Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:15, 1 October 2006

• Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Carnildo

.8) Carnildo was deysopped as the result of the decision in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Carnildo. After continuing in good faith to make valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages he was re-nominated for administrator with the support of the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Suggest a change to wording here. ...with the support of the Arbitration Committee could be construed as endorsement of the nomination. 03:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We did support Carnildo's resysopping. Fred Bauder 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot

.85) Carnildo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is the operation of a bot OrphanBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which removes images that are in Category:Images with unknown source and Category:Images with unknown copyright status from articles, so that administrators can delete them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fred Bauder 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Objections based on OrphanBot

.86) A proportion of the opposition expressed to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Carnildo_3 was based on opposition to OrphanBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fred Bauder 20:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• By my count, six people out of 71 opposers mentioned OrphanBot, and one out of 10 neutral people mentioned it. Radiant! 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  I agree. This was a small proportion of objections. Whilst I was correct at the time to say that the "Carnildo resign" campaign was instigated by one person (Juppiter) who had objections to OrphanBot, I don't think that means that a large proportion of the requests to resign were due to some OrphanBot matter. I misread the situation. I haven't checked the people who added their names to the requests on Carnildo's talk page, but I don't have any reason to believe that they did so on account of Juppiter's particular objection. --Tony Sidaway 00:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Resysopping

.9) There is a history of difficulty in instances where an administrator who has been desyopped by the Arbitration Committee makes a request for adminship (RfA). They would not have been dysopped if they had not engaged in some serious bad behavior. Due to the requirement that consensus is required by the community to grant adminship unresolved past offenses can retard development of consensus despite willingness by the former administrator to reform. The Arbitration Committee is aware of this difficulty, but is caught in a quandary: something needs to be done in the case of administrators who violate basic policies, but it is unwise to permanently lose the services of valuable volunteers if they are willing to reform. The alternative to subjecting the former administrator to an RfA is review of the decision to desysop them. Please see this insightful comment by Metamagician3000 and this by Deathphoenix.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of re-RFAs shows that most demoted admins who fail a RFA do so for a very different reason than the one that led to their demotion. For instance, because the former admin was inactive for months prior to repromotion, or has recent problems with civility. See also the evidence page. Radiant! 00:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tentatively support Radiant's analysis, but I think it's probably more complex than that. Honestly I think we agonise too much about whether a person is a sysop or not, except in obvious cases such as NSLE. --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo's promotion

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3

1) The 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)

I did not comment on this RfA or on any involving this user; to my knowledge I have had no direct interaction with Carnildo on any level. I have reviwed the RfA in question thoroughly and find that participation was heavy, with many rational expressions of both opposition and support. The level of support did not meet community standards for promotion. John Reid 06:57, 28 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)

I think there's got to be some form of closure on issues. Especially issues dealt with through arbitration. Steve block Talk 13:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Failure to achieve consensus

1.1) Due to strong opposition to Carnildo's RfA there was a failure to reach consensus, see analysis by Richardshusr, analysis by Tim Smith, and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay#Questions_for_the_candidate and discussion above regarding supermajority.

Comments by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus requires general agreement. Fred Bauder 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments by parties:

Endorsed. John Reid 01:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others:

Support. Speaks to my feelings on the issue. Hamster Sandwich 01:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not the issue. Does it represent the known facts? --Tony Sidaway 01:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the proposal because it presents itself thusly "Due to strong opposition to Carnildo's RfA there was a failure to reach consensus", and then linking to some relative pages. I read them. To me that in itself represents enough fact to support the proposal. I submit to you that this is not an unusal premise for me to use when achieving some kind of support level for any particular thing in WP. So yes, in my perception the proposal speaks to the issue of an RfA closing in which concensus levels supporting the promotion may have been negligable. I supported Carnildo, but there was alot of what I would call "Good Opposition" to him. That is to say, valid concerns and and a general feeling of "unfinished-ness" in l'affaire pedobox. So far this has unfolded just about as I expected it would, with three exceptions. I didn't forsee Karmafist throwing up his arms, but in retrospect it was kind of inevitable (New Hampshire is the "Live Free Or Die" state, after all). And secondly, I didn't think that Carnildo would be promoted after watching "Carnildo III" unfold, regardless of my support (does my vote count yet?). And third I had no glimmer when all this was taking place way back during the "user-box wars" and Carnildo's subsequent RfA that there would be proposals calling for sanction against you concerning any of this. And yet, here we are. Hope this answers your question. Hamster Sandwich 02:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a big "thus" (or "thusly", if you prefer). You're a bit wordy, you know, but I take it that you don't accept that RFA is not a vote. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Short and sweet then. Where have you made this inference? Please qualifiy such sweeping statements, particularily where they concern a comment I have made. Hamster Sandwich 02:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it's hard to tell because you go on a bit and introduce subjects that have nothing to do with the question at hand. The proposal is that consensus was not reached. Yet the bureaucrats (on available evidence) appear to differ with this conclusion. I presume therefore that perhaps you think that RFA motions require a supermajority. Current RFA policy appears to say that it doesn't, and that bureaucrats exercise some discretion. If they exercised discretion inappropriately here (and I could be persuaded of this) then evidence should be presented to that effect. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well by saying as I have above "does my vote count yet?" I am of course attempting to allude to one instance of a particular closure you made concerning an AfD that we disagreed on (I hope you can understand that or shall I provide a link?) Do I have to write an essay on what I personally think constitutes concensus? I should just point you to the link to Essjay's comments as listed in the heading of the proposal. I find it hard to disagree with anything he says there. Hamster Sandwich 02:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You still have this terrible chip on your shoulder. Essjay's criteria are somewhat out of date and have always been somewhat contentious, because they presumed that supermajority was and always would be the criterion for consensus. --Tony Sidaway 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This finding of fact seems concise and correct. As an observer, I support it. Nandesuka 11:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Failure to achieve supermajority

1.2) Due to strong opposition to Carnildo's RfA there was a failure to reach a supermajority to promote, see analysis by Richardshusr and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay#Questions_for_the_candidate and discussion above regarding supermajority.

