysysopped him. There was also a great deal of opposition including strong opposition from those he had blocked for "hate speech".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 02:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A lot of this opposition seems to have been based on an unresolved grudge held by Giano and supported by people who sympathized with him. I find no evidence that Giano or any other party has ever used the dispute resolution process to attempt to resolve this bad feeling. In response to Kirill, I'll say that it seems to me that the particular opposition expressed by Giano and some others was that an apology must be made before adminship would be considered. In my opinion this could be seen, in effect, as using the RFA as a stage upon which to pursue a personal grievance. This isn't the purpose for which Requests for adminship is intended. --Tony Sidaway 03:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process was used and Carnildo was desysopped. I would not say they used the RfA to pursue "a personal grievance". Rather, they continued to focus on the same public issues which lead to Carnilo being desysopped. That was fine. The problem is vigorously continuing the campaign after the decision was made and extending the campaign to include a condemnation of those who made the decision. Fred Bauder 21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And with regard to the re-sysopping, there are proposed principles/findings above that the bureaucrats' decision on an RfA is final, which would conflict with any suggestion that Giano or anyone else should have resorted to the dispute resolution procedure to challenge their decision. (I personally express no view on the re-sysopping.) Newyorkbrad 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The situation was addressed by the dispute resolution process as part of the broader userbox wheelwar case; presumably the parties in question found the outcome there sufficiently satisfactory that they saw no need for further measures? Kirill Lokshin 03:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I supported Carnildo's RFA and as such I am happy to see that he is an admin again. However, I am unhappy about the way the promotion finally occurred. I think Tony is right that several people opposed Carnildo's re-promotion because they had unresolved issues (if not a "grudge"), but in all fairness Carnildo has never apologized for the spurious blockings of three users in good standing, and several users opposed on those grounds. I supported Carnildo in spite of that mistake because I felt that his good contributions as admin still far outweighed the bad. I cannot say that the opposing side was without merit, although I disagree with them. If Carnildo now uses his admin tools responsibly and never makes a mistake of such a magnitude again, I don't think there ever will be any strong wish from the community that he be recalled. However, I did make this statement in an e-mail which I will repeat here: "It is my belief that the upset over the outcome is not so much to do with Carnildo becoming an admin again as it is about the bureaucrats setting aside the opinion of the community and blatantly disregarding the rules which govern the same RFA process which they are set to manage." Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

(I did not vote.) Administrators are supposed to be trusted. When people point to data that indicates somone cannot be trusted, that should not be discounted as a "grudge". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No and it was not. Fred Bauder 21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing of Carnildo's request for adminship (long)

2) Carnildo was nominated for adminship on 18 August 2006 and on 5 September 2006 he was promoted. Six minutes later the bureaucrat who closed the request, User:Taxman, gave a brief description of the decision and said that bureaucrats User:Danny, User:Rdsmith4 and he himself had decided, on the belief that Carnildo's desysopping in February "was meant as a temporary measure, a cooling off period" to "reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom." . The successful request for adminship had approximately 60% support, including support votes from some of the arbitrators who had dysysopped him. There was also over seventy statments of opposition, including opposition from two editors whom he had blocked for "hate speech". The decision to promote was well outside the standard practice, and was a suprise to many established editors. Promotions with less than 75% support pseudo-votes are unusual, and this is the de-facto benchmark. Some members of the community stated that they choose not to oppose based upon the presumption that the promotion would not occur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 03:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC) (has been changed) Fred Bauder 03:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is trying to do too much. I prefer the short version. Perhaps some of this could be split out into another finding or two. --Tony Sidaway 06:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

*sigh* I suppose asking that we make a single version of this is too much to ask? - brenneman 03:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A question directed to Tony Sidaway, as he's stricken "just the facts" above: What statements here are not facts?
brenneman 05:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the removal of the stricken comment as indicating not that these aren't facts, just that it included facts that unpalatable to some.
brenneman 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If we're to split this out, I suggest three sections:

• A statement about the de facto standards for promotion,
• A statement about the pseudo-votes on CoRfA3 and the subsequent promotion, and
• A statment about the response.

Any statement that includes weasel wording about the facts (like hiding the number "2" in the word "those" ) is clearly unacceptable.

brenneman 06:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing of Carnildo's request for adminship

3) Carnildo was nominated for adminship on 18 August 2006 and on 5 September 2006 he was promoted. Six minutes later the bureaucrat who closed the request, User:Taxman, gave a full description of the decision and said that bureaucrats User:Danny, User:Rdsmith4 and he himself had decided, on the belief that Carnildo's desysopping in February "was meant as a temporary measure, a cooling off period" to "reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom." .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 03:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As proposed by me, and tweaked and accepted by Fred Bauder in an earlier incarnation of what was then finding 5 . --Tony Sidaway 03:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Poor form indeed that people won't even work together in a finding of fact. It speaks volumes. - brenneman 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the word "brief" from this title as it is deceptive. It's not that it's shorter than the other, it's that it fails to cover the same material. I'd have changed it to "biased" but that seemed too provocative. - brenneman 05:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Smart move Fred Bauder 13:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Access to Arbcom-l

4) Access to the Arbitration Committee mailing list, Arbcom-l, is restricted to current and former arbitrators and the principals of the Wikimedia Foundation. All other users including arbitration clerks have write access.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 02:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

To refine this, anyone can send email to the moderated list, but clerks' emails to the mailing list are normally unmoderated. Typically clerks use this facility for forwarding confidential evidence that is sometimes submitted via them, asking for arbitrators to clarify decisions, and so on. A clerk does not see any mailing list traffic at all; this has always been the case except where Kelly Martin, a former arbitrator, retained her read access to the mailing list in that capacity while acting as head clerk. --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of private communications to clerks from the parties, which are relayed to the arbitrators, the clerks normally see nothing that is not completely public in case after case. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

My understanding was that all editors had write access, is this not the case? - brenneman 02:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Might be Fred Bauder 03:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony's answer is correct, and to clarify, yes, everyone does have access to the list, and many prties have used it for appeals and such before. Dmcdevit·t 03:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to closing of RfA

5) Following the closing of Carnildo's request for admin considerable criticism was expressed concerning both the novel 2 month probationary period granted and the closeness of the poll, Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/archive3#Making_it_up_as_you_go_along, User_talk:Carnildo#Resign_your_adminship, and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_68#Carnildo.27s_re-promotion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 03:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

There was a feeling, perhaps, that the rules of the game had been unexpectedly changed. Maybe it was a bad idea to give people the idea that it was a game with rules. --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Is it really useful to have this spun off from the existing proposed findings on this RFA? I feel strongly that these forks indicate that some parties are less interested in creating a neutral statement of facts than in making revisionist history. - brenneman 05:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You make your proposals; I'll make mine, but keep talking about how and why yours are better. Fred Bauder 10:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano has a grudge against Carnildo

