Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop

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

Also see


 * Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop/Proposed principles
 * Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings of fact

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Kelly Martin's access to #wikipedia-en-admins removed
1) Kelly Martin's access to #wikipedia-en-admins is removed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I don't remember who controls access to that channel, but they are the ones to talk to. If she is just on there crabbing, that is no good. Fred Bauder 12:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Jdforrester is one who controls access, as a fellow arb-com member you might be best placed to discuss the issue with him? Hiding Talk 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * It seems to me Kelly Martin is the one who has one of Lar's famous "Free passes". Giano 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Since Kelly Martin left Wikipedia and requested to have her admin, cu, and oversight rights removed she has no reason to be on this IRC channel. Her uncivil remarks on the channel about parties in this case make it an issue for Arb Com to act on. FloNight 10:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me this is the wrong forum for this. Flo, you may well be right that her access needs to be questioned. But a) does arbcom have jurisdiction over the channel (I don't know) b) even if they do, they have no direct access to the logs, so there is no evidence for them to go on. Seems to me this needs taken to the channel ops, or a decision to kick could be made by the consensus in the channel at the time. If arbcom make an impersonal ruling that only current admins should be in the channel, it would affect other non-admin users who have been granted access, and have been only helpful and civil.--Doc 10:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would think that ArbCom would have jurisdiction over all official Wikipedia-en entities. Since members of Arb Com are channel ops, it should not be a problem to implement. FloNight 10:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And they'll have logs as evidence of Kelly specific abuse? --Doc 10:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Easiest to ask Kelly if she made uncivil remarks and personal attacks. I trust her to tell the truth. I can provide enough details to jog her memory if needed. I bet someone has logs, too. FloNight 10:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The name "#wikipedia-en-admins" might be a bit misleading, there are other users who are trusted but have never been admins who also use the channel, and so far, it's been up to the people who run it to decide who's trusted enough for the channel. Absent any on-wiki abuse relating to #wikipedia-en-admins, I don't see how it's relevant to this case.    --Interiot 18:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's been established previously that arbcom doesn't exercise control over the IRC channels. The fact than an arbitrator controls the channel is coincidental; I believe Talrias ran it previously. Mackensen (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this makes any sense. ArbCom has no jursdiction over FreeNode. If "#wikipedia-en-admins" is too official-sounding, I'm sure like-minded people would go to a secret channel where there is no oversight at all. Or maybe they've done so already? --Cyde Weys 18:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cyde makes a good suggestion. Calling it #wikipedia-en-admins does make it sound as if it is the official administrators channel when really, it's just another private space.  Renaming it would be a positive contribution to lowering the temperature in here.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

The talk page edit I referred to was this. This and this should also help to answer your question. If not, I suggest a chat with Mindspillage, who I understand is recused from this case, for background on Juppiter's campaign against a bot run by Carnildo to remove images that are in Category:Images with unknown source and Category:Images with unknown copyright status from articles. Here is an example of how he pursued his campaign. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that Juppiter was blocked for vandalism for this and the incident discussed on AN/I at the time. It came up during Carnildo's RfA as well. (I raised it as a reason to give his opposing view less credence) ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

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

Proposed findings of fact
Moved to Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings of fact

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

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Carnildo restored to Administrative status
.5) Exercising our continuing jurisdiction in Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war effective September 5, 2006 is restored to Administrative status, subject to review by the Arbitration Committee in November, 2006.


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


 * Endorse. Sends a clear message without actually doing anything, which is usually best. John Reid 06:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


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


 * I gave my reserved support at Carnildo III. However, there have been some good arguments against the reasoning of the closure of that RfA. At this time it would be too much to ask Carnildo to have to run again. He should be held safe from further inconvienience pertaining to this matter until his review period has passed. Hamster Sandwich 00:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification of the review process might be helpful. Will there be an opportunity for editors to present evidence of misuses of the admin tools, if they believe such exists?  I don't want people complaining after the fact that the review was just a rubber stamp.  Friday (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to make it visible at Requests for arbitration/Giano and at Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war if you have those bookmarked. Fred Bauder 23:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But he's already a sysop as I understand. So what need to 'restore' him? This looks like a clear 'no confidence vote' in the 'crats. If this is to 'give legitimacy', that implies that the crats have no legitimacy in determining consensus in an RfA. It would send a clear message that consensus was determined by sheer arithmetic, and that RfA 'was a vote'. Do arbcom want to do that? --Doc 22:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just want to make it clear that unless the policy is changed, consensus is required. Fred Bauder 23:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd totaly agree that consenus is required. The question is, what determines whether it is there. Is it the arithmetic of the debate, or the judgement of the 'crat. Perhaps the crat made a wrong call here (I don't know). But the danger here is that an AC precident will close down the disgressional space of the crat, or at least give those unhappy with a crat's call in future ammunition. If AC concludes that the Carnildo re-sysopping 'lacks legitimacy' as opposed to universal acceptance, then I think they need to be fairly clear as to what they are or are not saying. Otherwise everyone will fight over the correct interpretation of the ruling.--Doc 00:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the RFA and the statement of the bureaucrats. Unless the bureaucrats have reviewed this and decided that consensus did not exist, I don't think it's necessary to do all this.  If consensus didn't exist to support Carnildo's promotion, I don't think we'd be where we are now.


 * It would be perfectly easy to propose and pass a temporary injunction disallowing Carnildo from exercising his bit. That has not happened. It would be easy for editors, en masse, to appeal actions made by an illegitimate admin.  That has not happened.


 * It would be easy for the arbitration committee to propose a mass debureaucratting, or lesser measures, to deal with inappropriate bureaucratship. This has not happened.
 * I don't see anything easy about such a thing, really, almost unthinkable. Fred Bauder 17:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The proposal that consensus did not exist is not only contradicted by events, but the proposal that the bureaucrats acted in the belief that they did so without consensus is also contradicted by the public statements of the bureaucrats at the time. They were clear that they listened to the voice of the community.  They gave a full explanation of their actions.  If the bureaucrats have made statements that contradict this, then let's see a finding on this. In the meantime I think it's probably not a good idea for the arbitrators to go out of their way to find against the bureaucrats.  In the long run this would not be good for the health of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is very plain that consensus is required. Fred Bauder 17:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. If the "'crats" are going to start asserting counter-consensual promotions, then they need to announce that that is the policy.  There has to be some oversight to all actions on a wiki, as this is supposed to be a flat hierarchy.  To say otherwise is to concur that there are majestic overlords and divine rights.  None such exist.  Geogre 23:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with all that rhetoric, but it is written very plain that consensus is required. Fred Bauder 23:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added a finding of fact proposal that Carnildo's conduct since his re-promotion has been good and responsible, and I fully support him being an administrator. Having the ArbCom reinstate Carnildo without really endorsing the outcome of the RFA is a good choice. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * With the evidence I would not disagree, but I think it's somewhat beside the point. The process (oooh, that word) employed is at stake, and one hopes that Carnildo would have reformed.  I'm not sure that anyone could be sure, either way, nor that anyone may judge on a couple of weeks' behavior, either, but if every "oppose" voter were wrong, it would still mean that the community hadn't expressed trust.  No one wants his head on the wall (not Giano, even), but the process for giving him the status was unprecedented.  Geogre 17:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume admin does not have to be a joker, no? -- Ghirla -трёп-  05:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose, sorry. Nobody is entirely innocent of all wrongdoing; some are clearly guilty of one breach or another. Sending everybody home with a growl ("or we'll lock you all up") is a Chicago cop solution. Bad behavior carries consequences. John Reid 06:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This won't really satisfy anyone, I think. Kirill Lokshin 23:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we have all learned some lesson here. If the lesson has been learned, additional beatings with the cluestick serve no purpose. Fred Bauder 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh as per Kirill. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  23:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No one is going to walk out of this satisfied. It's been a miserable few weeks for all concerned.  But I don't think that another week of finger-pointing followed by formal ArbCom sanctions against various users is an answer to anything here.  Others may disagree. Newyorkbrad 00:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All dialog is potentially productive. Fred Bauder 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Newyorkbrad. Already much harm is done and many editor-hours are lost. The policy discussions are outside the scope of arbcom abakharev 05:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Even our puzzlement about policy is useful information. Fred Bauder 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can live with this, if some sort of "lessons to be learnt" essay is grafted together. No-one smells of roses coming out of this, but who does when the excrement hits the fan?  Hiding Talk 19:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a learning process, avoiding blowups, adequately dealing with one in progress, turning the discussion to productive purpose.... Fred Bauder 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect, Brad, we've been here before. I think it's a misshapen, ugly Rfar that was limited in its potential at the outset, but ArbCom cannot act to remedy any user without an Rfar of some sort.  Therefore, to dismiss this means that there could be no injunction or determination on Tony Sidaway's administrator status, Kelly Martin's listserv access, or the operation of the back slapping private club house of superusers.  We have been at this point with Tony and Kelly on multiple occasions, and we'll be back again.  Further, if Fred's sanction on Carnildo isn't carried out, or a more severe one (as it implies that ArbCom gets to determine Carnildo's administrator's status instead of the community in an RFA, and this it may do by modifying its previous demotion, but not as a promotion of its own powers), we're going to continue to have the extension of the principle of the unitary executive on Wikipedia.  So, as awful, as bloody, as amorphous, as poorly argued, as obsessively hateful as it is, it has to remain in hopes that some more lasting remedies will emerge despite all that.  Geogre 23:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you have to come to grips with the fact that you are one of the "superusers" and that this has been a type of wheelwar. If it has served, in any way to clarify policy that is good. If is only a preliminary to continued "struggle", keep in mind that "Wikipedia is not a battleground". Fred Bauder 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Show me any use of administrative tools on my part in any regard to any of this. Otherwise, please consider recusal.  To suggest that I am a "superuser," that it has been a "wheel war," or that I have been trying to knock any person off or on is to betray a bias that is frankly across the line.  I have used only the devastating power of argument.  If that is an actionable offense, then we're all in deep, deep trouble.  Geogre 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Who have I blocked? Who have I called "rabble?"  Who have I called a "troll?"  Who have I called "a diva?"  Who have I conspired against?  Who have I told to "fuck off" to?  What statements of mine that are clearly insulting have I defended as impossible to interpret insultingly?  To draw any equivalence is abhorent.  All I do is write articles, and, when I see bad ideas being endorsed, oppose them.  You're way, way, way over the line.  Geogre 21:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Geogre, what Fred meant (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) is that you are a "superuser" in the sense of being one of the people whose word counts, and that he's comparing the ping-ping discussion to an actual wheel-war. These things are about appearances to a great extent. Assertive people on the "other side" who appear to be powerful make people apprehensive, and it's plausible that some people feel intimidated by your examplary track record and the forcefulness of your words. You should probably start considering the fact that you are one of the voices in the "government" of the project. I realize that one of the issues here is the people who don't get heard if they don't shout, but you're not one of them. Zocky | picture popups 21:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Zocky, my words are "question me, disagree with me, I do not rule you." I believe myself to be a content expert, and I can be acidic when it comes to include/exclude discussion (my most incivil comment was an AfD, where I said, to the voters at large, "Are you people sniffing glue?" and then proceeded to quote chapter and verse on why the article under discussion was or was not in violation, but I blocked no one, did not delete on my own or undelete on my own (which Tony has done repeatedly, even in the face of DRV telling him to cut it out)).  I find any comparison with those who use their trust to harm others repugnant.  I'm for discussion, review, and transparency.  To compare me with Tony Sidaway or Kelly Martin, who tend to tell people how important they are, or to others, who like to tell others that they're real life experts, is fairly insulting.  I don't reveal my qualifications or insist on power, preferring to have respect given to me and expertise inferred from my work.  Wikipedia is not a battleground, indeed, which is why Tony Sidaway warring with me over undeleting an article because "administrators don't have to use VfD" is so completely wrong: by refusing to honor existing processes, he was demanding that I either go to war or let him have his way.  If we honor the rules and work to make them better when they fail, there won't be battles.  When we insist that we don't need "process," we force everyone into either giving in or fighting.  Wikipedia fails as an experiment whenever that happens.  Geogre 02:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I would not be supporting this if it meant "nothing would be done". However, much has happened in the course of the arbitration, mainly Kelly Martin resigned most of her powers, and possibly left the project, and Tony Sidaway stepped down as clerk and administrator. That is by no means nothing. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted Fred Bauder 17:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * The wording of the first sentence is supposing that Tony is ready to resign. I'm not taking a position on whether he should be forced out or not. Newyorkbrad 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Tony's now noted above that his resignation is agreeable and permanent, so the draft stays as was. Newyorkbrad 00:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Tony performed his clerk duties coolly, dispassionately, timely, and with precision. That would deserve applause for anyone. Stepping down voluntarily to avoid additional controversy, merited or not, is also laudatory. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Warned to not let himself be baited. Fred Bauder 17:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I don't like the remedy, but if Tony has learned nothing from this, it might make sense. However I suspect it is creeping into his consciousness that if you let yourself be baited it may result in rash comments and actions. The solution is to not eagerly run into every trap. Sometimes you need to leave the tar baby alone. Fred Bauder 19:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * If my civility really is an issue (and I think this is certainly arguable) then this would be appropriate. A week out is enough to make any contributor of good faith think twice. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's an issue Fred Bauder 19:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Taxman, yes I mean that a week out is enough to make any contributor of good faith think twice. --Tony Sidaway 05:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Given the distinct failure of past warnings, something more to the point may be appropriate; wording from Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. Kirill Lokshin 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree with this one as it is too vague.--MONGO 20:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, I support a lot of your positions, but your approach is often awful. Clearly your civility is a problem based on past arbitration and multiple conversations in many places. Just tone it down, please, for the good of everyone. Also, can you expand on what you mean by your last sentence of 04:12, 27 September? Do you mean the a week out would be enough to make you think twice before being incivil in the future? - Taxman Talk 22:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Taxman, see the discussion under 4.2.19 ("Tony's incivility") above. I find myself in the awkward position of complimenting Tony for his candor while being unsure what to expect next from him (although dealing with that issue is not sufficient reason to keep this mess of a case going much longer, in my personal opinion). Newyorkbrad 22:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the glib response Tony, apparently you don't realize where the ambiguity is in your statement – ambiguity that was only remove by more careful wording in my question. That aside, if you'll think more carefully before making a statement that others may find incivil, then this is a perfect remedy. You've already been implored to be civil and it hasn't worked. - Taxman Talk 04:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be glib. I just don't see what alternative meaning my response could have had. --Tony Sidaway 04:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * If it reached five blocks, I'd either appeal or give up. That would mean that either my incivility had reached such crisis levels as to threaten the project, or we had quite a few trigger-happy administrators.  --Tony Sidaway 04:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're not wrong in your inferrence. :) - Mailer Diablo 09:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Revised version, which I think is nessecary because this is chronic. Take your pick. - Mailer Diablo 04:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the problem would be with this. If Tony remains civil then it is no different from the remedy immediately above, and if he is incivil enough to receive five blocks then surely (given the damage to WP which Tony himself acknowledges above) the sanction should increase? Not sure if it should be as long as a year though. Cynical 14:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


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


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


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Incorporating 2.2a and 2.4. If accepted, the former two will be superceded. - Mailer Diablo 10:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that this remedy cuts to the chase quite neatly. Tony has a problem with using language intemperately.  Just as his administrative 1RR has helped him curb his problems with wheel warring, I believe that this civility parole will help him curb his problems with using hostile, warlike, statements that overstep the bounds of civil criticism by a wide margin.
 * More to the point, this remedy follows directly from findings of fact 11 ("Tony Sidaway was cautioned to remain civil by the Arbitrators") and 14 (demonstrating that Tony Sidaway was incivil to many editors). Tony has accepted both findings of fact.  Nandesuka 18:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * A stronger version of 2.1) -- Grafikm_fr 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't address the problem. I come back and start upsetting people, and then what? --Tony Sidaway 04:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tony. Useless and harmful bloodthirsty measure. --Irpen 09:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is overpowered myself, but one has to propose a full spectrum of solutions for the arbitrators to choose from. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  10:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Comment by others:
 * This is a half-way-pregnant sort of solution. We really shouldn't be in the business of making a block long after the fact, and this does not put in place any long term solutions.   brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 01:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not see how it will help abakharev 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and this proposal seems to be what I mentioned earlier, and that is arbcom shouldn't be used as a methodology to setlle scores or to "out"/"oust" an editor as some form of retribution.--MONGO 20:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Pft. This block would be unjustified, and merely a way to satisfy certain indivuals who deserve blocks more than Tony does. Daniel.Bryant 08:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just...no. This is retroactive, vindicative, and doesn't help anyone go forward, least of all Tony. -- nae'blis 21:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, this would be utterly pointless. I don't like punishment blocks- they ought to be used for damage control.  If such a remedy is intended to send a message of some kind, that message should be conveyed in words, not in a block.  Friday (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this. However, I would argue against the point MONGO makes, in that long or permanent blocks are generally meant and intended as retribution for unacceptable behaviour in WP space. But in this case, such a block is not called for. And since so much time and discussion have taken place concerning the issue at hand even a short block is unneeded. If any user is acting rashly, block them for a few seconds, let them know that they should cool off, discuss the matter which has provoked them so. If M. Sidaway or any other user is being thought of as patently incivil, then there are dispute resolution processes (here we are...) to deal with the transgression. My oposition to this proposal can be read as somewhat of a "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it" type of thing. Hamster Sandwich 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Pointless. Nae'blis hits the nail on the head. Tito xd (?!?) 03:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This doesn't make any sense to me. Nearly every edit I have ever made has had an edit summary.  --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tony. All his edits have a very well descriptive edit summaries. Don't see an issue. --Irpen 09:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. From Theodore7. - Mailer Diablo 05:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is valid, but doesn't need to be on its own. This could simply be included as the words "including in edit summaries" in the proposals above. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 06:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. 2.2b above. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Should Tony Sidaway fail to make an edit summary..." Hmm... If Tony ceased using edit summaries altogether I don't see what harm it would cause, in fact I'd suggest that a portion of the "problem" would be solved. Surely a null string is preferable to any phrase or sentence that might even border on being uncivil? — freak([ talk]) 07:29, Sep. 28, 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


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


 * In reply to Nae'blis below: That is exactly the problem -- automated, uninformative edsums; misleading, deceptive edsums; hostile, inflammatory edsums; or none at all. Edsum abuse is more serious than other unwise comments because edsums cannot themselves be edited and they are often the first point of contact between a given user and a given edit -- sometimes, the last. John Reid 06:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This just won't work, per above. It'll just be another area where certain issues will play themselves out.  And are edit summaries really the greatest failing on offer here? Hiding Talk 19:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I don't understand these two (presumably I'm not required to voice this on both). Tony seems to have automated edit summaries when he doesn't customize them, so it seems wholly without a target. -- nae'blis 21:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by parties:
 * I do not see a point in blocking Tony from editing and while he uses quite a colorful language in his edit summaries, IMHO they lack sufficient venom to really hurt people. What does hurt people though and causes an excesive amount of drama is his using blocks on established users that in hindsight sometimes do not appear to be done in good judgement. This indictment should not prevent him from blocking anonymous vandals and sock-puppets, nor to perform unblocking, deletion or undeletion or any other administrative tasks. If there is a need to block an established editor Tony could contact any administrator.   The additional time required for such a contact as well as a judgement from another admin could benefit to the thoughtfulness of the blocks. The 500 edits threshold is an arbitrary number, I do not mind to increase it to 5000-10000 or something, but 500 edits limits is just easier to check - just see if the contributions of a user fills one 500-edit page. abakharev 06:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to object to this one strongly. Plenty of "established users" are validly blocked, and if Tony is to retain his sysop bit, this restriction is entirely too arbitrary.  I understand what the intent is, and it would be better served by "disruption parole" or something similar.  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 06:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed plenty of established users are validly blocked. If Tony wants to block an established user he will only need to ask for it on #wikipedia-en-admins or on WP:AN/I or go to a talk or wikimail page of an administrator. If the case is valid he would almost certainly quickly find somebody to perform the block for him. If the case is not so valid we might be spared from much of a wiki-drama. The handicap for his administrative duties is minimal, the benefits are quite real (especially if the alternative is desysopping). abakharev 07:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Completely unacceptable. It implies a privileged status for regular contributors, suggesting that they can get away with behavior that others, who may be less familiar with how Wikipedia works, do not. --Tony Sidaway 00:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally with Alex Bakharev on this. Disclaimer, I was never blocked by Tony. --Irpen 09:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * No, this proposal serves no betterment to Wikipedia. Tony is already on administrative 1RR anyway, so if his block is seen as wrong, it can be reverted. I haven't seen evidence that he makes blocks that are consistantly wrong, and every very active admin who makes difficult blocks are expected to post them for review. In the case of the block Tony placed on Giano, he did bring it to review and it was overturned, yet I take no position on that block except to state that it forever appears on the block log of said editor, which may be an insult.--MONGO 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO, blocks hurt people. They are emotionally damaging, especially for long-time users. Undoing a bad block does not undo that harm. I do not believe Tony can be trusted with the block button; this is a good proposal. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not that interested in monitoring Tony's administrative actions, but his block of User:Ghirlandajo on September 5, 2006 for Unreasonable and defiant response to request to tone down after multiple instances of gross incivility was in my opinion no more helpful than his block of Giano. Two blocks in a short span of time is a sort of pattern. If it is impossible to segregate established users from newbies, socks and anons, lets ban him from the block button all together. abakharev 01:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This matter had been discussed on WP:ANI and the IRC channel, and the block was reviewed and was not reversed. Even if it was a bad block in your opinion, it had been extensively discussed both before and after action was taken. --Tony Sidaway 04:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the summary of my abuses. That's what followed it. I believe the only result of this block was radicalizing Giano into posting statements that led to his own block by the same admin. As a sidenote, in both cases, RfAr was launched within a very short span of time by a seemingly uninvolved editor with little experience in Wikipedia and little interest in further prosecution of the case. The first one openly acknowledged that his actions are sometimes dictated by IRC advices. I personally find starting an arbitration on adviсe from one of the arbitrators quite disturbing. Judges are not supposed to instigate proceedings against a person they don't agree with. But this was already discussed in the past. -- Ghirla -трёп-  11:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