Comments by Arbitrators:

Comments by parties:

Alternative proposed. I think this wording is preferable. It was up to the Bureaucrats, I think, to determine whether sufficient consensus to promote (and under what terms) existed after the debate was closed. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others:

Please, for the love of god, can you make less words on the page Tony. The above could have just been a comment "how about a change to 'supermajority' from 'consensus.'" I know that you enjoy this, but you've been asked nicely to limit your input, and it's been noted that too many words makes this page less usable. I understand the irony in me using this many words to ask you to use less, but it really is a problem. - brenneman

This finding of fact uses weasel words. 1.1 is better. Nandesuka 11:56, 30 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)

Long and wordy, but I believe it all to be true. John Reid 07:01, 28 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)

Support, of course. Tony, it's not a game, it's business -- and there must be rules. John Reid 07:05, 28 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)

What's really poor about this proposed finding is not whether it is true or not but whether it matters. Insulting a speaker does not invalidate his argument. Fine, Giano has/had a grudge against Carnildo. Let's stretch it out to say that Giano spends all his nights grinding his Carnildo-axe. So what? This may be unwise on many levels but let's take a look at the content of his remarks. For example, here Giano casts a pseudo-vote, makes one statement freighted with heavily biased terms, another statement of fact, a prediction, and voices an opinion on a general policy issue. The entire comment is pervaded by the bias that this proposed finding attempts to surface; it's hardly hidden away. The relevant assertion of fact -- that Carnildo never apologized to Giano for an action that was overturned and condemned -- is either true or false; this can be determined by examining Carnildo's contribs. A raving lunatic or Mother Teresa could make the same assertion and it would make no difference at all to the truth. John Reid 07:48, 28 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)

For what it's worth, I think the "truth" about Carnildo's failure to apologize lies in between black and white. Carnildo did say during his third RFA that the behavior which led to his desysopping was "a mistake" that he would not repeat. He even went to the point of offering that, for a period of a year, he would not to block users without checking with other admins first.

Perhaps he thought the net sum of all this was an apology. Others did not think it was adequate. I was one of those who did not.

One reason is that Carnildo also asserted that the original block was not that big a deal because it had been lifted almost immediately and thus had little real disruptive impact on Misplaced Pages.

The offense, IMO, was not so much the block or the fleeting disruptive impact on Misplaced Pages as it was the insult to Giano (who may have taken the insult a little too much to heart). Despite the fact that Giano's hurt feelings may be an over-reaction to the insult, Carnildo seems to have been callous to the level of hurt feelings and not made any overt attempt to heal that hurt. I believe that this obliviousness and callousness is behind some of the Oppose votes.

I disagree with Tony Sidaway that this was just "a personal grievance of Giano against Carnildo" played out on the stage of an RFA. I do agree that this is the center of the issue. I think this goes beyond being "a personal grievance" because it is felt that inappropriate use of a block combined with hurtful edit summaries is a serious offense against the community, not just against the person blocked. If this were not the case, why was Carnildo desysopped in the first place?

Having been convinced that he could use the sysop buttons to do his image work more effectively, the last thing that I needed to change my vote was a sincere apology based on an understanding of the hurt feelings he had caused. I said as much in my comments on the RFA.

When someone asked whether people wanted Carnildo to grovel, I replied with only a little tongue in cheek, "That would help." Carnildo's stiff-necked refusal to apologize was at least partly responsible for some of the Oppose votes.

I readily grant that some of the Oppose votes might not have accepted any kind of apology from Carnildo. That is their right as noted in comments by others above.

--69.236.160.1Richard 16:19, 29 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)

Removing the biased word makes this a much better finding of fact. John Reid 07:07, 28 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:

Diffs

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=next&oldid=74863226 (bookmark, don't remove) Fred Bauder 13:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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 , MartinRe , Marskell , Splash , Grafikm fr , The Land , Grue , David D. , Friday , Mailer diablo , Zoe , Alex Bakharev , Casey Abell a more neutral observation,

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)

I find it difficult to imagine that any of the others engaged in such grossly false and damaging accusations against the entire engine of dispute resolution and the bureaucrats, and even some named individuals. --Tony Sidaway 04:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel slighted! I did my best to spearhead this opposition and I don't even get a mention. Wait, I thought I was just trolling my own weird ideosyncratic path.... John Reid 07:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A small quibble, as opposed to a big quibble. The characterization of my comment as "more neutral" is correct. But I really don't belong in the category of "objectors to the decision". I have no particular problem with Carnildo's re-sysopping. I have never had any personal conflicts with Carnildo or with anybody else involved in this entire mess, which by now includes a cast of thousands. (Okay, dozens.)

I do have problems with what I see as copyright paranoia, especially compared to Misplaced Pages's real and critical problem of inaccuracy (see the Onion, Stephen Colbert, Larry Sanger, etc.) I only commented that the bureaucrats re-sysopped Carnildo because they were so concerned with unsourced images that they were willing to override normal RfA standards. So I suggested that everybody might as well admit that the bcrats will promote anybody they think is needed by Misplaced Pages, regardless of RfA results. This was not an objection to Carnildo's promotion in itself. Casey Abell 04:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I wouldn't claim to have been anywhere near the head of the line with respect to "spearheading the opposition" but I was one of those who commented in objection to the decision. --69.236.160.1Richard 16:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Posts to Carnildo's user talk page

6.31) A few negative posts were made to Carnildo's talk page by Juppiter "Resign your adminship} and by Mcginnly "Seconded". These comments were removed by Tony Sidaway with the comment "Silliness" but restored by Mcginnly . Comment by Richardshusr

Comments by arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments by parties:

Juppiter being the fellow who vandalised, and urged others to vandalise, the OrphanBot userpage, belonging to a secondary bot account run by Carnildo. --Tony Sidaway 04:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others:

Responses to opposition

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

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" . Responses by Richardshusr . Comments by Ligulem . Comment by Vadder . 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)