6) Giano has longstanding uresolved issues with Carnildo over the indefinite blocking of Giano (including an edit summary that contained a harmful and hurtful reference to "hate speech") which led to Carnildo's desysopping, He has said "Before you even begin to tell me to think of forgiveness and people being deserving of a second chance, just remember this: Carnildo has never once expressed regret or remorse let alone apologised."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Unresolved issues might be better language Fred Bauder 10:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is probably at the center of the case, I think. It concerns an editor using Misplaced Pages as a stage upon which to pursue a personal grievance, without following dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway 07:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How was he supposed to engage in dispute resolution. That had been done. Carnildo had been desysopped. Fred Bauder 10:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet Giano felt that that was not enough. --Tony Sidaway 12:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This fails to seperate the pejorative term "grudge" from the instance where an editor has reasonable cause to believe that someone has displayed a pattern of behavior. - brenneman 07:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this a grudge, or is it legitimate distrust? Being unfairly blocked indefinitely is a punch in the face, no matter how quickly it is unblocked, and I think it is a bit ureasonable to expect or demand that Giano be happy about seeing the person who did this to him readminned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us say that based on his past behavior there is good reason to distrust Carnildo. That formulation extends good faith to Giano. Opposition to his request for adminship is acceptable, including statements regarding past wrongs, failure to show remorse or appropriately apologize, and his rather brief responses to inquiries about future behavior. Fred Bauder 10:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano had reason to distrust Carnildo

6.1) Based on his past behavior, Giano had reason to distrust Carnildo: an indefinite blocking of Giano (including an edit summary that contained a harmful and hurtful reference to "hate speech") which led to Carnildo's desysopping. He has said "Before you even begin to tell me to think of forgiveness and people being deserving of a second chance, just remember this: Carnildo has never once expressed regret or remorse let alone apologised."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Tony has a point Fred Bauder 13:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Although I think it's true, the meaning of my original proposal has been lost. The issue is not how much he had reason to distrust, it's how far he took his grievance. Which was to the extent of accusing the Committee, the Bureaucrats and named individuals of being involved in a massive conspiracy. The unresolved gripe seems to have had grave consequences to his equanimity, many months after the event. --Tony Sidaway 12:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This idea ties in with my original statement, where there's a rather persistant theory that there is a "cabal", to use the better-known term. The grievance was taken to the extent it was because of the perception that community opposition did not matter in this instance, and is a position often taken by people close to the 'crats, the ArbComm, and certain members of the administrative community. True or not (and while I have my own opinions on the matter, they're not based in any evidence worthwhile to this case), the perception persists and this situation has its root in it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano's leading role in opposing the decision

6.2) Giano had legitimate reasons to oppose Carnilo's RfA, having been one of the victims of Carnilo's hasty and ill-considered blocks. He continued after the decision to vigorously oppose it stating, "Before you even begin to tell me to think of forgiveness and people being deserving of a second chance, just remember this: Carnildo has never once expressed regret or remorse let alone apologised."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I'm coming to the opinion that this was a legitimate expression of strongly held feelings. My own personal beliefs preclude me from opposing an editor's candidacy on account of my own feelings due to past interactions, but I should not presume to impose such limitations on others. There is also, when one strips away the emotion, an underlying issue of trustworthiness. It is legitimate to question a candidate's trustworthiness if he doesn't seem to have taken reasonable opportunities to make amends. --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Objectors to the decision

6.3) In addition to Giano , vigorous opposition was voiced by Bunchofgrapes , R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) , Chacor , Ghirlandajo , Ligulem , Bishonen , and MartinRe , Marskell , Splash , Grafikm fr , The Land , Grue

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano does not particularly stand out. Fred Bauder 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

At the time, this had the appearance to me of some kind of agitation with the intent of destabilising Misplaced Pages in order to achieve the repeal of the decision. I still think there was an element of that, simply because most of the most vociferous objectors were long time associates of Giano and some of them were involved in (legitimate) loosely organised campaigns to improve the status of primary content producers within Misplaced Pages: the campaign against bull and the disgruntled wikipedians' coffee club. There was clearly a degree of orchestration, but it seemed to me that it was informal, spontaneous and benign. Only where an editor seemed to have gone over the bounds of reasonable expression did I intervene (removing John Reid's comments after discussion on the IRC channel, and blocking Giano briefly when he made accusations of a widespread conspiracy). --Tony Sidaway 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Responses to opposition

6.4) The three Bureaucrats who closed the RfA made responses to those who opposed it: Taxman original exlanation , Rdsmith4 , Danny . Comment on a response by Durin . Comments on process by Friday , Durin , Dragons flight , Kirill Lokshin , Centrx , Chacor , SuperMachine RM , Splash .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comments by Tony Sidaway

6.5) In response to opposition to the decision Tony Sidaway weighed in with "the disgusting rabble that RFA has become" "howls of the mob". In one instance as debate continued Tony Sidaway deleted extensive comments by others "removing unproductive bilge"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Perhaps it could have been put more diplomatically, but I think it's an accurate observation. --Tony Sidaway 22:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that I removed attempts to derail discussion from the issue at hand onto personal criticism, which would have been better off on user talk pages. The front matter debate progressed smoothly without irpen's continual carping and the stable result was substantially that which I had proposed. --Tony Sidaway 21:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that you should refactor discussion in this way. Fred Bauder 22:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I took this comment as intended to mean that Tony was highly dissatisfied with the current RfA process and was pleased that the bureaucrats did not feel bound by the result of the !votes cast through that process. I didn't, and don't, see the comment as intended as a personal attack on the individual RfA voters or the majority of them, although several readers predictably disagreed. (To use a legal analogy, the statement wasn't "of and concerning" a particular person or small group of persons so as to constitute a personal attack.) Tony is hardly the only user dissatisfied with current RfA voting/discussion/whatever procedures and standards. His remark certainly could have been put more diplomatically, particularly in the contentious atmosphere already present, but it doesn't call for ArbCom action. Newyorkbrad 00:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Making civil remarks about the appalling state of RFA and praising the bureaucrats for showing some backbone is to be encouraged. This is what I did. --Tony Sidaway 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Input by Kelly Martin

6.6) Kelly Martin also participated in the debate over the decision "drama queens not wanted" "the shifting moods of a fickle and ill-informed populace". A response to Kelly by Dragons flight . A response by Haukurth

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway's history of controversy

7) Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin has been the centre of a large number of highly contentious disputes. This has ranged from editorial complaints regarding civility to administrative issues reagrding appropiate use of sysop rights.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Needs to be broken out by individual with supporting evidence Fred Bauder 10:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is a bit like saying "Tony Sidaway's chest has been seen to rise and fall, and people who held his wrist have reported a pulsing sensation. I'm a known quantity. --Tony Sidaway 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

At least part of the conflict here involved editors whom have near-continous wiki-drama surrounding them.

• The "accept" statements failed to limit/exclude this line. If the committee does not want to turn its lens this way, please do say so.
• I'm well aware that (as I'm the one who raised it) many parties will sweep this into the same "grudge" category that's raised above.
• Regardless, both have had Arbitration cases raises against them in the quite recent past. This looks as good a time as any to do this.