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

This is silly and vindictive. Tony doesn't block often. There are hardly a string of inappropriate blocks, and even the one in question isn't irrational. In any case, contraversial blocks are quickly undone. Further, of all the admins I observe, Tony invariably narrates his blocks on ANI, inviting other admins to review them. THat's really good practice and he should be commended for it.--Doc 17:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * If my judgement is poor I shouldn't have a sysop bit. Halfway remedies are not much use. I think my judgement is good but others may differ on this.  The sysop bit is not a badge of rank or authority.  My edits and comments on Wikipedia would carry just as much (or as little) authority without the sysop bit. --Tony Sidaway 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any point in this measure. --Irpen 09:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others
 * This is a new form of proposal. De-sysop is too harsh, so we may want to try something intermediate. - Mailer Diablo 07:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe Tony occasionaly creates problems not because of his bad faith but because of the poor judgement. I will be very reluctant to desysop somebody acting in good faith. If he is allowed to block established users he would screw up now and again and every time we will be in the same situation - do we really want to desysop Tony for a good faith but badly thought block. Just ban him form the block button all other actions are reparable and with his 1RR on admin actions they are quite easy to repair. abakharev 07:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Just ban him form the block button..." won't be feasible, especially since you had already objected to 2.5., and sysop tools historically usually come as a set together. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of it. He's on administrative 1RR- if one admin disagrees with any action he takes, it's immediately reverted.  Ral315 (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good proposal, but not suited to the case at hand. Maybe an idea to take forward in some form, perhaps even into some form of de-admin process. Hiding Talk 12:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I am thinking about a one month suspension. Not so long as to discourage him or deprive us of his valuable services, but plenty long enough for him to get in touch with editing again. Fred Bauder 22:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind; he was baited. Fred Bauder 17:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Agreed. Administrators should be like Cincinnatus, in my view.  It is not supposed to be a position of power, only one of trust.  Trust in Tony's actions has been eroded, and Tony has engaged in numerous "my rights vs. yours" battles.  I also do not think this is a mark of shame.  My view has been, for a long while, that administrator status is supposed to be merely trust and cannot be even slightly jiggled.  If there is a timed demotion or a permanent one is not being proposed in this finding, but I do think that Tony has behaved with a lashing/repenting cycle that, frankly, is not going to engender trust.  Geogre 14:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed; quoting Tony above: "If my judgement is poor I shouldn't have a sysop bit ... I think my judgement is good but others may differ on this." ~ PseudoSudo 23:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, and a thousand times No. I'd like to see some decent reasoning here. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 07:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% advocating this move (or even 20% at this point), but his history would certainly warrant it. There's certainly a strong argument to be had that the way he interacts with people, his repeated incivility, his lack of respect for basic administrative processes, and his eschewing of our basic tenets regarding consensus make him unfit.  Whether that's the right move here, I can't say,  however.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with John Reid that this is not an extreme sanction. I'd rather see this than a blocking injunction- if someone has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with the block button, there's no reason in the world to give them continued access to it.  Friday (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Hamster Sandwich 21:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't that RFA yet, you know. -- nae'blis 21:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This IS an extreme sanction. I think a new Tony Sidaway RfA six months from now would cause just as much bad feelings as the recent Carnildo RfA did. We need to end the cycle of contentious resysopping RfAs. ArbCom should keep control of this, probation or temporary desysopping for admins = OK, yet another Resysop RfA = No Way! If ArbCom is unwilling to forbid a new RfA (as with Guanaco), they should only temporary desysop with the decision to resysop left to them. NoSeptember  22:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony may agree per "no half measures" but this seems a bit much here. ArbCom are welcome to endorse it, of course, but Tony does do good work as an Administrator; he just also has the unfortunate tendency to get himself into arguments and sniping contests. I don't know why, but some sort of mentorship/parole is likely to be more beneficial to the project as a whole. And, lest you think I'm going easy on Tony, it's easier to quit, than to change your behavior. -- nae'blis 21:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not therapy. We can't (and probably shouldn't try to) fix people.  It's one thing to help editors understand what kind of behavior is expected here, but Tony knows full well how editors are expected to behave, he simply chooses not to do it.  Friday (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Friday except that on the issue of whether I think I know what is required of editors.  I think I'm one of the best assets Wikipedia has.  I'd say that Friday simply misunderstands Wikipedia so comprehensively that he makes incorrect statements, in all honesty believing them to be correct.  If I'm wrong I should certainly not have a bit and I should probably not edit at all.  Ever.  That's basically what I told Jimbo before this case started.  My opinion on this has not changed. --Tony Sidaway 23:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, you are wrong, both about yourself and about Friday, who has an extremely good understanding of Wikipedia. The problem we're left with is that you won't trust anyone else's judgment about yourself. Every rational person harbours some self-doubt, but you are displaying none. I asked you on the talk page whether there was any degree to which you felt there might be some truth &mdash; even a sliver of truth &mdash; in other people's view of you, namely that your adminstrative involvement in the Giano thing exacerbated it, as your involvement in several incidents has done, and you replied no. You said: "I just happened to be the whipping boy. Of course I got rid of some of the more ridiculous noise, and this was a net benefit to the discussion." This is exactly the opposite of the truth, in every regard, in the opinion of many good editors and admins. So what do we do with such diametrically opposed views of your admin style? What is your suggestion about how we resolve them? I'm asking these questions in the spirit of trying to be constructive, by the way, and not in the spirit of attack. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ~125 admin actions a month. I think we could get by.Geni 23:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually endorse the suggestion made by User:Nae'blis in this space, one I have already made in another, found here. I'd suggest a proviso something to the effect that "M. Sidaway retains the use of administrator priveleges, but that all such (umm..) executive actions by him will be discussed on such administrator notice boards as are appropriate to the need of his immediate intervention." Something like that. Hamster Sandwich 23:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any difference between that and taking his administrator priveleges away, to be honest. The idea amounts to the same as the parole above. Hiding Talk 10:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * All this assumes Tony was wrong to block Giano in the first place, and I'm not sure he was. Giano seemed to be under the impression that his many contributions here were a licence to be extremely rude and incivil and, indeed, disruptive (including this petty little personal attack which doesn't seem to have been mentioned ). Many a time I've said to myself "that Sidaway chap is a loose cannon", but I don't think he got it so wrong here. --kingboyk 20:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway temporarily de-sysopped
2.7a) For his actions in this case (as well as in past arbitration cases), Tony Sidaway is to be desysopped for one month after this case is closed, after which his sysop powers are to be restored.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Changed my mind, but he obviously needs to gain insight about situations where he is being played. If you act like a bull, the matador will have an easy time of it. Fred Bauder 19:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I see no evidence to support this. If my judgement is chronically poor, I should not be a sysop.  If I have made the occasional error and always been open to review, as frequently as not soliciting review (which is the case) then I am a good admin.  To desysop a good admin, which I think I am, is wrong. If I'm a poor admin, let's see the evidence. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Object in general to this type of remedy; this is how we got into this mess. Shoe does't fit? Take it off. Let the community judge if it fits again someday. John Reid 07:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * As Fred has proposed. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see the usefulness of this. If it were for damage control, it wouldn't be temporary.  If it's to send a message, there are better ways of communicating.  Friday (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree there is a problem here. But he's making trouble with his sharp tongue. Fred Bauder 16:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is punative. We don't do punative. --Doc 17:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway may request re-sysopping through WP:RfA
2.8) Should Tony Sidaway wish to return to the project as an administrator, he may request adminship at any time through the usual process at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. Terrible that the wordsmog below obscures what anybody else thinks about it. No matter why Tony resigned, he did so. Like all other former admins (unless otherwise barred), he is welcome to reapply. Accusations of political jockying -- true or not -- become... more political jockying at best. Let Tony go. He's earned a rest. John Reid 07:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Identical to the language in Kelly Martin's section, and a result of Tony's request last evening, this may as well be put out there.  Someone's gotta propose it, right, whether it's accepted or not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What did Tony request last night? Can you provide a diff? Hiding Talk 12:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thought it was added elsewhere. Tony apparently requested to be desysopped last night. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Better diff -- Ghirla -трёп-  13:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's some merit in this proposal. It's annoying to see admins playing "I quit/I'm back" games in regard to the arbitration procedures. -- Ghirla -трёп-  13:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is worrying, per Ghirla. I'm not sure this proposal is the right way to handle it, but I do wonder how and if Tony's request will impact upon the proceedings at hand, and it appears untimely to say the least.  Hiding Talk 13:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I made it plain that I do not think I should be a sysop. This being the case, I had my bit removed.  Why is this worrying? --Tony Sidaway 13:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, you're party to an arb-com and so your admin status is party to those proceedings. We can already see that your status as an admin is being discussed, and it's worrying because it can be taken as an attempt to pre-empt any outcome relating to that status.  Like I say, I think the move is untimely.  It's also worrying because of the precedent.  Are we advocating that people resign their bit before an arb-com starts and then ask for it back at the end?  Is there a subtext that people could go and lay low for a bit? You've made your decision, and I respect that, I just feel it's worrying.  That said, I'm done tying myself up in knots here.  For me there are worrying practises exposed on this page that go beyond the ideas I had regarding what Wikipedia was.  I remember a wise user telling me once not to get involved in Wiki politics, and I wish I had listened.  The fact is that Wikipedia itself is now divisive and factional, bordering on dysfunctional. Hiding Talk 13:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Pre-emption is my privilege. I have made it plain on my talk page that I do not seek to regain the sysop bit.  Your worries are baseless, and it saddens me that you have so little trust in your fellow editors. It is precisely that distrust, which eats away at you, which is eating away at Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit strong Tony. If I can't express my fears without provoking such a reaction then I agree that there is something rotten here. A simple understanding of the other person's position is helpful, you know. I think your point about my having little trust in other editors is misplaced, but I take it on the chin. I wasn't aware you had made it plain you weren't going to seek the bit again, that's pretty much concurrent with this discussion so I hope you can appreciate that lag. Whilst I respect your resignation, it worries me. I can't change the fact that I tend to worry over things. I apologise if that worry damages Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 14:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * FFS. What is this? What's 'worrying'? That the spiteful vindictive rage that some people have got themselves into, can't get a sacrificial victim because Kelly and Tony have resigned. Do these wiki-gods demand propitiation? So, let's dance on their graves and pronounce ritual curses on their ghosts? Of jeff, I'd expect little else, but for the rest...this is pathetic, and getting worse by the day. It seems to me that some people are at war, and don't know how to sue for peace. Enough, enough, enough - simply stop it now, if you are able. Or do you need sysop blood to be shed to placate you? If so, just let me know, and I'll call you 'idiots', 'nasty spiteful trolls', 'boils that need lanced' and much worse; then you call call for my head, because my civility is about to snap big time.--Doc 13:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Doc, everyone but you appears to be calm and rational. Your diatribe is not helpful.  Friday (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm calm. But stop and ask what this case is about. Because it seems to me it has become a witch-hunt. Half the discussion is about sanctioning one or two parties, for a few (perhaps ill-considered) remarks. Even their departure, and hyper-self-critical resignations have failed to stop it. Where are the 'calm and rational' voices calling for a halt? Why isn't this silly remedy denounced for what it is? If I'm over-reacting, I'm sorry. But a lot of users whom I rate very highly are acting in ways I cannot understand.--Doc 14:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we just be clear that I have never once called for Tony to go and am actually disappointed he has gone. I don't want a sacrifice, and I want to disassociate myself from the above comments by Doc, which I hope he will reconsider. Hiding Talk 14:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If I have misread you, I'm sorry. But you are the one 'worried' that Tony has pre-emptively resigned, and you seem concerned that he might be trying to avoid sanctions. You suggested there was a 'subtext'.--Doc 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Read me again then. I wrote that what Tony had done "can be taken as an attempt to pre-empt", and it is something Tony confirms, "Pre-emption is my privilege".  I am not worried that Tony has "pre-emptively resigned" but rather that that impression may be taken.  I am also not concerned "that he might be trying to avoid sanctions", but rather that a precedent may be set through which other users may choose to avoid sanctions.  That was the subtext I clearly introduced, that's the sub-text I am looking to discuss. I would hope you can see that my initial statement was that "I'm not sure this proposal is the right way to handle (Tony's decision)". I don't think this is the answer to Tony's actions, but I think the issues Tony's decision raises need discussing. Hiding Talk 14:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem here. I don't see how an editor who drops his sysop bit during the course of arbitration can be said to be avoiding sanctions if the sanctions you envisage are the removal of his sysop bit.  --Tony Sidaway 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem (of course) is that folks who voluntarily resign are often able to get the privileges back just for the asking. I (and, I presume, others) don't want people who've abused the admins tools to have access to them again.  Friday (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a problem, is there? Can you cite an instance of someone who resigned their tools in order to avoid an arbcom sanction, and then successessfuly took them up again without an RfA, and went on to damage the wiki? Now, if you can, then I'd agree that there is a problem. But I personally seldom stay awake at night worrying about hypothetical wiki-what-ifs.--Doc 15:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Doc, some of us do consider outcomes. Mainly because the fact that Carnildo's desysop and the lack of direction as to how to resysop caused this mess, it's perhaps germane to get these sorts of issues hashed out now. Hiding Talk 15:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you Friday for finding the words to put it so succinctly. Hiding Talk 15:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not Friday's call, nor yours. The Committee can formally desysop someone who does not at present hold a bit, so the worries expressed are completely baseless. --Tony Sidaway 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't want to argue over whose call it is. We raised concerns, you put them to rest.  That's what we should take away from this. Hiding Talk 15:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Doc is right when he say "some people are at war." The corrosion of trust has reached a very worrying level. --Tony Sidaway 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Lack of trust is not new. Perhaps the only thing that's changed recently is that more light (and yes, regrettably, heat) is being put on the situation. Friday (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That some editors have unfortunately made distrust, suspicion and malice their guides doesn't mean that the wider community has been infected by it. --Tony Sidaway 14:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, are you casting aspersions on people who show concern for Wikipedia? Hiding Talk 14:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying "That some editors have unfortunately made distrust, suspicion and malice their guides doesn't mean that the wider community has been infected by it." --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you're right, Tony. Perhaps the resignations will help prevent this from spreading.  Friday (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Only a conscious decision by those who encourage malice, distrust and suspicion will bring it to an end. The resignations should have the effect of removing the shadows within which such poison may thrive and multiply until it threatens the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But I don't think people should resign to achieve that. I'd rather increase the light. Hiding Talk 15:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, I was attempting to strike my comment and we edit conflicted. My comment wasn't very helpful and I think I'm taking personally comments for which I have no idea if I'm the subject of them or not, which probably implies I am.  I have no real idea what's being discussed here any more.  Wikipedia is certainly factionalised and divisive to the point it borders on dysfunctional.  Sadly I think this conversation demonstrates that there is a level of mistrust on all sides, and even between people who seem to agree.  Perhaps civility as a policy is reductive in allowing clarity in conversations. Hiding Talk 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, broadly. I certainly don't think you go out of your way to encourage distrust.  And yet you have been infected by it. --Tony Sidaway 15:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, do you mind awfully if I ignore this. Otherwise I'm going to get lost in a mire of paranoia and subtext, and as can be seen above, that doesn't really help. I think I can agree with you, but only if you can agree the same is sometimes true of you.  Stricken. If I want to end something, i can't keep asking questions, can I? Hiding Talk 15:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop already, Doc, seriously. Your little jabs are getting incredibly old. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As with the Kelly Martin case (so it looks like I'm having to repeat myself): If Arbcom think he should be formally desysopped, permanently or temporarily, they simply have to make that decision. Tony's quite entitled to resign in the meantime (or ask for the bit back), but his decision has no impact on the powers of Arbcom to enforce judgement on him. It's hardly a tactical manouvre and should be taken at face value and with good faith. --kingboyk 20:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This would be tantamount to permanent desysopping. No matter what you think of Tony's conduct, I think we can all agree that he has generated far more bad feeling (merited or not) than Carnildo did, and I don't think that any post-desysopping RFA would give Tony a realistic chance of regaining adminship. Cynical 14:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Kelly Martin
3) Kelly Martin's voluntary resignation as an administrator and relinquishment of her Checkuser and Oversight access on the English Wikipedia are noted with thanks for her dedication and record of extensive contributions. Proposed by Newyorkbrad 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Resignation accepted with regret Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The Signpost has reported that Kelly unsubscribed from the mailing list. I expect she'll resubscribe if and when she feels able to continue participation in English Wikipedia. We mustn't ever let bullying prevail. --Tony Sidaway 09:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, no problem there. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I shudder at the thought of shadow admins, shadow officers. If Kelly has resigned, let all special access be revoked, per Guettarda. This has nothing to do with Kelly and everything to do with transparency. John Reid 11:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * She has experience and is helpful. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you quite understand. Kelly resigned from the arbitration committee months ago.  There are rather a lot of former arbitrators on the list, apparently, or at least with the right of access if they wish.  I can't see a problem with that unless the current arbitrators think they shouldn't have access, in which case they should just kick the former arbitrators off it.
 * There are a few minor problems, but its a good practice. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that your suggestion of shadow admins is apposite to this discussion. What would you say if you were aware that there exist non-administrators who have a very high success rate of persuading administrators to perform administrative actions?  Would this bother you?  What if I told you that Wikipedia facilitates, even encourages, confidential communications between admins and non-admins.  I even boast of it on my talk page.  Yes, I welcome Wikipedia-related email and regard it as one of my duties as an administrator (1) to observe confidentiality of private, non-threatening, emails and (2) to remedy mistaken actions by myself and intercede in occasions where another admin has apparently erred. This wouldn't be seen on the wiki.  Not everything done within an organisation is transparent.  You also have the right to engage in confidential Wikipedia-related communications.  To suggest otherwise would be intrusive and absurd. --Tony Sidaway 16:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, anyone can email any arbitrator or mail the list any time. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why not cut off her access, Fred? By your logic, she loses absolutely nothing by being cut off, because "anyone can emaiil any arbitrator or mail the list."  What is it that is worth fighting over?  If we're all the same, then why fight tooth and nail to keep her with two-way access?  Geogre 17:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What would you say if... I say that smoke-filled rooms and back-door deals of all kinds are the bane of open government and that government conducted in the full glare of daylight is the most equitable, the most fair, the most representative of the community. It does happen to be inefficient and frequently embarassing, even to people who don't deserve it. Too bad. I say open government at all times; the bare minimum of privacy for trusted servants while performing their duties. When a private forum is required it must be private, not open to informally privileged persons. John Reid 07:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * There was a discussion somewhere in which it was suggested that Kelly still has some residual privileges, eg access to mailing lists. Is that the case?  Ben Aveling 11:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If she wants it and the other arbitrators agree. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If one were to make an argument on this issue (which I am not making at this point in time) it would be something along the lines of: "KM's actions have put into doubt her trustworthiness to the community at large. The arbcomm mailing list is used to discuss sensitive matters.  There appears to be an unwillingness to clarify whether she remains on the arbcomm mailing list.  This uncertainty undermines the faith of a portion of the community in the arbitration process.  In the interest of restoring the faith of that portion of the community in the arbitration process, assurance must be made that KM is no longer a member of the arbcomm mailing list."  Guettarda 23:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence she is untrustworthy, only that she does not respond well to baiting. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For me, the arbcomm have the right to seek input from whoever they want, including Kelly. But that input should be done through the wiki.  The judges' discussion must either be completely public and open to all, or completely private, closed to all but the arbcomm.  Mostly private, except for a few selected souls, would be wrong, and I would be very grateful if the current situation could be clarified.  Kelly?  Can you clear this up for us?  Thanks, Ben Aveling 10:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not realistic. I discuss cases when I'm walking the dogs with my neighbor and think his input valuable. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the right approach. Mindspillage lives with Gmaxwell, we're not going to say they can't meet at the dinner table and discuss arbcom issues (or that they have to summarize their dinner table discussions on-wiki), because that's ridiculous.  However, if previous members' presence on the arbcom mailing list gives an impression that they have official influence that other friends-of-arbcom don't have, then just for perception reasons, it might be appropriate to limit the list to only current members.  But even that isn't so clear (eg. it comes down to how important the arbcom thinks the appearance of fairness is, and how much editors think it gives the appearance of unfairness, and whether ex-members can really have all that much undue influence with so many ex- and current-members (most of whom are highly trusted) watching).  --Interiot 17:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the appearance of fairness is important. And we're not just talking about appearance.  If one party can listen to the judges discussions and the other can't, the first party has an real advantage.  Regards, Ben Aveling 06:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If they are involved, yes, but what I do is mostly out in the open, on /Workshop pages, and that is why. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the problem here? Does she have access to the list or not? What privileges, if any, has she retained? It's a simple question so a simple answer will do Giano 12:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin is no longer subscribed to the arbitration committee mailing list - she cannot see anything that gets posted there (unless someone CC's her or forwards emails to her). Raul654 18:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that, Raul. -- nae'blis 21:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks Raul. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. But it raises two more questions for me.
 * Is anyone other than the current arbcomm members on the mailing list.
 * Yes, a number of former arbitrators have read/write access to the list: Ambi, David Gerard, Nohat, UninvitedCompany, Fennec, Mav, and Sannse. So does Jimbo. Raul654 02:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there an agreement amongst arbcomm members that emails are not privately forwarded to people not on the list?
 * The agreement is that what's said on-list is private, and comments shouldn't be shared with people offlist without the writer's permission. So, it's OK for me to CC my own posts to someone off list, or (for example) to forward David's, provided I have David's permissions; beyond that, no, there shouldn't be any sharing. Raul654 02:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Regards, Ben Aveling 06:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a question: Can she resume at her own discretion and pleasure? I feel very, very strongly that she cannot be trusted.  I also feel that the list itself should be used to discuss only active arbitration cases.  I understand that that constrains somewhat, but, if there is such a policy, then at least we can breathe freely that, whatever is going on there, neither Kelly nor anyone else is not organizing an upcoming action.  Geogre 23:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would support restoring her access. I find no evidence that she cannot be trusted. We discuss other issues besides arbitration cases, for example we have discussed how well Requests for Adminship works. There is considerable diversity of opinion on the Arbitration Committee. It is hardly the place for "organizing actions", unless the "action" is at Jimbo's request. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully understand the idea of restricting use of that mailing list, but one issue as I understand it is that the Arbitration Committee has responsibilities other than adjudicating actual arbitration cases. I've never seen a complete list of committee responsibilities but on a formal level, I believe that the ArbCom is the body that assigns Checkuser privileges, and more informally, they seem to deal with emergency desysoppings and the like.  (Metaphysically, there may be tasks assigned to "the members of the Arbitration Committee" rather than the committee qua committee, but I am venturing dangerously close to Wikilawyering territory here.)  Another point, and I don't want to stray too far from this case (if that were possible!), but sometimes there are confidential and sensitive situations that need to be discussed privately at a senior level.  Such situations are few, but they do exist. (Examples supplied off-wiki if necessary.) Newyorkbrad 13:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is true. We may discuss administrative actions we are taking with other arbitrators. Jimbo may run something by us, or ask us to attend to a problem. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred, why would you be doing those things in your ArbCom capacity? I understand that in addition to (and partly because of) being on ArbCom, you are a group of users that Jimbo trusts, and it's not unexpected that he would turn to you for tricky situations. But that is you acting as individual users or a group of users, not as ArbCom. ArbCom is supposed to arbitrate conflicts, not enforce Jimbo's decisions. We have admins for that.
 * According to what we know about list access, and to what you just described, there is a group of trusted users who presumably cannot be dismissed from this group without Jimbo's decision, and whose function it is to carry out Jimbo's requests, discuss high-level administration issues, and at the same time arbitrate disputes. Don't you think that leaves the project vulnerable to accusations of cabalism? Zocky | picture popups 18:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not concur. I do not feel that ArbCom is the assigner of checkuser status, as it is not a formal right/responsibility, and it used to be a bureauocrat's call.  Emergency actions require only an emergency RFAR to be licit on the mailing list.  As for the other things, I probably know what you're referring to, and I do not think they should be handled with no indication that there is a need.  What is at stake is the practice of secret charges, secret evidence, and the right to face one's accusers.  If this particular tool is being used, or being alledged to be used, for such a thing, then it has to stop.  If there is a better remedy for preventing that logical and rights abuse, I would be in favor of it.  Until there is a remedy to the list's access rules and discussion rules, someone who has abused the rights of access and implied that the list was being used to conduct secret trials has to be cut off from that method of abuse.  Geogre 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We do assign checkuser status, even if the requester is a Bureaucrat. We don't do secret arbitrations. Especially I don't. That is why /Workshop is the way it is, with full access by all interested users. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding conferment of CheckUser status by ArbCom, see [meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_Policy] under "Access" which I assume applies to the English Wikipedia as much as anywhere else, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I was just using this as an example of something ArbCom might do other than decide cases. (Query to an arbitrator for sometime: Is there a list of the arbitrators' responsibilities other than deciding cases?)  As for other things, we probably would agree that 98% of situations should be handled transparently on-Wiki, and we can all put our heads together and discuss dealing with the other 2% when (if) this case ends. Newyorkbrad 14:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a tricky question. We are in uncharted waters in this regard. Raul654 02:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but reading this discussion seems to lay bare the truth to the lie that there is no cabal. There obviously appears to be one.  I'm starting to think that the arb-com mailing list has to go.  Do we now need some sort of Jimbo trusts this user user box, like we had this user trusts Jimbo boxes a while back?  Surely people involved can see how this looks?  Whilst it might be great to have the experience of former arb-coms to draw upon, I'm not clear how acess to the arb-com list factors into the ability to draw on that experience.  It's also worth bearing in mind that arb-com members are elected.  Those former arb-com members have no mandate to comment on such matters. Surely arb-com members can concede that's important.  Can't you see how this can look? Hiding Talk 10:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, as per similar statement with regards to Tony Sidaway. Stepping down to avoid further controversy, justified or not, is clearly best for the project, and that she did it without more bloodshed is something we owe her gratitude for. We should not cheapen the effect of her action by stating that she is welcome to resume special abilities whenever the hubbub dies down - that would make it meaningless. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin is formally de-sysoped by the ArbCom