Fair enough. --Tony Sidaway 02:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Just an extra quick correction. Above Tony graciously uses inoffensive characterization "irpen's continual carping" for what's actually described below at #User:Irpen section and at his talk. What Tony calls "the stable result was substantially had proposed" was actually Irpen's own edit. Let's just be straight with facts. --Irpen 02:35, 29 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)

Just a technical correction. I am only responsible for the comments in diffs 86, 87 and 88 above. The rest were made by Tony Sidaway and most of those comments are not related to anything that I wrote. I'm sure that it is hard to keep track of who said what in which diff so I can only assume that the mistake was just an unintentional error. --69.236.160.1Richard 16:19, 29 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:

Too tepid. These diffs (and other comments by this user) are highly inflammatory. John Reid 07:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Too tepid, yes. I have proposed a remedy based on this finding over at the workshop page (announcing it here in case the page proliferation makes it harder to find). Bishonen | talk 18:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

Comment by others:

Removal of discussion

6.7) In some instance comments by others were deleted: Tony Sidaway "removing unproductive bilge", Werdna "irrelevant".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fred Bauder 13:17, 30 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 regarding 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)

Misplaced Pages has levels? Zocky | picture popups 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are levels of responsibility. Bureaucrats have the responsibility of deciding consensus in nominations, in the privileges function, and arbitrators have the responsibility of resolving intractable disputes in the dispute resolution function. Needless to say, false and baseless accusations encompassing the entirety of such functions are, in the absence of substantial evidence, pretty serious and good evidence of a fellow who may need a bit of a rest. --Tony Sidaway 00:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's get back to my nitpicking with your choice of words - what top level? Who are these people you are referring to? What makes these people more top than you and me? Or are we part of that top level? Or what? Zocky | picture popups 01:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just explained that. This doesn't mean that those people are better than you or me. However as individuals and groups they have been given the responsibilities, respectively, of deciding consensus on RFA discussions, and resolving disputes. Accusing me of being involved in some heinous conspiracy with some other person might be bad, but I'll get over it (it happens all the time and it isn't any more true that it was the first time). Accusing the dispute resolution machinery itself, well I think that's a bit much and, without any evidence, I think that's where someone is basically getting a little too paranoid. My choice of words is immaterial. We simply cannot afford a policy of assuming bad faith of Misplaced Pages itself. --Tony Sidaway 01:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If your problem is with him speaking in bad terms about the arbcom and/or bureaucrats collectively, I can only agree - people should be treated individually, especially when criticizing them.

That still doesn't answer my question: what makes bureaucrats and ArbCom "top level" of Misplaced Pages more than writing FAs, or sorting stubs, or voting on RFA makes other groups of editors "top level"? Zocky | picture popups 04:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to the responsibilities. Arbitrators are required to fill the role of the top level of dispute resolution (in the absence of an appeal to Jimbo). Bureaucrats are required to determine consensus. But this isn't the point. If Giano had claimed that there was a massive conspiracy involving the Featured Article writers and the Stub sorters, it would have been no less absurd and no less insulting. It would still have been a sign of an editor who neeeded a bit of a sit down and a cup of tea. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you see any parallels with insulting RFA voters collectively? Zocky | picture popups 04:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

None. When people act as a rabble, the correct collective term is rabble. Misplaced Pages must never be a rabble. --Tony Sidaway 05:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, the basic principles of civility apply only to people other than Tony Sidaway. I'm really beginning to wonder if reasoning with you about you has any chance of being fruitful. But I'll give it one more go:

You must surely see by now that there are a lot of opinions and evidence that your involvement in heated situations often makes matters worse, and that your words and actions are more commonly contested and argued about than those of the average editor. Regardless of your good deeds and intentions, your words and actions often cause an unproportional amount of aggravation, drama and waste of time. In short, you are doing more than your share of harm. Since you seem to care for the project, you should consider why this is and try to avoid it in the future. Maybe it's just an attitude problem - most of us think that working on Misplaced Pages should feel like working in a large office where you have to share space amicably with people you don't know, maybe you misunderstand and think it should be like an evening with the boys complete with exchanging jocular insults.

I'd say that the problem is your misuse of language, or maybe ignorance or misunderstanding of problems and techniques specific to written public communication. Irony, jokes, and mostly everything that depends on prosody, stress, facial communication, inside knowledge, and/or assumptions of common sense is certain to be misunderstood when there are people who don't hear you, see you, or know what you know, nor know you, reading what you wrote. That's why "being civil" has different standards when talking to somebody in your living room and when commenting on Misplaced Pages. Misunderstandings arising from your failure to follow ettiquete reflect badly on you, not on people who misunderstand you. Zocky | picture popups 05:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence applies to me too, so I'll stop poluting this section with off-topic discussion. Zocky | picture popups 05:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but no danger of that. Fred Bauder 05:13, 30 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)

Diffss

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=75773359 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=76873013 (bookmarks, don't delete) Fred Bauder 17:19, 30 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). The block was reversed 13 minutes later by FloNight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

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)

Endorse Fred, if that's not presumptuous. A major problem with wikidiscussion is that when proposals are edited, prior comments may be misconstrued. Creating alternate proposals for even minor variants is bulky and unwieldly but less ambiguous than trying to decide if someone was trying to hit a moving target. John Reid 07:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point Fred Bauder 14:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that Giano was starting to "fly off the handle". I think there is significant disagreement in the community regarding the use of "cooling off blocks". To avoid more disruptive disagreements, this question needs to be addressed and resolved more formally.