I'm going to start a discussion thread on the talk page, as I'm already frustrated with the odd manner in which this page is progressing.

brenneman 07:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just thinking in public and you are trying to help me. Fred Bauder 10:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have plenty of evidence of this if it's needed. I'll compile and add in the next 24-48 hours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Focused on Sidaway per Fred Bauder. If somone wants to create a Kelly section, feel free.
brenneman 13:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Duly emancipated. --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred's compliment is appreciated. I worked hard at a time when there was nobody else to do the job, and I felt appreciated. I am happy to leave the clerks' corps after seeing our three new clerks do an excellent job of taking over. I think that my evidence makes it plain that I believe that it should be permanent. A controversial sysop is not a sensible choice of clerk, no matter how good he may be at the job. There is a conflict that, with experience of the role, we have come to acknowledge. Some editors (notably Geogre) warned us from the start that the choices of personnel were unwise, and they were right. Nevertheless I would defend the choice of personnel on the basis of the paucity of people who are both willing to do the work and capable of doing it well. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to McGinnley, I was asked to resign as a clerk in an email from Charles Matthews. I made a couple of edits which had the effect of removing myself from the clerks' corps. I had spoken to Jimbo the previous day and he said he thought "declerking" would be likely. I didn't find that surprising. --Tony Sidaway 21:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to McGinnley for the second time: I have resigned as a clerk. I have no intention of becoming a clerk ever again. I have told the Arbitration Committee that I think that having people like me as clerks is a bad idea. --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A very minor point: I was reading up on the history of the clerks, and I found this subpage which seems rather out-of-date (last edited back in June and doesn't mention Tony at all). Can anyone help fill in the history or redirect to a more informative page? Thanks, and apologies for putting this side-point here. Carcharoth 12:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neglected page, but not inaccurate. Fred Bauder 13:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now been directed to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/current (a sub-subpage below the subpage I had found). The history is there. The reason I failed to find the history in the history of the subpage was because the sub-subpage was transcluded to the subpage using a template. A little trick I had forgotten, but which catches me out every time. I wonder if there is a way to make such things more transparent? I find use of templates helps editing-editors, but hinders reading-editors that want to dig into the histories. Carcharoth 17:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Could the ArbCom clarify - was the request 'to resign' or was the resignation the result of a different request - it's a little ambiguous as currently written? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Will Arbcom confirm if this is a temporary suspension or a permanent dismissal and what its purpose is? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think much of it, cutting our nose off to spite our face, but I think there was a sense that Tony's actions reflected badly on the Committee. I think they reflect badly on Tony, but he was the best clerk we have ever had. Fred Bauder 17:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So, sorry to labour this, but is Tony temporarily suspended from his duties as clerk for the duration of this arbitration, or is the intention that it is permanent, or will it be decided after the findings? --Mcginnly | Natter 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony's responded above. Newyorkbrad 00:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am tangentially involved in this proceeding, having been dragged in by my tail. With the understanding that I am therefore not entirely neutral, I ask to comment.

I warmly welcome Tony's resignation and at the same time thank him for his service. I see he himself understands that he was a poor choice for the position; I am also deeply familiar, on a personal level, with the problem of needed volunteer positions going unfilled and hence, falling to those with willingness, however qualified.

I do not believe I am qualified to clerk for ArbCom; all other questions aside, I simply don't have sufficient time available for the duty. I respect Tony for his willingness to step up to the plate and I reserve judgement on his batting average. John Reid 22:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano protests

9) Following the closing of Carnildo's successful RfA Giano protested vehemently .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In response to User:Grafikm_fr, I don't really know of anyone else who said that, basically, there was this massive conspiracy within the top level of Misplaced Pages. There were some other pretty odd protests, but nothing like that. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Looks biaised as it is, there was a lot of protests, singling out Giano as it is now is biaised. -- Grafikm_fr 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Viewed in the context of the other comments he does not stand out. Fred Bauder 22:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway blocked Giano

10) At 21:07, September 14, 2006 Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 3 hours (Making quite hysterical accusationsand needs to cool down a bit)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I felt that this was hysteria. I could understand the feelings, but at this stage I didn't feel that anything productive could be done. Giano had been warned about his provocative discussion edits but plowed on. Because it isn't productive but only makes plainly false and inflammatory statements about, well, basically everyone involved in any capacity in the promotion of Carnildo, and others presumably added in for rhetorical effect, I still feel that this was the point where you say "oh come on, friend, let's sit down and really discuss what this is about without all the silliness. This may have been the wrong decision. No, really, if it was the right decision nobody would remember it at all now. It was the wrong decision. I put it up for review, but in that instance my judgement was apparently so off that other administrators fell over themselves to reverse it. I still don't understand why, and that is worrying (I'm worried about my judgement, not theirs). --Tony Sidaway 15:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Let me just get straight what I'm seeing sprinkled around: This section is inviolate. The words above shall be edited by no-one else. Is that really what we think is the best way to proceed? More accurately, is that what committee members other than Fred think is the best way to proceed? - brenneman 14:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Propose alternatives, don't change any proposal you did not make yourself. The /Workshop page works this way because I invented it and am usually the only arbitrator that uses it regularly. It would be unusual for any other arbitrators to show up. I have a strong commitment to public discussion of decisions, transparency, if you will. Fred Bauder 14:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway was cautioned to remain civil by the Arbitrators

11) In a previous arbitration case, Tony Sidaway was cautioned to be civil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Grafikm_fr 15:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I'm not very civil. --Tony Sidaway 21:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If I were you, I would not be very proud of it. -- Grafikm_fr 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not proud of it. Why do you think that I am? --Tony Sidaway 23:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Giano was blocked during the Carnildo RfA

12) Giano was blocked during the Carnildo RfA (31 August by Kylu (t · c · b · p · d · m · r)) related to his comments concerning the RfA, and this block was hotly debated on ANI. 18 hours after the block Giano struck out his oppose vote on the Carnildo RfA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as more background of events two weeks prior to the block by Tony Sidaway. -- NoSeptember 16:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A divide between content-creating editors and administrators is growing

13) While the assumed intent of editors at Misplaced Pages is to build an encyclopedia, there is an ongoing debate between established Wikipedians regarding the editing habits of users, including concern over a type of Wikipedian who, upon recieving extra permissions and responsibilities, build the encyclopedia less, and in some cases rarely ever at all. Wikipedians who spend a significant amount of their project time on articles have legitimate concern that their views do not recieve the proper attention, and are often needlessly harassed or worse by administrators who show less commitment to the encyclopedic goal of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

These phenomena, if they exist, are policy matters. Fred Bauder 23:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this wording is complete bollocks. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify for Jeff: "are often needlessly harassed or worse by administrators who show less commitment to the encyclopedic goal of the project" is complete bollocks. --Tony Sidaway 03:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Objection withdrawn. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is a better wording, IMO, of the above. To use an example of someone directly involved in this, Tony Sidaway has very few recent articlespace edits (and I'll toss those in the evidence section later simply for the sake of evidence), but his contributions to the project (with his clerk duties in particular, but also in other WP spaces) were never in question, regardless of people's personal issues with how Tony handles and carries himself. For someone like Giano, who cranked out FA's faster than I can stub-sized articles, this divide becomes more apparent - neither editor's contributions should be belittled, but it's obvious that the growing divide between editors and administrators fosters some ill will and strife, especially when it comes down to people who are actually creating content feeling as if they have to leave the project due to people who rarely create content. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, which part is "complete bollocks?" And what are "policy matters" in this context? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony's incivility

14) Tony Sidaway was incivil to a lot of editors, and removed warnings about civility from his talk page.

