Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Case Opened on 21:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 13:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.


 * Initiated by  User:InkSplotch at 18:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties



 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * Messages have been posted on named parties talk pages, and on AN.


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This arbitration request is to examine the actions surrounding the actions and discussions resulting from Giano's behavior after Carnildo's re-admin.

Links

 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive58
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Giano
 * Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/archive3
 * Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3
 * Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive29

Statement by InkSplotch
It's with heavy heart that I bring this arbitration request forward. It is not my intent to reignite the tempers which flared on the Administrator's Noticeboard, Bureacrat's Noticeboard, and various talk pages. It's also not my intent to declare any one party "right" or "wrong" in this, because as I see it, all parties have made such decisions for themselves. Instead, I bring this to ArbCom because I feel what fueled this fire for so long was a level of personal attacks in the form of unsubstantiated accusations which do nothing to serve the goals of the encyclopedia. I feel arbitration is necessary to give the involved parties an opportunity to substantiate their claims, and to give arbcom the opportunity to clarify what level of claims constitute opinion or personal attacks.

I've listed the following individuals as involved parties, and would like to give my reasons. (Of course, the offical list about is subject to modification.)
 * was initially blocked by Tony Sidaway for comments like these .  They follow this initial post  in which Giano expreses his loss of confidence in what he claims is a "huge error in judgement."  This evolved into his later statements which seem to claim collusion between high ranking members of ArbCom (by which I think he might mean the Bureaucrats) and Foundation members (notably, Angela) in reinstating Carnildo, acting directly against the communities wishes and to the detriment of the project.
 * blocked Giano for 3 hours, and announced it on AN. The block was over turned.
 * blocked Tony Sidaway for 24 hours for disruption and incivility relating to the Giano block, but "other recent behavior", particularly comments made by Tony later.
 * has claimed on several occasions on AN during this discussion (now archived at AN/Giano) that Tony, Kelly and other admins have used their positions and forceful manner to intimidate users and game the system (my phrase) to win arguments, while insinuating at motives highly disruptive to the project. He has, in discussion with me, outlined his thoughts on his talk page and commented that he has no interest in collecting evidence or seeking arbitration on these users.  As serious as his claims are, I feel it's disruptive not to.
 * has also claimed malfeasance against Tony, as well as claims of cabalism and plotting amongst admins with a call for them to resign.
 * began a section in the Giano discussions titled, You're all idiots. While backing off from this in the next sentance, this header sparked much more discussion and server to incense many editors.  Althought I suspect it was an attempt at humor, it failed to defuse the situation and only made things worse.
 * , who I do not expect to participate, offered to resigned her assigned posts of Admin, Checkuser and Oversite if Giano and four admins (Bishonen, Geogre and two others) called for it. Instead, Bishonen and Geogre questioned her status as Arbitrator Emeritus and attempted to use this to influence the actions of the ArbCom (something they claim Kelly does given her level of access to ArbCom members).  In response, Kelly has renounced her positions of Admin, Checkuser and Oversite, and seems to have left the project.

I request that the Arbitration Committee accept this request to examine the behavior of admins in this affair, most importantly the attacks and accusations between admins with unsubstantiated claims. It's factionalising the adminship, and leading to proposed policies that would, in my opinion, further disrupt administrative duties in the forms of Admin probation, suspension and de-adminning by giving admins the weapons to fight ideological battles against one another rather than talk things out. I would also request the Committee adress the idea fought over in this discussion "editors vs. admins" where raw edits to the main space and featured articles were used as (the only) meters by which all should be "ranked." Finally, I request that the discussions on AN, BN, and AN/Giano be accepted as prior attempts at mediation. A great number of editors and admins alike participated in the discussions on AN, and I don't feel an RFC or mediation could possibly sort out the mess at this point.


 * Update: Per the reasons listed by Kelly Martin above, and discussion with Bishonen below, I have added Bishonen to the Involved Parties.

Statement by JoshuaZ
I am listed as a party in this dispute and so will comment although I think my role in it was minor. It isn't clear to me what precisely the ArbCom would be looking into if they did take this case nor is it clear to me whether the ArbCom can reasonably look into this since this does seem to involve (at least in regard to the Kelly Martin part) issues related to the functioning and structure of the Arb Com. I have really no strong opinions on most of this matter excepting my block of Tony. Given later comments he has made it seems likely that the most relevant comment in question about the "boil" (which I considered to be the final straw) may not have been intended as a personal attack but was simply an incredibly unwise choice of wording. I therefore standby my block of Tony as the correct thing to do under the circumstances and have no comments to make about the more general issue other than to express a feeling that the entire resysoping could have been handled more diplomatically by almost all involved parties. JoshuaZ 18:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway
I agree with JoshuaZ that the block, in the circumstances of my unwise choice of words in an explosive situation, was merited for the good of Wikipedia, although the meaning that JoshuaZ and at least two other parties read into the statement was far from the one intended. I took it as a good opportunity to take a break.

I feel that the overt and admitted attempts by some editors to enlist mob rule against the bureaucrats and the arbitrators was beyond what is acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, and the repeated engagement in inflammatory accusations against the arbitration committee, amongst others, was something that merited action. I believed from the start that a three-hour block should be reviewed although to my mind this was a sensible and reasonable way of dealing with an editor who showed no inclination to moderate his accusations after warnings. Many disagreed with that block after I submitted it for review.

I think that ghirlandajo's objection has some merit, because it seems unlikely to me that some of the parties accept the jurisdiction of the Committee. Perhaps this case might be better handled by Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some confusion about "cooling off" blocks. Of course all blocks for disruption are "cooling off" blocks.  That's precisely the situation in which a block of a non-vandal editor is appropriate: when his activity is damaging the encyclopedia because of his anger and he needs some time to cool down. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
(I've removed my initial now irrelevant query, and am adding instead a statement as involved party.) The initiator InkSplotch says that "Bishonen and Geogre questioned [Kelly Martin]'s status as Arbitrator Emeritus and attempted to use this to influence the actions of the ArbCom". I sure did. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

Comment by (mostly) uninvolved User:Zocky
My involvement was mostly in general terms, but it seems that Kelly may have left in direct response to my comment on WP:AN, so I may be somewhat involved. Anyway, I don't think that there is anything that ArbCom can do about this - the interpersonal issues are petty and nothing new. At the same time the debate that became this case is about how the project should function, and that's for the community (and foundation, and Jimbo) to decide, not ArbCom. Anyway, the issues include the relationship between ArbCom and other editors, and I believe that it's inappropriate for ArbCom to be involved in that issue in its official capacity. (OTOH, it is appropriate and indeed desirable for arbitrators to comment on that issue in their capacity as editors and experienced members of the community). Zocky | picture popups 00:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by John Reid
My involvement in this matter has been summarized here by Tony. The summary is highly biased and self-justifying, full of inflammatory language. Here is what I believe to have happened:

I have participated in the past at RfA but have not done so for a time; the Carnildo affair came to my attention through other's comments on BN. I researched the RfA itself, the candidate's history including his RfArb, and (indirectly) the semi-secret consultations that led to his unprecedented "temporary" promotion. I find that this promotion was made in direct disregard of community consensus, a core value.


 * (Bureaucrats) are bound by policy and current consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, usually after a successful request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. -- from WP:BCRAT.

This text has been in place since 2006 May 10, when a minor change in wording was made. The keyword consensus appeared as early as 2004 April 16, along with reference to RfA. This early version read ...following consensus on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

I made a number of comments on BN   (et al) and was extremely upset to discover that b'crats felt it acceptable to remain silent in response.


 * (B'crats) are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions upon request and in a civil manner. -- also from BCRAT.

I believe it is patently obvious that if b'crats act on behalf of the community, they are then bound to explain themselves. I admit that my questioning became increasingly confrontational -- but that is what happens when you evade polite inquiry: you breed frustration and invite peremptory demands. Certainly I am not the only one to raise objections; other editors before and since wish to know if b'crats are still answerable to the community -- or only to Jimbo and the Board -- or to nobody at all save themselves and perhaps each other.

I was actually the first to attempt to close this thread of discussion on BN; I copied existing threads to WPOA/BN. This was an attempt to centralize discussion of adminship, including promotion, within the relevant WikiProject. This left only the question of whether there was really any point to community discussion of the matter -- or whether b'crats would simply promote as they felt best. I began a new thread to settle the point -- and thought it would end quickly. It was my opinion that this was the only facet of the adminship discussion that truly belonged on BN. However, I did not delete anything.

B'crats who did comment were generally evasive; Taxman made the only direct reply and it was to disagree with the proposition that b'crats follow community consensus. That statement is immediately actionable but I desired to hear from each individual b'crat before proceeding further. Nichalp was particularly verbose in his evasion and altogether too cute in his convenient departure; I commented on this and did not hesitate to call attention to the evasion.

Many editors attempted to derail this thread. Radiant! attempted to hijack b'crat attention by starting a competing, more conciliatory thread. Tony deleted the primary thread; Joshua restored it. Tony referred to this discussion as "sheer lunacy" and a "completely nonsensical question". I think all the side comments are unwise; I put the question to b'crats, not to the general population. I replied to Tony, directly but politely, saying that I would ask him to stand for recall if he were a b'crat, having made such comments. He replied "You could fucking whistle." I find this neither courteous nor constructive. made a number of highly confrontational edits, such as. Tony also deleted a general allegation of hypocracy made by Giano, labeling that a "personal attack".

Tony and began to dismember the thread     and move it off BN piecemeal, all the while labeling it in the strongest terms. I attempted to start fresh with a clear and polite statement of the substantive issue and Rdsmith rm it, again attempting to smother the issue by labeling me a troll.

At this point, Rdsmith left a message on my talk page demanding that I cease to "troll" on BN. This is certainly sufficient demonstration of this b'crat's position but I was taught to respect the rank, not the man; therefore I left BN, meanwhile dealing with random sniping on my talk.

My position is that if b'crats are agents of the community, then the thread on BN would have concluded swiftly with several b'crat endorsements. The overall rancor and refusal of b'crats to answer directly indicate both that this is not the case -- and that BN is indeed the wrong place to hold the discussion. And here we are at RfArb. John Reid 03:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/2/0)

 * Accept. No prior formal attempts to resolve this mess have been claimed, but the ArbCom can hardly duck this one. Charles Matthews 18:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Facts not contested but hotly in dispute, therefore there is no point in a damaging RfC.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 01:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Recuse. I believe my personal opinions, which I've shared with a few of the parties, would make it inappropriate for me to hear this. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Recuse. Private discussions with multiple users/parties involved with this case and my related use of admin tools makes me too involved to render a decision in this case. FloNight 14:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Requests for adminship
1) Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who becomes an administrator, Requests for adminship. "Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here", "Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions",Requests_for_adminship.
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats
2) Bureaucrats are bound by policy and current consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, usually after a successful request at Requests for adminship.....They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions upon request and in a civil manner., Bureaucrats
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus
3) Consensus, a guideline provides, "If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached." "Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision", Consensus decision-making.
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Advantages of consensus
4) "Because it seeks to minimize objection, it is popular with voluntary organizations, wherein decisions are more likely to be carried out when they are most widely approved. Consensus methods are desirable when enforcement of the decision is unfeasible, such that every participant will be required to act on the decision independently." Consensus_decision-making.
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems with consensus
5) Consensus requires patience and experience and in some cases may not work at all, see Consensus and Consensus_decision-making.
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The effect of failure of consensus
6) Failure of consensus in a difficult case does not abrogate Consensus as the optimal method of making decisions in a way which maximizes support for decision.
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrator conduct
7) Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Administrators must be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others.
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Second chances
8) Users who have violated policies in the past will be forgiven, restrictions will be removed, and privileges and responsibilities restored if there is substantial evidence that violations will not be repeated.
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism welcome
11) Criticism of administrative, arbitration, and bureaucratic decisions is welcome.
 * Passed 4-0 with one abstention at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Being upset
12) Within limits, it is acceptable to be upset at a decision or a situation which provokes strong emotion, to blow off steam.
 * Passed 4-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground
13) Wikipedia is not a battleground brands campaigns of political struggle as inappropriate activity.
 * Passed 4-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruption
14) Users who engage in sustained disruption of Wikipedia by engaging in inappropriate activity may be blocked temporarily by administrators or banned by the Arbitration Committee, or Jimbo. The community has made it abundantly clear, over the course of many discussions that they do not feel it is appropriate to "troll" on Wikipedia, or to engage in disruptive behaviour. While there is some dissent over method of enforcement, and over whether individual Wikipedians are or are not engaging in "trolling", there is little or no dissent over this underlying principle.
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruption by administrators
15) Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy
17) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous and respectful to other users and avoid personal attacks.
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of controversial decisions
19) If a controversial decision is made extended discussion is to be expected. This discussion may include strong statements of opposition. Those who made or support controversial decisions should be prepared to patiently and courteously explain and support the decision. Attempts to prematurely close the discussion are ill-advised.
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Baiting
21) Baiting or harassing of other users is disruptive.
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee
26) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over behavior disputes. This includes whether users have conformed to policies and guidelines. Issues which involve the behavior of the Arbitrators themselves and those closely associated with them present difficulties but remain our responsibility, see this comment by Ghirlandajo for a contrary view.
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Return of access levels
27) Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion.
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Resysopping
2) Difficulty may arise in instances where an administrator who has been desysopped by the Arbitration Committee makes a request for adminship (RfA). They would not have been desysopped 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. There is evidence that in most instances RfA functions well enough, see evidence presented by Radiant!.
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3
3) The request for adminship made by Carnildo, Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 had strong support, including support votes from some of the arbitrators who had desysopped him. There was also a great deal of opposition including strong opposition from those he had blocked for "hate speech".
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Failure to achieve consensus
4) Due to strong opposition to Carnildo's RfA there was a failure to reach consensus, see analysis by Richardshusr, analysis by Tim Smith, and Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay and discussion above regarding supermajority.
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Closing of Carnildo's request for adminship
5) 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.".
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to closing of RfA
6) Following the closing of Carnildo's request for admin considerable criticism was expressed concerning both the novel two-month probationary period granted and the closeness of the poll, Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/archive3, User_talk:Carnildo, and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_68.
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano's role in opposing the decision
7) had legitimate reasons to oppose Carnildo's RfA, having been one of the victims of Carnildo'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."
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

John Reid's role in opposing the decision
8) posted to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, posting a demand that each Bureaucrat declare their adherence to consensus "call for statement of fealty"; a few courteous responses were made by Bureaucrats. The course of the discussion on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard with diffs is at Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings_of_fact. A portion of the interchange is archived at Bureaucrats' noticeboard/John Reid. Of note is repeated baiting of the other participants in the discussion.
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin
9), a former Arbitrator with a long record of devoted service to Wikipedia, vigorously defended the decision , citing the support of the Arbitration Committee during discussions on the Arbcom-l mailing list. Her defense included the unfortunate language, "I applaud these three bureaucrats for having the moxie to break from the stifling expectations of the pseudoconsensus that typically erupts from any given Request for Adminship and instead evaluate the broader picture and make a decision that reflects more than merely the shifting moods of a fickle and ill-informed populace." Following hectoring of Kelly Martin by those who opposed the decision Kelly Martin left the Arbcom-l mailing list and resigned her administrative, checkuser, and oversight roles, see User_talk:Kelly_Martin/Archives/2006_September.
 * Passed 4-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway
10) Tony Sidaway took upon himself the burden of fielding criticism of the decision, in two instances briefly blocking vociferous objectors. He participated aggressively in the various forums which discussed the issue, often responding undiplomatically and aggressively . His role as clerk of the Arbitration Committee aggravated his offenses. He was blocked by the community for 24 hours and requested by the Arbitration Committee to resign as clerk, see discussion of block which also contains his consistent defense of undiplomatic response to provocation User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2006_09_24.
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano
11) In addition to opposing Carnildo's RfA, Giano vigorously protested its favorable closing, posting a series of over the top comments which condemned Wikipedia's power structure as corrupt  . Placed in the context of the comments of other objectors to the decision Giano's comments, while inflammatory, do not stand out. Giano then, aided by a few others, entered on a campaign of political struggle based on a theme of institutional oppression.
 * Passed 4-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano II
12), in frustration, destroyed his access to his account, after what he viewed as an inadequate response by the Arbitration Committee to Tony Sidaway's actions ; he now edits as . It has been suggested that his access to his original account be restored and that the comment regarding "hate speech" be expunged from the block log of Giano.
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ
13) blocked Tony Sidaway for 24 hours giving this justification, the diff mentioned is this comment by Tony Sidaway. Blocking policy does not specifically provide for a block of this nature, but it was accepted by Tony Sidaway, see User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2006_09_24 for an extended discussion of the block.
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Irpen
15) called for a 1-3 day block of Tony Sidaway . This was discussed at length and ultimately done. Although an extreme action, it had sufficient basis and was made in an appropriate forum.
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Jdforrester
16), an Arbitrator, erred by intruding into the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard with an edit with the section heading "You're all idiots". Although the content of the comment was intended to be helpful, it had the effect of throwing gasoline on a fire.
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser on Inksplotch does not find sockpuppeting
17.1) CheckUser does not indicate that is Kelly Martin's or anyone else's sockpuppet.
 * Passed 5-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Kelly Martin thanked
3) Kelly Martin is thanked for her long and honorable service.
 * Passed 4-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's sysop access
4A) Per principle #27 ("Return of access levels") the Arbitration Committee finds that Tony Sidaway gave up his sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get them back through the normal RfA channels.
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano II
5) Giano II may, if developers cooperate, be restored to access to the account Giano, and the block log of that account may be modified to remove any reference to "hate speech". He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat.
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Jdforrester reminded
7) Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator.
 * Passed 4-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin's sysop/checkuser/oversight access
8) Per principle #27 ("Return of access levels") the Arbitration Committee finds that Kelly Martin gave up her sysop, checkuser, and oversight access under controversial circumstances and must get them back through normal channels.
 * Passed 6-0 at 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement
There are no enforcement provisions.