I appreciate Tony's reflective reconsideration regarding the wisdom of his use of a block to shut down Giano's exuberant opposition to the Carnildo decision. I'm only sorry that it has taken an arbitration case to get him to this point. --69.236.160.1Richard 16:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

10.01) Immediately after blocking Giano, Tony Sidaway placed a notice on the Administrators' noticeboard "hysterical and false accusations". There was disagreement with the block which was undone. A lengthy dialog ensued: Mackensen , Tony Sidaway , FloNight on unblocking, MONGO , Bishonen , Friday , Tony Sidaway "accusations of skulduggery and malice", JoshuaZ , Nscheffey , Irpen "The problem is not Giano but Tony Sidaways", Ikiroid "nothing urgent", Mackensen on cooling-off blocks

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fred Bauder 17:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bureaucrats' noticeboard

10.02) Shortly after the announcement of the Carnildo decision Splash commented on Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard "Making it up as you go along", John Reid , response by Redux , Christopher Parham , John Reid power, Tim Smith , Durin , Kelly Martin , John Reid , Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway , Angela ....Tony Sidaway (Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship is not a vote, Dragons flight , Kelly Martin "fickle and ill-informed populace", John Reid "community will", Johnleemk "encyclopedia, not community", nice summary of positions by Durin, Kelly Martin , Durin . Kelly Martin license, Haukurth , Durin exit, ALoan ArbCom gravity, Dragons flight , Newyorkbrad community decision making, The wub , JzG , Tony Sidaway , John Reid , ALoan , Durin , UninvitedCompany , John Reid oath of fealty, ALoan , Durin , Nichalp, a Bureaucrat , RM occasionally consensus is wrong, Radient! http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=75549178 A more neutral question], Tony Sidaway removes oath of fealty "Ridiculous", JoshuaZ restores, Giano endorses oath, Durin , John Reid consequences of failure to take oath, no neutral question, Tony Sidaway reaction to demand for oath, Giano "who continues to serve consensus?", Nichalp, a Bureaucrat , John Reid , John Reid demand for answer from Nichalp, Tony Sidaway "You could fucking whistle", Nichalp response to demand, ALoan , Durin , Taxman "false dichotomy", Kim Bruning "please stop trolling", RM , Tony Sidaway "loud and resounding contempt", Durin , Giano "hypocrisy on such a grand scale", Tony Sidaway again moves oath of fealty, Kim Bruning , Tony Sidaway moved responses and comments, removed Giano's comment as a personal attack, Giano "amazing", Redux, a Bureaucrat extended thoughtful response, Radient! , Nichalp, a Bureaucrat break, John Reid "left the room" "who is boss", John Reid Taxman, Tony Sidaway "revolting hectoring has to stop", Rdsmith4 , Giano WTF, Gmaxwell , Nae'blis "pushing too hard", Cowman109 call for calm, Voice of All removed oath of fealty, The Halo "HUAC", Redux, a Bureaucrat "Understand this: no Bureaucrat believes that s/he is above consensus, but our job consists precisely of determining consensus within the context of RfAs, as well as acting on it in the best interest of the community. That is what we were appointed to do; that is what we do.", JoshuaZ "please stop", Tony Sidaway removed attack and requests to stop removed more material, ALoan restored, Voice of All "please stop it", Centrx regarding John Reid, Durin "too much", Tony Sidaway archiving to Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/John_Reid more archiving "ignore all rules", John Reid "sweep it under the rug", Redux, a Bureaucrat "enough", Ghirlandajo 'So, the answer is: "Sweep it under the rug"', RM consensus is a guideline, TenOfAllTrades enough, RM "loaded question", Rdsmith4, a Bureaucrat "remove trolling", Richardshusr , Radiant! , part archived by bot.

Comments by arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/John_Reid

10.04 Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/John_Reid is an archive of postings by John Reid to Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard and responses. It was created by Tony Sidaway.

Comments by arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

Tony Sidaway blocked Ghirlandajo

10.1) At 15:32, September 5, 2006 Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 3 hours (Unreasonable and defiant response to request to tone down after multiple instances of gross incivility). The block ran its course. Ghirlandajo's response bit more .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Before blocking me Kylu and I had not had any contact whatsoever. Her edits have always been in a completely different field to mine, before issuing her block she discussed the matter on IRC with other admins I demand to know why, and with whom she discussed it and why it was not discussed openly. I think this could be very relevant to the case and needs to be explored. It is hardly surprising one suspect plots when one read this kind of comment. Who and why please Kylu? Giano 11:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now Kylu seems less keen to become involved why should an admin suddenly take this view - is this the behaviour of a responsible admin? Giano 16:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Kylu was doing her duty as she understood it. See User_talk:Kylu/Archive_5#Just_a_thanks for some background discussion. If she's disinclined to continue to be involved with this RfAr or specifically with Giano, perhaps it is because his response to her involvement has been to disparage her and her abilities as well, just as he did to me when I tried to engage him in civil conversation on my talk page earlier. While any editor can edit any page, he's been "disinvited" from posting comments (that some, including myself perceive to be disparaging or harassing... such as some of these: removed as personal attack, , , , , ] ) on her page. There is more background there if it is needed, I can add it to the evidence I presented on the events around his block during the RfA. I suggest to everyone that Kylu's part in this has been completely well meaning, and that she has acted for the good of the encyclopedia, remained completely civil in the face of severe provocation, and in general made outstandingly positive contributions to try to resolve this matter. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 1 October 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)

Endorse Fred. This issue is real and important but not germane to this proceeding. John Reid 07:25, 28 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)

What is the point of this proposal? Surely we aren't going to punish people for "not building the encyclopedia enough"... — Werdna talk criticism 07:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not support this finding unless it had some "no free passes for contributions" wording included. Which goes to both content and housekeeping stellar service. Short of that it only exacerbates the discord. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 1 October 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)

Endorse Newyorkbrad. WP:DICK, although that's something of a dick-move in itself... John Reid 07:30, 28 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)

I have been learning a lot about what civility is through my experience here at Misplaced Pages. Although perhaps not as uncivil as Tony, I would not claim to be a paragon of civility. I have been learning that others consider certain phrases to be uncivil when I do not. There are some people who consider "silly" and "nonsense" to be uncivil. Others consider "crap" to be uncivil. There are different standards and it is really hard to honor everybody's sense of civility. However, I think that Tony's sense of civility sets far too low a bar. For example, I think Tony needs to understand that the "F" word has very strong negative impact on a number of people and that incivility is in the "eye/ear" of the reader not in the mind of the writer.