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think I will propose a suspension of her powers until she has satisfied the Arbitration Committee that she can display appropriate respect for other users. Fred Bauder 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Better to leave it like it is, and thank her for her devoted service. Fred Bauder 17:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this on any particular evidence or findings in this case? As Bishonen has noted, very little has been said about her in this case.  --InkSplotch 22:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings_of_fact; we can probably find more. Fred Bauder 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Could I then propose something similar to what you're thinking of for Tony? Something like, after one month Kelly can request her powers back from a Bureacrat without having to go through a new RFA?  Unless there's a larger amount of evidence of incivility from Kelly Martin than Tony that I'm unaware of, this would seem more balanced to me.  In other words, approach it as, "what if Kelly hadn't resigned any of her positions?"  --InkSplotch 22:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Unless there's a larger amount of evidence of incivility from Kelly Martin than Tony that I'm unaware of . . ." Tony has been known to admit he was wrong, to apologize properly (not just in a "mistakes were made" way), and to post a kind message to a user that he had treated too harshly. I do not think the same could be said for Kelly, though I would welcome evidence that I'm mistaken. Yes, I certainly wish he'd think more about the dignity of other users, clean up his language, and limit his blocking to vandals, obvious sockpuppets, and clear 3RR violations, but I do not think that he normally provokes so much ill feeling as Kelly did. Just my opinion. AnnH  ♫  23:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to Fred, the evidence he cites seems to be pretty much what I'd expect a respected sysop to say. The intention is clearly to bring Wikipedia to its senses.  It may have been misjudged, but equally it can be said that it was so grossly misread as to beggar belief. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Kelly Martin turned in her sysop bit voluntarily and left the project before this RFAR started, and now there seems to be a general feeling that since she's left it would be tactless to criticize her (see for instance ). I assume this means, according to precedent, that if she should return she will be re-sysoped and generally re-installed in her powers and privileges on request. Yet I believe that this RFAR was accepted in part precisely because of KM's behavior, and therefore the arbcom ought to evaluate it, especially her contemptuous style of communication and dismissal of community concerns as detailed in "Input by Kelly Martin" on the Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings of fact (sigh) page. The arbitrators need to take a stand, I argue, on the issue of her adminship and perhaps other powers too--not sure what they are, but the arbcom does, I'm sure. "Formally de-sysopped" probably isn't the correct way of putting it, but what I mean is: "if she's perceived as having misused her formal or informal powers, please make it so that she's not re-sysoped and generally re-installed in her former position for the asking, but only after review and community discussion." I bet there's some way it can be put. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Doesn't seem to be any reason why Kelly Martin should not reactivate her sysop bit when she wants it. This looks like part two of the same bullying campaign that hounded her off the wiki.  --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you want to step back from that sort of personal attack within an actual ArbCom case, Tony? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Once and for all Tony, watch my lips, and watch well: There is no campaign, there never was a campaign, with me what you read on the wiki is what you get, there is no more to it than that. No IRC, no emails, no secrets - nothing. Just obviously a common agreement on a subject.Giano 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly there was a campaign to persuade Kelly to desysop herself. This is well documented and a number of people asked her to do so.  This fact is not a matter for debate. it may be a justifiable campaign, though I've seen no evidence to support this.  In the absence of further evidence, I see repeated calls by a small number of otherwise reputable editors for her to desysop.  No good reasons are given.  I think this is bullying.  It must never prevail.  Basically, pull yourselves together and stop trying to tear this project to bits. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, Kelly was not bullied off Wikipedia. She provoked a lot of people unnecessarily, and then put Bishonen and Geogre in a very unfair position, singling them out by name, and saying that she'd resign if they and two other admins requested it. That automatically meant that if they didn't take her up on her offer, they'd be making a tacit statement that they supported her adminship, and if they did, they'd be seen as the "baddies" in this game. They hadn't suggested any such thing; nor did they immediately jump at the opportunity. On occasion, some anonymous or newly-registered vandals behaved disgracefully towards her, but since "bullying" normally implies having more power than the victim, I'd be reluctant to classify such trolling as bullying. The attempts at dialogue made by Bishonen and Geogre were certainly not bullying, and neither of them suggested desysopping as first solution. If I post on my talk page that I'll give up my admin rights if so many admins request it, and the requests start coming it, I won't call it bullying, or a campaign. AnnH  ♫  23:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do think that Kelly placed herself in a ridiculous position by attempting to stare down Geogre and Bishonen and whatnot. I don't think she should have taken any notice of their ridiculous and ill-founded bullying, which preceded that silly "double dare" scenario. Obviously they possessed more power than Kelly ever did.  By their deliberate and unjustified actions they bullied a valuable editor off the wiki.  --Tony Sidaway 23:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, how can you speak so randomly and aim so carelessly? I've been extremely quiet in this affair. I've had non-wiki matters to attend to, and other reasons too. During the time you speak of here—before Kelly Martin dragged me in by name and I responded to her like this— I was practically entirely silent. I'm talking about the "Giano thread" on WP:AN, as well as everywhere else on the wiki. Uncharacteristically silent. Not far from mute. But that didn't apparently prevent me from simultaneously conducting various "campaigns" in your head! My "bullying campaign" against Kelly Martin is only the latest of the charges that you have cut out of whole cloth. Let me present you with the sum total of the "ridiculous and illfounded bullying" with which I hounded Kelly Martin off the wiki. Here you go: My bullying campaign. That's it. To the best of my knowledge, that single post is the sum total of what I said to, or about, or remotely connected with, Kelly Martin, before she spoke my name along with Geogre's. By all means click on the link and shudder at the full heinousness. See  me deliberately tear the project to bits. I think you're harassing me. Please desist. Bishonen | talk 04:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC).
 * I think you're reading far too much into the mention of your name. To elaborate, I think it's fair to say that you did your best at rabble rousing. It's just about credible that you misread my reference to lancing a boil.  That you took Kelly's offer to resign suggests, well, a rather malicious streak.  Why should she resign? She had nothing to do with any of this. I have yet to see any suggestion that Kelly's comments on WP:AN were anything but tangential to the matter.  They were certainly well aimed. --Tony Sidaway 04:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, your accusations are unfair and without any basis in fact. There was no "campaign" to have Kelly give up her adminship. She offered it, and her offer was accepted, but even then only after a couple of days of discussion and suggesting compromises, which she turned down. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. I look at the same edits and I see a vicious, unprincipled, vile and absolutely baffling series of demoralizing, baseless attacks on Kelly Martin.  Why take her up on her offer (which I admit was puzzling) if you don't intend to force her to leave Wikipedia and give up every useful thing she did for English Wikipedia.  That was utterly disgusting and I have said, and will repeat here, that I hope that one day those who did this ugly thing will come to recognise what they did and feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves. --Tony Sidaway 06:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, Tony, Tony. Tsk tsk! Such inflammatory language! You really can't control yourself can you? WAS 4.250 17:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I can't imagine any bureaucrat re-sysopping Kelly Martin without an ArbCom case or an RfA. I noticed that Taxman refused to re-sysop someone recently because that person had left in relation to some kind of trouble, and insisted instead that the person go through an RfA. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that a re-sysopping upon asking would be an astoundingly bad idea. However, I've no confidence that this means it wouldn't happen.  So, having the arbcom make an explicit statement on this issue might be helpful.  Friday (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * While this should happen, is this the correct case for it to occur? My reservtions are similar to the Sidaway desysopping one - a case can be made, but is this the proper time? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly this is tendentious and vitriolic. It has nothing to do with the issues and is just kicking someone when they are down. Shame on you.--Doc 18:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Any vitriol would IMO be in particular words used, not in the suggestion of a remedy. I don't see vitriol here. A remedy was suggested, and it's more useful to comment on whether or not it's helpful than to just blast people for suggesting it. I think the relation of this remedy to the issue at hand is pretty clear, but maybe that's just me. Friday (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with "shame", "vitriol" of "kicking people" it so to do with future policy regarding re-sysoping and setting precedents. I'm sure in reality Ms Martin probably had very good reasons for resigning. Giano 18:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin's involvement in the case in hand is tangental. There is nothing in the proposed findings of fact (even if all accepted) that would merit desysopping. There is an accusation of incivility, but even if that were upheld, we have never even considered desysopping to be a remedy for that. There are no accusations of the misuse of administrative privillages being made here. So explain to me how this isn't tendentions? I'm trying to assume good faith, but this looks a lot like 'hey, let's stick one in Kelly's eye whilst we're here'. What problem cited in this case would justify this as an appropriate remedial action?--Doc 18:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are asking the wrong people here, why not address your concerns to a higher authority who may be able to furnish you with some very definite answers. Giano 21:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My question is for all those who are supporting this, whatever the level of their 'authority'.--Doc 21:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Supporting? What a curious word to use here. I think you are asking your questions in the wrong place. Asking those questions here is pure rhetoric as you surely know - so why are you asking them here? Giano 21:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh? I ask because I want to understand the logic behind this. If my questions are 'purely rhetorical' (as you suggest), that means they have no answer. Which would mean there is no justification for this rather pathetic little proposal.--Doc 21:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anything would surprise Kelly Martin anymore. She used to be quite civil, but I think she gave up on that. Kim Bruning 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This may not be the place but at least it's a conversation about Kelly Martin, did she recently run a checkuser on another admin? And if so, was it a mis-use of the tool? I ask because even though I stand by what I said on one of the endless threads about this whole thing, the case for a formal de-sysoping seems a little thin. So I wonder if there's something going on higher up in the food chain that's not being talked about. Rx StrangeLove 10:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I will need to support this. Statements like this, making an onimous prediction that it "is only a question of time" before a highly dedicated user is indefinitely blocked, illustrates some of the conduct which people have reacted disfavorably to. Other actions include a 24 hour block without warning on Grue for a testily worded support vote on an RFA, a 15 minute block on MONGO without warning, compiling a list of people she disagreed with (User:Kelly Martin/B), and when taken up, evasiveness as documented on the WP:ANI and creating another list in order to expose El C as a "wildly irresponsible admin". Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur completely with Sjakkalle, I would go further and state that her action should meke her the subject of a seperate Requests for arbitration dedicated just to her actions and behaviour. Giano
 * Agree with Sjakkalle. Kelly routinely engaged in behavior (incivility, assumptions of bad faith, bullying) that would have gotten almost anyone else blocked long ago.  Plus, there are cases of misuse of admins tools, specifically bad blocks and improper threats to block, a few of which have already been detailed.  I can only guess about how and why this was allowed to go on for so long, but as long as we have an opportunity here to fix this problem, why the heck would we choose not to?  Friday (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * *Sigh*. No mitigating circumstances? Kim Bruning 20:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You can hardly blame people, Kim. Whatever it is that Kelly does that's valuable doesn't appear to be done on-wiki.  People who have no access to office matters cannot be aware of whatever it is that she has done.  If there is something good that she has been doing that people should know about, it would be great if they did.  I can't see it.  Maybe it's there, but is there something that the administrator's status or access to arbitrator's listserv is needed for?  Is it something that can make up for the apparent betrayal of trust and evidenced abuses of those powers?  If there is something that should be put in the other pan of the scales, let's drop it in, by all means.  Geogre 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To be rather blunt about it, any valuable work she does/did off-wiki is irrelevant, as she lost the trust of a very large segment of the community ages ago. Even if her work is good, we don't trust it, and we don't trust her to have the tools to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this remedy is even controversial. Everyone knows that Kelly long ago gave up any pretenses of behaving in a civil and sensible manner befitting of an admin. Documentation of her abuse of admin powers is well-established. As is the community's lack of trust in her decision-making. Her behavior prior to leaving the project bordered on trolling. A formal de-sysoping seems to be a very reasonable response to such a history of problematic behavior. If Kelly ever wants to be a sysop again, she will certainly need to prove her commitment and sincerity to abiding by the tenants of that role. She may have accomplished great work off-wiki, but that is not an excuse or mitigation for causing problems on-wiki. Kaldari 03:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy at the withdrawal of this. If you leave it as is, thanking her, this is going to cause hell sometime down the line just as Carnildo's situation has. You have the ability to decide this issue now. Hiding Talk 10:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you mean, withdrawal? I proposed it. Please see my proposal and rationale way up there, the first post under "Comments by parties". I haven't withdrawn it. Bishonen | talk 11:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC).
 * I'm referring to Fred's two comments in the arbitrators section. I can never work out where to comment on what and what each comment relates to.  I'm asking Fred not to leave things as they are, it will create a mess. I'm sorry I wasn't as clear in my comment as I should have been. Hiding Talk 11:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Better to take it easy. Fred Bauder 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It could look like the idea that a user can lie low for a while and avoid sanction was endorsed.  I know Wikipedia is built upon shifting sand, but at some point the issues raised by all these desysoppings and crats giving back admin status outside of WP:RFA have to be addressed somehow.  Or maybe I shouldn't worry, just put my head down and get back to the articles.  I don't think anyobe is baying for blood here.  I think we just want clarity on issues.  Ah, what the hell, I'll get off the soap box.  Maybe I'll go read Lord of the Flies instead. :) Hiding Talk 12:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin to request re-sysopping through WP:RfA
Should Kelly Martin wish to return to the project, she may request adminship at any time through the usual process at Requests for adminship.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Most likely she can just have administrator status for the asking. Fred Bauder 17:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I do not believe Kelly Martin's actions were grave enough to require desysopping. Yet it is true that some of her blocks have been controversal, and she has been incivil on many occasions. Mirroring some of the comments above, I believe the fact that she resigned from being and admin and left the project should not mean that if she comes back she should be automatically granted the sysop bit. I would think that in general, if a user resigns his/her adminship, and that user has had some controversal behavior in the past (even if not grave) resigning should not mean an automatic pardon and reinstatement of priveleges later. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Inasmuch as she has, in the past, resigned things and regained them later, I have to agree to this proposal, as I think that what she has done has demonstrated very specific abuse of the very specific tools of an administrator and an "emertus" arbitrator. Geogre 18:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorse; with respect, in the strongest opposition to Fred's assumption. Nobody must be granted an office of community trust without gaining community consensus for that grant. This includes former officeholders. This should not be required to be put in the form of an ArbCom remedy. B'crats who re-sysop outside of RfA process should be sanctioned. John Reid 07:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Past experience shows this is pretty much equivalent to a permanent removal of admin priveleges unless some unusual action is taken. It is extremely difficult to succeed (and by this I mean: gain 75%+ support) in a re-admining RFA. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy and precedent seems to be that those who voluntarily renounce adminship, can simply ask for it back (I did). Unless arbcom want to change that policy, there is no reason being given in the findings of fact to justify singling our Kelly for differet treatment.--Doc 12:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See related discussion that has already taken place here. Newyorkbrad 13:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there is a long discussion on talk, thanks for pointing it out.