During the instruction of the present case, he also made highly incivil comments, such as "for fuck's sake":

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Grafikm_fr20:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. --Tony Sidaway 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never misspelled "fuck" with an asterisk (corrected). --Tony Sidaway 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I do not think "for fuck's sake" is very uncivil. It's a colloquial usage, an expression of exasperation. To be used sparingly, most surely, and if used repeatedly and egregiously a reason for action under a civility parole (though I have found this to be controversial and accept that not all agree that it is a reason for action in such circumstances). --Tony Sidaway 21:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Having examined some of the example comments, they do not strike me as particularly uncivil. I have described arguments that I find to be beyond trivial as "steamingly stupid" and "crap". In one recent RfC brought on one aspect of my conduct, a number of people agreed with David Gerard's comments that it was "the stupidest certified RFC I have ever, ever seen" and some forty agreed with my concluding remarks that included the bald statement that "This was an utterly frivolous complaint, concerning quite sensible and legitimate refactoring of talk pages that, in every case, significantly improved the editability of discussions without losing identification information." I noticed that most of the "uncivil" examples come from my reaction to those who suggested that such refactoring was wrong. I find such opposition to useful edits to be quite unbelievably wrong-headed and clearly many editors agree with me on that. --Tony Sidaway 22:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Addressed to Tony Sidaway: Tony, I just defended one of your more controversial remarks elsewhere on this page, finding it a legitimate expression of opinion, albeit expressed in a less than diplomatic fashion, as you acknowledged. Having said that, I have to add that I don't see why you can't sometimes moderate the tone of your language and the blast of your sarcasm. I don't support any sort of sanction against you because you use strong language; my proposed remedy below, if any, would go no further than (another) "urging." Sometimes strong language is in order, and sometimes your wordings are priceless. Yet we also know that you are perfectly capable of making yourself clear without turning up the heat, especially when there's more than enough heat in the room from other sources; we've seen your very different and dignified persona when you had your ArbClerk hat on, for example. I have to ask you at this point: Does the sheer number of users who consistently express concerns about the way you address other people on this site mean anything to you? Newyorkbrad 00:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction between incivility and pithy expression of an obvious truth. Nevertheless one can take this too far and I do agree that I'm often uncivil. --Tony Sidaway 03:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidly acknowledged (and that shouldn't be used against the acknowledger). So the next question is, is there any chance you might be able to reduce the amount of incivility, or is this just a feature of Tony Sidaway's personality that we have to live with as something that comes along with your contributions to the project? Newyorkbrad 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any small amount of incivility involved here is even close to being an issue for Misplaced Pages. I'd rather we concentrate on gross incivility, such as we saw during the fallout of the Carnildo RFA. I've focussed on Giano's case, but Ghirlandajo's was another example of overstepping the line to an unacceptable level. This kind of sniping and, frankly, trolling is damaging for Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Heated debate and general incivility

The debate (on AN and elsewhere) relating to these matters was abnormally heated on all sides. Many experienced Wikipedians failed to keep as cool and civil as they might have. No one came off well. It would thus be both impossible and unfair to single out any one participant for specific criticism or penalty. (Proposed by --Doc 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I could go through the contributions of any participant in this debate to prove my point, but rather than attack another, and start a slug-fest, I offer myself. I regret much of the tone of my own remarks during this debate - which was no better than that of parties cited in this case. On all sides of this, there was little glory. But no individual should be singled out. During this debate I accused others of ranting demagoguery, delusion, insane arrogance unworthy of respect, idiocy, idiotic ranting, madness and arrogance, perennial trolling. I offer the diffs not from pride, but to show how even a (I hope) normally restrained user was acting during this. Serious (although unsubstantiated) accusations were being made, provocation was high, and so to scapegoat any individual participant would be a mistake.--Doc 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that scapegoating is a bad thing. But something caused all this, and I don't think it was just heated debate and general incivility. Those seem to have been sparked off by underlying issues. If those issues could be clearly identified and carefully discussed and rulings given (where needed) by the arbitration committee to clarify the issues which caused the ruckus, then this arbitration case would have served a useful purpose. Carcharoth 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

JDforrester making insulting remarks

15) JDForrester called other people "idiots" and telling them to "knock it off":

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Even if he did not meant it, the remark was still highly offensive. -- Grafikm_fr 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you could stop spewing that horrible signature all over this page? --Tony Sidaway 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you have against my signature? It is perfectly compliant. -- Grafikm 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. I think James_F's comment was excellent, well put, and perhaps would have worked if some people hadn't gotten a little too self-important. That it failed was due partly to his misjudgement of the situation (and that was his responsibility alone) and partly to the, well. prevailing hysteria. Which was of course what the comment was about in the first place. Not James_F's finest hour, but a much appreciated attempt to bring the class to order. --Tony Sidaway 03:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

James's comment was particularly ill-advised, as Tony Sidaway had blocked both me and Giano several days before that for having criticised the way Misplaced Pages was run. Although our blocks were extensively discussed on WP:AN and dozens admins deplored Tony's actions, no arbitrator bothered to comment. James_F's speedy comment in defense of Tony seemed to imply that blocking people who contributed tons of articles/images and tens thousands mainspace edits to the project is acceptable, while blocking a person active primarily on IRC and making such edits ("a fellow sysop" as he termed it) is not. Since neither me nor Giano have been interested in admin tools more than content, we are certainly more vulnerable to any malfaisance on the part of admins: we have neither access to IRC nor tools to unblock ourselves, as admins do. In other words, James's assumption that blocking a "fellow sysop" is more harmful that blocking a "mere editor" is a trap arising from the growing gulf between content contributors and non-editing administrators. People wishing to do admininstrative tasks are a dime a dozen, while editors of Giano's level are genuinely irreplaceable. --Ghirla 12:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, a comment calling someone "idiot" can never be well-put per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. And arbitrators are also subject to that rule. -- Grafikm 13:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I must endorse Ghirlandajo's comment. JamesF jumping in to take the critics of Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway to task, and the tone that he did it in, was embarrassing especially in its stark contrast to the audible silence from arbitrators on Tony's blocks of Ghirlandajo and Giano. I note Tony's opinion of the stylistic values of James' post—he's entitled to it—but in my opinion, Tony embarrasses himself in calling that "excellent" and "well put". Also in imputing "self-importance" and "hysteria" to some (unnamed) people in the "class". Misplaced Pages is not a class. JamesF is not its teacher. Critics of Tony Sidaway are not children. I'm not self-important. Wait, no, I am, but that's not the point here. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC).