--69.236.160.1Richard 16:19, 29 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)

"We should just give up because arbitration is hard" isn't really an appropriate finding of fact, in my opinion. This seems unfair to the hundreds of Wikipedians who read and followed the debate without descending to abusive behavior. Nandesuka 12:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I didn't say it was hard to single out individuals (indeed that's almost too easy), I said it was unfair and unhelpful. --Doc 16:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I simply disagree. "Scapegoating" is the process of punishing an innocent party for actions they did not engage in. I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should not be scapegoating anyone. I disagree with you that holding people accountable for their words and actions constitutes scapegoating. As I indicated above, I believe it is unfair and unhelpful to give people — particularly admins — a pass for outrageous behavior when most of the community behaves with restraint and reason. Nandesuka 17:10, 30 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)

Your argument seems to be that it was a smart move to try to extinguish a fire by throwing gasoline on it. I think all reasonable people disagree with you. Nandesuka 17:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

However, one assesses this, the remarks display an error of judgement unacceptable in a member of the arbcom, or even a new admin. A new admin could have the error of his ways pointed out. An arbcom member should and must know better. James Forrester should be de-sysoped, sacked from the arbcom. Giano 09:54, 1 October 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)

This is irrelevant to the case, unless JDforrester is added as a party to the case. — Werdna talk criticism 07:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

He is a party. SlimVirgin 07:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, :-), my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out, SV. — Werdna talk criticism 01:08, 29 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)

These facts are irrelevant both to the substantive issue and to the truth of Geogre's comments. John Reid 08:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well they are, when he's given to making wildly inaccurate statements. Everybody knows his incorrect statement that Giano was a former administrator, but I've had to correct him on salient facts all too frequently. Particularly memorable is an instance in an RfC in which he chided me for saying something that, we eventually established, I had never said. It is a serious problem. --Tony Sidaway 02:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. And you have proof of this, Tony, or are you doing what you say I do? In the Giano misstatement, I retracted quickly. I do not, it's true, spend my time filling lists with enemies and diffs for future prosecutions, don't bring Rfar's, don't block very often, but I never knew that was a major character flaw. Geogre 15:20, 1 October 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:

These facts are irrelevant to this proceeding. John Reid 08:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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:

I tolerate a great deal of rough language and prefer blunt speech to polite equivocation. For that matter, in my daily work I endure no small amount of intentional abuse. But Tony goes beyond any standard of civility acceptable within a community of educated individuals. This is a construction site but we do not wear hardhats and expose ourselves to passing women. I hesitate to make a blanket comment about Yorkshire and I think it's unwise to defend Tony on grounds of his nativity; this leads to yes he's a rude bastard but what do you expect from a yorkshireman and similar backhanded support. John Reid 08:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I must protest these frankly uncivil attempts to malign my origins. No, seriously :). I'm not from Yorkshire but I think some of my language, while acceptable on the BBC in informal situations such as panel games, may not sit well with some Misplaced Pages editors. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Yes, Tony, calling everyone who contributes to RFA a "disgusting rabble" is uncivil. (Do I need to spell it out: that "disgusting rabble" is composed of individuals; calling a person "disgusting" - my dictionary suggests "highly offensive" and "repellant" - even as a member of a crows is not civil). Compare: "Tony, you and your friends are a disgusting rabbble". Perhaps forgivable in the mouth of a sergeant major; rather less so in written discourse.

Similarly, your metaphor of a "boil" that has been "lanced" to emit "malodorous filth" was widely taken to refer to a particular individual - indeed, other than yourself and until you explained it, I don't recall anyone taking it any other way. I trust you would agree that calling any person a "boil" filled with "malodorous filth" is grossly uncivil (to use an expression you have bandied around yourself).

Finally, perhaps it is excusable to use the word "fuck" as a rhetorical flourish, or for shock value, or as a reflexive profanity, or informally amongst good friends who you know are not going to be offended. But I would think very carefully before using it in a written medium. Perhaps you are simply more robust that the rest of us, but there comes a point when robustness become incivility and rudeness. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As Tony himself will attest, he is skilled in the English language, and thus I find it hard to credit his post-fact claim that "rabble" referred to "the state of the RFA." A rabble is a group of people. It is not plausible that Tony didn't know that when he said it. Nandesuka 12:10, 30 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)

Yet another irrelevant mini-review of an editor's entire status within our community. Brilliant or moronic, excellent or mediocre, it matters little what an editor has done in the past when we judge what he has done in the present. At best, such a resume merely argues for leniency in case of current malfeasance -- this can however only be determined on present facts.. If an editor demonstrates a pattern of destructive behavior this may aggravate a current offense but does not establish it. The proper action to take in the case of an excellent editor is to award a barnstar, not bloat an RfArb.

I particularly object to a pastel-praise review of an editor used as an argument node for a range of specific issues related to the editor but not to his past performance. John Reid 09:05, 28 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)

Endorse Fred. This issue goes way beyond the bounds of anything that this RfArb can address. This proceeding is largely about whether a discussion of this issue can even take place without excessive hostility, dark threats, block wars, personal attacks, and attempts to derail the discussion by deleting other editors' comments. This is not the proper place for the discussion itself -- however badly I wish to participate in it. John Reid 09:13, 28 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)

Why is this here? Is it relevant to the case at all? — Werdna talk criticism 07:12, 28 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)

Kelly Martin was a bully, and she left with the capability of not only returning, but reasserting every right that she gave up. One does not obviate the need for examination by shouting, "I quit." In the past (the userbox fiasco), she did much the same thing. The things she did rise well above the level of demotion, but it is not possible to present these things in the evidence on-wiki. This is not a question of "one of us doing penance for a week." Geogre 18:15, 1 October 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)

Those interested in seeing Kelly's offer to resign can look here.--*Kat* 18:18, 30 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:

Oppose blanket whitewash. John Reid 09:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Endorse proposed finding. John Reid 09:18, 28 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)

I have to disagree with this and the alternate versions of this same proposed finding; I do not endorse Tony's block of Giano but neither do I think it inappropriate. I've discussed blocks briefly elsewhere on this page; in short I think day blocks are generally healthy for all recipients. A three-hour block cannot itself be a sufficient nuisance for any sensible person to take offense if he has the right perspective on blocking: hey, it's just a timeout. You don't even have to sit in the corner; you can go out and play, assassinate your enemies in another MMORPG, or even get some work done.