 * Doc, I know about the precedents, but is there indeed a policy that people who voluntarily resign can ask for their admin bit back? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Em. It is what the crats are doing. So, since they have the power to sysop, unless or until they are persuaded/instructed to do otherwise, I guess it is the policy. Policy is as we do. Whether it is a good policy is, naturally, open for discussion. --Doc 16:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No resysop without RfA for KM, and never should this happen in a thousand years. She has not answered for her past actions, including for her role this arbitration case (See evd. and comments above). Without an RfA or unless KM proper accounts for them one by one, this sounds more like a backdoor clause to me. - Mailer Diablo 14:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that editors in good standing who resigned voluntarily should have access given back, just for the asking. However, I don't see that such a principal applies to this case- Kelly Martin was a habitual problem editor, not an editor in good standing.  But, I realize a statement like that, coming from one editor, means little.  Thus, the arbcom should make a determination of whether or not she was an editor in good standing. Friday (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Say what? Problem editor? Sic transit gloria mundi. Kim Bruning 20:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I don't see her as an editor. That's fine, as far as it goes, but the members of ArbCom have to be getting tired of the same two names coming up over and over again.  (And no, they're not mine and Giano's.)  Geogre 02:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd still like to know whether the checkuser usage I asked about happened and what it means. I know this isn't a KM workshop, but her re-entry into Wikipedia as an admin is being discussed. Has anyone seen that whole thing and if so how does it affect her re-entry? For all I know that's what Tony was talking about here when he said Kelly was looking for a way out of the project, he also could have been referring about something else completely. Rx StrangeLove 15:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone can answer you. First, I don't think it has been settled.  Second, it hasn't been arbitrated.  Third, because the evidence requires off-wiki stuff that cannot be posted without violating the rules both of Wikipedia and Freenode.  Those who know anything are handcuffed by these rules, although I do hope that ArbCom announces the verdict, even if there is no explanation of why.  My own view is that the grievances are dire, but I'm blissfully not on ArbCom.  Geogre 21:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree about the direness, and I understand that you have to be careful when talking about it. I just hadn't seen any reference to it and in my mind it's worse than anything written about here. It sounds like it's in the appropriate hands, that's all that matters. Thanks for the reply... Rx StrangeLove 21:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think any admin who voluntarily resigns should be able to get the bit back just for asking. The remedy here is simple: if the ArbCom wish to prevent this happening in Kelly's case, they must formally desysop her. This particular remedy just muddies the waters and sets bad precedent. Either desysop Kelly or let her have the bit back whenever she wants it. --kingboyk 15:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Comment by others:
 * This will make huge signatures... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  23:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't we eliminate "clerk" hierarchy? This group has no powers or authority, and on at least one occasion a clerk has overstepped the mark thinking that he did have special status, why not just relegate "clerking" back to a normal editing function?  The people who want to do the work keep doing it, without the fez and the tiny car. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 01:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Brenneman, you slay me. I can't get the fez out of my mind or stop laughing long enough to edit. John Reid 11:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * When a case is opened, someone has to be responsible for notifying the parties. When a case is decided, someone has to notify the affected users.  The notifications have to come from someone with some reasonable authority to be making them (as opposed to "yo! look over here what they wrote about you").  Someone has to open the pages when a case is opened (there are special formats, etc.).  The arbitrators are backlogged enough and it's good that there are experienced individuals who volunteer to help them with these tasks. Newyorkbrad 01:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This appears to misunderstand the intent of my comment. The clerk's position certainly appeared to be a gold watch to failed arb candidates, and the position is utterly useless.  Just as we don't have a "CounterVandalism Head" or a "Captain of Deletion," we don't need clerk positions to indicate what work needs done.  Let normal people do normal edits, and enough already with the layers and badges of honour.  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 03:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Aaron abakharev 05:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I nominate Aaron for Captain of Deletion. Haukur 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey! I am "the Deletionist Archangel."  So long as "captain" is lower than "archangel"....  Geogre 02:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Brad, do you mean that the clerks should have the signature only when communicating with people in their role as clerks or all the time? I would recommend the sig when communicating as clerk, plus maybe a userbox on their user page linking to an explanation of the role.  TheronJ 13:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Responding to Tony Sidaway, I had no trouble understanding what were official communications from the clerks or not, so I can readily follow your reasoning, but enough other users have raised the issue, and so I thought why take the chance any more, although this proposed remedy is hardly the crux of the case. I'm not particular about the wording; but you're right that such communications have a standardized template form, so I don't see the downside of adding two or three words to the template.  The word "Clerk" could be added to the template so as to appear before the signature rather than afterwards, if there's a technical issue about the templates. Newyorkbrad 01:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again to Tony Sidaway: To your second comment, yes, that's exactly what I meant; sorry if it wasn't clear. Newyorkbrad 01:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Note that clerks reduce the arbitration committee workload dramatically. Without them, arbitrators used to burn out with all the work they had to do. I don't want to end up covering for arbcom and medcom again. I'm all for having clerks! Would you folks care to volunteer as well? Kim Bruning 21:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Kim, I think newyorkbrad means that when a clerk delivers, for instance, an announcement of the arbitration committee's final decision, which he has to do on the talk page of each involved party, each sanctioned party, the administrators' noticeboard, and one or two other places, he should simply make it plain that he's a clerk and not an arbitrator, and I think we agreed that that would be nice (though an arbcom decision would be unnecessary for this--Fred or Dom or any other arbitrator would just say "this is a good idea; make it so" and it would happen). I'm no longer a clerk otherwise I would have made the necessary templates and recommended them to the other clerks. The Committee asked me to resign for a very good reason, and that was because they felt my involvement reflected badly on the clerks, and the commmittee. --Tony Sidaway 00:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ...maybe... that doesn't sound too bad. Though perhaps they shouldn't say or do anything that gives people the impression they are a clerk or an arbcom member at all. As much as possible, people should instead rely on just stating that which logically follows in whatever the particular situation is that they're in. Though perhaps that can be tricky at times. Kim Bruning 15:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The formalities - signature or not, link or not - are minor issues; but the principle that someone acting in their role as clerk should say so, is sound. Note, that in many or most cases Tony Sidaway already did this. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * How did he lose his password? Fred Bauder 23:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe Giano scrambled passwords to his Wikipedia accounts and associated e-mail account in frustration over what followed his block. I'm not qualified to speak on his behalf, but I feel that destruction of the password is regrettable and that sending a new password to his current e-mail account would be in order. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  11:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Comment by others:
 * IRT Fred Bauder: afaik he scrambled it (and disabled his mail). -- <font color="Blue">Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  23:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost: I believe he scrambled the password as he was (intending to be) leaving forever, and never had e-mail enabled on that account, so he couldn't write in for a new one. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no technical way to "furnish" him a password. All passwords are hashed and salted in the database.  Ral315 (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure a new password can be hashed, salted and updated into the database, and this password can be mailed to him to use and change. Or, his email address could be inserted into the database and marked as validated, so that he could use the "email a new password" button. Zocky | picture popups 05:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is technically doable, then it is to be done abakharev 05:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not an SQL expert, but it should be technically trivial to overwrite the date/salted password on the Giano account with the date and salted password from the Giano II account, and then he can log into his Giano account using the same password as the Giano II account. Raul654 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically easy. See mw:Help:FAQ Tito xd (?!?) 03:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we just do this right now? Kim Bruning 15:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * There, we disagree. Orwell created a masterful work, one that has stood the test; he limns in clearest detail the shabby, corrupt influence that revisionism has on society. He also took novel length in which to do it (and other things). I may be clever and fluent but not so much so that I think I can do better than to quote and cite the master. John Reid 23:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I feel we're burying the thing a bit too quickly... -- <font color="Blue">Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  23:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This was Giano's original grievance that started us down this whole road. Newyorkbrad 23:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What's the purpose of this? I don't think we should remove all mistakes everyone once did to keep their image clean, we all make mistakes. --Conti|&#9993; 23:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The point isn't that the blocked user made a mistake, it's that the blocking administrator made a mistake (and has acknowledged it). As Giano has pointed out, his block log will "forever" state that he was blocked for engaging in "hate speech" when there's overwhelming consensus that he didn't do any such thing.  The more problematic aspect of the proposal is that ArbCom would be deluged with request for expungement of every borderline 3RR block, so expungement would have to be reserved for extreme situations. Newyorkbrad 23:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I also was talking about the blocking admin. Giano's block log also states that three admins undid that block. Nonetheless, I can see that having this in a users block log doesn't look very nice, but I don't like the idea to start removing log-entries because it's against someones personal pride. --23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. This opens up a huge can of worms, as Newyorkbrad acknowledges. (I'm not sure the developers are able to do this anyway, but we'll leave that for the moment). I declare an interest in this because of what happened to me, and in fairness, what I did, in the middle of February. I attempted to find an (utterly inadequate) way of countering it on August 4. It is a Bad Thing that users might draw a mistaken conclusion from a block which is subsequently shown to have been wrongful, but I think the better way of getting round that is to caution everyone against making judgments against productive editors based on block log contents, without looking in more detail at the circumstances. David | Talk 23:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * They can. It was done for me for a bogus 3RR over a year ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Fred Bauder, if it's really "quite simple" to do this, I wish we'd all known it months ago. //sigh// Newyorkbrad 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The devs can remove logs (which are important to transparency here) without leaving any trace. Just because it can be done quickly doesn't mean that it should be the first solution that's considered. --Interiot 04:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. This obviously can be easily done by the right people, but I doubt that retouching history is the right way to make amends. Zocky | picture popups 04:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we could do it once in this extraordinary case. Should not be done routinely though as it prevents administrators accountability. abakharev 05:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If rewriting history is a problem, then don't expunge the block logs. Instead, modify the block log to give what is retrospectively decided to be a fair summary of what happened (though in practice, given the length of the discussion, one will also need to provide a link to a few pages that explain what happened). Normally, people would read the next few block log entries to see what had happened, but in this case, the aggrieved party wants more than this to happen (whether this would set a bad precedent is another matter). ie. Change from "blocked for hate speech" to "blocked for hate speech - NB. This was later deemed an unfair and inaccurate block summary. <insert history and verdict on the block here>." Ideally, the text added to the block summary will look different and it will be obvious that it was added after the original, and it will be obvious what the original summary said, but no more will only the original summary be available. In any case, despite fears that this block summary will remain "until the internet crumbles to silicon dust", erasing it would be the worse sort of rewriting of history. It happened, and there is too much history there now to try and erase it. It reflects badly on Carnildo, and erasing it would remove some of his history as well. Leave the history alone, and concentrate on delivering a verdict on it. Carcharoth 10:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree - this is something Giano wants from the community to clear his name, I believe he's said as much without any express concern regarding the consequences to Carnildos record. Carnildos record has a bruising RfA and, well all of this in addition to a small books worth of Wikipedia server space to add to history - one line in a block log pales into insignificance next to this. If we agree Giano was wronged by Giano, why not allow Giano this? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Carnildo in that last sentence. I am thinking of the future situation of those who later come across other parts of these discussions, and go looking for this "block log" to see what happened with their own eyes, and then find it is not there. Unless they read enough to find that it was expunged, they could reasonably conclude that something fishy is going on here. I find such erasing of records (even with the best of intentions) ends up being one way to promote more uncertainty and suspicion further down the line. People start thinking - "how do I know this hasn't happened before" etc. At the very least, replace the said entry with text saying "this entry has been expunged" - or something similar. Carcharoth 09:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd go with "this entry has been expunged". --Mcginnly | Natter 10:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What? We now use oversight on administrator action logs? The only legitimate purposes for such a feature would be to erase all record of creations (and subsequent blockings) of usernames that may contain personal information, e.g. "User:Jenny's_phone_number_is_867-5309", or to remove deletion log entries for similarly vicious attack articles, etc. Using it to re-write the history of interactions between established users/admins would be highly inappropriate, even in the most grievous cases of judgment error. I've likely witnessed over a hundred administrative actions more regretable than this one. Maybe I've made a couple myself. It's something we have to deal with, if there's to be any expectation of accountability anywhere. — freak([ talk])</tt> 07:52, Sep. 28, 2006 (UTC)


 * This thread on Village_pump (technical) addresses this issue. I strongly support this remedy, since I suggested it there as well. I'm not sure arbcom can "force" developers to implement a feature though, but it is clear to me, anyway, that if a malicious or just plain wrong entry is placed, it is a good thing to get rid of. I recognise others may not agree. ++Lar: t/c 01:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that Giano's block log already makes it clear that all his blocks were considered wrong by the community and overturned almost instantly, and Carnildo's block is called "ridiculous". Zocky | picture popups 16:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "A good theory slain by an ugly fact." Redaction should only be for extreme/legal cases as mentioned above, not as a form of revisionist history or can't-we-all-just-get-along. Anyone looking at Giano's block log at this point can see what the facts on the ground are surrounding his hate speech. -- nae'blis 22:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Support this. Setting aside any legal liabilities regarding the assessment of "Hate Speech" in a block log, the proposal is sound in that it affords a mechanism to expunge "unruly" commentary from block logs. I'm pretty sure that we're all in agreement about human fallability and what sober second thought can achieve if applied to rashly made commentary. It all comes down to the comfort level of the afflicted parties. Giano obviously feels very uncomfortable with the situation as it stands. Where is the harm in accomodating such persons? Hamster Sandwich 01:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Logs are a document, a record of the projects history. This whole discussion will make less sense to somebody reading it in a few years if logs are changed. It cuts both ways - if the posterity doesn't know that Giano was accused of hate speech, it also won't know that Carnildo is a person who made such unfounded accusations. Zocky | picture popups 05:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already been pointed out, I think. that logs aren't the only record. Moreover the problem here is display of logs.  Just because logs exist doesn't mean that they have to be public.  For article revisions, we have oversight which makes certain revisions invisible.  A similar technique can be used on block logs.  --Tony Sidaway 05:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you expunge it in one place, keep a record in some other place that you did so. That way we have both a complete, unbroken record (important for historical reasons), and an official record (important for just getting along with each other :-P ). Kim Bruning 15:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * We've been here before, and before that, and before that, with both Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin. In each case, there were actions or half actions and then more warnings of that sort.  The result is that we're here again.  I'm afraid that this is recidivism, and so no anthem or statement will be sufficient, as folks either were or were not already committed to moving forward in a civil manner.  For those who were, no statement is needed.  For those who were not, no statement will bind.  Geogre 12:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. Note that this is not exclusive of other suggestions; unlike Newyorkbrad's first proposal, this is not saying that nothing should be done. This is just saying that we should recognize that all the parties involved: Tony, Kelly, Giano, etc., are well meaning, productive users on the whole, and, on the whole, add much more than they take away. This is quite different from many users who end up before the arbcom. Recognizing that is worthwhile. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted Fred Bauder 21:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * As it happened, I had discussed this on the administrators' IRC channel and was asked to go ahead and clean it up. After John Reid restored it, one of the bureaucrats again removed it under the edit summary "remove trolling again. do not repost." I believe that the bureaucrats may be presumed to exercise reasonable discretion over what is permitted on their noticeboard.  --Tony Sidaway 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not understand this until I had read though the posting. At the point you archived the situation was no longer a dialog, just hectoring. Fred Bauder 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with the proposal. --Irpen 09:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong endorsement (no surprise). I should shoulder a bit of the burden for rabble-rousing but indeed, it does no good to whitewash political graffiti. At best, you only give protesters more ammunition for charges of cabalism. Don't do it. Thank you. John Reid 13:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You went way too far. If it was inexperience, that is one thing; if it was skilled provocation, that is another. Always keep in mind that discussion has a purpose, examination of policy issues; it is not a game of Gotcha. Fred Bauder 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. <font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  16:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. If a discussion is on AN or AN/I, it is best to leave it there and let the bots archive it when the conversation stops. If there is a lot of back and forth, that's because there is something to discuss.--MONGO 21:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that even if a discussion is on your own talk page, removing critical comments or questions is to be avoided. - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 05:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Tony, the John Reid discussion was not archived but moved to a subpage because it was getting too long. There's no problem with that. (well, ok, it was first removed entirely a couple of times and reverted - my point is that that doesn't work). Radiant! 12:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The first suggestion was just to remove it, I carried this out and someone objected, then I archived (or "moved it to a subpage". Isn't this what archiving is?).  It didn't really matter as long as the rubbish was removed. --Tony Sidaway 06:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just clarifying, I'm not trying to open up another can of worms. If this were accepted, would it have any implications for deletedtalkpage being on Talk:Brian Peppers?  Or is it "strongly recommended, with exceptions"?  (eg. when a discussion starts disrupting other parts of Wikipedia?) --Interiot 05:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In the "Talk:Brian_Peppers" case the deletion (by me) was reviewed and strongly endorsed. --Tony Sidaway 00:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen. Fred Bauder 18:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that sometimes it's a wise idea to redirect or link people to a central location, for instance if there's a forestfire. It's generally a bad idea to close all avenues of discussion, though it's often wise to designate one central location for discussion.

But: No making guidelines from the bench please! :-)

Kim Bruning 15:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think any experience we encounter may result in refinement of policy, but it is not necessarily up to the arbitrators to incorporate some problem exposed by an arbitration case into policy. Arbitration is a learning experience for anyone interested in policy. For example, is it clear, susceptible to reasonable interpretation, does following our policies prevent an effective solution? Fred Bauder 18:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I respectfully submit that this is well-intentioned, but slightly misguided. Dispute resolution needs to be constrained to appropriate forums. In particular, note that Resolving disputes has no mention of using the Administrator noticeboard for disputes. In my opinion, removing a dispute resolution matter to an appropriate forum, or archiving such matters where they appear outside of the normal dispute resolution channels is entirely appropriate. With respect to the administrator noticeboard, the most that should be posted there at any time with regards to disputes is a link to a discussion in an appropriate forum, and only when the discussion requires the attention of administrators. Of course, the line between debate and dispute is narrow, so common sense is stll required... - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, based on the comments which led to his block. No one has approached this yet, but however justified his anger may or may not have been his comments did cross the line.  --InkSplotch 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Come off it, Aaron. We all know that Giano accused the entire top level of Wikipedia, and some named individuals, of involvement in a massive conspiracy to subvert community consensus.  This was completely unacceptable. If this is a quibble about the contents of the evidence page, then add it to your evidence. --Tony Sidaway 04:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Thatcher131, if this remedy came to the proposed decision it would have to be supported by a finding. I'd add all the paradiddles if I thought this remedy was necessary, and I'm sure that if I didn't then an arbitrator would do so if he was minded to.  It's just a bit tedious to argue at length about form when this is a wiki and there's nothing to stop anyone from actually adding the bits that they acknowledge are missing. --Tony Sidaway 05:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever Giano said, he said things in a civil form no matter what one thinks on whether he was wrong or right on the issues themselves. --Irpen 09:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is simply incorrect. Giano's false, baseless and extremely damaging accusations were not remotely acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia at any time. They were among the most grossly uncivil statement this wiki has ever seen. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry, but so far, the most grossly incivil statements i've seen (things like "for fuck's sake", "giano is a wanker", "you could fucking whistle" and "stupid fuck") didn't come from Giano... :( -- <font color="Blue">Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  17:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Now now. Did "stupid fuck" come from me?  I admit to losing my cool at one point and saying I should have told Giano to stop being a wanker instead of blocking him.  I immediately reverted that becase, yes, it was the first really uncivil thing I've said on Wikipedia in nearly two years.  No, Giano's accusations and wordings were far and away beyond this.  They amounted to seriously damaging accusations that, if not immediately withdrawn, would amount to libel. That's not a legal threat, by the way, because I have neither intention nor standing to sue.  'That, not the playground stuff, is gross incivility. --Tony Sidaway 17:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * "But honestly he's an obvious nutter ... Let's just tell him to fuck off."
 * "I sincerely suggest that "fuck off" is almost too kind for this pernicious and stupid troll."
 * SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Naughty naughty. Both were very adequately descriptive of Prometheuspan, a known troll, and our community's rightful attitude to persistent timewasters, which can be summarised as "fuck off". Pithy use of the vernacular is not incivility. --Tony Sidaway
 * Pithy, perhaps, but it's awfully colorful. Words which are banned by the FCC from broadcast in the US are, by and large, considered incivil in common discourse (with no comment from me on cause/effect).  I think it'd be safe to say a majority of editors find "fuck" a very startling, and yes, incivil word in common discussion.  --InkSplotch 19:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Colorful, I'll accept. It's not part of polite discourse, it's a vulgarity.  It would be a bad idea to encourage its routine use. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * There is nothing on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence page to support this. - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 03:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that "Come off it" isn't very nice. There isn't even a finding of fact saying "Giano was uncivil."'  I must have misunderstood the quibble, because surely if a finding doesn't have evidence to support it the burden is on the person proposing? -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 05:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, we saw what he said but we both know that conventionally in arb cases, remedies need to be supported by findings of fact and FoF must be supported by the evidence page, neither of which is in place. This proposed remedy is cart before the horse, as I noted below.  I think that if someone cared to compile a list of diffs, he/she probably has a fair number to choose from.  But as Fred has suggested that this is going to be "no action for the time being" kind of case, there's no point, really, until and unless some more specific case is presented. Thatcher131 05:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * A stronger version, and one I don't feel is necessary. --InkSplotch 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If any remedy is contemplated for Giano, then if I am still active as an administrator at the end of this case it should be explicitly stated that I must not be involved in enforcing it. This is analogous to the exclusion imposed on Snowspinner with respect to Everyking.  My judgement has been called into question and it would be best for Wikipedia for that to be admitted by all of us. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A reasonable request. I've updated this one, but not the other version as it doesn't call for any sort of encforcement.  --InkSplotch 00:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I think if you mess him around you're going to lose him. As Fred suggests, if further problems arise they can be dealt with in subsequent arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 05:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Civilty is not at all a problem of Giano. --Irpen 10:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * He was civil. Angry, and rightly so, but civil. -- <font color="Blue">Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  22:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think comments like these:  cross the line, by implying and assuming ill intent on behalf of many different parties (some not even involved in things).  I may be in a severe minority to believe this, but I wished to raise the point.  --InkSplotch 23:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Grafikm, Giano's behaviour is the result of specific and unresolved circumstances, if his block record was amended, certain individuals dealt with and some kind of reconciliation attempt by Carnildo had been made then I don't think things would have come to this - sanctioning him adds injury to insult. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I don't want to see Giano sanctioned. If a remedy needs to be directed at Giano, I prefer my first entry.  I believe we're ultimatly responsible for our own actions, not circumstances...but circumstances all but drove him to the scene of the crime, put the gun in his hands, and shouted "pull the trigger" in his ears.  I.E., I feel it was a very minor transgression, but I believe it was a transgression.  I'm not digging myself deeper, am I?  Anyway, I feel the same about Tony actions, but that's for elsewhere on this document.  --InkSplotch 00:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be simplistic here, but if even the party filing the case believes that even the most contentiously involved parties committed only very minor transgressions, does that mean it's time to go home? ((more just below)) Newyorkbrad 01:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For this to fly you first need a finding of fact "Giano has been uncivil" with appropriate diffs, which means you need an evidence section "Giano has been uncivil." There's a lot of putting the cart before the horse going on all over this case. Thatcher131 00:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thatcher131 is right, of course. A lot of us have jumped straight to the Workshop page rather than post the Evidence ... perhaps because many of us feel like we know the evidence by heart (which may not be true for many of the arbitrators).  So the parties and others would need to adjourn to the evidence page and start compiling diffs and doing the heavy lifting -- that is, if there is a useful purpose to proceeding with all or any part of this sprawling case, which I was never sure of to begin with and which I am increasingly coming to doubt. Newyorkbrad 01:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)I agree with Grafikm. Nothing Giano said deserved such a strong reaction. Just a warning to him would be OK (If he found to be uncivil)abakharev 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Giano had been warned but kept it up. A three hour block, subject to review, seemed appropriate to the level of disruption. It is never civil to make wild, baseless paranoid claims about others. --Tony Sidaway 01:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Nobody was entirely civil in every comment. John Reid 13:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * InkSplotch's evidence would suggest that anger is incivility. I cannot agree with that.  For my part, I have intended to sting with my statements and to express my views forcefully, but I loathe "personal" comments and personal battles, which is what I think much of the case is about (Tony personally targeting people who disagreed with him, Kelly singling out persons to intimidate because personal friends were discomfitted).  I'm not in the habit of attacking persons, but I will state my judgment of their actions.  Geogre 14:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree with John abakharev 00:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We have relevent policies already. For example: "Fucking" is by definition profanity, which is included in the policy Civility as a serious example of breaking that policy. According to Disruptive editing: "Obvious cranks and aggressively disruptive editors may be blocked or banned after a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agrees that their edits constitute persistent violations of fundamental policies" so persistent use of such profanity or other violations of civility (according to the policy, not according to individual redefinition) that causes other editors to be distressed can result in being banned without the use of the formalism of arbcom. The point of the Civility policy is because uncivil behavior is bad for wikipedia. Disrupting wikipedia by persistent incivility even after being warned should be expected to result in being blocked and eventually banned if the conduct does not improve. Just apply the policies we already have. WAS 4.250 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:
 * First, if anyone can think of a better way to say it, please feel free to edit : )
 * Personally, I've been known to typo text, and since the edit summary can include markup, etc. having a change to see it before it's "final" would be helpful. I include this in this discussion because perhaps if someone saw how their edit summary would actually look (especially long ones which don't fully show at once in the edit summary edit box), then perhaps they might take the opportunity to "self edit". I would think being given a chance to think twice about use of language would likely be a "good thing". - jc37 11:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to Tony Sidaway: Read my comment above, specifically after "I include this in this discussion...". There were several comments about incivility in edit summaries. Hence this suggestion. - jc37 12:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nearly all of my edit summaries are precis' of the added text. If I remove something I explain why.  I don't remove anything that isn't inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway 00:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the intent here to curtail "editorializing" in the edit summary space? Hamster Sandwich 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I would characterise it in that way. It's giving the person the opportunity to actually "see" what they have written (how it will look), and I would like to presume, even in the heat of the moment, something inflammatory "might" give the editor pause, and they might decide to (as you said) "curtail" their thought. This is no different than any other editing help message that we see. This is entirely about giving an editor another opportunity to "change their mind", and anything presumably as simple as this, that may help "keep the peace", sounds like a good thing to me. And that's just talking about those times when tempers may be strained. I know there have been times when I've written something on a talk page, that looked fine while typing, but in re-reading it in context with surrounding messages, I realised should probably be clarified, because it could be taken the wrong way. So this also is an opportunity to prevent mis-communication as well. So it's not "us" curtailing anyone, it's us giving someone the opportunity to edit themselves. - jc37 01:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it can be safely assumed that a person who takes the trouble to write an edit summary takes full responsibility for what he has written. The edit summary does appear in the appropriate place in preview mode and can be edited prior to submitting the edit. --Tony Sidaway 02:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for bugzilla. Submit the request there. Kim Bruning 15:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I don't see any future problem, thus no need for a remedy. Fred Bauder 18:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