It's utterly ridiculous to claim that Ghirlandajo or Giano were blocked for criticising the running of Misplaced Pages. This failure to recognise that a line was overstepped by a wide margin is central to the case. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Yes, I think I missed that part of Ghirlandajo's wording, I didn't focus on it. No, you're right. I don't endorse Ghirlandajo's claim that he and Giano were blocked for criticising the running of Misplaced Pages. And also, while I think Ghirlandajo's last sentence is strictly true, I wouldn't have expressed the same thing so harshly ("a dime a dozen"). I still say he made an excellent point, though. And I still say your tributes to James' barking and snapping and feeble sarcasms ("Some fool once told me that, apparently, we're here to write an encyclopædia") are embarrassing, Tony. The discussion in question had included posts from, to grab a bag at random, Raul, Mackensen, FloNight, MONGO, ALoan, Bunchofgrapes, Dmcdevit, JKelly, Newyorkbrad. And that was "possibly the most calmly stated and well worded statement in the discussion to that point"? Please tell me you're joking. Where's the calmly stated and well worded part? Bishonen | talk 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC).

As I said, I thought James_F's ill-judged but obviously well meant and kindly worded "wake up" call would have helped to bring people to their senses, had they not managed to get themselves all frothed up into a frenzy. Alas, they had managed to do so and there was nothing that could have saved the situation. At that point you will note that I withdrew from the wiki, but I was active on IRC trying to dissuade other editors from getting involved. When people get so worked up, sometimes you just have to leave them to it for a while. --Tony Sidaway 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of word choice, and is in the same vein as the criticisims often leveled at you, Tony. I look at James' statement and I see him trying to blow the whistle and rein people in. A majority of people focus on the title and, dispite the retraction in the next sentence, interpret that one phrase as the thrust of his comment. When you use vulgarities, even when you intend your comments to be civil that word choice changes people's perceptions. So, I prefer 15.1 as more accurate but I felt I needed to include James as a party in this arbitration because I felt the reaction to that one action was strong enough it needed to be addressed. --InkSplotch 22:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

James F calling people "idiots" indeed overstepped a line by a wide margin. Nandesuka 18:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It was, at most, mildly uncivil. It was possibly the most calmly stated and well worded statement in the discussion to that point. While it was ill-judged, it would have brought people who had not strayed far from their usual sensible, decent moods to their senses. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Jdforrester's remarks on AN/I (alternative)

15.1) Jdforrester (talk · contribs) (signs as JamesF) posted to the discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard a post headed "You're All Idiots" and telling other users to "knock it off." The context for the post was the ongoing dialog concerning Carnido's re-sysopping and Tony Sidaway's block of Giano, in which tension among users was at a high point. Jdforrester posted in an attempt to reduce the level of tensions by emphasizing his belief that the extreme contentiousness was unnecessary, and represented a sincere attempt to reduce the tensions, though it did not succeed. While Jdforrester's words may have been poorly chosen, his comments were in good faith and no action by the Arbitration Committee is required. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suggest that we reword this proposal as "James_F was right, if not completely civil." --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I shortened it slightly, though not quite to that extent. :) Newyorkbrad 02:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others:

Caveat by proposer: Jdforrester made favorable reference to me in the remarks in question, so take this for what it's worth. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Aside from all content, calling people "idiots" is never a good thing. -- Grafikm 08:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying "You're all idiots", even when followed by "ok, not quite all of you" is a personal attack, isn't it? People keep telling me WP:NPA is policy, not to mention WP:CIVIL; is this a policy that does not apply to James_F? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I kind of take the view that this is all contextualised. This was posted to a place where long-standing users were engaged in debate, and during a fairly frank conversation. It's a fairly common term in England, and can be endearing as much as it can be offensive. It's a shame the internet can't convey the subtleties the English language actually contains. It's also common to settle everyone down with a quick bark to get their attention. I don't think it's a personal attack, it's actually rather impersonal, and I think, if no other attack was made, which it wasn't, people would assume good faith and contextualise it as an attempt to bang heads together. The debate was getting out of hand and I guess James felt it was worth a try. I don't think anyone is attempting to state policies don't apply to James, but if James felt it would help, then he may have decided to ignore all rules. Steve block Talk 20:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Giano

16) Giano (talk · contribs), now editing as Giano II (talk · contribs), is a long-time editor of Misplaced Pages. He has made vast editorial contributions to the encyclopedia, including the creation of at least nine featured articles, and the quality of his editorial contributions is generally considered outstanding. Newyorkbrad 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

He still has a festering grudge against Carnildo. You could get rid of me, Kelly and James_F and you would still have an editor with a festering grudge and a number of friends who nurture it. We just happened to be people who got in his way on that day. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Kirill, an administrator who has not apologised for something can be approached and asked to apologise. The problem with Giano is that he seems to have had a grievance but has never attempted to use the dispute resolution process. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo was asked to apologize several times for different things on his RFA, and ignored it. -- Grafikm_fr 19:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The next step would be RFC. This isn't rocket science. --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Re: Tony: Blaming particular people really cuts both ways; it's just as easy to talk about how we still have a (curiously) re-promoted admin who's completely unapologetic about the abusive behavior that caused this mess in the first place. Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tony, why would he? In his mind, the dispute resolution processes weren't going to do a lick of good. What reason did he have to trust it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tony: We've been through this point before, haven't we? The dispute between Carnildo and Giano was taken through the dispute resolution process (the userbox wheelwar case). While Giano has never been particularly fond of Carnildo afterwards, you might notice that it was only after the remedy in that case—Carnildo's desysopping—was (in Giano's eyes, unjustly) undone that things fell apart; the previous six months seem to have passed without any acute conflict. Kirill Lokshin 02:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there as some conflict involving Giano during the RFA, although I was not involved (so sorry I wasn't available as a handy scapegoat to blame for that). --Tony Sidaway 21:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Geogre

17) Geogre (talk · contribs) is a long-time editor of Misplaced Pages and has been an administrator since August 2004. He has made vast editorial contributions to the encyclopedia, including the creation of featured articles, and the quality of his editorial contributions is generally considered outstanding. In addition, he has contributed to Misplaced Pages through the performance of administrative functions. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Geogre's oratorical skills are unimpeachable, but his marshalling of facts is sometimes given secondary importance. I've had reason to bring him to account on this in the past. --Tony Sidaway 03:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Bishonen

18) Bishonen (talk · contribs) is a longtime contributor to Misplaced Pages and has been an administrator since May 8, 2005. She has made substantial editorial contributions to the encyclopedia and the quality of her contributions is considered outstanding. In addition, Bishonen has contributed substantially to Misplaced Pages by performing numerous administrative tasks in a highly competent fashion, including in complex and stressful situations. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

She has also written many featured articles, which have appeared on the main page. Giano 15:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tony's remarks

18) Tony often comments on what he considers inappropriate behavior using particularly colorful terminology ("disgusting rabble", "malodorous filth").