However, blocks, like the timeouts loving parents give their children who need the opportunity to rest and reflect, should be given with little comment -- certainly not hostility. It's enough to point to the action that prompted the block and leave it right there. Block sums such as Making quite hysterical accusationsand needs to cool down a bit are not constructive, either to the editor's development of self or to the community's understanding of the block rationale. John Reid 09:37, 28 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)

Disagree with this proposed finding. Giano has made many comments, true. The cited diffs reveal both sadness and anger but they generally manage to remain civil, if only on the borderline. They also make excellent, important points on substantive issues. Giano holds the valid opinion that some of our trusted servants do have malicious and base motives. Such a suspicion is repugnant but nonetheless entirely within the bounds of possibility; history is replete with examples of abuse of office. Our trusted servants are men and women, not machines; like all humans they are suspended by a thread between the gods and the animals and we ought not be astonished if they venture at times to one extreme or the other. Indeed, I have my suspicions about the fidelity of some of our trusted servants.

It's very difficult to express such an opinion without veering into nasty personal attack; it is, after all, a statement that some person's character is in question. The saving grace here is an understanding that as humans, our trusted servants are permitted to err. If they err often, we may recall them from their positions of trust -- but we wrong both them and ourselves if we broaden our criticism to include their humanity.

The worst diff I reviewed included these words:

• Tony Sidaway is permitted by the Arbitrators to be their unofficial mouthpiece, for ages I thought he was an arbitrator so confident are his pronouncements. He is allowed a latitude permitted to no other editor. Through him they judge the mood of the encyclopedia. The problem is for the Arbcom now, is that they have permitted the guard dog to reply to the mail and answer the telephone for far too long - never a good idea.

This does read as highly antagonistic but the difficulty with condemning it is that it is so often correct. Another difficulty is that it is sometimes so wrong -- but that's what you get when you read opinions. Tony does frequently assert himself with such overweening confidence that he appears to be not merely a clerk or even an arbitrator but the sole holder of some actual office of hatchetman. The fact that no such office exists does little to dispel the aura Tony works so hard to create. Tony has been granted a great deal of latitude; he has gotten away with so much for so long -- blatantly uncivil comments that would lead to any other editor's 30-day block -- that his perceived immunity to any kind of sanction has become a self-fulfilling prophesy. He has been the subject of frivolous action and this has colored every subsequent complaint. It is not at all clear that Tony's actions and general attitude have ArbCom's support -- but as he precedes his confrontational comments with this indefinable aura, ArbCom's failure to object is easily taken as implicit endorsement -- right or wrong.

So this comment contains a great deal of meat, no little fat, and is indeed skinned with much unhappiness and anger, well spiced with incivility. That does not make it a reeking ad hominem attack on Tony or any member of ArbCom.

Sorry; but this proposed finding is mostly self-justification. John Reid 10:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion that I have ever operated with the support of the arbitration commmittee is of course completely false. Wearing two hats did send conflicting messages, however, and the misunderstandings are, if not those that I would expect to arise after serious thought, the kind of thing that might spread as the result of a process akin to Chinese whispers. But of course the reason I blocked Giano had nothing to do with his mentioning me, but with his general vacating of the realm of reason, heading off to the hills of accusing the entire apparatus of Misplaced Pages of being engaged in some kind of conspiracy. People who falsely accused me of abusing my position are ten a penny. The attack on the arbitration committee and at least one other named individual was another matter.

It saddens me that much of that case seems to presume that his paranoid ravings had some central core of truth. If this were the case, or alternatively if the idea that this was the case were ever to gain acceptance on Misplaced Pages in the absence of good evidence I would run away from Misplaced Pages. If I believed that Misplaced Pages's apparatus was engaged in such skulduggery for all the months in which I served them faithfully as a clerk, I would be rather angry. --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

27b) Giano has made hostile statements attributing strange motives to those with whose actions he disagrees. This overstepped the bounds of reasonable, civil criticism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed alternative to 27. The rest of Giano's comments don't especially worry me, but this one was very odd. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Georgre's words are strong and with merit, rarely veering into outright incivility or personal attack although often lacking moderation. This proposed finding is unfounded, as a quick check of the cited diffs reveals. John Reid 08:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that he does make extremely negative and trivially false statements, that on examination turn out to be blatantly false. This isn't acceptable. And when one makes a negative statement of fact about another individual, and one doesn't bother to check whether it's true, obviously that's a de facto personal attack. --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 30 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)

This finding of fact is not supported by the cited evidence. Nandesuka 17:13, 30 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)

John Reid's not a party to the case; you can't add a proposal regarding every single thing and every single person who commented after Carnildo's promotion. SlimVirgin 07:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to take that back. I see John's added himself. SlimVirgin 07:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, SV. If I could stay out, I would. As it is, I'm disappointed to get my invitation to the party so late. Even as a troublemaker, it seems I'm not high up the totem pole. John Reid 10:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, anyone can introduce evidence and make proposals about anything he thinks is relevant to the case. I made this proposal and notified him. As he has added much very sensible commentary to the case and has more than corrected my original poor impression of him, I'm rather glad that I did. Like all involved here, he's a fine Wikipedian, even if we disagreed with one another on this. --Tony Sidaway