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


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


 * He did. It's a finding of fact. The finding of fact will be endorsed; I so predict. John Reid 01:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * More to the point, what's at stake is an understanding of the position. When I started at Wikipedia, the position was considered the least interactive, the most automated, the most technical aside from developer.  It was not one of "discretion."  I respect Taxman and have no qualm with him, but I sincerely believe that some arguments were pressed in an isolated area that were fallacious and predicated on the premise (as many of the comments throughout this case have been) that there is a pyramid of power at Wikipedia, that there is a hierarchy and that each step is a step "up."  Only if such were the case would there be a bureauocrat's judgment over an arbitrator's over an administrator's over an editor's over a reader's.  That is not how we have ever been, and it is not how we should become.  Taxman may have felt that Carnildo was deserving of trust, but this would be the very first time that I am aware of where a bureauocrat, in absence of consensus on an RFA and even in spite of consensus, decided that there were "discretionary" powers in the position.  I believe that a caution should be made, but mainly so that what is understood is that we simply don't have echelons of power.  Geogre 12:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I do not think this should be limited to User:Taxman alone, but to all bureaucrats. However, this proposed remedy lacks clarity. The underlying issue is "what is consensus?". This is highly subjective and has suffered substantial debate at WT:RFA. There is an ongoing schism on this issue. ArbCom needs to be very careful in applying any sort of remedy that addresses this issue. --Durin 14:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The question is more basic than that. It is said that admins are editors trusted with certain tools - but trusted by whom? Do we mean trusted by the community? Or by the bureaucrats? This came up during the ANI debacle where some people asserted that the community could not be trusted with this decision. <font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  17:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever I may feel about the relative merits of the candidate in question, there clearly was no consensus to promote. While we may debate at length the wisdom of the promotion and if it was good for Wikipedia, there can be no question that this was a non-consensus outcome. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 00:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidently three bureaucrats thought otherwise, and felt able to grant probationary adminship on the basis. You could ask them to review the decision. --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, at least Fred and I appear to agree on this one thing. As I have yet to see anything resembling evidence or an argument that this was consenus, I will debate no further on this issue.  If anyone is willing to provide something other than Tony Sidaway's say-so that this was consensus, I'm happy to revisit the issue. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 00:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the most we can say is that there was not a supermajority on the RFA, and I've proposed a new finding (1.2) to this effect. This isn't the only method used by the bureaucrats to determine consensus.     My clarification, RFA is not a vote, was accepted very readily and is now an integral part of the RFA page.  Thus we have consensus on Wikipedia that the bureaucrats are not limited in their to duties to determining whether a supermajority has been attained (although previously this seems to have been the case).  Policy changes over time.  We rewrite the written documents to keep up. --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Tony here, broadly speaking. What effectively happened was that at the same time as giving Carnildo the bit back, the crats asked arb-com to open an arbitration case on his admin status, and arb-com agreed.  The crats get to determine consensus, which they did, and arb-com opened an arbitration case, which they are allowed to do.  I don't see this proposal as that disputable though, since a crats job already is to determine consensus.  There was a rough consensus there.  Looking at WP:CONSENSUS, I find this section instructive:

"In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it."
 * I'd say the bureaucrats found out where the consensus lay when they determined it. I'd reckon everyone agrees that there were "some vocal and unreconciled folk" after the consensus was declared, but not enough to dispute a rough consensus existed. I'm unclear how one presents evidence that a consensus exists.  Do we count all the votes of people like me, who accepted the decision without expressing such approval? And I'm not clear on the reason why Fred objects to the word successful, that could be due to the promotion being subject to review.  It could therefore be argued it isn't successful until the review is completed. Hiding Talk 12:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you do something and it sticks, that's consensus. --Tony Sidaway 01:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That principal applies only to article edits or other actions that are undoable by a significant portion of the community. Even the 'crats themselves don't have the ability to depromote someone, so the fact that Carnildo's promotion stuck doesn't even establish that there was consensus among the crats to leave him promoted, let alone among the wider community! &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me put it another way: there is no significant opposition to Carnildo's continued adminship. This is consensus. --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also this arbitration case was not opened at the request of the bureaucrats. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you mean the people who objected to the promotion have quieted down, well, sure. Everyone who opposed it probably has already had their say.  This doesn't mean the crats closed the RFA according to consensus, though.  But, we've already had opportunity to express our opinions and expressing them again is unlikely to change anyone's mind.  Perhaps a fact we can all agree on is that the crats acted in a novel fashion in this case, rather than simply doing what they'd done before. I think it's worth noting that promotions by crats are one of the very few actions that cannot be undone.  Many feel this situation dictates that the crats act conservatively, which they did not do in this case.  Friday (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to know why the crats felt they had the authority to go against consensus. With whom did they discuss this momentous decision first.  I think we are only seeing here the tip of the iceberg - and we all know what happened to the  Titanic.  I personally think this whole case is about the crats and their power, everything else being discussed here is a smoke-screen for this important discussion here. Giano 06:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In this recent RFA there were similar numbers of votes (quite a few less oppose votes in fact) and yet the RFA was unsuccessful due to lack of consensus. What was the difference in Carnildo's RFA  that meant consensus was established?  Sophia  06:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well for one thing I expect your example was not sending private emails to people in high places assuring them he had mended his ways! Giano 06:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo de-sysopped
1) Carnildo is de-sysopped, having failed to achieve community consensus to regain adminship at his last RfA. He may reapply at any time, without prejudice.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No, once was bad enough. Fred Bauder 18:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed only to get the meat out on the table. I don't know if anybody wants this, even those who opposed strongly at RfA/3 -- perhaps I'm wrong. I do smell the odor of it seeping out along the edges of many comments here.


 * Please note that a failure to endorse this proposed remedy is not an endorsement of Carnildo's promotion. That's not how it works. John Reid 07:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be more appropriate to look at the admin status of thos who have caused this mess by promoting him against consensus. Giano 07:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No way, they are just people who did their best. They just need a reminder. Fred Bauder 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is no reversal or qualification of the demotion of Carnildo, then he should be demoted. What is illogical is to say, "Bad 'crats! Bad! But we'll let this one slide."  In the past ArbCom has avoided the issue of "what is consensus," and wisely so, but, unless it now feels bold enough to set thresholds for consensus, it cannot be in the business of saying, "This last one wasn't by consensus, although we're not saying what consensus is."  Therefore, I can only imagine that either there has to be a modification of the prior decision on Carnildo or a demotion.  Personally, I do not think that a week or two of good behavior is telling, either way, but, personally, this has never been a case about persons.  Geogre 12:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at consensus and thinking about it. It means decision making which takes into consideration all points of view and to the extent possible, reconciles them, without bogging down in endless discussion or indecision. Well done, consensus maximizes acceptance of decisions, important for voluntary organizations. Fred Bauder 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That reminds me of a line of Alexander Pope's about critics, but all that needs to be said is that your definition is novel. No other definition has come near it, and I think it's idiosyncratic or born out of expediency rather than wisdom.  We have been defining consensus on RFA as 75% or more.  If there were going to be a change, it would have been nice for voters to have known, ahead of time, that their opinions didn't matter or that the goal posts had been moved.  In this particular RFA, there were quite a few people not voting, people who didn't want to "pile on" or hurt Carnildo's feelings more than had already been done.  I was restrained in my own "oppose" vote, for example, because I don't believe in irritating wounds.  However, had everyone known that this one user would need to meet a lower number or that the bureauocrats were, this one time, going to assert private rights, much would have been done differently.  Geogre 21:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * People have been making an Ass out of u and me about consensus having something to do with percentages more often, lately. :-/ Kim Bruning 13:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed? Who was it who argued that it should retain its strictly lexical meaning and should be the absence of any dissent?  Wasn't that Kim Brunning?  And this standard would be portable to RFA?  My argument was strictly on precedent, not on accuracy.  I would like to see the very notion of "consensus" eliminated from Wikipedia discussions, as it is never defined, never understood, and rarely capable of licensing appropriate action.  However, once it's there, and once it's defined in a particular way, we would need a discussion and approval before changing it.  Come down from the trees, Kim, and either contribute or put away the slingshot.  Geogre 17:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It worked on RFA for quite a while. Unfortunately, RFA does not scale. Kim Bruning 10:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Since Carnildo's admin activity since resysopping has been good, I cannot support this. Recommend instead that the ArbCom not endorse the RFA outcome (it was well below the consensus threshholds we have on RFA), but reinstate Carnildo as admin as proposed several stories above. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am to support Sjakkalle here. Carnildo did not do anything controversial since re-sysoping and his promotion can be considered as a sort of a miracle or an "Act of God". His temporal promotion will be under the Arbcom review anyway. Maybe we could have the precedent as a general rule that returning admins who got a majority support but not a consensus might be temporarily sysopped with a review of their administrative actions by Arbcom in two months? (I know it looks like the instruction creep, but it might be useful) abakharev 13:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Carnildo is not a party to the case, action cannot be taken against him without making him a party to the case, and the case is already quite enough of a mess without that. Newyorkbrad 13:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrat decision in WP:RFA/Carnildo 3 overturned
1) Bureaucrat decision to promote Carnildo to adminship is overturned.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We are not going to overturn it. We are going to affirm it as a good decision. At the same time we are going to point out that consensus is required under current policy. Fred Bauder 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble parsing this. Are you saying that the ArbCom will find:
 * that there was consensus in this case, or
 * that bureaucrats don't have to follow current policy, or
 * some other solution I'm not seeing? Zocky | picture popups 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus, the Bureaucrats should follow their own written policy. However, we are not going to jerk Carnildo around. Fred Bauder 22:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, my intention was to overturn the bureaucrat decision without jerking Carnildo around (as in actual desysopping). Zocky | picture popups 00:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, in the spirit of Geogre's and Sjakkalle's comments in the previos section. If there was no consensus, and since we've been arguing over it for weeks there obviosly wasn't, the decision cannot be left to stand. If ArbCom thinks that Carnildo should be an admin again, it should state so in its own name by modifying its previous decision. Zocky | picture popups 15:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly Fred Bauder 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly does "overturned" mean in this context? Is there a difference in effect between this and Carnildo de-sysopped? Is this the same loaf in a new wrapper or am I failing to see a fine point? The only other way I can interpret it is Carnildo is not de-sysopped but he is forbidden to take any admin action. The most esoteric interpretation is Carnildo is not de-sysopped but ArbCom formally labels his promotion as a mistake. -- and I don't think this is the intent. Am I wrong?


 * No matter what spin this is given, I can't pick it up. I'm as vehement as any speaker that b'crats must follow consensus and that consensus was not expressed to promote Carnildo. I don't draw a line between these and extend it to Carnildo's promotion is invalid. I say that Taxman exceeded his authority but I don't automatically equate this with Taxman made a bad decision. I don't know Carnildo enough to say. I respect the fact that other b'crats gave Taxman their prior endorsement of promotion; it does lend weight to the decision. I only say that this is insufficient; community consensus is required for b'crats to act. Even in violation of this principle, Taxman may have made a good decision -- and in any case, having made it even roughly and rudely in process, the decision itself stands. I do indeed make a fine point and I won't hold it against anyone if a few readings are needed to follow it.


 * The proposed remedy User:Taxman is entirely sufficient. Carnildo is not de-sysopped; Taxman is not de-b'cratted. We do not need to stand half the community up against the wall and shoot them down for treason. There was a breach of trust and it does go much deeper than the surface but here at ArbCom there is a limited range of remedies available and this is the most appropriate. John Reid 01:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea is straight-forward, really. Find that bureaucrats were wrong to promote, and decide Carnildo's admin status as a seperate matter, as a revision of previous ArbCom ruling. That way, the message is sent that bureaucrats can't promote this way without taking any sanctions against Carnildo, who hasn't done anything wrong in the matter that I'm aware of. Zocky | picture popups 02:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * As I noted above, Carnildo isn't a party to the case, no action can be taken against or in relation to him without making him a party, and the case is quite complicated enough already. Newyorkbrad 18:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The action I propose is neutral as to him. Fred Bauder 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's partly the point of this wording. There's no need to drag Carnildo into this, this is an issue between bureaucrats and community. If anything, overturning bureaucrat decision is a sanction against bureaucratship, not Carnildo (though I think it's a general project issue, and not an action against anybody). As I say above, ArbCom may decide to alter its previous decision with the same final effect, without allowing a flawed bureaucrat decision to stand. Zocky | picture popups 18:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so. Fred Bauder 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The bureaucrats have made a judgement call, and I don't think the arbcom should override them. Else there's a case or two I'd like to bring back before the Arbitration Committee *ahem* Kim Bruning 20:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They need to follow their own written policy or, after policy discussion by the community, change it. I do think RfA has become a rather nasty snakepit which perfectly good candidates cannot traverse. Fred Bauder 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you think we would need to reconsider, perhaps you could share your thinking. Fred Bauder 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh no, the point is that we don't want to go there. ;-)


 * Logically, bureaucrats should act in the best interests of wikipedia, as should all other users and systems. The arbitration committee also has always decided in the best interests of wikipedia.


 * Sometimes it's easy to confuse "the best interests of wikipedia" with "policy", but they're not the same thing.


 * This particular point is very tricky. It's part of a political battle between respectively "those disorganised anarchists" versus "those horrible rules-lawyers".


 * Kim Bruning 20:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, but note that it is the "anarchists" who are insisting on a fixed rule. Fred Bauder 22:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Damn right. It is proof-positive that there is a vast gulf between Clue-based systems and process-based systems.  Needless to say i prefer the former. Guy 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just adding that there's no real dichotomy between following written agreements and the interests of the encyclopedia. Real-life experience shows that when there are a lot of people involved in something, transparent and trusted processes are in the long-term interest of that something, even if the immediate result is not always perfect. Zocky | picture popups 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This could have been true, except our numbers show that most people are not involved in most parts of wikipedia most of the time. Kim Bruning 11:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly Fred Bauder 22:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fred's quote of "We are not going to overturn it." Does the rest of the commitee know that he is making this announcement? Because, if I may be frank for a moment, this has been pretty much a one-man-band from that quarter.  I'm unsure why, seeing as how clearly fixed the viewpoint was at the outset, we're bothering with this arbitration. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 22:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is quite possible that all the proposals I make will be rejected. Fred Bauder 22:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that the process was deeply flawed, but in the end don't retroactively remove Carnildo's adminship. He hasn't done anything wrong here, and has stayed well away from this mess, which is no doubt difficult for him, but admirable. I think that puts me in agreement with Zocky, but this is hard to follow. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder
1) is banned for 12 hours for violating the principle of courtesy and the dignity of an arbitrator with this edit.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Bishonen | talk 05:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC).


 * I support this block. I believe he is making some serious errors of judgement.  I was less than impressed also by this edit which had to be removed here  . Giano 07:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose; see next section. John Reid 06:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This remedy has a merit of being discussed with community, unlike Fred's revolting proposal of desysoping Geogre, which seems to have been discussed only in the depths of IRC if at all. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  07:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This smacks of a double standard to me. Giano chafes at a block by Kylu, after being warned to knock it off, including by members of his own circle, for far worse incivility, but supports a block, without prior warning, against Fred for one offhand remark. Am I the only person who finds this entirely laughable? ++Lar: t/c 11:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And the diff I provide Lar, what do you think of that, or do you to think being an Arb clerk here is akin to being a victim of the holocaust? Giano 12:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (If you could stick to the same formatting style as others in the thread and avoid excessive indents it would be helpful... I fixed your formatting for you, as I so often do... sigh.) Is that the only meaning for yellow star? Is it the meaning Fred intended? If it is, what exactly did he mean by it? If he meant that there are some here who are trying to demonise ArbCom, the crats, the power structure here, and so forth (something amply demonstrated elsewhere in evidence, and your own cohort admits they are fomenting for radical change) then it's a correct analogy but in no way an apt one, because in today's society, there is a form of Godwin's law in effect for any analogy to the holocaust or anything even remotely related. You mention it, you blow it... as an example, what do you think of this cartoon: ? did Leunig blow making his point with that reference? Many think he did. (His point is not a point I agree with, by the way, but I can see what he is getting at) I think before you condemn Fred (and, by your attempted extension above, me) for a view, you ought to be sure it's actually held. For the record I don't think being a clerk here is akin to being actually actively persecuted in real life, much less the way the Holocaust horrifically and tragically victims were, but I do think there are those that want to stigmatise clerks, make them wear markings (or recuse themselves unnecessarily) so they are so constrained in what they can do and say that their effectiveness is hampered, and in general these folk are not working to support the activities of clerks here. Yourself and your clique included. Fred's remark pointing this out, that there are those who want to so constrain clerks by marking them was less than apt but not a blockable offense, unless bad analogies are now blockable. Your characterisations of me (foolish, incompetent, et al), on the other hand were certainly beyond the pale, were certainly blockable if not redacted and if you continued to be incivil (which you did), and should have been formally apologised for by you in an appropriate time and place. They weren't. So you have little standing to criticise others for incivility or ill tempered remarks. Motes and beams and all that. You'd be better served to tend to your own issues, for they are many, than raise issues with others. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What a circuitous way to say "shut up!" -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  13:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you think that's what I was saying, but it wasn't. ++Lar: t/c 13:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadly, you're not. Then again, so are the way the last 24 hours or so have gone with this case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jeff. Are we meant to take this seriously? Hiding Talk 12:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the proposal to block a sitting arbitrator for comments made during the arbitration unhelpful (it also implicates the paradox of self-reference). This is without in any way agreeing that Fred Bauder's cited comments were appropriate. I was quite shocked by one of them in particular, but nothing is to be gained by discussing it further. Newyorkbrad 13:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good summary of the situation. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful, unneccessary, and not aimed at the problem. The harm Fred causes is due to him being on arbcom, not him editing. Fred thoroughly discredited himself here, but this will have whatever effect it has, without a block being neccessary. Friday (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is silly; just like the proposal to de-sysop User:Geogre for his participation. It should take more than a brief careless statement to get an arbitrator sitting on a case to himself be blocked. It is by no means clear that the statement was in any way an attack on any Wikipedia user whatsoever. At this rate, no arbitrators will want to take cases, or those who do will be trembling with fear that the proceedings will suddenly turn against them. This whole proceedings is becoming like the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, where everyone remotely involved is in danger of being guillotined. Oh no! Another tragic historical analogy... AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is silly and distracting. Can we cut off this entire section and focus back on business? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, though Fred has not made this any easier, this seems like a punishment. Though on a smaller scale, this makes no more sense than de-sysopping Geogre. This is getting out of contol, I think we should stop now and let the proposed decision develop. It seems to be moving in a direction that everyone can be happy (or at least live with) with, no small feat. Rx StrangeLove 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"I fixed your formatting"—pettiness
"I fixed your formatting for you, as I so often do...sigh". Plumbing some new depths of pettiness, Lar? What's the matter with you? Giano's dyslexic, isn't it obvious? When you take a look at yourself, do you really see a man who "comports himself" with civility at all times, as you like to say? Look more closely. I have tried to avoid prolonging your grudge against Giano by not speaking on this issue before, however many sideswipes at me you get in, but that sigh was too much. The grudge seems capable of prolonging itself indefinitely anyway, so what the hell. You don't have to worry about any repetition of this. I'm a believer in speaking once on a subject, so hopefully you and others will excuse me if I speak more fully than usual. Are you as proud as you seem of the phrase "no free pass", in relation to Giano? Has it ever struck you that to say "there are no free passes" every time you find occasion to attack Giano (which is a lot of occasions, together with occasion to mention how civil you are, and the barnstar you got for being so civil?) is a lot like saying "and btw I'm against evil, too", somewhere in every post? There's nobody on the other side. Nobody thinks that being an excellent content contributor should get a user a "free pass" from civility. Or have you come across an instance of a person who claims it? Implies it? (diff?) Have you noticed that nobody replies to your no free pass stuff? They ignore it and move on. In your evidence on the evidence page, you say that you have been quoted as saying that no editor ought to get a free pass etc—quoted, really? You have certainly been quoted in a sense:         —but quoted by somebody other than yourself, you mean? Incidentally, have you read Giano's evidence? If not, please take a look at what he says in the fourth paragraph, about being upset by the "constant reference to my boasts of contributions." Do you see where it says "I don't think anywhere have I ever mentioned my own perceived value to the project". Do you say he lies? And about his evidence altogether, not that I expect you to be moved by it, but have you thought at all about the situation of being at the center of this particular RFAR? To the point where it bears your name? Did you consider imposing a moratorium on yourself for this particular time, or was it just an opportunity? Would you consider it now? Bishonen | talk 17:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC).

Fred Bauder censured
is reminded of the dignity of an arbitrator, and banned for a period to be determined, for posting personal attacks and tasteless comments on talkpages of requests for arbitration. The first two examples are from this arbitration, the third from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/MONGO in early September 2006.
 * I'd like to see you say anything just 3 times, or even so little as a dozen times.—a surprise sneer at Geogre, surely one of theleast repetitive writers to have commented in this RFAR.
 * Perhaps a yellow star—implicit comparison of clerks to Holocaust victims and their critics to Nazis
 * Just the facts Ma'am, don't need to look at your cunt.—Er—no comment, really. No.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Since the proposal above was not well received, here's an alternative, with more examples. If this too is considered a Reign of Terror, I'm done.''' Bishonen | talk 21:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC).
 * This does look like another attempt to punish an arbitrator who has dared to express views contrary to those of the insurrectionists. --Tony Sidaway 21:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, AGF and don't call people you disagree with "insurrectionists." SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Insurrection: The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government." Are you and your confrontational wiki-friends a civil authority, or a constituted government now, Tony? Or is this just another example of your personal exemption from the general rules to remain civil? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support this motion, I would also suggest that Tony stop referring to those of alternate views as "insurrectionists" because it is not only inaccurate but now becoming rather tiresome. Giano 21:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it's not those I disagree with whom I was referring to as insurrectionists, but those who tried to usurp the powers of the bureaucrats and, when that failed, the arbitrators. I have stopped using that word to describe those people, but the phenomenon continues. --Tony Sidaway 02:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Insurrectionist (phenomenon) is just as wrong-headed as Insurrectionist (term). SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Or let's just tar and feather Fred, strip naked, burn down the courthouse, and run screaming into the night. This is starting to read like the script of a Marx Brothers film except those were funny. John Reid 06:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * After reading over the diffs, I think that they are being taken rather out of context. Especially with "gold star" sounding like badge (a la Sheriff), or even the reward for an A in school. (See the Gold Star article for another example). And the last diff seeming to be somewhat a Dragnet/Joe Friday pop culture comment. - jc37 21:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He did not say "gold star" he said "yellow" that is unambiguous and foul! Giano 22:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. And while I might disagree with Fred on occasion, this proposed remedy is very unhelpful. Raul654 21:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is another punishment and won't accomplish anything. If you have to include something like this, it should stop at the first sentence (and the title renamed). Otherwise wouldn't it be nice to end this? Rx StrangeLove 22:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ouch. OK, with 3, you've shown a pattern. However, to do so, you have had to venture outside this particular case, with that re:MONGO comment. Does it say somewhere in the guidelines that a given arbcom case won't solve all the problems in the world all at once? I'd support a reminder of dignity, but no blocking, unless there are more instances of this sort of thing here in relation to this case. There is something to be said for limiting damage, rather than inflicting more, as Raul and RxSL write. If there are more instances of incivility elsewhere, that seems to ask for a separate RfC. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite roundly criticizing specific proposals that Fred Bauder has made in this case and other cases, I greatly appreciate the workload he has taken on as the primary drafter of ArbCom decisions. His time commitment and dedication to his role in the project are substantial.  Nonetheless, each of his comments quoted above was seriously inappropriate, and each of them disturbed me when I read it at the time it was posted.
 * I urge that Fred Bauder review the proposed remedy he has drafted for Jdforrester - "Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator" - and that he accept this section of the Workshop as a reminder that he should do the same. Newyorkbrad 22:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, the point was made, let's move on. I agree that Fred should maintain the decorum, and it was me who said that he should have recused from this case. That said, if we want a working process, judges must be free from judgment for the work they do as judges. The alternatives are messy and counter-productive. Zocky | picture popups 04:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. Any objections in cutting off this section and the one above, just so that we can focus on the case proper? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Best not to remove sections. Ask a clerk for advice if you really feel it should be removed. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


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


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


 * This is not about ArbCom; if ArbCom members commented on Carnildo's RfA, they did so as private citizens. If any ArbCom member asserted ArbCom authority to steer the RfA, he did it in camera and this will not be an effective forum in which to explore possible malfeasance by ArbCom (obviously).