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm English, for fuck's sake. It's my language. ---Tony Sidaway 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not from Yorkshire. Fuck is a perfectly normal English word, in use throughout England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and apparently known in other countries. --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to Mcginnly on his talk page. In my opinion "stupid fuck" would be grossly uncivil and a personal attack. Quite inexcusible. I make no "international/British" distinction; I simply state that England is the birthplace of the English language and I am English. --Tony Sidaway 00:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuck might well be in common usage, but I'm also English and if someone called me a 'stupid fuck' it's still insulting - unless it's my best friend, so the International/British distinction is entirely spurious. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony's remarks

18.1) Tony often comments on what he considers inappropriate behavior using particularly colorful terminology ("disgusting rabble", "malodorous filth"); such remarks are viewed as inflammatory by other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Somewhat more judgemental. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony is, if I'm not mistaken, a Yorkshireman. Bluntness is a characteristic of Yorkshire speech, and it is often mistaken for rudeness. It is quite the opposite: the Yorkshireman credits anyone they criticise with sufficient moral strength in their own opinion to be able to withstand blunt criticism without breaking down or rushing to violence. It's a form of respect, not of disrespect. David | Talk 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Regional quirks of speech are an inadequate excuse, I think; blunt criticism does not require the use of such inflammatory language. It's perfectly possible to be harsh yet polite. Kirill Lokshin 21:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, there is all the difference in the world between bluntness and rudeness. David | Talk 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yorkshireman or not, using the F word is not a good idea. A lot of people might find it offensive. When I speak Russian, you better get women and children out of the room, but that's a cultural difference - the culture is like that. In English, I try to avoid such words as much as I can. -- Grafikm 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by the above statement. You say that swearing is acceptable due to culture, but reject the idea that Tony's language is based upon his culture? Steve block Talk 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that there are people with a lot of different cultural backgrounds here, so we have to have rules common to all of them. Thus, usage of such words is prohibited. -- Grafikm 11:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Civility" is a set of rules, skills, and customs that allows people to cohabitate and collaborate with people who are not their persona friends and family, i.e. to live in a civilization. Being polite to strangers and acquaintances is an important method for avoiding conflicts. And in any culture, swearing at people who don't like it is not polite. Zocky | picture popups 01:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuck is incivil to a stranger or in any slightly formal setting in the UK. Even a Yorkshireman (I know Tony isn't) couldn't say it in Betty's Tearooms. I say it a lot, btw, but not on WP. JackyR | Talk 11:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Going back to "disgusting rabble" (referring to the state of RFA) and "malodorous filth" (a metaphor associated with lancing a boil) I would really hate to think that Misplaced Pages is not capable of accommodating such frank expressions. This is certainly not incivility and if it upsets some editors that others use the English language with great skill then that's a shame. --Tony Sidaway 03:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying "fuck" is not incivil in itself, and neither is using colourful language. What is incivil, however, is continuing to use that kind of language in a setting where it is unwelcome and where you have been repeatedly asked to stop by a great many people. Or to put it more simply - we don't mind you saying "fuck", we mind you behaving unpleasantly. Zocky | picture popups 02:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, are you saying the expressions "disgusting rabble" and "malodorous filth" are examples of the English language being used with great skill? SlimVirgin 02:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Language serves a purpose; nicely turned phrases do not hang in a vacuum for all to admire. I have no doubt that such phrases as those listed above described Tony's sentiments with admirable clarity, but I am equally sure that they were highly counterproductive when publicly uttered on this site. We need not accomodate expressions which inevitably serve to escalate conflicts. Tony's words were not skillfully chosen for the purpose of defusing an incipient verbal brawl. --Robth 05:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Disgusting rabble" was used when there was no hint of any brawl. It was an honest and, I think, easily understood description of my opinion of the state of RFA. "Malodorous filth" is what comes out of a lanced boil. Yes, those phrases are good because the convey my meaning with precision. There is, I admit, something to be said for hiding one's meaning. Perhaps I should work on that. --Tony Sidaway 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Irpen

19) Irpen (talk · contribs) is a longtime contributor to Misplaced Pages who has contributed high-quality and valuable content to the encyclopedia in a number of areas. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

With the best will in the world, I find Irpen's recent contributions unhelpful. He did not help to resolve the situation one bit, at one point accusing me of "forcing" a quite simple but extensive edit on the preamble to RFA which was taken without any significant opposition and has remained ever since, at another point posting a rant on RFAR accusing me of "vexatious litigation", and overloading my talk page with endless complaints that I was dismissing his arguments simply because I did not agree with them. This is not however a matter for this arbitration process. --Tony Sidaway 04:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't followed all the developments at this page too closely, but the above summary of the events is incorrect. Following the events too familiar to repeat them, Tony created a one phrase page "RfA is not a vote" and without discussing anything with anyone placed a template: "official guideline" on its top. When I replace the template pasted into something that no one but Tony have yet even seen for "tl:proposed", Tony persisted with keeping a "guideline" tl (See history and talk). The full story, can be found here but suffice is to say that while Tony was accusing me in various sins, in fact I merged the idea proposed by Tony into the part of the "front matter" where the material logically belongs in a slightly moderated form. AFAIK, the version I wrote is still there after some copyediting. The full account of events may be found here (please forgive a somewhat more emotional form of the outline presented under that link).

What Tony calls '"a rant on RFAR accusing him of "vexatious litigation"' lacks the diff again but I am gladly giving a link to what he likely means here.

As for "overloading" Tony's talk, diffs are prominently missing but this "overloading" can be perhaps found in Tony's archives and history. --Irpen 09:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposer's note: I am not as familiar with Irpen's contributions as I am with those of some other parties, so someone more familiar is welcome to augment this comment.

100% support. -- Grafikm 21:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Grafikm_fr. To answer the possible lack of familiarity expressed by Newyorkbrad, I am first of all by far less of a FA creator than the users named above. I helped with creating several FA's and a even more GAs and DYKs but nothing comparable to Giano or Geogre. Still, most of my work are in the mainspace and is devoted to a rather narrow part of Misplaced Pages, particularly, the Eastern Europe, chiefly Ukraine, but also Russia and Poland. --Irpen 09:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Irpen is also indispensable as a stabilizing influence on talk pages, especially when the matter concerns some of the most divisive topics in the Eastern European segment of this project. What is more relevant, it's not easy to see why he was involved in the present arbitration at all. I was more outspoken than Irpen and was blocked by Tony Sidaway for expressing the same concerns as Giano did. Probably IRC logs (particularly recent conversations between Kelly and the arbitrator who controversially blocked Irpen in the past) may provide an explanation for those interested in solving the enigma. --Ghirla 13:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Project-page contributions by certain users in light of Carmildo's re-sysopping

20) In the wake of Carmildo's contentious re-sysopping, extensive discussion ensued concerning the decision that his RfA has succeeded. The nature of the discussion quickly widened to include disputed policy issues such as the functioning of the RfA process and how the success or failure of an RfA should be evaluated, as well as the identity of the persons who should participate in making such decisions. The discussion then further widened to include an assessment of the roles that certain individual high-profile Wikipedians play within the project. Users Giano, Geogre, Bishonen, and Irpen were among dozens of participants in these discussions. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As far as I'm aware, the named parties played little useful role in those discussions. I believe I was the prime mover in the change from voting to non-voting RFA, and of those named I only recall Irpen expressing an opinion, which was to the effect that I was attempting to bully or force a change to policy. As I remarked above, the change was accepted over his objections and has remained ever since. --Tony Sidaway 04:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The charge above is incorrect. The change was made not over my objections but, to the contrary, by myself. Please see the previous section for the event's chronology. However, overall I generally participate in Misplaced Pages-space discussions much less than in Mainspace editing and talk page discussions over the article content as I find writing articles much more interesting and useful both for myself and for the Misplaced Pages. --Irpen 10:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The emergence of a bureaucracy

21) The fundamental goal, the overriding reason, for the existence of Misplaced Pages is to produce a high quality encyclopedia. Wikipedians are united by that aim. There is an ongoing debate about the emergence of a class of Wikipedian who, having edited articles extensively, over time shows little inclination to continue and devotes all or most of his time to other activities. Wikipedians whose primary focus is the production of articles feel legitimate worries that their needs as content producers are not being addressed, and that they are sometimes needlessly harassed by administrators who in their view show less commitment to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This would be a finding of fact Fred Bauder 14:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

These phenomena, if they exist, are policy questions. Fred Bauder 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is very much a first cut. I want to aim for a wording that will satisfy everybody. I want to characterise the debate from the point of view of editors like Geogre, Giano, and so on, who undeniably produce great content. --Tony Sidaway 14:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fred that really it's a Finding. I do think that this is about the emergence of a class, as defined by patterns of behavior that are, overall, of benefit to Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't think the phrase: "the emergence of a class of Wikipedian" is a good idea, since it suggests a caste system/heirarchy, rather than just emerging trends in editing inclinations. "...about Wikipedians who..." might be preferrable. - jc37 17:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Replying to Tony, this is something that a) should be a finding of fact per Fred, and b) should probably be written by those of us with the point of view in question, and not someone who doesn't share it, as this doesn't seem to reflect the view that I'm sharing with Geogre et al. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kelly Martin

22) Kelly Martin (talk · contribs) was a longtime and prominent participant on the English Misplaced Pages for several years. Most recently, she was an administrator and held Checkuser and Oversight privileges. On September 21, 2006, Kelly Martin resigned her privileges on the English Misplaced Pages and stated that she was leaving the English Misplaced Pages project, although she stated that she would continue performing other responsibilities for the Wikimedia Foundation. This followed extensive discussion on project pages concerning her role in the project. Although certain users had called for Kelly Martin to step away from certain responsibilities and privileges (such as access to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list), the initial suggestion that Kelly Martin would resign from all her roles within the English Misplaced Pages if called upon to do so by certain users was her own. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Kelly Martin was bullied off Misplaced Pages. We should not be treating our best people like this. --Tony Sidaway 04:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If she returns - what then?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I didn't appreciate every word that she uttered during the last few weeks of dialog, but I don't think she did anything that would rise to the level of warranting ArbCom sanctions were she still actively participating in the project. Beyond that, I don't have a view about "what should happen if Kelly Martin wants to return" that I'm confident enough to embody in a proposal, nor do I know whether the Committee would want to address a hypothetical situation. Newyorkbrad 23:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll continue this on the talk page.--Mcginnly | Natter 23:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Evaluation of user conduct

23) Certain specific comments on project pages in the light of Carmildo's re-sysopping and the ensuing days of contentious discussion failed to attain the highest levels of civility and might have far better been left unsaid. However, none of them rises to the level of gross incivility, personal attack, or policy violation that would call for action by the Arbitration Committee. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:JoshuaZ's block of Tony Sidaway

23) The decision of JoshuaZ (talk · contribs) to block Tony Sidaway for 24 hours fell within the realm of administrative discretion, particularly given that JoshuaZ reported the block to the administrators' noticeboard for consideration by other administrators, and does not call for any action by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think we're agreed that "lancing a boil" was a poor choice of words that was seen as incivil. I certainly had no problem with the block. Those editors really believed that I had referred to Giano in those terms. --Tony Sidaway 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes. Moreover, Tony was blocked for a highly incivil remark. -- Grafikm_fr 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I too don't think this needs to be looked at, the situation resolved itself amicably between the involved parties. Steve block Talk 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's block of Giano

26) Tony Sidaway's "cooling down" block of Giano for three hours was arguably inappropriate given that Giano's comments for which Tony Sidaway imposed the block took place in the context of a contentious discussion to which Tony Sidaway was also a party. Moreover, under all the circumstances, it could reasonably have been anticipated that the block would markedly increase rather than decrease the tension of the discussion, as indeed occurred. However, Tony Sidaway acted appropriately by reporting his action to the Administrators' Noticeboard and calling the block to the attention of other administrators, as a result of which the block was promptly reversed, and Tony Sidaway acted in good faith and in what he perceived as the best interests of the project. Accordingly, and in light the subsequent block of Tony Sidaway for subsequent conduct, no further action by the Arbitration Committee is appropriate in connection with this block. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I do think it's reasonable to question my good judgement, given the universal opposition to this block. --Tony Sidaway 04:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree, I've noted above that this block was resolved within 15 minutes. Steve block Talk 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

26.1) Tony Sidaway's three hour "cool down" block of Giano for disruption was inappropriate given that both were involved in a contentious discussion on the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard. Moreover, the block only served to increase rather than decrease the tension of the discussion. However, Tony Sidaway appropriately reported his action to the Administrators' Noticeboard, and the block was promptly reversed. Tony Sidaway acted in good faith and in what he perceived as the best interests of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Alternative version, which concentrates the language. --InkSplotch 02:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

26.2)Tony Sidaway's three hour "cool down" block of Giano for disruptive statements on Taxman's talk page . The block only served to increase rather than decrease the tensions. However, Tony Sidaway appropriately reported his action to the Administrators' Noticeboard, and the block was promptly reversed. Tony Sidaway acted in good faith and in what he perceived as the best interests of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Another version, similar to last, which removes the element of "engaged in discussion." I think more people (on AN) felt the block was either unwarranted or just not useful, not that Tony was too involved in discussion to have been the one to block. --InkSplotch 02:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To NYB, oddly...that's the bit I had the most trouble with. "Predictable" in a finding of fact. This could be newness showing, but perhaps we should address it in the Principles? This might just be the time to declare "cool down" blocks as ineffective. For the record, I've never felt "cool down" was a reason of itself, nor do I think it's seriously used as such...I view it as shorthand for "general disruption or other blockable offense." But it seems lately the short, 10 min, 15 min, 3 hr blocks are taken worse than the 24 hr, 1 week, indef blocks. Maybe either a principle against the under 12 hour blocks, or a principle suggesting admins think twice before undoing such a short block. --InkSplotch 02:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm okay with either alternative; the only significant point of my original that is deleted in the alternatives is the point that it was predictable that the block would have a negative effect, not just that it happened to work out that way, but that's a minor point. Newyorkbrad 02:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano's behavior

27) Giano has made many hostile statements attributing malicious and base motives to those with whose actions he disagreed. This overstepped the bounds of reasonable, civil criticism by a wide margin

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Based on evidence presented by Inksplotch. --Tony Sidaway 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Geogre's behavior

28) Geogre has made many hostile. warlike, unhelpful and sometimes grossly inaccurate statements, some of which were clearly intended to damage Misplaced Pages as an alternative to following the dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Based on Inksplotch's evidence. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Slim Virgin: not hyperbole. Geogre's clearly stated intention. Directing editors away from Misplaced Pages is not helpful to Misplaced Pages. Agitating for a strike (although possibly justifiable as I have noted) is intrinsically warlike. Geogre was taking actions and pursuing a course that, though arguably justifable by his perception of the circumstances, amounted to warlike behavior. Geogre's justification was that he perceived that the action of others was damaging Misplaced Pages and that a strike would help to provoke a change. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, it would be more helpful if you would reply as part of the thread, not in another section. SlimVirgin 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep these two elaborations here because they summarise and extend my argument. If I have further things to say I'll reply in threaded form. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Newyorkbrad, I sympathise with his view that "there was no applicable dispute resolution process to resort to." Perhaps it seemed that way to Geogre. But had he tried? There are RfCs, arbitration and appeals to Jimbo. Indeed you will note that I referred to an appeal to Jimbo for intervention in my evidence. That appeal was made by me. --Tony Sidaway 18:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano's persistent and uncivil assumptions of bad faith, evidenced on this thread and elsewhere, are perhaps a good example of the underlying problem. I had no part in provoking this. He had declared war on those who he describes as "non-editing administrators" long before I had heard of him. Misplaced Pages cannot permit a state of civil war to exist between editors. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"clearly intended to damage Misplaced Pages" is outrageous and unsupportable, and there was no applicable dispute resolution process to resort to. Newyorkbrad 18:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"... some of which were clearly intended to damage Misplaced Pages" is hyperbole, and it's Tony's opinion only that they were unhelpful and "warlike." SlimVirgin 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

When I read this attack here on Geogre by Kelly Martin I decided enough was enough of the absolute rubbish and threats and something needed to be done. Now Tony Sidaway further insults Geogre by saying he "clearly intended to damage Misplaced Pages" to say that of the editor who has (IMO) done more over the years to improve it than any other in abhorrent. Than Tony Sidaway can call me a "wanker" (find the diffs yourselves) is of no account (at 13 I probably was) and excuses his language because it is his native Yorkshire culture is frankly pathetic, does that give me leeway to swear in another tongue at him? I've seen some rubbish on this page, but this is worse than an insult to Geogre. It is a blatant lie. Now for those of you about to block me (yet again) in order to "calm down" or "have time for reflection" - please be assured I am perfectly calm, in fact I am icy cold, and shall be editing an article for the rest of the evening - so you have the page to yourselves - and why is TS allowed to start a confusing thread here? Giano 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Giano's persistent and uncivil assumptions of bad faith, evidenced on this thread and elsewhere" Persistant? This was my first comment on the whole debacle. I have jusyt made one more. It will be my last. Tony has the field - I wonder how many posts he has made on the subject? I take the hint, everything I say is twisted and turned to bad faith by Tony, I shall leave him to it. Giano 21:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

John Reid's behavior on Bureaucrats' noticeboard

29) John Reid used the Bureaucrats' noticeboard to harass bureaucrats with leading and hostile questions about their approach to adminship. When one bureaucrat made a routine announcement that he would be away, John Reid remarked "Let the record show that this bureaucrat "left the room" rather than endorse a statement of our core value of consensus" . Many people complained about this hostile, uncivil approach. After discussion on the admin IRC channel, this was refactored and archived by Tony Sidaway and Rdsmith4 to enable normal bureaucrat business to resume. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this might have been perceived as "robust criticism" by John, but he continued after editors had complained, and seemed to relish the fuss he was causing, perhaps perceiving it as a sign of success. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added myself as an involved party and my statement appears here. John Reid 02:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What does that have to do with this case? SlimVirgin 18:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It was part of the activities of administrators and bureaucrats to deal with the fallout of the Carnildo affair. --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Campaign for less bull more writing

30) Misplaced Pages:Campaign for less bull more writing, User talk:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)/Disgruntled Wikipedians' Breakfast Club

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 21:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Acceptable and even laudable campaign, in my opinion. Used, sadly, by some editors as a stick to beat those whom they think have not edited articles enough recently. For instance, Giano's edit on his talk page urging non-editing admins to stay away lest he not treat them with as much respect as they think they deserve. This latter was obviously calculated to inflame. Disgruntled Wikipedians thing seems to have originated from a block by Cyde on User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) as a result of a rather intemperate comment posted on User talk:Karmafist. Karmafist's behavior had finally got him community banned, I believe, but blocking someone for making such a message was in my opinion excessive. --Tony Sidaway 04:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tony, if you are concerned about messages you consider "obviously calculated to inflame" at the top of user talk pages, would you consider removing "coup d'etat in progress" from the top of yours? Newyorkbrad 05:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not intended to inflame anyone, but I'll gladly remove it. This is the first time anyone has even mentioned it to me. --Tony Sidaway 05:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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 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)

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 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Grafikm 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)

Comment by others:

Given the distinct failure of past warnings, something more to the point may be appropriate; wording from Misplaced Pages: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 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:

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)

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 10:31, 27 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 06:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, done. 2.2b above. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 27 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages and little interest in further prosecution of the case. The first one openly acknowledged that his actions are sometimes dictated by IRC advices. 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Tony Sidaway de-sysopped

2.7) For Tony Sidaway's repeated misuse of administrative privileges in the past, he is hereby de-sysopped. At his discretion, he may re-apply for administrative privileges at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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." ~ PseudoSudo 23:02, 27 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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)

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:

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)

Comment by others:

This will make huge signatures... -- Grafikm 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 01:03, 26 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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)

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)

Comment by others:

I feel we're burying the thing a bit too quickly... -- Grafikm 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Concluding remark

7) While the events of September 2006 have not been Misplaced Pages'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:

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)

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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages in "nearly two years":

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

SlimVirgin 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence page to support this. - brenneman 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 22:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think comments like these: 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)

Smiley Remedy

1) Tony Sidaway is required to add smiley faces, sarcastiwinks or other emoticons to at least half the posts he makes on talk pages or discussion pages, to indicate to other editors whether or not he's serious.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm only half kidding; the crux of the Tony issue appears to be that other people don't understand he doesn't intend to be insulting, and he doesn't understand that other people do feel insulted. >Radiant< 22:41, 27 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:

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 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 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 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)