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. It was intended, and I think this is obvious, as a rueful comment on the insurrectionist language of Giano, Bishonen and Geogre last week. That time has passed and I think they've calmed down a bit. --Tony Sidaway 05:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I so try to avoid examining someone else's mind, but I have to ask. If it's an "insurrection," then who is the government? Is holding you to account a revolution, a coup, etc.? In what way do you feel that you have more "government" than I? Are we not both administrators? In what way does Kelly act more as a "government" (that could be overthrown) than I? Is she not merely an administrator? In what way would even ArbCom represent "power?" Are they not a consented body for dispute resolution? I see no power anywhere, much less a government. This can be proven, at the expense of the project, but it should not be necessary to prove it merely to get certain people to realize that their fantasies about power are harming themselves and the venue. Geogre 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a stick that is used by those who participate more on the article-writing side of Misplaced Pages to beat those who prefer to participate in its administration with. Different editors have different skills, and there's absolutely no reason to hit people who prefer to help out with administering with this sort of crap. I'd like to note that this is also entirely irrelevant to the case. I'm expressing mild curiosity as to the number of similar proposals on this page. — Werdna talk criticism 07:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Article-writing should not be viewed as a "side" of Misplaced Pages. It (along with other production of free content, like images) is the core; everything else is simply scaffolding. This is an encyclopedia project, not a project that has some poor unfortunates somewhere down there laboring to build some encyclopedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians' talents do not lie in writing articles. Many have skills in managing communities, typo-fixing, copyediting, wikifying, vandalism patrol, software development, and other areas which are not directly article-writing. I do not write new content as much as many others do, however I've contributed in other areas such as copyediting, software development, and vandalism patrol to name other areas. I find it insulting that people consider these tasks less worthwhile. They are all just as necessary. I'm also wondering what the hell this FoF has to do with the case. — Werdna talk criticism 01:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a note, not a finding of fact, but the attitude expressed may involve disrespect. Fred Bauder 01:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to look at events on Giano's original talk page. There was certainly a strong strain of disrespect, expressed in a needlessly nasty way, for non-editing administrators. --Tony Sidaway 02:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the basic idea, just with its hostile expression. Fred Bauder 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• If you read the original script of the banner (the one Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin took such exception to) it said : "...some admins may not receive the respect they feel they deserve" - implying some, not all, admins, have an inflated view of their own importance. That is in my opinion an undisputed fact, and certainly nothing I have seen on these pages has lead me to alter that opinion. I give and have given respect to all who post sensibly on my page, but if an admin expects me to be obsequious and toadying to him merely because he is an admin, then he will have a long wait, and should remember adminship is no big deal. Giano 16:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I can understand why Giano feels that way, too. In his own eyes he is this editor who produces good work (well actually, I think we all agree he is good) but he feels like some other guy getting sysopped is a slap in the fact. While I sympathise with his personal feelings, I don't think it's appropriate for him to politicise them. A polite note to Carnildo, an escalation to RFC if he and Bishonen failed to get a satisfactory reply, and so on. Why is this so difficult? How did Giano's unwillingness to follow the dispute resolution procedure end up as a federal case? --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And what's more Tony what has the less bull issue got to do with the Carnildo affair? Giano 16:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Objections were vehement but small in number

31) Although vehement, the number of objectors to the decision of the bureaucrats to resysop Carnildo were small in number.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, a handful and look at the damage they did, with our help. Fred Bauder 01:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Needs to be stated. While the objections encompassed some false and damaging accusations of unprecedented ugliness, the number of objectors was actually rather small. The anti-Tony and anti-Kelly people have seized on this (and even anti-James_F! wtf?) but that's one of those interpersonal matters. The situation got ridiculously out of control, so obviously the damage-hounds got involved, and on this occasion the noisemakers scored a hit. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

71 oppose votes were recorded, and some of the neutral voters also expressed concerns. Even if we accept that there was a lot of sockpuppetry going on (though one would expect those votes to be indented and not counted), that still leaves dozens of editors, many of them long-time contributors, who objected. That hardly qualifies as a "handful". Zocky | picture popups 04:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Object. This is a biased and unrealistic finding. It is seriously flawed on two counts; also, it is a piece of misdirection.

This proposed finding goes against the prevailing wind that WP:NOT a democracy by counting noses. It says vehement and few in number but it says nothing about comments well reasoned and well supported; or serious concerns raised that stem directly from core community values. It implies that few numbers cannot have an important voice. Vehemence, against the general background of this RfArb, where civility and incivility are so often mentioned, implies weakness of points raised -- coupled with the other term, an attempt to deflate the objections made without examining them for substantive value.

As has been demonstrated well in other findings, the opportunity to object to Taxman's action was taken away. Various users, including one b'crat, forcibly removed the line of discussion and made it clear that it would not be tolerated. This is an issue in itself: that at least one b'crat simply refused to permit the question to stand, let alone to answer it. Precisely because objections were vehement and various "authority figures" labeled them in the most negative terms possible, a clear signal was sent, threatening anyone who might have wished also to object. There is no way to say how many editors might have objected had this opportunity been fairly extended.

This is just another attempt to kick sand over the substantive issue: the appropriateness of Taxman's action. Taxman defied the will of the community; this has been established elsewhere. There really is one basic issue at the heart of this RfArb; the question posed and trashed: Do b'crats now believe they are right to set aside community consensus as expressed when they act to close RfA? Someone more sympathetic might phrase this Did Taxman and the b'crats with whom he consulted truly believe that community consensus had expressed itself in favor of promotion, despite the very low ratio of support -- or -- did they discover another source of authority that empowered them to promote in the absence of consensus to do so?

Every other side issue raised here is about civility -- important, yes, but basically subject to the standard solution available to civilized people: We're sorry. We'll try to be more polite in future. Let's shake hands and be friends. The substantive issue goes right to the spine of this community and this project and carries vastly greater weight. John Reid 04:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a very loosey-goosey finding, and doesn't seem to be supported by any actual evidence. Nandesuka 17:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally contradicted by finding 6.3. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

~70 opposes is not a small number on an RFA. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway referred to RFA participants as "disgusting rabble"

32) In the course of the debate, Tony Sidaway referred to participants in the Requests for Adminship discussion as "disgusting rabble" (see evidence).