 * This is not about Giano's block by Carnildo; that is a dead issue. Giano is still unhappy and by now, I suspect, Carnildo is unhappy, too. Even if we take the revisionist, Orwellian step of expunging the action from the log, Giano will carry this grudge to his grave. Carnildo paid his price for that action; it's done.


 * This is not about the flow of commentary on Carnildo's RfA. Were I to find myself in that pillory, I would expect a stream of rotten tomatoes thrown at me in pure good fun, simply to discover how I held up under the sort of pressure demanded of an admin. If I'm an admin and I block somebody, he may very well call me a shithead. That's wrong; but it's important to our community that I not react in the same vein. Perhaps every admin should be insulted on his RfA, as rudely and obscenely as possible, so we can test his mettle.


 * This is not about the objections that were raised in the aftermath -- not about the objections themselves. Some of us might have phrased these objections more wisely but rational people need to avoid nitpicking. If I step on your toe and you say, "Get off my toe asshole!", I do not get to lean on your toe and whisper sweetly, "You need to ask me more nicely." I do get to take my foot off your toe and say "Please don't be so rude." But I must act first, not speak first.


 * This is -- to a point -- about the whitewash imposed by Tony, Kelly, Rdsmith, and others. It is a basic principle of open government -- by democracy, by consensus, by any system other than autocracy and dictatorship -- that questions will be asked of the servants of the community by the community they serve. These may come in nasty tones, with thrown stones, too -- but the trusted servants cannot duck the questions and neither can flappers duck for them. Note that Clerks are flappers for ArbCom; and Tony was indeed a Clerk. However, Wikipedia has a long and sad tradition of volunteer flappers rushing into the breach to obscure issues. This is bad but it is not the most important issue here.


 * This is, strictly speaking, not even about whether Carnildo was correctly promoted to adminship. Carnildo was promoted by Taxman; by definition, that is the last word on the subject. We empower b'crats to decide and that was the decision. We can begin a new action to de-admin Carnildo or we can let it ride -- but even if we could persuade Taxman that he did wrong, he does not himself have the power to undo the action. Only a Steward can do that.


 * Nor is this about standards for adminship, the bizarre tone of some recent RfA discussions, standards for de-adminship, or the failure to develop a process by which to submit Requests for Deadminship to Stewards. These are all policy issues, political issues that demand the participation of the whole community. ArbCom cannot decide here.


 * This is not about what we mean by "consensus" or how that applies to RfA. No matter how hard some try to avoid the point, it's pretty well settled that a supermajority of 80% has been our standard of promotion; that less than 75% support is insufficient; that between these limits a b'crat needs to employ discretion; and that in every case, the tally must be examined very closely for sockpuppets and otherwise invalid "votes". There are plenty of ways to game the system and b'crats are expected to defeat such attempts. On top of our current expectation there is a political movement to empower b'crats with greater latitude. ArbCom cannot steer this political discourse.


 * This is about civility. Wikipedians are constantly offensive to one another. I don't speak of foul language, which bothers me little; but discourteous action. We need to reach past direct, blunt, and forceful speech to control the pattern of rude, peremptory, confrontational action taken on a routine basis by many editors. Tony needs to get some credit, at least, for saying offensive things when doing offensive things, thus suiting action to the word and vice versa. Editors who perform brusque reverts; cavalier, self-will speedy deletions; and all kinds of process hijacking -- all with no note or a misleading, saccharine one -- must be controlled.


 * This RfArb is chiefly about one thing: Do we -- the Wikipedian Community -- control our b'crats? Fortunately, this is within the ambit of ArbCom. Policy exists on the matter; it has been so strongly supported, so implicitly assumed by such a broad range of editors for so many years, that there is little written policy on the subject -- but this does exist; it has so existed for a long time; nothing else on project contradicts it; and nobody has ever seriously disagreed with it -- until now.


 * ArbCom has a clear mandate to remove trusted servants from office who fail to merit the trust our community has reposed in them. Indeed, this is the chief function of ArbCom.


 * Common editors can fix problems of content and work to formulate policy; ArbCom does not settle content or policy issues. Ordinary admins can block editors indefinitely; we do not need ArbCom for this. Admins can step into any dispute between mere editors and impose a solution, by fiat, on any issue -- so long as it does not involve other admins. ArbCom is not needed to remind editors to be civil; admins do this -- and do it perfectly well unless other admins disagree and disagree badly. B'crats promote editors to other levels of access; ArbCom does not do this. What is left? When all is said and done, ArbCom does only one thing that editors, admins, and b'crats cannot do: ask of Stewards that user privileges be taken away. (We might, but Stewards are unlikely to listen.) As a corollary, ArbCom admonishes editors who hold such privileges; such admonishment is given weight by reason of the big stick ArbCom holds.


 * Therefore one action above all others is required in this case: that ArbCom admonish Taxman, the involved b'crat, to obey Wikipedian community policy in regards to RfA. Other b'crats need not be mentioned by name; they did not perform the action, however much they jiggled the actor's elbow. I'm sure they will all get the message, just the same.


 * Having closed this RfArb, we can all, as a community, discuss the substantial issues raised.


 * John Reid 07:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I beleive it is time to know who exactly was advising Taxman before he made the decision to promote. Giano 07:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


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


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


 * I'm actually referring to this which was arrived at only after a traversal through this and this.
 * I'm gobsmacked at the suggestion that I leave a note on the talk pages. Do we not have watchlists for goodness' sake?  Do we believe that those two will never look at the page again?  It's borderline nonsensical.
 * As to the intent of a finding of fact, isn't it to, erm, FIND FACTS? Forgive my incredulaty at thinking that adding facts changes the intent, unless we're agreeing that the intent was to present a highly biased reading of events.
 * Reasonable editors should be equipped with the tools to work together to present clear, concise versions of the actual events that transpired. Once we have in place the statements that are without dispute, we work towards interpretation, without supressing inconvenient facts.  If that is not what we're attempting to do here, please do explain what we are working towards.
 * brenneman color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 06:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I defend Tony's actions, but you edited something that they endorsed. Letting them know so they could make a decision on whether they endorsed your re-wording or not would have been polite (especially given that they don't endorse your re-wording).


 * As far as findings of fact go, yes, they're to find facts. However, these are all valid proposals.  If a finding of fact is absolutely biased, a simple "This statement is biased; see my proposed alteration below" in the General Discussion section would have sufficed.  The Committee's job is to read through and decide whether the proposals are truthful, not parties inside or outside the dispute.  Ral315 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've stated my resignation to this sad state of affiars on the talk page, but I'll say it again here: Enough people have told me this way is "how it works" that I'll stop complaining, but it's still a bit sad. The facts speak for themselves, and it seems vile to me to allow encourage people to present their own version of the truth.  But, yes, through complaining. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Should this continue?
At this point, I'm not sure that this case is serving a useful purpose and I'd like to open a discussion on whether the proceedings should continue. Please see here on the talk page. Newyorkbrad 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You may propose a motion to that effect if you wish. However you are not a party. Fred Bauder 11:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was considering requesting to intervene as a party for the purpose of offering such a motion, but rather than do so unilaterally, thought I should call for discussion on this issue on the talk page, which I did two days ago. From that discussion, there appears not to be a consensus in favor of such a motion, at least not at this time, so I won't make the motion at this stage. Newyorkbrad 14:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This case should continue because its primary purpose is to clarify the role of the bureaucrats. This is essential.  The other stuff is, while entertaining and potentially of interest to some individuals (particularly myself) really just a sideshow. --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I intend to reaffirm that we use consensus to make decisions and for very good reason. This one failure does not form a basis for adoption of a top-down command structure. Users can get that at Citizendium, if they [mistakenly] think it practical. Fred Bauder 23:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't propose a top-down command structure. But see my proposed principle "Wag the dog".  --Tony Sidaway 23:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but is the ArbCom the right body to clarify the role of the bureaucrats? Just a rhetorical question; no answer required; we'll see what evolves. Newyorkbrad 00:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry; rhetorically asked but a good question nonetheless. I answer no - but. No, ArbCom should not attempt to clarify policy; if policy is not clear, there is nothing to enforce. Our community must establish and clarify policy. ArbCom must enforce policy. Policy exists on the role of b'crats -- and it's already pretty clear. John Reid 07:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony, it's not up to you to declare what the primary purpose of the case is. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Newyorkbrad, part of the Arbitration Committee's function is to clarify policy. SlimVirgin, anybody can declare what the primary purpose of an arbitration case is.  That is in my view likely to be the most important question to be considered by the Committee. --Tony Sidaway 01:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, anyone can say what "what the primary purpose" is, but unless they are on the committee, they'd be talking through their hat. I've asked it once on the talk page, but I'll ask again: Can Tony Sidaway make some effort to limit his comments where they represent viewpoints as being other than his own?  I understand that he is a fan of rhetorical devices like the royal we and the pathetic fallacy, I too occasionally fall into this trap.  But if we could all say things like "I think foo" or "I believe bar" as opposed to sweeping statements, it would be preferable. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 01:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Specifically, this case is primarily about the role of bureaucrats in consulting the community, determining community consensus, explaining their decisions, dealing with objections to their decisions, and reviewing them. While this is my personal opinion, nor is it so out on a limb as to merit serious objections (qv). --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Tony, specifically this case is about whatever the ArbCom wants to make it about. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Quod vides. I merely observe what it has become about (personality issues aside).  --Tony Sidaway 21:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no, sorry, Slim, must disagree in strongest possible terms. What you assert is equal to declaring ArbCom all-powerful. If any ArbCom member asserts unlimited jurisdiction then I will stop editing projectspace and talkspace entirely; what would be the point? ArbCom is not Olympus. John Reid 07:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee does effectively have a free hand. SlimVirgin is correct to that extent.  The Committee could, for instance, pass findings and remedies involving editors not originally named as involved parties, determine whether consensus was reached in the Carnildo RFA, declare the RFA valid or invalid, sack bureaucrats, limit bureaucratic discretion, and many other possible actions.  The arbitration committee can consider any evidence it thinks is relevant, on or off wiki, public or confidential.  All this subject to appeal to Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 07:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Gross exaggeration Fred Bauder 11:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


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

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

(Dec 2006) A Modest Proposal
I sent this to the AC and asked if it was worth putting on the Workshop page for public consumption. They said go for it. I will doubtless be simultaneously condemned as a Giano appeaser and part of the conspiracy against him, and eagerly await the contribution of rotten tomatoes at my head from all involved - David Gerard 18:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano
Giano is a fantastically good encyclopedia writer. But the present conflict appears to be that he is not malicious or even a dick, but tragically naive. Consider his actions:
 * 1) Edits in which he states an intent to cause trouble and go out with a bang.
 * 2) Posting IRC logs.
 * 3) The paranoid rant at the top of his talk page. I mean, WHAT ON EARTH:


 * "I have left Wikipedia because intentionally or unintentionally many junior admins have been part of a plot against me orchestrated by Kelly Martin and James Forrester, and one or two of their admirers. This arose initially when I started to complain that too many admins wrote too little content. Basically it hit a raw nerve, and a campaign to rid Wikipedia of me has grown as a result as I have attempted to expose what has been going on behind the scenes."

Those three things are the sort of behaviours you see from people destined to become Wikipedia Review contributors. They're the sort of behaviours that experienced admins are very used to taking as sure signs of a contributor too differently-socialised to ever work well on Wikipedia.

I blocked Giano yesterday after seeing those edits and recalling precisely zero cases in which such edits had not been a prelude to serious trouble if not blocked immediately. I had a long chat right after to Bishonen, who knows him well, and she assured me that it would be unthinkable for him to vandalise, despite his stated intent at disruption, and I do trust Bishonen's good sense. And someone else had unblocked by then, which is fine (and why I posted it to WP:ANI, as a controversial block that I considered warranted immediate action but a sanity check).

BUT. He's not doing these things to troll. He honestly feels railroaded, and has and thinks stating his case as above will actually work for his cause - and honestly doesn't understand that in most circumstances, these are the sort of actions commonly regarded as indicators of being someone who really shouldn't be here. I pointed out the three things above to Bishonen and asked HOW THE HELL TO GET A CLUE ACROSS.

It really would be a hell of a loss to the encyclopedia project - you know, that thing we're supposed to be here to do - to lose him. Look at the article he put up today: Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery. That's just unbelievably good. (Of course, he can barely work a computer - his brilliance is elsewhere - so he cut'n'paste moved it from his userspace and Bish had to clean it up :-)

Blowing one's top in the face of incredible stupidity happens; Giano has gone past that to beleaguered. He's also way too quick to assume the absolute worst of any comment, e.g. some of those IRC logs he's been posting. e.g. In the past Kelly has spoken about how Giano is sure to be banned. Giano is aware of these comments it seems. Giano took it as a threat when Kelly wrote it as a statement of the obvious. He does that a lot - he's feeling beleaguered enough to first assume any statement is an attack or a prelude to one.

He doesn't yet understand that working productively with people you consider complete idiots is not optional on Wikipedia.

(This, by the way, is what I think the frequent outside complaint of "anti-expert bias" at Wikipedia really means - we don't insulate the experts from the stupid. In academia, they've evolved mechanisms to deal with complete idiots you have to work with; wiki is way too young a social space to have quite managed it as yet.)

(Y'know, in academia, they get people like this, lock them in a room or lab with resources, leave them to get on with great work and interpose a firewall of assistants between them and the rest of the world. Giano makes some of our more troublesome past experts look like Jimmy Carter in terms of feel for diplomacy.)

Giano, assume you're not going to get justice or retribution for past wrongs (see below). What would it take for you to continue to add to the sum of human knowledge on or for en: Wikipedia?

WP:ANI
It's not realistically possible to see what is going on in WP:ANI as dispute resolution at all. Threaded discussion, people grandstanding and seeking attention, and a studied use of red herrings. While it is comprehensible in the terms that Giano's "side" object to the convening of kangaroo courts, and evidence-gathering for those, they're doing zero to stop the cycle of provocative behaviour.

Others are clearly at fault, too. But other's bad behaviour is not an excuse. Godsake, you people are ADMINS. You were picked for your COOL HEADS and SENSIBLE JUDGEMENT and SOCIAL CLUE. You are NOT HELPING the person you are supposedly defending, you're PERPETUATING THE SHITFIGHT.

#wikipedia-en-admins
IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins is good on its good days, and of course is great when you really need an admin right now, but has bouts of stupid. It's still the place to go when you need an admin NOW, or for a quick second opinion (or indeed an uninvolved admin where you don't feel it's right to be the one acting on something yourself). I know the option has been considered of just pulling the plug on the damn thing as a nice idea that failed (suggesting to the Foundation that it be officially deprecated and Freenode be asked to pull chanserv support, etc. from it). That would be a shame.

IRC logs are not reliable evidence of anything because there is no reliable source. Even though I doubt any of the participants in this case would fake a log. However, anything they literally did not log themselves, they may have been fed by someone who may have edited out material they considered extraneous but which in fact wasn't. Etc. Etc.

Modest proposals
My suggestions for the AC, the people who get to solve this one:


 * Forget justice and punishment and working out who was right and who was wrong. That's the subject of the disgraceful admin shitfight, and it's not working. Just pull the kids apart from each other.
 * "We're not here to mete out justice and measured punishments and retribution. The AC really does not care one jot about that. We're here to stop the problem."
 * Every single person in the case is acting in good faith. They just assume the worst faith of each other.
 * Principle: the one about assuming bad faith being bad because it leads to ill feeling, dehumanising one's opponent and often vicious personal attacks. Example edits: a zillion daily at present.
 * "The AC is **VERY** disappointed in the admins involved in this disgraceful row. Their behaviour has been unbecoming to adminship and has only exacerbated the dispute."
 * Tailored behaviour paroles on all admin shitfight regulars. Work out who these are from the WP:ANI history and the case evidence. Write the behaviour paroles specifically not to behave in the ways they have been behaving to anyone, and to restrict them from interacting as far as is feasible with their perceived opponents.
 * In particular, Geogre/El C: We know Kelly Martin is Satan, we've got that point now. Nobody cares any more. Really really.
 * Find someone to help Giano concerning social clue on wiki. Bish, you know him well, I suspect job finds you.
 * #wikipedia-en-admins - the AC doesn't run it so can't control it, but point to the thread on suggested behaviour rules on WP:AN.
 * "Treat #wikipedia-en-admins as if every word is being said in public (it isn't, but IRC clients tend to log by default these days anyway). It's not somewhere to let off steam about what an idiot you think someone is. Be collegial. Respect each other's judgement. YOU'RE ADMINS! You were PICKED for your JUDGEMENT!"
 * Forget justice and punishment and working out who was right and who was wrong. That's the subject of the disgraceful admin shitfight, and it's not working. Just pull the kids apart from each other. I said that before, but it's worth saying again. If you get justice out of it, that's a nice extra. "We're not here to mete out justice and measured punishments and retribution. The AC really does not care one jot about that. We're here to stop the problem."

Rotten tomatoes regarding the above
Go for it. - David Gerard 18:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One: i don't think Giano's all that paranoid at all, and if it is just paranoia, he's entirely entitled to that position given past treatment of him by a number of people both named and not named. Two: People will try to dismiss the logs, but there are enough places that have the logs publicized that are not involved with this situation that it would be easy to cross-reference.  The accuracy of the logs, however, is not as relevant as the overbearing fact that decisions are being made on IRC that should be made on-wiki, and that regular editors are often not privy to those discussions even though there's no reason for that to be so.  Three, regarding point three in your bullet list - people still care.  If she's still involved in the decision-making process on IRC, we care.  If she, who resigned "under a cloud," is still worthy of more attention/responsibility than those of us who were not in her position, we care.
 * Unfortunately, nothing of worth is going to come of this unless all involved parties are, at the very least, recognized. Two days in, and it still doesn't look like that will happen, and that's unfortunate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the cloud came from the userbox war idiocy, where she was lynched for removing blatant copyright violations because the community wanted its picture userboxes. That counts as a plus for her, not a minus. And whether the rant is justified or not is not what I'm talking about - the form is that of a paranoid nutter. I'm saying that perception is inaccurate - David Gerard 19:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The cloud came from a lot of things, not just the infobox crap. This is slowly beginning to display a gross misunderstanding of what's going on here, and this is bothersome. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You've failed to point out how this is worse than what's happening now, or worse than my alternate proposal is to ban all involved for at least a month. It's at the stage where this shit has gotta stop, and you're ALL going to be sent to your rooms - David Gerard 20:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dave, your analysis of the situation is about as accurate as your analysis of Kelly (given how often you write about getting along, it's incredible that you just don't get how badly Kelly didn't get along with others) but it would be better to give all concerned a month off. Let them see whether they can get by without it. The histrionics and playacting are ridiculous. And Dave, we're assuming there's a conspiracy because of the elephant in the room. You just not seeing it? A temperamental editor, a trollable editor, is being picked on to wind him up. That he gets wound up is not really his fault. You are pretty much saying "someone teach Giano not to be a sensitive boy". Nice reading of Wikilove, Dave. Grace Note 06:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When you advocate "hardban(ning) the shit stirrer" in this edit, is that an example of the Wikilove you describe? - C HAIRBOY (☎) 06:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. See how I said that Dave does the lectures on civility? Not me. I'm of the opinion that pretending to be civil is fine for schoolboys but grownups probably should just stick to treating each other like, erm, grownups. And yes, I think that people who try to ban other people's clubs should probably just be excluded. It'd improve the tone a great deal. Sorta cruel to be kind. Lots of ways to love one another, Chairboy, some of them tougher than others. Grace Note 08:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a brilliant, lateral thinking proposal. My comments are more nits at the edges than any sort of broad criticism
 * "Every single person in the case is acting in good faith. They just assume the worst faith of each other." I'm sorry but.... assuming bad faith of others is NOT acting in good faith. It just is not. The defense that it is stupidity on the good faith person doesn't hold. Skip the kumbaya, but we must try to be civil and must try to assume the best of others even if we think they are not doing so of us. That doesn't mean civility warnings and timeouts, I give up on those.
 * "Find someone to help Giano concerning social clue on wiki. Bish, you know him well, I suspect job finds you." I suspect I am not the only person who has pleaded with Bishonen to do something like this. I suspect she will not accept this task. But it is needful. Someone has to. Heck, I'd do it if I thought Giano would accept my counsel, because I truly think the world of him, despite his behaviour which has been unacceptable. The community has failed Giano and other good writers with poor social skills like him... 	You can argue that it is not our problem, and for the people like comanche_cph (to pick an example at random) who aren't good writers and dont have fans, don't have a core of folk invested in their contributions and their companionship, it's true. But for someone as key to a core of people as Giano is, it IS our problem.
 * "Be collegiate. " -> "Be collegial. " a nit but I do pick at nits when I find them :)
 * A brilliant proposal DG and thank you for bringing it forth, you have done us all a great service. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Lar, can you POSSIBLY think you're helping ? Bishonen | talk 19:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Yes. Hopefully you are too. ++Lar: t/c 19:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a hint: claiming the problem is a failing of helping those with "poor social skills" probably isn't helping. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A large part of it is. Someone who thinks that assuming conspiracy will get what they want, when I know very well that all the supposed conspirators have a lifetime's worth of better things to do than mess up Giano's life, is missing important clues for as socially demanding an environment as Wikipedia - David Gerard 19:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To be frank, that's bullshit. Could he have handled some of the situations that have occurred better?  Undoubtedly.  Did they occur because he has "poor social skills," or because any weaknesses have been baited and exploited ad nauseum with not only lack of action, but encouragement?  That's probably more the case, and I can't buy into your doubts about the "supposed conspirators" at all.  I'm smarter than that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jeff and Bishonen, I'm sorry if it seems like I'm not helping with my support for what I think is a good proposal. No offense was intended with my wording choices... But as DG said just above, "poor social skills" seems to be apt at least on-wiki, and it isn't exactly a new term I invented. "Find someone to help Giano concerning social clue on wiki." and "He doesn't yet understand that working productively with people you consider complete idiots is not optional on Wikipedia." are not my words, they are DG's. I nevertheless regret the wording choice, especially since it is overly broad, it was intended in the on-wiki context, not real life or anywhere else, and regret it if it gave offense or didn't help. I also acknowledge that whatever I personally think of my intentions and desires, that some do not see me as a neutral party, but rather as part of one of the factions, as part of the problem. I don't agree, and I don't want to be in any factions on this, but perceptions are what they are, we cannot always change them as we would like. I like and respect Giano and am saddened that the feeling is apparently not reciprocated, but that's the extent of any factionalism. I also am explicitly not offering to take the role that DG urged on Bishonen, I just said "I'd do it if I thought it would do any good" as a rhetorical device, to show the depth of my desire to find a productive and amicable way out of this. Hope that clarifies things. This is a good proposal, that's the main thing, I think. Look at all of it not just some. ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To blame this on "social clue," on "lack of social skills," or anything like that is a complete misrepresentation, and leaves a lot of people off the hook. Furthermore, I'm sure Giano's worked with many idiots - the difference is that the idiots he probably works well with don't bait and troll him at multiple opportunities, and then sit back while he reacts in exactly the way they wanted.  I don't nkow if you're part of any faction - I haven't approached it as such, in any regard - but is there really any doubt that more than one person has responsibility?  Giano's certainly responsible for his own actions, but what about everyone else? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not "blame"; it's explaining a fact. It may not be fair that some people act like baiters and bullies, it may not be fair that the victim is responsible for not reacting badly and seems to be blamed if he does, but it happens.  It happens all the time.
 * The point is not to dole out any further blame. The point is to figure out how -- if at all possible -- to dig people out of the holes they've dug and find a way to move forward without dwelling on the mistakes and spilt milk of the past.  The trick is to understand the participants well enough to hammer out a diplomatic compromise, without seeming to assign blame, without dwelling on the past, without digging the holes any deeper. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's exactly because of my understanding of many of the participants that I know "diplomatic compromise" is impossible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said Jeff, we may be talking past each other and I'm missing what you are driving at, but I am left wondering what, specifically, do you see as the way out of this? I think it might be helpful to put forth a concrete proposal of your own if none of the others are satisfactory. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In a word, accountability. not only holding Giano accountable, but all parties who continue baiting each other, attacking each other, and causing problems on and off wiki.  It appears that the only person people want to go after here is Giano, which is patently absurd given the behaviors of many people involved, and does nothing to solve the overriding issue that was never adequately addressed in the first round and has only gotten worse, namely the perceptions that editors are out to get admins who do not meet community standards, and that admins are out to get editors who don't toe the admin line.  As with any perception, there's an inkling of truth, but until someone stands up and says "this isn't right, and this has to stop, and this is what's going to happen because it hasn't stopped, and this is what will happen in the future if it continues," it's only going to continue to get worse.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While I think the community has failed Giano, and thus there's lots of blame to go around, blaming is missing the point. The point of this proposal is to get past blame and move on to how to find ways to resolve this. I'll personally accept whatever culpability you care to personally assign me, if it will help you internalise this any. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No need for that kind of attitude about it. Until we can legitimately identify those who are responsible, there's no way we can figure out a resolution.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We might be talking past each other, regrettably. I strongly agree with the last point in the proposal, the one that starts "Forget justice and punishment and working out who was right and who was wrong."... I used to think that assigning blame, figuring out who was "responsible", and handing out punitive blocks would be the way through this case. I no longer do. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Given how things have gone since the original arbitration, the idea that any repurcussions on either side would be "punitive" is laughable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the big problems in these situations is taking sides, at all. Once you've taken a side, it's too easy to make knee-jerk assumptions that everything your side says or does is right, and everything the other does is wrong.  It's too easy for all the friends-and-relations of people on one side or the other to show up en masse and turn a tiff into a dogpile, make a mountain out of a molehill, make an even bigger tempest in the teapot.
 * Most of the time, the reality is that there are way more than two simple sides, and that each "side" has done some things right and some things wrong, and that many or most of the "wrong" things were more misunderstood than malicious, and... like that. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I put it forward as better than what's happening now. The current shitfight is more damaging to the project than the alleged previous causes of action. As I've said elsewhere, my second option to the above is at least a month ban on all involved. (Whoever "all" is.) - David Gerard 19:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to specifically retract my use of the term "poor social skills" in reference to Giano, which I have striken out, above, and specifically apologise to Giano and anyone else that may have taken offense at it for my poor wording choice and for any offense I may have given. It was a poor social skill on my part to use that term. I'd strike out my explanations too if I thought it wouldn't be too disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Neat idea, and anything that can bring this guy back from the precipice is great. Regarding the suggestion to use Bishonen, one obstacle to consider is that I believe Bishonen has unreservedly defended Giano in the past, and if that's correct, then it might leave Giano believing that she was simultaneously defending his social missteps. If she were to be the person to work with him, I feel that she would need to make it clear to him that there's a difference between defending the person and defending the behavior, otherwise it might send a mixed message. Also, whoever works with Giano to fix these problems will need to be someone who has made their stance on the inappropriateness of this type of incivility clear. I'm not certain Bishonen has done that yet, but again, I may have missed the relevant edit. If so, it'd be quick to fix. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 19:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If she's unfound the job, fine. The point is someone Giano trusts not to mess him around - David Gerard 19:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

People who throw a tantrum need a time out. Wiki-Vacations are useful. Help friends by insisting they take a vacation every now and then. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. WAS 4.250 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I endorse this product or service. Especially the bit about pulling the kids apart and adopting a policy of actively not caring who was right and who was wrong (even if such a thing could be established in those simple terms). Of course, as a parent, this is one of my standard techniques with my kids as well :-) Guy (Help!) 20:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to think we could forgive and forget and focus on to productive editing, but I think at least some of the people involved have held on to past grievances ( to name just one) for 6 months or more, so I don't know if forgive and forget will work.    I was wondering whether it be good for some of the people involved to edit under another account name part of the time... that way, people won't stalk their edits, and if the same issues come up again (eg. civiliity or whatnot), perhaps that could be understood as legitimate things to address, rather than part of a larger conspiracy.  (I've heard several admins say that they edit under a sock when they want to get away from politics and focus back on editing) --Interiot 21:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If only that were legitimately possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Socks? Editing as a sock is legitimate.  If a sock isn't used for mainly disruptive purposes, they'll likely never be checkusered.  And using a sock to contribute content away from the political limelight is 100% acceptable, since that's our only goal here, after all.  --Interiot 22:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly agree. I especially think we should just assume this could work, rather than pick over it, otherwise we'll kill it before it has a chance.  I really think it is time to call it water under the bridge, however hard that is, and make a line in the sand from now. I do agree that Giano's contributions are of the highest standard, and I apologise for never having realised that before.  There certainly does need to be some way we can untie this mess.  The community or the arb-com should certainly issue the "I don't care who started it, I'm ending it and I don't want to hear anymore about it again" speech.  Hiding Talk 11:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology, and please cut it out
I apologize if I seemed to imply that Lar didn't mean to help with his post. I know he did. But calling other users' social skills "poor" is really not his place. "Good writers with poor social skills" is presumptuous and condescending. Opining about how I can be a better friend to Giano is very intrusive. Or, well, I thought it was; after Chairboy's uninhibited musings above on whether to "use Bishonen", nothing else much seems very intrusive. Let me clarify my position here:

My friends are more important to me than the encyclopedia. (I wonder if I can be blocked for saying that? Perhaps it makes me "not here to help the encyclopedia.") I have no notion of putting the interests of Wikipedia before theirs. But wouldn't I "be a better friend to Giano" as Lar once put i (for it is indeed not his first time of discussing the subject) if I tried to teach him a more wiki-acceptable demeanour? I believe not. In the first place I'm the best-placed person to know whether it would be likely to work, coming from me, and secondly.... well, the other reasons are none of your business, dear reader, because they're personal. At the moment it seems likely that Giano will leave the project. I don't consider that a disaster for him, as he has a very full life without Wikipedia. If it's a disaster for the project—and personally, I think that would be puttiing it a bit strongly—then some people should have thought of that earlier.

I'm thinking of drafting a new policy about Not Commenting on the Relationships of Others on Wikipedia, shortcut WP:BUTTOUT. And another one on not describing people in terms, for instance of having poor social skills. Not Commenting on the Personal Qualities of Other People. Catchy nutshell version: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Oh, wait, we've already got that one. Until and unless WP:BUTTOUT becomes operative, I will just invite everybody to not speculate on my possible role vis-à-vis Giano. It's offensive. I'd really urge Chairboy not to do that again. Finally, I appreciate the tact and good sense of David, whose suggestion (well, the part that pertained to me) had nothing objectionable about it. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Dear oh dear. Talk about "social clue", do David Gerard, Lar, and Chairboy have no idea how lacing their suggestions, some of which are good, with terms like "social clue", "social skills" etc. and the rest of it, is horribly, almost shudderingly patronising, to the point of lacking a social clue itself? (No, because they are trying to help; but, bear in mind the possibility.) May I request that all further contributors here avoid such jarring notes and concentrate on improving the way we speak to and about each other on Wikipedia, starting now. In my opinion, Giano exploded because of the accumulated pressure of being talked down to as if he was a child or a fool: let's start addressing ways to avoid treating people like that, which only makes things worse (and could, in my opinion, lead to one of Giano's friends—I don't know him myself, by the way—being provoked into blowing their tops, with the risk of being blocked, further down this page). qp10qp 21:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bishonen, all he was saying as you are someone close to Giano (which I couldnt really give a toss about myself), you may be the one best suited to helping him this difficult time. I don't see that as offensive or prying?  Maybe there's something that's gone on which I missed and if there is, I apologize for my niavete. Cheers, ✎ <font color="#696">Peter M Dodge  ( <font color="#696">Talk to Me  &bull; <font color="#696">Neutrality Project  ) 00:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter, Is there anything relevant that you or I or Bishonen knows that Giano doesn't? Giano thinks there are people out to get him.  As far as I can tell, there are.  He decides to respond by showing that he isn't intimidated, that he'd rather die on his feet than give in to 'them'.  He's a big boy, that's his decision.  Regards, Ben Aveling 12:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is probably the essence of the problem. If you attack others because you think they are after you, they will get after you. That said, we don't have to just be victims of this dynamic. I am willing to accept Giano fully, provided he starts to work on being more courteous and extends some measure of good faith to others. But he needs to make at least some noises too, about being more courteous, maybe making an apology or two, etc. Assuming he wants to be here on those terms. Bottom line, reasonable courtesy is a condition of editing on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 14:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But we know that they were after him. This isn't think.  Where's your "acceptance" of the problem admins that keep baiting him?  Where's the request for apology?  You're right - reasonable courtesy is a condition, and I'm still waiting to see Giano receive that from certain members of our community who are allegedly supposed to know better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Peter, I wonder at this itch to poke at people. Is it so impossible to not jabber pointlessly at me on a subject which *you* don't "give a toss about" and which *I* have told you I find offensive? After I mentioned that, everybody else has managed to keep off it. Please show a little respect and common sense and remove your edit. (This one with it, naturally.) Bishonen | talk 04:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
 * You find it offensive that someone would reach out to someone close to a troubled editor? That's hard to understand in the least.  I really don't give a hoot what your relationship with Giano is, but you're clearly the one that is in the best position to help him out of this untenable position.  As a matter of personal belief, I would not be able to call myself someone's friend if I were unwilling to help them through troubled times alike to the kind Giano is in now.  I do put friends before Wikipedia too - those few I have, and my social standing on Wikipedia is something which I would willingly compromise to keep my integrity and aid a friend in need, which is why I find your rationale in the matter quite confusing.  Cheers, ✎ <font color="#696">Peter M Dodge  ( <font color="#696">Talk to Me  &bull; <font color="#696">Neutrality Project  )
 * I think that Dave was using "social clue" in a rather restricted sense. The notion is that there are skills that will help you get along in Wikipedia that differ from what might be considered useful elsewhere, which is very true. Grace Note 06:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion
I have never spoken regarding any of these issues, and am probably uninformed about many of the details, despite reading a great deal about it. However, I do have two thoughts: 1)Giano has some issues (not, from what I can see, totally unfounded, though perhaps blown out of proportion) about the impartiality of a lot of the editors passing judgement on him. While I have sympathy for anyone wading into this dispute, I do have a lot of natural sympathy (as I expect a lot of the users involved do) for his "speaking truth to power" stance.  No one seems to dispute that he perceives unfair treatment, and I think all are sympathetic to "someone" in that position. 2)The high emotions of the incidents seem to have cast level-headed individuals who may have been able to sort the matter out into the role of his "defenders" or "prosecutors" whether they wanted it that way or not. I agree that another devisive Arbcom case will serve no purpose on Wikipedia and I agree that a new solution must be found. Good contributors should not be sent away, particularly under clouds that damage dispute the resolution procedures themselves. Maybe this is totally irrational and overly instruction-creepy, but here's my suggestion: One member of the Arbcom, and one advocate for Giano, select a (for lack of a better word) "jury" purely for the purpose of arbitrating this case. The basic rules would be similar to jury selection -- a series of questions, with either side able to refuse any "juror" for any reason. This small group of uninvolved editors make a series of findings that all editors involve agree (in advance) to abide by. The arbcom agrees to rubberstamp it, making it have the power of an arbcom ruling, however holding the parties involved to the remedies would be the responsibility of the jury, not of just any admin. We are a community, let the community see the facts and decide. There are plenty of editors not involved in this conflict in the slightest and able to be impartial. Conflicts like this tend to obscure that fact, but it's true. Cheers Dina 21:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, that's all great, but I think that it would actually be better if one side was told "leave Giano alone" and Giano was told "get over it" and anyone who contravened that got a month to think about whether their Wikipedia social standing really is that important to the goal of making an encyclopaedia. People such as James F don't even edit the same pages as Giano that I know of. Grace Note 06:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It pains me to say it, but it appears to me that this would just be setting up the powderkeg for the next explosion. It only takes one event -- Carnildo's RfA, ArbCom elections -- for this "stay away from the other side" imperative to be completely trampled upon, at which point, I imagine, we'd be back to square one again. theProject 22:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Third suggestion
Back to basic: the purpose of the project is to write articles in the mainspace not to develop social skills. Everybody there agree that Giano is a brilliant article writer. I am not aware of his social skills handicapping his article-writing ability. He is not biting newbies or fellow editors but he sometimes involved in mild attacks against a few admins (current and retired) and arbitrators. The main task of admins is to provide productive editors with comfortable working conditions for the article writing. The task of protecting their own personal pride by using punitive blocks is not the purpose of their tenures. On the other hand it is admin's duty to swallow the personal pride and ignore personal attacks if it serves the project.

Taking all this into account, the best solution for the admins in conflict with Giano is to simply ignore him. AFAIK there are no mainspace articles they are editing together. They can simply put notices on their talkpages like: "All accusations against me by Giano are bullshit, but I am a grown-up and ignore his crap because he is a useful contributor". You may not believe it but there are thousands of things everyday (besides Giano's communication skills) that require admin attention, there are also millions of redlinks and stubs. If Giano would suddenly start biting newbies, vandalizing main space articles, posting personal info, making legal treats etc., let his known friends fix the problem, it seems there are many of them. Alex Bakharev 11:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hallelujah. This resolution would make far more sense than anything that has been prescribed thusfar. Rebecca 01:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This makes a lot more sense than David Gerard's puerile and condescending proposal. I therefore predict that no one will dare to try it out. Nandesuka 14:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The arbitrators generally ignore attacks, although repeated unfounded attacks do reduce the respect accorded to your positions. I guess administrators should also cut some slack. Part of the problem with Giano is that the line needs to be drawn somewhere and he rejects any limit. Bottom line, reasonable courtesy is a condition of editing Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 15:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what is puerile and condescending about David's proposal (which is, fundamentally, that everyone concerned should knock it the hell off right now). David's speculation about Giano's mental state might be considered condescending, but it is an aside to the main proposal.


 * I agree, however, that part of 'knock it off' is that all concerned should attempt to ignore each other and not respond to any insults that do occur; in other words, defuse the situation instead of escalating. One unfortunate consequence of 'No personal attacks' is that it has encouraged people to be unforgiving, to be over-critical of others' behavior, to hold grudges and nurse slights, and to see the problem as being exclusively that of the other.


 * However, long-term, tolerating incivility is going to lose contributors, those who do not function well in a combative, aggressive and uncivil atmosphere. We should be prepared to forgive incivility, but that doesn't mean it is acceptable, either. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Giano's "incivility" is directed only at a few contributors, most of whom are not known for their own civility. I see little evidence to warrant sanctioning him on the grounds that "tolerating it will lose contributors who do not function well in a combative atmosphere"; I do see evidence of his treatment costing (or potentially costing) us several very good users. IMO, Alex's suggestion is a very good one, and should be given the attention it deserves. Rebecca 01:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do agree. My caveat is that I'm concerned about encouraging further incivility by other people in future, unrelated to this - in other words, giving a precedent for it.  In a case like this, when the incivility is restricted to a few users, I do feel that the best instruction is for all concerned to avoid each other and to refrain from responding to each other. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is by far the best proposal I've seen. (I like much about David's also). Paul August &#9742; 06:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this sounds like a good suggestion to me; it improves on what I don't like about David's suggestion above (the banning, which I think is not necessary). &mdash; mark &#9998; 14:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And what happens when some user or admin can't ignore the flagrant incivility directed their way by Giano? Nobody is perfect; surely you accept this maxim by proposing this resolution (the ideal situation would be that everyone started being civil, not just that Giano continues being incivil and the rest of us ignore it).  So what if some user comes along who can't just ignore Giano; is it then their fault, and they are blocked, because Giano has a problem?  None of this makes even the remotest of sense.  We have to apply the same standards to everyone.  If we start letting Giano getting away with incivility and tell others that they should just ignore him rather than addressing the root cause of the problem, others are going to start using that defense too.  Rather than encouraging an atmosphere of civility for all, we'll see an atmosphere of people being really rude, and telling others to "just ignore it" if they can't handle it.  I don't think many editors could prosper in such an environment.  Wikipedia: the largest collection of flame wars on the Internet?  Bahhh.  --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys  07:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that in this case, as in many similar cases, Giano was not the only one who displayed incivility. He felt, as I understand it, that he'd been treated badly, and it was only when his complaints about that bad behavior were rebuffed that he became angry and "counterattacked".
 * This is not to condone his incivility -- two wrongs do not make a right -- but only to point out the hypocrisy inherent in blaming him alone for it. If, instead of becoming incivil, he was supposed to have ignored the attacks he perceived, or assumed good faith, or something, then the people he was allegedly incivil to should have done the same.  But instead they escalated the antagonism, and here we are. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess if the incivility cannot be ignored, then the right way is to ask an admin who is known to certainly not be a member of the "evil cabal conspiring to get Giano" (I guess Geogre or me could be right choices, maybe we could ask Giano for the names of admins he trusts). The best way to demonstrate to him that there is no cabal conspiring against him is to stop behaving like there is one. I also suggested to give Giano access to the IRC channel he believes is busy plotting against him, but I am not sure the response for this proposal was positive. In general it would also help if somebody who issued blocks with incivil summaries and/or blocks in suspicious circumstances and/or made uncivil attacks against Giano on the blogosphere or IRC to bring their apologies. It is not a shame to make the first step trying to solve a conflict and administrators are chosen to behave according to the stricter standards than the other users. Alex Bakharev 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "We have to apply the same standards to everyone", very well. If you are so much for civility it is commendable but why not start this from cleaning your own house? Where do you speak more, in Wikipedia space or in the IRC discussions? So, when someone at IRC pounces at the opponent with rude remarks or, worse yet, unloads the load of rudeness towards the editor who is not even at the channel to know what is being said about him, call such an uncivil IRC user to order. How about kickbanning from the channel the users who are rude and uncivil? That would be a good first step in "encouraging an atmosphere of civility for all". --Irpen 08:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent proposal Alex! I am also starting to believe that 90% of the time the best way to deal with incivility is to ignore it. Incivility occurs when someone is angry or upset because they have been slighted or treated with arrogance, and responding by "You! Please be civil" only inflames the situation further. Respond only with discussion on the issue which is in dispute and lead by example: be very polite and diplomatic yourself. Usually an incivil editor will silently regret the past rudeness and even if no apology is forthcoming there will be a cool-down. If you must make a mention of someone's incivility, then phrase it in a way which makes the message sound "positive", an encouragement to be polite and thoughtful instead of a warning like "behave or be blocked". And for goodness sake, tell them about them in your own words, don't use template messages, they come off as extremely curt and rude. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is irreplaceable and nobody is exempt from policy. The rules are and should be flexible based on circumstance, but what you're proposing is a blanket exemption. For whatever reason, the intersection of highly-productive editors and routinely incivil editors is very small. The corrosive effect that will follow from putting certain editors above the law will be far greater than the loss to the encyclopedia that will ensue if their contributions dry up. - Merzbow 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I think we have to wipe the slate clean and start again. Everyone involved says sorry and shakes hands, and we draw a line.  And we keep a better eye on it all and we try to avoid letting it all happen again.  It's all well and good to ask what happens when this occurs, but I think at this stage we have to wave a lot goodbye and start from a position of crossing the bridges as we hit them.  Any attempts to work out how to deal with future situations will simply become contentious once again.  Would all parties sign up to a fresh start?  It's a new year, can we all agree a resolution to accept a portion of having wronged and a portion of having been wronged and let it go? Hiding Talk 10:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is a fair answer. There are problems on both sides, and thus a remedy that only acknowledges a single side is inherently wrong. Note that, as Sjakkalle points out, Jdforrester is a party to the "Giano" case and thus should be recused on it rather than voting for one-sided remedies. <font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  10:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merzbow, my observations donot support your findings. I have read that 50% of the mainspace edits are made by 500 editors. AFAIK almost nobody of this 500 is replaceable: meaning that with any of them them go a significant wikicorner is bound to go into a crappy state. When I returned from a week vacation I found 6 editors go because of some personal conflict: User:Giano, User:Ghirlandajo, User:Irpen, User:Halibutt, User:Balcer and User:Bishonen. None of them is easily replaceable and at least three: Ghirlandajo, Irpen and Halibutt are the bedrocks of the wikicorner I am care about. Anyone of them going permanently would mean that my tenure as an admin is clearly failed. Looking around me I could not see any really productive mainstream editor without a sort of a personal conflict and occasional incivility. I would guess that our task as admins is to create conditions for the productive editors allowing them to fully employ their talents for the good of the project rather than to facilitate their departure. On the other hand the rules are just texts in the wikispace, if they prevent us to get the full potential from our authors - lets edit 'em. Currently we have abundance of gaming with the NPA policy. The adversaries are really baiting each other and received something that with some imagination can be classified as a personal attack they cry Hallelujah and start to shop the numerous boards and personal administrative contacts for the most extensive block of their opponents. I personally find such a gaming disgusting and would rather amend the policies to stop it. Alex Bakharev 10:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you got those statistics, but they're flat wrong. The majority of the encyclopedia is written by anonymous users.  The next largest chunk is written by on-again, off-again contributors you've never heard of.  The 500 most active contributors only contribute to some smallish fraction of the overall encyclopedia.  It's not nearly as focused on individual contributions as you seem to think it is.  --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys  15:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The statistics is from attributed to Jimbo Wales. ..50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users ... 524 people. ... And in fact the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits." The remaining 25% of edits, he said, were from "people who [are] contributing ... a minor change of a fact or a minor spelling fix ... or something like that." In case the data are outdated List of Wikipedians by number of edits tells that people on the list (2483) makes approximately 50% of all edits. Not all the edits are equal: many anonymous and single article accounts contributed large chunks of information, while many users with higher edit numbering do categories, links, murkup, NPOVing etc. Still without 500 top users the place would like more like a Google cash rather than a whole tightly knit body of knowledge. Alex Bakharev 16:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind the stats, I just have to check my watchlist each day to see how much some of the editors mentioned are doing. Alex Bakharev, in my opinion, is exactly right: this isn't the real world, so we don't have to follow any rules at all, just do what's best for the encyclopedia—and cutting such editors some slack accords with that (Merzbow's "nobody is irreplaceable and nobody is exempt from policy" and Cyde's "we have to apply the same standards to everyone" in my opinion do not accord with that). Of course, you don't have to be highly strung and combative to be a high-value article-maker (take the remarkable Angus McLellan), but clearly a volatile obsessiveness drives some high-level editors, without which they would not be the contributors they are (if you've never spent five hours researching one phrase, you might not see the connection).


 * I also agree with every word of Sjakkalle's and Rebecca's posts: ignoring people who get worked up (I mean, without damaging articles) is no more than standard assertiveness in action, achieving the best result quickest, which is de-escalation. qp10qp 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Alex, you're missing the conclusion that article makes, which in fact runs counter to Jimbo's claim that Wikipedia is written by a dedicated cadre of the top few hundred contributors. The article's central conclusion is that all mainspace edits are not equal; outsiders who make only occasional edits contribute the vast amount of text, and the "insiders" such as those in the top 500 contribute more to formatting and janitorial tasks.


 * And back to the central discussion, I've seen far more editors leave the project because they were subject to incivility that was not checked in time than I've seen editors leave who were punished too harshly for their incivility. I see no precedent in this community for carving out permanent exceptions for any editor, period. Should the pseudo-official IRC channels be subject to some reform? Definitely. Was Giano subject to some unfairness, such as the posting of Kelly Martin's off-wiki diatribe as Evidence? Yes. Does occasional victimhood excuse occasional incivility? Yes. But no more than that. - Merzbow 19:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree. An atmosphere of incivility and free-floating flamewar is really offputting to milder-mannered contributors. This is a project to write an encyclopedia, not Usenet or a message board. I have a skin like a rhinoceros, but I can hardly require everyone else to have one just to edit here. I've seen new and casual contributors be scared off way too easily. (I even have an apparently "Reliable Source"!) The "No Personal Attacks" rule is hard policy for damn good reason. And I find it ridiculous that anyone can consider the continuous sniping and character assassination from Giano and Geogre is acceptable behaviour even if they're right - David Gerard 17:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * David, you are correct that WP:NPA and WP:CIV are useful and needed. The issue here is, however, different from arguing whether these rules make sense and are useful. These policies are used sometimes as a tool to "win" by hunting down the opponent. The opponent is first baited and provoked and then accused in incivility. Some users use these tricks to win content disputes. Others use it in policy debates. I can point to many blocks allegedly for PA and WP:CIV where there were none of those really. The commendable policies that exist to curb really filthy-mouthed problem users are used all too often frivolously. Clearly, this is the case here as well. --Irpen 18:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A number of my friends here can be classified as milder-mannered contributors, and from numerous conversations with them, I know for a fact that they are far more put off by stalking and harassment from mainly non-writing admins and the byzantine policies and procedures they use as justifications (face it, policy can now be used to justify virtually any attrocity here) than by occasional incivility drive-bys. I'm sure quite a few of them are put off by these proceedings as well, especially since it centers around a hamfisted, covert and apparently successful attempt to drive away a fellow editor.
 * They are wondering, as am I, who is next on the Comité de salut public's hitlist? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody is saying incivility is acceptable. Just that you don't stop it by joining in.qp10qp 18:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fundamental attribution error, David. You keep pointing out the incivility by Giano and ignore the incivility at Giano. Neither is acceptable, but focusing on only one of them implies the other one is somehow better. <font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  10:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An excellent point Radiant! I stongly endorse it and Alex Bakharev's very even-handed suggestion. If anything, admins should be held to much HIGHER standards of behavior, civility and accountability. A round of administrative paroles all around might be in order to get this message across loud and clear: Administrative abuse and harassment of established editors will not be tolerated...even if they think it is right.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fourth suggestion
As Giano has left, let's just drop the subject. If he comes back, let's let him have a fresh start. Meanwhile let's get rid of the admin IRC and replace it with an invitation only channel on which there is no chatting. Right now I can't even be on it, as any solid stuff is just lost in the nonsense and "mooing". Fred Bauder 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I could support this. Paul August &#9742; 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And if he comes back and starts having the exact same problems, what then? As far as I can tell there is strong precedent for not canceling arbitration cases merely because one of the participants has temporarily left.  Even very recently we've had arbitration in absentia.  --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys  01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he's gone. When and if he comes back, give him a fresh start. If he starts up again, over and over and over, ban him. Fred Bauder 02:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, he hasn't yet left. --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys  19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And the baiting? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The baiting needs to stop, and frankly, God help whoever baits him if he comes back and tries to do right. Fred Bauder 02:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the channel is as good of a response to this mess as cutting down a forest is to the problem of deer running in front of cars. I was the admin who's block Giano claims was the result of conspiracy on #wikipedia-en-admins. The channel was not used to plot his block, there wasn't a massive Star chamber of secretive admins in robes cackling over his misfortunes between animal sacrifices and lines of cocaine, despite what some of the people involved in this might suggest. This would be a silly overreaction and would exhibit some of the dumbest traits of mob rule. We can do better. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 01:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nastyness on that channel is a problem. Fred Bauder 02:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Two separate issues here: (1) what, if anything, to do about the pending motions or any remedy in a reopened "Giano" case; (2) what, if anything, to do about the channel. I suggest that the discussions be kept separate (really, only (1) is within ArbCom's purview anyhow). I'll only comment on (1): I don't think there's any useful remedy that ArbCom could promulgate vis-a-vis Giano at this point. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Arbcom has been discussing the matter of the channel with Jimbo, although not in the exact terms I mention. Precisely what should be done is open for general discussion. Fred Bauder 02:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more with Fred Bauder and Newyorkbrad. Continuing this ArbCom case serves no purpose. Giano's opponents - and they are real people, not paranoid fantasies - have won. Further ArbCom sanctions would be the equivalent of dancing on the grave of a great contributor.
 * I am not neutral in this conflict. The accurate quote at the top of my user page makes my bias clear. The belief that superb writers are easily replaceable cogs is...sad. (I typed a somewhat stronger term than "sad", then erased it in a fit of wiki-conscience.) It is regrettable that this belief prevailed here. All we can do is stop further proceedings as a tiny step towards ensuring that such things don't happen again. Casey Abell 03:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the proposal is very well intentioned but will not really help either as it will simply keep worms in the can until the next bomb explodes. This is one of very few instances where I actually happen to agree with Cyde. Do not just sweep it under the rug.

Please remember that neither Giano is the main source of these problems nor the case is centered on him. The original case was titled "Giano" rather arbitrary. Those who remember how it came into being will understand what I mean and those who don't, check the talk:RfArb page where I briefly reminded the original circumstances that brought this strangest ArbCom case I've seen.

Those who follow the recent developments would also likely agree that while Giano may be one of the most prominent actors of this long-going drama that took a new turn (precisely because the last ArbCom did not go all the way to sort things out and worms were kept in the can), there are multiple characters and even groups vigorously maintaining the opposing views. So, we need to sort this out. One can say, all right, let's sort this out at the policy pages. My answer is that it won't work. It won't for the same reason that it did not. For one, the non-writing admins tend to be overrepresented in the Wikipedia space in general and in the policy pages in particular while editors, including those who have admin buttons, mostly keep it to Mainspace and go to the Policy pages when events take really dramatic turns. And many reasonable attempts to improve, clarify or change the policies and guidelines, are stonewalled by the tightly concerted groups coordinated over IRC. Those actions are opposed precisely because they challenge the structure where self-proclaimed "bedrocks of Wikipedia" feel themselves "in charge". Only when things get really screwed the editors make an effort to address the grievous problems while they simply tolerated them most of the time preferring not to get involved. Examples of such screwups include orchestrated in the backstage Carnildo promotion, Tony Sidaway running around with block buttons or a recent series of IRC orchestrated blocks along with IRC logs that got leaked.

Recent developments that caused all this bad blood have the same causes as the original outcry, lack of transparency maintained by a small group of Wikipedians in how they do things (not all of them are even admins, so I would not generalize to blame everything on Admin abuse alone). This should just not ever happen again and ArbCom is the only body with the authority to dig out all or some of those responsible for this mess and root out the part of problem that lies simply on the behavior of certain users. Giano just happened to be on their way and he, along with a handful of other editors, was the most voiceful. But we should not just drop it assuming that he leaves. Firstly, for the sake of the Encyclopedia's quality we better all prey that he won't leave (as well as for the Enyclopedia's integrity). Secondly, even with Giano gone and problems not addressed we will get another major crisis brewing.

Should ArbCom address the old problem within the old case or should the new case be started as suggested recently by one former abitrator does not matter. That we do not just move on but deal with the issues first is necessary. Policies allow ArbCom to act when, for instance, the existing Blocking policy is violated. Policies allow ArbCom to rule whether certain users are engaged in taunting, baiting and provoking their opponents in order to present the deeply-rooted controversies as primitive Civility and NPA issues. Such activity is against both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policies. ArbCom should deal with that. --Irpen 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the nature of humans to socialize, form groups and personal loyalties, and engage in power struggles. You describe that happening at Wikipedia. Arbcom can't change human nature. WAS 4.250 05:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "A recent series of IRC orchestrated blocks along with IRC logs that got leaked" &mdash; That is a very serious and damaging accusation; do you actually have any proof? I've seen this accusation being thrown around before, but when I investigated further, the logs actually showed something a bit different than what was claimed.  Oftentimes they should discussion, not collusion, and even sometimes, argument, rather than coercion.  Please forward me via private email whatever evidence you may have that leads you to this accusation.  --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys  04:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, I do not see your being in position to investigate anything especially in this particular case. If ArbCom asks me to communicate with them in private, I will try my best to help them with all I could. However, I strongly doubt that I know anything that ArbCom already does not know. Currently, I am only caling on ArbCom not to drop the case but rather try to get to the bottom of it. --Irpen 04:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, Irpen. Appealing as it may seem to close this matter for now, there is still far too much dirty laundry left to deal with. Important questions of openness, transparency and just how much weight IRC or any off-Wiki activities, should carry on Wiki need to be addressed. If you want to close a case, Fred, then please look into closing this one. Thanks:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As things sit now that is not going to happen. If you wish to make a request for arbitration, please do so, but support it with diffs that demonstrate your contentions. Fred Bauder 06:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you cannot offer support for such outrageous accusations then do not make them. It doesn't help anything to have such damaging, unfounded accusations being bandied about.  --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys  14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, I repeat one more time that I stand by every word I said and your grand standing is misplaced and outright outrageous. Some evidence due to its nature cannot be posted to the public pages. I am certain the ArbCom is aware of much more than information that I happen to have. If I am wrong and the ArbCom contacts me privately, I will respond accordingly. I did not say that I "cannot offer support" as you claim above. I only meant that I avoid communicating in private with the editors whom I do not trust.

Oh, and while at it, I can add that much info is already on the web. I accidentally discovered that. I was actually not looking for IRC logs on the web but I was merely googling for the ("checkuser abuse" +ombudsman) string which was prompted by my unrelated exchange with a different editor. The second link from top was to an IRC log that literally shattered me. Much more can be found by just googling, btw. --Irpen 02:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fourth suggestion 2
I read the logs that you just referred to and, while there is interesting stuff there, there is nothing there about "A recent series of IRC orchestrated blocks". Until you can provide evidence of this it is not I who is grandstanding, it is you. You made the outlandish accusation and you have to offer proof of it. --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's funny! Seriously.  That's highlarious.  "Prove that IRC was used or shut up.  If you do prove it, you will be blocked forever for posting logs."  Isn't that, um, kind of why we're here and why no one thinks Cyde's particularly, uh, helpful in this argument?  Crowbait 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I referred to the log above as an example of what stuff goes on on #admin. I was not referring to that particular log as a proof that recent blocks were IRC orchestrated. The log above is about Checkuser abuse, which may be related but a different matter. Besides, it is from several months ago.


 * And for the last time, Cyde, I am aware that the accusation I leveled are serious. However, I am sure that ArbCom is already in the possession of all the relevant information and should they feel they need to contact me to clarify something, they will do so all right. Or maybe they already did.


 * Contrary to what you state, I am ready to back up my statement with the proof. and I stand by the original statement I made. I am sure that these and related issues are being discussed now intensely by ArbCom at their closed channels. I only said that I will not be emailing anything to user:Cyde and I said above why. --Irpen 19:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Irpen, I feel it's important for me to chime in here. I just want to caution everyone, not to make the mistake I did.  When I suggested the original case way back when, I also thought ArbCom knew everything they needed from just the discussions on AN, AN/I and BN.  In fact, I think a lot of people went through this case thinking their issues and opinions were plainly apparent, that "everyone knows what's going on."  But there's the rub.  Many people don't agree with each other what's going on, and worse, because it involved off-wiki communication, they can't talk it out.


 * Now, I'm not suggesting anyone violate privacy policies by posting IRC logs or emails or anything here...I am suggesting if anyone has sensitive information and serious accusations to go along with them, to contact ArbCom either individually or via their email list. Explain your concerns, describe the evidence you have (before sending out actual emails or logs).  Give them the opportunity to tell you if they want to see it or not.  Vague accusations, no matter how oft repeated, won't convince anyone...and Cyde isn't the one you need to focus on anyhow.  --InkSplotch 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Inksplotch, fancy seeing you here, and at this precise and exact moment in time with your coded message. "Quelle coincidence!". I think my patience is now wearing very thin indeed. Giano 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um...you've entirely lost me there. I'm not even sure what sort of "code" my message is supposed to imply.  --InkSplotch 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We are starting to look at logs, but so far they have been edited, without timestamps. There is a problem. I left it on last night, while sleeping, and there was one rather nasty exchange. Anyway, if you have a decent log that shows something, please send it to us. Fred Bauder 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The logs were edited at my request. In requesting the logs, I asked them to "condense" the logs - e.g, remove irrelavant discussion (but only whole lines). do. Giano and Bishonen were following the instructions I gave them. I did so because I did not think the other arbitrators wanted to go pouring through many hundreds of kilobtes of discussion. Apparently I was mistaken. Raul654 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And who, pray tell, gave Giano logs to #admins? Was it Bishonen?  You imply that they were editing them together.  --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys  23:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also come to the conclusion that the channel rules against public logging has contributed significantly to the current problem, in the sense that the people using the admin channel are using that rule to attempt to censor any discussion of unacceptable behavior that is occurring in the admins channel. This is not to say I disagree with the rule in general, but I think (in this particular case) it is being abused. So, to put it bluntly - I really don't care how Giano, Bish, et al got the logs - I care about the patterns of behavior they illustrate. Raul654 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And why, pray tell, are you, Cyde, worried about Giano's seeing those logs in the first place? Do they reveal anything about you or anyone else that just makes one look bad? It's simple, Cyde. Just don't do or say anything that would look shameful if publicly revealed. When I engage in private correspondence I never say anything that if made known would make me feel ashamed. Just don't do anything unethical, don't plot ridding from your opponents, be it with filling their block log with frivolous against the policy blocks with the slurring summaries or baiting them by placing newbie templates at their talk pages to get the response you like to use as a pretext for a block. Just don't plot or enact anything of that sort.

The damning log about Checkuser abuse pointed above is a proof that you cannot rely on things remaining secretive. R.D.H. correctly points below that anyone would be damn foolish to rely on assuming that the things typed and transmitted through a network will remain secret forever. There plenty of logs out there.

But there is more to it. If #admin channel is shut down as Fred suggested, while a useful measure which will likely make the repetition of previous blunders less likely, it would by now means guarantee it. True enough that nothing can prevent the same characters to converge at different channels, like opening a new secretive IRC group or something. This has likely happened already.

So, ArbCom needs to treat the past outside of the policy IRC blocks harshly. Whether Chairboy and Betacommand are desysopped for violations of blocking policies within this case's development or should a separate case be started as has been suggested, only when the ArbCom makes it clear that similar violations carry dire consequences the problem will be finally solved because the damage comes not from the IRC discussions themselves but by the onwiki actions planned there. --Irpen 02:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Howdy! What blocking policies did we violate?  I'm a bit surprised to see the suggestion that I be de-sysopped.  Perhaps you've confused me with someone else? - C HAIRBOY (☎) 02:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like you missed a link to a diff in my post above. --Irpen 03:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Irpen, you seem to have asserted above that I violated blocking policies, can you give some specifics? A few folks have seemed pretty upset with me, but whenever I ask for specifics, it sorta fades away.  I asked Rebecca to start an RFAR on me so we could clear things up, but there hasn't been any progress on that yet.  If you could help out by specifying what I did wrong or get things rolling so we can resolve this thing, I'd appreciate it.  _I_ know I didn't collude or conspire or whatnot against Giano, if there's some way to clear my name with the group that thinks I did, then I'll do anything I can to help. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The language being used in that diff is just ridiculously overblown. This whole charade reminds me of Joseph McCarthy's phantom list of Communists; a small number of people claim to have secret logs that they set forth as being career-ending evidence against a small number of other people. But so far the only excerpt to become public (the one that Giano spammed) is pretty underwhelming. It is quite obviously snipped out of context to make one or two remarks clearly made in jest out to be statements worthy of a James Bond bad guy.


 * Arbitrators have stated they have the logs and are looking them over. Until they make a public statement about what they found, I see no point in either side in the dispute referring to them again, because you're not going to convince those who don't have the logs (because they can't check themselves), and you're clearly not going to convince the "other side", so why bother? - Merzbow 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the Information Age, anyone who thinks their information is somehow sacrosanct or immune to prying eyeballs, is living in a fool's paradise. A disconcerting thought but a true one none the less.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Have we learnt nothing?
I don't know how far I'm perceived to be neutral in all of this, but if there is any way for people to pull back from making grandiose statements then perhaps everyone will allow me to suggest the time is now. Sometimes there is dignity in silence. I'm puzzled as to how people believe this sorry state of affairs helps anything. Is it not possible for all parties to find some modicum of restraint within their hearts? Hiding Talk 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I was thinking that maybe we were making progress towards a better way of handling conflict than punative blocks, but now this: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.  Regards, Ben Aveling 06:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fifth suggestion

 * Since this was a more general discussion of case naming, I have moved it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. Thatcher131 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On Clean Kills And IRC Fairies
Giano is right...the reputation of #wikipedia-en-admins has been soiled beyond repair. Its use, therefore, as a quasi-official gathering place for admins, ex-admins and their groupies has been compromised. It is also equally obvious, and unfortunate, that IRC remains the traditional toy of choice, and it is unrealistic to expect it to be suddenly abandoned. As a compromise, therefore, I propose the following to all interested parties (That includes you ArbComm:)-
 * Create a new official, public channel for en-admins and arbs. The key features of which will be: Open logs, linkable and admissible on the Wiki itself. The same codes of on-Wiki conduct (such as civility and No personal attacks) would apply to the channel itself. Those violating these codes would be subject to the same sanctions (warnings/blocks/bans) on the channel and could even be held accoutable on Wiki itself if the violations are serious enough. Neutral moderators would enforce these codes.
 * User:Jdforrester can keep his private, unofficial IRC nook wot he created (you're welcome James:) and invite whomever the hell he wants on there or make any rules he fancies. But it must be clearly stated and understood that it is an off-wiki social gathering place with no official bearing at all. What happens in Jdforrester-Land stays in Jdforrester-Land!
 * Allowing this case to remain open and hanging swordlike over Giano's head, is not only unfair to him but sets a dangerous precedent. If an old case can be suddenly reopened, and kept open as a tacit threat, then no one who has previously escaped from the meat-grinder is safe from continued prosecution if not outright persecution! So I, respectfully but strongly, urge the committee, whether or not they adapt any of the above suggestions to please Shit or get off the pot and close this case once and for all.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)