Comment by Arbitrators:

He certainly did, and while he was provoked, letting yourself be trolled at length, resulting in a series of unfortunate comments and actions, is less than optimal behavior. Fred Bauder 01:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I wasn't provoked in that particular case, Fred. I said that RFA had become a disgusting rabble and this was an instance of careless speech. The statement was my first in the case and it was not an auspicious start. I do feel very worried about the subject but this did not excuse such careless and insulting language. The provocation is two-sided, because I say something I feel strongly about in a very strong way, and this attracts many people, some of whom may be acting from less than Wikipedian motives, some of whom are rightly upset. But the root problem in that instance was my failure to observe the basic rules of civility, and this is a chronic problem. --Tony Sidaway 02:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolled? He was trolled? Fred, you are expressing a highly derogatory evaluation of those who objected. Please reconsider. Geogre 18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Tony has several different justifications for several of his incivil, inflammatory, or offensive remarks. He seems willing to stipulate to having been incivil as a general principle, yet when it comes to examining specific remarks seems to have many post-facto explanations of why they don't mean what everyone who read them believed them to mean. Therefore, I think it is probably best to treat them one at a time, rather than treating them as a group. In the instant case, Tony has claimed after the fact that "disgusting rabble" referred to "the state of RFA", and wasn't intended as an attack on people. Given Tony's acknowledged mastery of the English language, I find it hard to credit this characterization. A rabble is, by definition, a pack, a group of people. We can't know Tony's mind, but we can judge his words and the effect of them. I'd like, therefore, to establish that walking onto any page in Misplaced Pages and saying "I'm ashamed of the disgusting rabble here" is, indeeed, a personal attack and should be treated as such. Nandesuka 12:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know what behavior constituted "troll at length." This is the third time I've asked an arbitrator to specify this in a stament on these pages. I have yet to recive a response. - brenneman 03:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron. What is meant by "trolling" here? Elsewhere, I have seen many people provide widely varying definitions of an internet troll. The most common one being of someone who deliberately baits someone with the intent of provoking a reaction. But my definition of a 'pure' troll is someone who starts a thread and (crucially) does not participate in the thread. They just step back and watch the mess unfold (they consider it an artform, apparently). Someone who participates in the discussion, but is just arguing for the sake of arguing, would more accurately be characterised as a tail wagging the dog, or to use Jimbo's phrase, a "squeaky wheel" (at least that is how I have always interpreted that bit on his user page). In any case, I find the words 'troll' and 'trolling' to be so unhelpful that I avoid using them. I would even go so far as to say that accusations of trolling could be considered a form of personal attack. The problem is, it is extremely difficult to know where the line is drawn between those who are passionately arguing for what they believe in, and those who are just arguing because they enjoy it. Carcharoth 16:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sustained provocative behavior

33) Several users, claiming to object to the favorable closing of Carnildo's RfA and events that flowed from it, engaged in a prolonged campaign of hectoring behavior directed at the Bureaucrats as a group, at the three Bureaucrats who closed the RfA, at Taxman (talk · contribs · rights · renames) in particular and at administrators and the arbitrators in general, attacking Kelly_Martin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in particular.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, need subsections for particular users Fred Bauder 01:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I hate to be the one to say this, but so? Misplaced Pages is made of words, and people get held to account for their actions. We are never, ever going to be a place where mere users are supposed to hold their tongues and tug their forelocks in the presence of exalted arb-ers or bureauocrats. If the individual users performed individual acts that require injunctive remedies, then they need individual RFAR's filed over those actions. Otherwise, Taxman and the others are big people who can handle their own. (If we do become a place where respect toward one's betters is demanded, please let me know, so I can pack my bags, as that would be worth shaking the dust off one's feet over.) Geogre 18:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This needs some evidence attached. I don't recall that the people who "hectored" the crats are all the same people as those who were "attacking" Kelly and Tony; there seem to be three distinct groups here with a bit of overlap. >Radiant< 10:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of evidence in the diffs above, but I agree a lot of work needs to be done to separate out personalities. Fred Bauder 11:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, why is this necessary? This sounds like exactly the sort of recrimination and micro-examination of recent events that I think many of us think should be avoided. Second, depending on who are identified as "everal users," the heading of "ustained provocative behavior" may either be an exaggeration, or flatly false. Third, the words "claiming to object" suggest disbelief of the users' stated motivations for their comments. I see no evidence that the people who posted objections were acting from any motive other than those they identified themselves. Newyorkbrad 14:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The workshop page refers to "baiting" of Tony several times, and I guess this is the proposed finding of fact that it rests on. The problem with that is that both "baiting" and "provocative behaviour" imply intentions of these editors without any proof that I have seen. The fact that Tony and Kelly were provoked by things people said doesn't mean that people said those things to provoke Tony and Kelly to do what they did. Zocky | picture popups 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In my book, criticizing someone's behavior is not the same as hectoring. Many people were accused of trolling and/or personal attacks in this whole mess, frequently unjustly. Since we already know that criticism is welcome, we need to be very careful about painting critics with a "hectoring" brush. If the folks being criticized felt it went on too long, just maybe this is partly due to them not modifying their behavior after having been asked repeatedly. Friday (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo's conduct since repromotion

34) Since Carnildo was repromoted to admin status after the RFA, his conduct as an administrator and contributor has been responsible, beneficial to Misplaced Pages, and in line with the standards expected from administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is difficult and it is unpleasant, but an example has to be made, in the words of one arbcom member "pour encourager les autres" Carnildo has to be de-sysoped again in order for the crats to learn that such behaviour in not acceptable. Those that opposed this decision have had insults hurled at them by admins both high ranking and low a present arb-com member and emeritus one, this situation cannot be allowed to continue. There has to be a re-run of the RFA that is seen to be open and fair. Otherwise the crats will continue to do just as they please knowing that a protest from the "rabble" and "idiots" can be ignored. It cannot be ignore, it must not be ignored. Funnily enough, before someone yet again claims otherwise, I no longer bear Carnildo a grudge, I think he is probably as much a victim here as many others who have been dragged in to hide the fact this whole case is about defining and understanding the power of the crats. Giano 09:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No we've had enough. Not going to do it again. Fred Bauder 11:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat irrelevant, as Carnildo is not on trial. As Sjakkalle says, it's the way it was done, not Carnildo himself. I maintain my reservations about his behavior before the wheel war, but no one should be arbitrated over my doubts. Geogre 18:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think people have really been more upset on the way Carnildo was promoted than the fact that Carnildo was promoted. If this finding is OK, I don't see any point in desysopping again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Right Fred Bauder 11:55, 1 October 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:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: