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


 * ../findings of fact/

Template
X) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Copyright
.9) It is vital that Wikipedia users avoid copyright violations. It is important to doublecheck both written material and images regarding their copyright status and remove material which violates copyright.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 20:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * If this is a way of saying "Carnildo does a jolly good job", I welcome it, but is it really relevant to the case? --Tony Sidaway 21:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, because some objectors opposed precisely because Carnildo has been trying to deal with copyright violation. Fred Bauder 22:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Putting on my Carnac hat, I'd say Fred is heading in the direction of reevaluating Carnildo's RFA in light of the fact that some opposers' motives were not in the best interests of Wikipedia in general. Thatcher131 22:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Direct from Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. - Aaron Brenneman 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Direct from Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. - Aaron Brenneman 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy
1.1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. See No personal attacks and Civility.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Edited, as suggested by Fred. I've removed statements that should be part of a remedy. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

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


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


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


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


 * From Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude and Requests for arbitration/Lir. - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Following on from the thread of "except disruption can mean almost anything" I'd like for the ArbCom to consider giving us a metric for disruption. - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 03:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The metric is, and always has been, administrator discretion, barring lack of consensus. Admins can block for disruption, preferably with support of other admins at ANI if it's controversial. There isn't really a metric possible. I'd support a proposal like this one. Dmcdevit·t 09:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that certain people sometimes block for disruption without giving a warning first. I think most blocks of established users for disruption could be avoided if the person who thinks disruption is taking place is required to first warn the person in question: "I consider your behaviour to be disruptive. Please stop the discussion/take the discussion to the appropriate place." Only after such a warning has been ignored, should blocks for disruption be imposed. In most cases, I think the blocking admin rushes in and thinks "if I block, it will stop the disruption", when in fact a warning may be all that is needed. Indeed, an over-hasty block will usually cause more ill-feeling and hassle later (like this RfArb). Carcharoth 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The flip side of that coin is that we have people who bridle at being warned not to be disruptive. Evidence I introduced demonstrates, in my view, that Giano is one such person. The warning he was given prior to his earlier block, if anything, made his behaviour worse. So it's not enough to say one should warn first, although it is always a good idea. It's also necessary to recognise that they don't always work. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I ask Lar to apologise and withdraw that remark, each time I have been blocked it has been against policy and immediately lifted, please see Diff log here . I'm attempting to assume good faith but it is becoming difficult. Giano 07:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Lar's comments have been unhelpful throughout and I would have revoked this, if admins were not supposed to be elected "for life". -- Ghirla -трёп-  09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In the absence of the unambiguous definition of "disruption", the principle gives a free hand to rogue admins. Giano's block log is the irrefutable evidence that blocking policy is extremely vague and that "disruption" is currently invoked by those admins who seek personal vendettas against good-faith editors. Sometimes a secretive IRC conversation decides who should be blocked. -- Ghirla -трёп-  09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * Comment by others:
 * From from Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, principles 1 to 3. - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship
3.1) Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who becomes an administrator, Requests for adminship. "Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here", "Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions",Requests_for_adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 12:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Decision is made by the community. Fred Bauder 12:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments by parties:
 * The bureaucrats interpret the statements of the community to decide whether a decision has been made, and act accordingly. The community isn't just the people who choose to vote in a straw poll.  Some of those who participate in a straw poll or subsequently ask for the result to be overturned (such as User:Juppiter) may be doing so for reasons that are unequivocally against the interests of the encyclopedia and the community, and might be said to occupy, themselves, a somewhat questionable role in the community..  The bureaucrats can be expected to be aware of this.  We can do better than this.  Haranguing our best people is not the right thing to do (I know, I accept that I've harangued more good people for longer than anyone else, but really I don't think it's acceptable to bully someone off Wikipedia or out of adminship or any other role). --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others:

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


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


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


 * Comment by others:
 * From Requests for arbitration/GRider, my additions embolded. - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 00:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Goodness. I think that it's quite clear from the input of Fred Bauder to date that claims of my partisanship or bias are somewhat incongruous.  This principle is a restatement of a very simple concept: People want things to work the way they worked before.  If the rules are going to change, tell us they are going to change.  If we cannot agree that it's in the best interest of everyone involved to demonstrate this basic level of mutual respect, please do just close this arbitration now.  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 13:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't redact that, but it reads rather more harshly than I intended. This principle does not in any way preclude the Bureaucrats from excercising discretion, it merely points out that if, in doing so, they have made up some entirly new rules they are bound to ruffle feathers.  The comparison to deletion discussions is quite apt: The range of administrator discretion is actually quite small, and any adminstrator who strays outside it does so with the understanding that serious questions will be asked. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 13:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The first part of this text does not reflect actual practice. See current revision of Wikipedia:Consensus . Guidelines are formed by consensus, of course. Consensus is not formed by guidelines. Tacking on an additional requirement for people determining consensus is really odd indeed. Wikipedia is NOT a bureaucracy. I don't think this description/interpretation of consensus has consensus :-) Kim Bruning 19:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, no, but it does have bureaucrats. I think in areas where consensus is determined by editors through a closing mechanism, mostly XFD and RfA, there's a need for transparency.  I'm not convinced for the need for consistency.  One wouldn't expect bad mistakes consistently, and I don't agree that Wikipedia should follow a precedent based system.  I would hope we are flexible enough to evaluate on the merits of the case. Hiding Talk 20:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a huge chasm between behaving consistantly and being bound by precedent. Consistancy mearly implies that an editor can expect something similar to happen next time as last time.  To use the flogged-horse of articles for deletion again, while we don't have a consistant outcome on (for example) video game deletions, we approach them in the same manner every time: Debate, discussion, slagging match, decision.   This principle is mearly meant to support a "wikipedia is not anarchy" feeling. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 23:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can accept all that, but consistency can't become a fact. That way lies stagnation.  I think this was an exceptional case.  I've stated elsewhere that I think the community should have had input into the decision to create probationary admin propmotions.  To me, that's the wiki way, and that's the way I'd like to see this happen in future.  In fact, I think I'll add that as a proposal. Hiding Talk 13:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope we never get to the point of need ing RFA Review the way we now have deletion review. But transparency is absolutely essential to the functioning of a consensus system.  Transparency helps make it clear why the consensus is as declared, what the community standards are, and how the final decision is reached.   Consistency is nice, but not essential.  GRBerry 05:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus
4.1) Consensus, a guideline provides, "If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached." "Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision", Consensus decision-making.


 * Comments by arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 12:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments by parties:


 * Comments by others:

Advantages of consensus
4.2) "Because it seeks to minimize objection, it is popular with voluntary organizations, wherein decisions are more likely to be carried out when they are most widely approved. Consensus methods are desirable when enforcement of the decision is unfeasible, such that every participant will be required to act on the decision independently." Consensus_decision-making.


 * Comments by arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 13:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments by parties:


 * Comments by others:

Problems with consensus
4.3) Consensus requires patience and experience and in some cases may not work at all, see Consensus and Consensus_decision-making.


 * Comments by arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 13:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments by parties:


 * Comments by others:

Failure of consensus
4.4) Failure of consensus in a difficult case does not abrogate Consensus as the optimal method of making decisions in a way which maximizes support for decision.


 * Comments by arbitrators:
 * Fred Bauder 20:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments by parties:


 * Comments by others:
 * This seems an important point to me... see, for example WP:SRNC where specific deviation from normal process (after a specific failure to reach consensus happened) is not in any way a disendorsement of consensus. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 02:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * If only because the Committee must, amongst other things, consider evidence that contains confidential information. --Tony Sidaway 02:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with any serious calls to move the Arb's discussion into the public view. The only concern expressed widely was who and why engages into the ArbCom-l discussions and how appropriate is for the dismissed and especially recused (presumably due to an interest conflict) arbitrators to participate in specific case discussions. Occasional private communication with single or several sitting arbs from a party of the case or anyone is one thing, but being able to engage into such discussions on permament basis wields significant and extra-procedural influence. Tranparency calls only implied the tranpsarency of the rules and procedures, not of the specifics of the discussions. More is available at this Policy change proposal. --Irpen 09:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Two arbitrators have commented on your proposal, both rejecting it. This is unlikely to fly.  If I can discuss a case with an arbitrator, I don't see why any other Wikipedian shouldn't be permitted to do so.  Being an arbitrator isn't a ball and chain. --Tony Sidaway 16:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Seems to me however, that these discussions shouldn't even be referred to outside of the list, since it causes bad blood to even know some topics have been discussed. That confidentiality cuts both ways.  It shouldn't be flaunted but should be respected on both sides. I'm quite happy for that stuff being confidential, but no-one should be in a position to tell me I've been subject to discussions on the list.  I'd hope the arb-com can see that such circumstances lead to an understandable call for full disclosure, and this is perhaps an area the arb-com needs to consider. What do you do if such discussion is flaunted? The community is bound by confidentiality it has no power to remove.  Arb-com have imposed this confidentiality, surely they either have to declare how to deal with any breaches or they have to allow the community to work an answer out. Hiding Talk 21:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is troublesome when someone on the list discloses that a subject was discussed (but of course what we discuss is self-evident. We discuss most controversial issues which concern us, and some that don't). It is seldom that the discussion did not include more than one point of view on a matter, as otherwise discussion would not be worth having. A report cannot duplicate the entire discussion, thus is almost always somewhat misleading. However a rule requiring full release if there has been an accidental or imprudent release defeats the purpose of confidentiality, freedom to discuss matters candidly. Fred Bauder 12:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I take your point. I would hope, however, that such disclosures aren't condoned. Hiding Talk 14:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The provacy of arbcom list has never been contested. What was contested is the controversial access of former arbitrators, outvoted or even fired, to it. And what's more, there is no provision for recused arbcomers to be dissociated from the case. (the matter was already raised on WT:RFAR and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_policy, with quite uncertain conclusions. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The matter of participation by recused arbitrators in discussions of matters they have recused themselves from troubles me too, but our practice allows it. Perhaps an issue for the next ArbCom election. I find most input by ex-arbitrators useful. Fred Bauder 12:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats
6) Bureaucrats are bound by policy and current consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, usually after a successful request at Requests for adminship.....They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions upon request and in a civil manner., Bureaucrats


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 02:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * comment by Richardshusr comment by Ram-Man comment by Dragons flight. Fred Bauder 14:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Thus I find the wording of this principle insufficient and weak. John Reid 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, language at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats is better and I have changed it. Fred Bauder 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I agree. I'm not entirely convinced that the Carnildo case was a really difficult case originally. The way I see it, the difficulties arose from closing it as a promotion with an unprecedented low percentage. At any rate, the principle is relevant. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  14:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether they are bound by the view of consensus which requires a super-majority. They have decided that they are not. They seem to have taken into consideration the relative gravitas of supporters and opposers. But their abbreviated explanation does leave me in the land of speculation. Perhaps it is best to take them at their word . Looking at that, I can see they gave considerable weight to the opinions expressed by the arbitrators. There has been reluctance to desysop any good user because of the nature of RfA which seems to trade absurdly on any misstep the applicant has made. We do not intend desysopping someone to be a permanent brand of shame which would effectively prevent regaining sysop status. Fred Bauder 13:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I always wondered why blocking from editing is considered, in practice, a less serious punishment than desysoping, which is reserved for only the most serious offenses. This unexplicable attitude of ArbCom indirectly sanctions the stratification of Wikipedia community into layers. If resysoping is really a problem, why not make desysopings temporary, that is, assign a term to each desysoping? -- Ghirla -трёп-  11:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The current climate at RfA (right or wrong) is such that a nominee who has been de-adminned by ArbCom will face a very difficult test in attempting to regain administrator privileges. Few succeed. If ArbCom intends a de-adminning to be indefinitely temporary, ArbCom should consider specific duration temporary de-adminship as a means to avoid RfA. Indefinite temporary de-adminship such that an editor would need to go back through RfA should either not be used or used exceedingly sparingly until the climate at RfA changes to match that of ArbCom intentions on this point. --Durin 13:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidence doesn't seem to support the statement that RFA is "very difficult" for former admins. &gt;Radi a n t &lt;  13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not concur with that evidence. For example, your conclusions regarding Guanaco's RfAs are I think not inclusive. Looking at User:NoSeptember/Desysop, of the ten admins forcibly de-adminned who re-applied, only two became admins again. One of these is no longer an admin. The other, Carnildo, was highly controversial. Only one re-application received more than 70% support. --Durin 13:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My evidence is based on that page. At a first glance it is obvious that most former admins have failed to be reinstated; but on closer inspection you can see that the reason for their failure was unrelated to the demotion. For instance Stevertigo's re-RFA failed because of his incivility - any non-admin who made an RFA in that manner would fail. &gt;Radi a n t &lt;  14:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And I disagree with your summation of the reasonings. It's ok if we disagree. --Durin 14:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the bureaucrats and arbcom agree that re-RFA's are hard, otherwise they wouldn't have supported resysopping several people without RFA after they voluntary desysopped. (or sysopped Sean Black at 72%, or ...) --Interiot 23:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Durin that if the arb-com mean for a desysop to be only temporary, maybe in future they should do that. We already block for a period of time, why not desysop?  Blimey, why not even parole admins under suspended sentence of desysop? It opens up possibilities.  Maybe leave the resysoping up to arb-com rather than go through RfA's? Hiding Talk 20:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say the bureaucrats and arbcom assume that re-RFA's are hard. This assumption, however, is not really backed up by evidence all that much. &gt;R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  08:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted Fred Bauder 13:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Wording from Requests for adminship/Front matter. Kirill Lokshin 03:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 03:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


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


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


 * Comment by others:
 * I agree, but if we are talking about Carnildo getting a second chance (which incidentally, I think he deserved, due to his continued dedicated service and grunt work for Wikipedia, even after the desysopping), I think there would have been much less controversy and ill will if the re-adminning had been through an appeal to ArbCom instead of through a community-based RFA where a lot of people got the impression that the ~40% opposes would be disregarded because of the bureaucrats' opinion. ArbCom should perhaps abandon desysops with "elegible to reapply on RFA" as a remedy unless they intend the de-sysopping to be permanent. If they want an indefinite, but not neccesarily permanent, de-sysop an "...upon demonstration of good behaviour, RogueAdmin may appeal to the ArbCom to have the sysop-bit restored" remedy might be more appropriate. By delegating the decision of when to give the second-chance to an WP:RFA, the ArbCom appeared to give the community the power to decide that, and at present, large parts of the community were not ready to grant the second chance yet. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, we supposedly learn from experience. However, when we resysop someone if the face of substantial opposition, that is not good either; because we don't even go through the motions of gathering feedback. I think it is probably better to give people a chance to discuss the issue, which was had. This matter is troublesome, but the alternative of hushing it up might be worse. I have never been "inside" a group where there was not some sentiment that decisions should be made by an inside group, then sold to the rest of the membership. But that is the old "keep em in the dark and feed em horseshit" system. Good for mushrooms. Fred Bauder 13:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A side comment, could you please elaborate on your last two sentences? Metaphores always were my weak point... -- <font color="Blue">Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  13:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 03:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what I am getting at here is sustained hostility over a period of years. Fred Bauder 13:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Disagree. "AGF" is not "Fail to learn."  We learn as we go along.  If user:X violates every principle in the book to own an article on Mariah Carey, gets blocked, changes IP, tries again, gets blocked, changes IP, tries again, gets blocked, gets a new name and decides to meddle with everyone who has stopped him, it's a child's game to say, "You must not suspect him."  AGF is not "be a total nitwit."  If you can define "grudge" and know the content of another user's heart, then you can say that holding a grudge is wrong and that grudging bears is bad.  Until then, it is to make an ass of u and me' to try to propose that you can tell when there are grudges, instead of learning.  Geogre 17:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Nonetheless, saying that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior is not neccesarily a violation of WP:AGF. Saying "I really don't think this person has learned from this mistake" is legitimate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly the best way to predict the weather, but unless we throw someone out completely, they continue to participate in the community. If someone is part of the community assumption of good faith is important for smooth functioning of the project. "Never forget, Never forgive" is the slogan of a fictional tribe. Fred Bauder 10:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the idea in theory, but doesn't that go directly against WP:AGF's statement that "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think much of that statement, but if Carnildo starts banning those who oppose open advocacy of pedophilia again perhaps we should drop any assumption of good faith. Fred Bauder 13:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This is excerpted from WP:NOT and in the current context it focuses more on Giano's nursing of a grievance, which was encouraged by his friends who frequently came back to the central complaint that Carnildo had never apologised. Giano's statements make it plain that this is a personal grievance and not just a negative evaluation of Carnildi's suitability for the sysop bit. .  --Tony Sidaway 07:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If I read Fred's statement correctly, I don't think I would refer to Giano's actions as trolling. I think he got very upset and lost his sense of proportion.  His actions became somewhat damaging in my opinion, but we've seen behavior like this before (Alienus, for instance) and where personal feelings are involved I would not quickly assume unreconcilable malice.  I would rather "hate the sin, and not the sinner".  Unfortunately I think that Giano's feelings towards administrators had been irreparably damaged and, if we are to keep him, it might in this case be pragmatic to take into account his unblemished record before the Carnildo affair.  Had I appreciated this before, my approach would have been much lighter. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Actually, I think this covers a lot of comments made in the debate at the admin's noticeboard. There were some points made which seemed to suggest a perceived division between those who edit articles and those that don't.  I think that sort of view helps "nurture hatred or fear". I think a lot of the debate falls foul of this section of WP:NOT.  I would think the whole debate should be looked at with regards to this clause.  It quickly descended into what appears to be a lot of people piling into an issue which had appeared to be resolved rather quickly, after 15 minutes I'd say the initial block of Giano was near enough settled, Tony noting 15 minutes after opening the thread: "No problem. I think it had gotten far beyond the stage where asking him to cool it would have worked, though. We'll see how it goes." --Tony Sidaway 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC) How and why the debate floundered as it did is perhaps not for me to comment, but I'd wonder if this section of WP:NOT is not considered relevant. Hiding Talk 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree and a decision need to be made as to the scope of this arbitration. My intention now is to limit its scope. If the trolling continues, those doing it can be brought up in a second case when everyone is good and tired of it. Fred Bauder 13:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm confused as to what comment this is replying to. What are we talking about when we say "If the trolling continues" exactly? -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 03:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the scope currently limited to? Up until Tony's block? Hiding Talk 20:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed -- <font color="Blue">Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  08:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Comment by others:

Settling scores
11) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 10:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Nurturing fear and whatnot is a two-way street. An insufficiently sensitive person may, finding a dispute ridiculous, say Qu'ils mangent de la brioche, and exacerbate feelings of alienation felt by valuable and well established editors. (Yes, I've read the Wikipedia article but this is a metaphor, not a history lesson). --Tony Sidaway 14:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps it's impenetrable. What other metaphor? My point is that one can unconsciously provoke hatred and all kinds of other weird stuff simply by not understanding why the other guy is so full of fear, hatred, etc, and thus acting in a way that exacerbated his problems.  I don't think there's any solution to this.  This isn't supposed to be a psychiatric hospital. --Tony Sidaway 01:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. However, just as it is unwise to provoke patients in the violent ward, it is wise to be courteous to those who are obviously upset here. Characterizing them in a profoundly negative way may and did cause trouble (and provide ammunition for those trying to cause it). Fred Bauder 13:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, mea maxima culpa. I do not come well out of this. --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * What history lesson? This is an impenetrable metaphor. At least the 'other metaphor' was in English and not in French! At a guess, I'd point to Marie Antoinette and Let them eat cake. Carcharoth 01:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How silly. This thread is split between two sections. I guess I should have replied in the "comment by parties" section, but I thought I shouldn't, as I'm not a party. I now see that anyone can post anywhere, but the initial comment should be by an arbitrator, party or other, for the respective sections. The other metaphor I was referring to was the one that got you blocked (or at least was the final straw that got you blocked). As for the fear, hatred and I'd add paranoia here, I find the best method is to simply ignore such things and keep your own comments reasonable and rational. Either the other guy will start engaging with you, or they will give up and go away. If you later encounter the same attitude in the same user, again and again, then it may be worth following up and investigating such behaviour. Carcharoth 10:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you may reply beneath a comment. Yes, the attitude again and again and again... Fred Bauder 13:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism welcomed
12) Criticism of administrative, arbitration, and bureaucratic decisions is welcome.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 10:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All criticism is welcome; it's all information; all useful. Fred Bauder 14:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * As Sjakkalle. Agree with Badlydrawnjeff as far as it goes, but accusing the entire operational machinery of Wikipedia of gross malfeasance isn't so much criticism as, well, a sign that one needs to have a sit down and a nice cup of tea. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But you didn't give him a soothing experience. I don't know exactly how you could though. Fred Bauder 14:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's just say I was not the right man for the job. Giano has said that we're best dealing with trolls and vandals, and others have said the same.  When a good contributor comes unstuck, we need to get together and discuss things more carefully.  --Tony Sidaway 02:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Sure, just add "constructive" at the start of the sentence, and I'll agree. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Constructive," however, is woefully subjective. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To reply to Tony, that's exactly the type of belittling of one's argument that turned this tempest into a poopship destroyer. When you have an otherwise worthwhile editor see that he was originally a) blocked poorly, b) looked down upon for expressing an opinion regarding the blocking admin's readminning, c) blocked for that opinion, and d) actually see some quibbling as to whether his being unblocked for that is the right move, it does bring into question the entire operational machinery.  I'm sure he's not the only person to believe it, and I'm not doubting for a second that he has every right to feel that way, given his experience.  To say that it's nothing more than "a sign that one needs to have a sit down and a nice cup of tea" is essentially saying "you're a loon, go do something else," whether that's the intent or not.  When it's the same people time and time again, it only adds to it - why else would, for instance, Kelly Martin be dragged into it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Trying to control the "mob" is a losing game. Fred Bauder 14:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


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

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


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


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I've observed peaceful (and somewhat successful) attempts by Geogre and others to make their point by withdrawing their highly valued voluntary labor, which they felt was under-appreciated by a growing bureaucracy of non-editors or infrequent editors.  We don't really have anything about this, perhaps because it's so blindingly obvious, but I think we should have this principle so as to clarify what this dispute is not about. --Tony Sidaway 14:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is definitely not about the relative status of editors and administrators. That is a policy issue. Fred Bauder 14:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify for Sjakkalle, I think it's basically "right to leave" but more explicit about the "freedom of association" aspects. We rightly take a pretty hard line on people campaigning on real-life political issues (at least I like to think we do), but sometimes there are "wikipolitical" issues that may need to be addressed.  One form of political power the primary producer can exercise is withdrawal of labor.  An analogous case occurred recently in the Irishpunktom case, where User:Dbiv succeeded in using peaceful ban-defiance as a persuasive political protest against a remedy in that case that banned him from editing an article in a subject on which he is an expert. In the hands of unimpeachable producers of good content, these are persuasive methods of protest. We admins are perhaps becoming like police officers, always ready to shoot.  If we shoot good people, we're aiming the wrong way. --Tony Sidaway 15:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We make mistakes, and sometimes we correct them. Refusal to go along with a decision sometimes results in its reversal. Fred Bauder 14:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a downside to this I'd like to see addressed. When someone strikes or exercises their right to leave, the community will often seek someone else to blame.  I don't think a strike should be allowed as a reason to overturn an administrative action.  If the strike upholds a principle that others find valid, that principle should be the reason, but "we want so-and-so back should not.  --InkSplotch 14:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see: can't leave in a huff, because that would lead to "blame someone."  Can't protest angrily, because that's "trolling."  Can't protest on one's own talk page by simply not adding labor for a period of time.  Can't argue forcefully without that mere argument being considered the equivalent of someone else blocking against policy.  Can't do nuthin' but sing a happy song while working on Maggie's Farm?  Give me a break, Kell...er...Inksplotch:  A "strike" gets at the very heart of the project: we volunteer, and all power derives from consent.  If one is looked up to, then one can lead by example.  If one is not, then one cannot lead by coercion.  That's what a strike is about.  If I were telling others to strike, I would still be doing nothing but non-violent protest.  There were other calls, much more serious ones, and they very nearly gathered momentum.  I have opposed them, but it's time for people to understand the effect of coercion on volunteers.  Geogre 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


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


 * With Fred, I don't see this as relevant here. I am always very wary about myself becoming a model for others to follow. However, given that there are inevitably going to be people who have a grievance against a formal decision on Wikipedia, it may be constructive to show them a way of opposing the decision without actually leaving. So long as this path is not in itself disruptive, that would help keep valued contributors on board and therefore benefit the project. David | Talk 14:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yours was an exceptional case. You took a gamble and won.  I've seen many others roll those particular bones and see nothing but snake eyes. --Tony Sidaway 16:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted Fred Bauder 14:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I think perhaps this wasn't so keenly recognised when the clerks were instituted and three of those chosen were, everybody acknowledges, some of the most controversial editors in the English Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * However it is just secretarial work. Fred Bauder 14:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't how it's seen by the community, really. Aaron's view that it was "a gold watch for failed arbitrators" isn't uncommon.  Perceptions are important. But it is just secretarial work.  Heavy lifting.  An arbitration clerk is a stevedore of words. --Tony Sidaway 02:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorsed wholeheartedly. With regard to the clerks, I've also proposed a remedy that might help. Newyorkbrad 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorsed. Appearances do matter. Catchpole 07:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Re to Fred (secretarial work); I believe there is some mention on the arbitration and clerk pages about refactoring and summarizing evidence. Clearly some people thought at the beginning that it was a "gold star" or junior arbitrator position.  Perhaps, having now had 9 months experience with clerks, the written job description should be clarified so people know it is purely clerical, and not particularly easy or rewarding at that. Thatcher131 15:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Clerks commonly refactor the arbitration pages, and occasionally evidence has been summarised especially in large and complex cases where a summary is necessary to save the arbitrators' wading through 64kb of what any sane person would admit is pure drivel (the rejected Wayah sahoni application comes to mind). This is unusual but it is a clerical function and not one that has proven as controversial as originally thought, perhaps because it is a function that has been exercised with great parsimony. --Tony Sidaway 02:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Comment by others:
 * What is this tautological statement meant to say? All decisions are final unless they are revised.  Do you mean revised by the arbcom, by b'cats, what?  Is this leading up to "just shut up and go back to work?"  Please give us something to feed off here. - Aaron Brenneman 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The question of how an appeal would be made remains, but what it means is that the decision is final. I'm not telling you to shut up, at least not now. I oppose any attempt by the Arbitration Committee, in this case or any other, to overturn a decision by the Bureaucrats. Whether they would agree to review a decision themselves is up to them. One can always appeal to Jimbo. Fred Bauder 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely this is not tautological, but self-contradictory: "Decisions by bureaucrats are final except if they aren't". David | Talk 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like an explanation myself. Hiding Talk 22:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot help but note that, after all the stink that I've raised about being forbidden to edit other people's proposals, and how explicitly I've been told not to do so, that Tony edits Fred Bauder's quite cavalierly. Can we have some consistancy, please.  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 07:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, and as usual I didn't like what he did. However, I almost always catch these things and they do little harm. You, on the other hand, went too far. You were trying to express a viewpoint, in the usual wiki editing way. Fred Bauder 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Any editor who sees me carping along this line any further please do smack me with a trout. - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 04:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Does this therefore mean crat's are judge, jury and executioner? They can deign to refuse an appeal?  If Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, I'm unclear how all this chasing ultimately works.  I agree with the idea that if you have a grievance, at some point you have to let that go if you can't get consensus, but I'm not sure a crat's decision is final pending a successful appeal.  It still feels like catch 22. Hiding Talk 20:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely all decision (by anyone, in any context) are final, unless they are appealed and overturned? I would be interested in hearing about this appeal process, though. One appeals an admins actions to another admin, or all of the admins, at WP:AN or WP:ANI - discussion can take place there and the other admins have the power (in terms of (un)blocking, (un)deleting, or (un)protecting) to overturn the first admin's decision. As far as I am aware, there is no process for appealing a bureaucrat's decision - you can compain all you like, anywhere you like, but the other bureaucrats cannot de-admin - you would need a steward for that, and they are only going to do it, I suspect, if asked by ArbCom or Jimbo. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't tell exactly what this is meant to say. Last I knew, bcrats did not have the technical ability to un-sysop a user.  However, let's not confuse the software layer with the political layer.  If this is meant to say "only the bcrats can change the decision of the bcrats", I thought that was already well understood.  If this meant to say "the bcrats will never change their minds except in the case of a successful appeal", isn't that up to the bcrats to decide?  Any clarification of the role of bcrats would be welcome, but to be meaningful it'd have to come from the actual bcrats, right?  Friday (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted Fred Bauder 15:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * Are we saying that like the Pope, Bureaucrats are infallible? Giano 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Nothing is final on a wiki, first of all, and the organization of Wikipedia was always around the notion of peer review for every action.  If there is no extant and well tried mechanism for changing a decision, that only points to a failure of policy, and not, quoting Pope, "WHATEVER IS IS RIGHT."  If things are wrong, we're supposed to "sofixit."  That applies to misjudged RFA's as well as article errors.  Geogre 21:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


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

Giano - RFA is not a vote, remember, which means that we have to trust our bureaucrats to get it right every time. There is no mechanism to impeach a bureaucrat's decision in such as way it they can be overturned (short of ArbCom or Jimbo or some other deux ex machina de-adminning the relevant person). So yes, a bureaucrat's ex-cathedra decision to admin someone is infallible, in practice. We thought (most of us still think, I think) that the bureaucrats make their decisions on the basis of whether there is community consensus to confer the admin bit on a candidate (although I have seen some suggest that they should ignore consensus - that unseemly rabble again - and just make people admins who they think will do a good job). Perhaps we need a finding to that effect? But we have deliberately not defined consensus (or its ill-sprung child, the "rough" consensus) and probably could not agree on a definition anyway, so a bureaucrat is entirely free to decide that "consensus" means approval of 50%+1, or less than 50% approval, or indeed that an RFA is not required in a particular case. We have to trust the bureaucrats to do the Right Thing. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


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


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


 * "....but graceful acceptance of their decisions is expected in the absence of revision" we are writing an encyclopedia not enter a monastery with a vows of obedience and submission. Giano 18:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Seems a sort of non-sequitur to me: a decision may be wrong even if taken in good faith. Also, what would be the contrary of a graceful acceptance? I suggest rewording this one. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Successful agitation and resistance leading to its overturn. Fred Bauder 15:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But if the decision is overturned, doesn't that mean the decision is wrong? If there is a strong enough vocal element to overturn the decision, doesn't that imply there wasn't a strong enough consensus to support it in the first instance? I don't think graceful acceptance is the right term.  That amounts to telling people to just swallow it.  Assume good faith extends to the actions of the Bureaucrats. Criticism of their decisions, even strong, possibly unfair criticism, is welcome, but resentment of the decision in the absence of revision is not acceptable within the bounds of assuming good faith. Hiding Talk 20:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If a decision to overturn is made because there is a consensus that it was the wrong decision, that is fine. If a decision to overturn is achieved "by force of arms", that is not good. There was a somewhat ugly, unwikipedian nature about the recent fuss, which was clearly informally orchestrated by a small group of editors. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think resentment at such decisions is certainly wrong, I don't accept that acceptance should be expected. I get your point, but again, that's got to be case by case.  Rather than say we should gracefully accept all decisions by the arb-com crats, we should say, look, you're out of order here.  Maybe what I'm getting at is that we should criticise civilly.  We shouldn't have to gracefully accept, we should be free to grudgingly put up with, that's my point. I know we don't do grudges, but we can do good natured dissent. If we're trying to contain bad natured dissent, that's a civility issue, to my mind. Hiding Talk 21:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I'm sure if a decision were overturned by a force of arms, Jimbo would knock heads per the paedophile issue. I don't think the forse of arms is an issue. Hiding Talk 21:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimbo turning up and knocking heads together isn't intended to be a part of the normal operation of Wikipedia. Nor is arbitration.  When those things turn up, there has been a serious problem. I don't agree with Fred that one should "gracefully accept" all decisions that one disagrees with, and "grudgingly live with" is just fine.  --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would hope overturning decisions by force of arms doesn't become normal behaviour either.  :) Hiding Talk 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * which was clearly informally orchestrated by a small group of editors" Wrong again Tony, I don't do IRC (where I believe schemes are planned occasionally!) and I barely email anyone - perhaps I'm telepathic - you've not charged me with that one yet Giano 21:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't suggest the use of email or IRC. Please read my words again.   Second thoughts, perhaps the word "orchestrate" confuses you. Try "whipped up".  --Tony Sidaway 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh! You mean some people were making statements on the Wiki that were leading other people to agree with them! Is that really forbidden behavior? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well people didn't agree with them (else my changes to the RFA front matter would have encountered serious opposition). They charged on regardless.   Really I think this illustrates the difference in the approach.  I sought to clarify existing policy and achieved this successfully by consensus, resulting in a quite radical change to the front matter of RFA explaining how it works.  Giano and a few others simply tried to whip up a lot of hatred of their chosen scapegoats, the arbitration committee, the bureaucrats, and certain named individuals who really had nothing to do with the case.  Their method failed, and so here we are. --Tony Sidaway 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "...whip up a lot of hatred of their chosen scapegoats" hatred? that word again. It seems to me the "scapegoats" were doing quite well in that department on their own with out any intervention from me - and who are the few others - names please? Giano 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We have considered allegations of misbehavior by Bureaucrats. Fred Bauder 14:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The principle is comity. Fred Bauder 15:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have changed my mind on this. As we are periodically subject to election (or appointment with a strong showing of support) it is our responsibility to represent the community. The Bureaucrats are a self-perpetuating group that is not periodically reviewed. Thus we can review decisions in appropriate cases. However no appeal as a matter of right. Fred Bauder 22:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Committee is a good word. Caucus is another one if that isn't thought suitable. There is, I'm told, at least one on-line thesaurus that may be useful for finding other names.
 * The suggestion that decisions of the bureaucrats should be reviewed by bureaucrats is good. This is one case where some degree of separation of powers is helpful.  If the arbitration committee cannot influence the decisions of bureaucrats then this reduces the scope for damaging allegations that the bureaucrats and arbitrators act in concert. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The opinions of the arbitrators was cited in the closing of the Carnildo RfA . I think that, in general, we do work in concert, consulting with one another when appropriate. But neither group controls or supervises the other. Fred Bauder 15:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we're disagreeing over terms rather than facts. I cede the wording to you. --Tony Sidaway 02:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * If a finding that no consensus existed on the Carnildo RFA passes, and this one also, there seems to be a paradox (by which I mean specifically a difficult but not necessarily insoluble apparent contradiction). I prefer to accept the word of the bureaucrats that they took due notice of the community's opinion in making their proposal, and that Carnildo's quite uneventful career since then shows that consensus exists within the community, and the bureaucrats did a great job. --Tony Sidaway 21:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I will draft a proposal supporting a request for arbitration. Practically, I doubt these requests would very seldom be accepted. Fred Bauder 23:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I read it right. I think that's fine.  The arbitration committee should not unnecessarily limit its scope.  I don't think we should place any obstacles in the way of the Committee's discretion.  I don't think the Committee should ignore this situation just because it looks like small-town politics.  Corruption will probably exist within the highest levels of Wikipedia one day, and we might as well rehearse it now. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Having served in both roles, I believe this makes sense. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Committee seems to be the wrong word here. It was more of a consultation among several bureaucrats. "Committee" suggests some sort of more formalized process. If I consult with several admins of my choice on an issue, I would not turn around and say "a committee of admins has decided...." NoSeptember  15:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this principle is not such a good idea. The ArbCom has been, and should be, the final place for dispute resolution. Therefore, if there is a dispute with bureaucrats, it must be resolved by arbitration, or there would be no place left to resolve it (for we all know that Jimbo as the "ultimate figure of appeal" is very busy with other things). Additionally, I agree that "committee" or "caucus" is the wrong term here. It implies that the 24 current bureaucrats made a conscious decision to hand the matter to a small number of them, which simply isn't the case here. I am not at all suggesting that the 'crats should be censured or anything, but if and when such is necessary the ArbCom must be willing to consider it. <font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  11:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you think it implies all 24 bcrats were involved, a committee can be three. But replacing that with "a group of bureaucrats" would solve the semantic problem. I suppose I'm undecided about whether the arbcom should review a decision we've made. I guess there's a benefit in a second level of oversight to prevent real problems, but I don't think we should turn it into a court where the arbcom decides on each bcrat decision somebody doesn't like. - Taxman Talk 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree we shouldn't overreact on this. But as a general issue, the ArbCom doesn't act on decisions "that somebody doesn't like" even though they would have the authority. Being the last step in dispute resolution, the ArbCom tends to limit itself to the extreme issues. You'd probably agree with me that 99% of RFA decisions are not controversial, and I'm sure the ArbCom would e.g. reject a request from some random user to overturn their failed RFA. <font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  12:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, although I think most of the arbitrators think RfA is broken, hypercritical. Fred Bauder 23:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And I grant there were unusual enough circumstances that are unlikely to ever come up again. - Taxman Talk 12:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My worry is that I think it risks threatening the ability of the bureaucrats to make reasonable, independent decisions. We've seen here that it doesn't really take many dissenters, if they're noisy enough, to raise a stink, and the next logical step would be to try to escalate the decision to arbitration.  I don't think it should be a job of the arbitration committee to set aside a reasoned, fully explained judgement by the bureaucrats, except where there is clear evidence of improper behavior. --Tony Sidaway 16:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we can properly say that there was no consensus, if there was none. Fred Bauder 23:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Judge, jury and executioner time.  Jimbo is fairly hands off and would probably expect the community to sort it out.  That would imply it's in the community's hands, not the crats.  I think if we tread down this path too much it will lead to decratting process proposals.  Why not just accept this was a one off, and that circumstances on occasion force tough decisions, and it's up to people to work out how to deal with them.  I'm not sure arb-com should be conferring any special powers on anyone here.  They should just be looking at the issues.  The issue is that bad blood built up over a tricky decision.  The crats could have proposed the probation rather than imposed it, for example.  Hiding Talk 20:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just don't see what the issue is here. The bureaucrats are supposed to determine the consensus of Wikipedia, that's their job.  If they fail to explain their decisions adequately, ask them to do so.  If you don't think the explanation was adequate, marshal a consensus on Wikipedia to the view that this is unacceptable conduct.  If they give a good explanation that you don't happen to agree with, well tough.  It isn't the end of the world.  They are allowed to disagree with you, and you with them, as long as the consensus on Wikipedia is that the bureaucrats are generally doing a good job of interpreting consensus at RFA.  Which I'm sure you'll agree is certainly the case. The principle of discretion a is longstanding one on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, I agree with every word you write, but that isn't how this proposal reads to me. This line causes me the problems: How a decision by a caucus of Bureaucrats could be reviewed is up to the Bureaucrats.  I can't reconcile that with the notion that we can  marshal a consensus on Wikipedia to the view that this is unacceptable conduct.  I agree that when a decision is made by the crats it's put up or shut up, but not that it is for the crats to say shut up or put up.  Basically, you seem to agree with me that How a decision by a caucus of Bureaucrats could be reviewed is up to the consensus of the community.  Where no consensus exists to overturn a decision, all users should recognise the issue has to be settled. Wikipedia is not a battleground time. Hiding Talk 14:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My phrase "marshall a consensus" applied to the case where the bureaucrats fail to explain their decisions adequately. I think the community should be given power to decide whether bureaucrats are doing their jobs properly and to impeach those who don't.  They should be able to do so on grounds of malfeasance ("High crimes and misdemeanors", perhaps).  But community influence over bureaucrat determinations is undesirable because it leaves it open to a small tail of vehement objectors to wag the dog of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt "impeachment" proceedings would work any better here than they do in the U.S. Congress, total suspension of productive work for months. Fred Bauder 23:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * Comment by others:
 * I can not get around the feeling that if Carnildo had apologized to Giano, we would not have been here. Probably needs a lot of tweaking. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not ordering, just noticing that apologies in general do often a lot of good if sincere. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * Comment by parties:
 * Spot on. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Grafikm_fr has apparently misunderstood me. I mean solely that its application to my conduct is "spot on".  I've no idea whether it applies to other editors and I'm not intersted, in this case, in whether it does. --Tony Sidaway 20:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Comment by others:
 * We need to pay more attention to this. Feel free to reword, by the way. Radiant! 17:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, it also works the other way of what Tony thinks it does. His incivility is a bummer for the morale of some people (see diffs in Evidence). -- <font color="Blue">Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * Comment by parties:
 * Absolutely. And here let me say that I mean by this "this principle applies to my conduct." Nothing more and nothing less. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Has someone called some other editors idiots? --Tony Sidaway 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this is a reference to Jdforrester's post captioned "You're All Idiots" on WP:AN (see proposed findings below). Newyorkbrad 23:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm sure someone will post examples in /evidence about things that should have been said in a different way, or by a more diplomatic person, or not at all. Radiant! 17:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, calling other editors "idiots" sure does make some unhappy... <_< -- Grafikm_fr 20:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, attempts to short circuit discussion of a controversial decision are apt to aggravate the situation. Fred Bauder 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * Comment by parties:
 * Arbitrators are human and arbitration is a human process. We trust them to try their best to make the best decision in the interests of the project.  Whilst it may sometimes happen that an editor may use arbitration as a means of settling scores the effect of this principle, if adopted, could only be to deter editors from presenting evidence lest they might be thought to be pursuing a vendetta.  Arbitrators aren't stupid, they should be able to see through such attempts if ever they are made.  Moreover, "diffs" that present an unequival picture of problematic behavior should be welcomed.  The arbitrators may be able to suggest a remedy. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since arbitrators can't be expected to know about all past situations, what mechanism is utilized to make it clear that a contributiong editor may simply be trying to settle a score.--MONGO 21:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In this instance, the arbitrators can be assumed to know a bit more than one might otherwise imagine. --Tony Sidaway 23:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And you know this because? Geogre 21:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What's amusing here is that the allegation is, I think, designed to neutralize Aaron Brenneman's evidence and my evidence against Kelly Martin. The answer, it seems to me, is that each Rfar must move forward according to its proscribed action.  Kel...er...InkSplotch did a terrible job of framing this Rfar, and that means that it started out too nebulous, really, to be accepted, except that the aggravation of the situation was such that a quick response was called for.  Because the grounds of the Rfar were horribly defined, the door was open for full consideration of those involved.  It's lamentable that we have an omnibus Rfar instead of three or four Rfar's, but I agree with Tony that ArbCom accepted and therefore must weed out the threads from the piles.  Geogre 21:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed by MONGO--MONGO 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this be better worded as a simple "Evidence presented during an arbitration case should be germane to the hearing at hand?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about those that have had prior dealings who use arbitration cases as an opportunity to "out" someone as a form of retribution. So germane is possibly part of my comment, but I emphasize that this applies mainly to those with an axe to grind.--MONGO 20:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what this has to do with the present situation in any case, as there's no previous arbitration (aside from the userbox wheelwar one) in which any of the involved parties participated. Kirill Lokshin 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about those that go to an arbcom case to deliberately attempt to out a fellow wikipedian due to a past grievance (and this applies in the Workshop and or Evidence sections of an arbtration proceeding) and using that as a platform to seek retribution.--MONGO 20:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm rather curious how you believe this principle is relevant to this particular arbitration case, though. Kirill Lokshin 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In the case of some editors who have had to deal with problematic users in the past, I am concerned that these users may use the Workshop and Evidence pages as a forum to post diffs in a deliberate attempt to get retribution. So my proposal applies to all cases, but in the case of Tony Sidaway, who has had to deal with many problematic editors, this issue is pertinent to this case. It may also apply to Bishonen who has been dealing with at least two problematic editors who could potentially use this siutuation as an opportunity to try and get some form of revenge.--MONGO 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh. If the diffs are relevant to the case, I don't really think it matters why editors may or may not be motivated to provide them; and if they're not relevant, I assume the ArbCom will simply ignore them. Kirill Lokshin 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is adopted, I don't think the verb "out" is quite what the proposer means. That term typically refers to revelation of private or non-public information, which is not at issue in this case.  Perhaps the proposer meant something like "oust" from the project. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Out, oust, well, in this case, which is big, the opportunity to add diffs and other information in the workshop and evidence pages in an attempt to (get rid of?) an editor, may be an issue, maybe not. I do have faith in arbcom to weed out obvious attempts at this, however, I have concerns about the lingering shadow effect that may endure. If this isn't adopted in this form or by any form, that's fine.--MONGO 21:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think this is divisive because it suggests a hierarchy. --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This should be common sense, and it would almost be funny to see people arguing, over here, "the articles you write mean nothing," and, over there, "Kelly's invaluable constant contributions entitle her to special treatment," except for the blatant hypocrisy and emotion necessary for it. Simply put: the more you contribute, the more benefit of a doubt you get.  No, Lar, no one gets a "free pass," and no one gets pixie dust.  Instead, someone's "contributions" on talk pages might indeed be less germane than someone else's "contributions" in writing articles, and a person's "contributions" doing Office stuff might be entirely irrelevant to that person's misdeeds in blocking people.  Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin have insisted, many times and in many ways, that they are an elite that can act without mediation.  No one has ever suggested that the article writers can do the same.  Geogre 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Totally support. -- Grafikm_fr 20:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Tony Sidaway, the intention was to say exactly the opposite of how you read it, but I'd be glad to see another wording. Newyorkbrad 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony. I'd also suggest that if you argue that long-standing users are treated with greater respect, then you'd also have to state that they should be held to higher standards of conduct.  I think we should all be treated the same.  Perhaps along with Don't bite the newbies we need a Don't revere the elders? 	 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiding (talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Revere, no. This was designed to set up the next numbered paragraph.  Read together with that, it may (or may not) make more sense. Newyorkbrad 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't like it. How about, um, While all editors of Wikipedia are entitled to respect and consideration regardless of the nature or volume of their contributions, an editors contributions can enhance their importance to the project in the eyes of some? Hiding Talk 20:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Divisive because it suggests a hierarchy. --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Newyorkbrad's basic sentiment is valid, but I'm just not happy with the wording. Sorry I can't be more forthcoming.  This is a bit of a minefield. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Last sentence added to the above; could probably use some wording cleanup. Kirill Lokshin 21:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tony. Hiding Talk 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tony. This would stratify editors by their quantity of contributions. The first time editor may be every bit as valuable to the project, in future terms, as an editor who has been here for years. By suggesting editors with substantial contributions are somehow more worthy, we create a currency of experience on Wikipedia rather than respecting the expertise of the real world and applying that knowledge here. --Durin 12:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This works. Hiding Talk 20:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The "No Free Pass" principle. Strongly support, and suggest that certain parties to this arbitration have been behaving like they have a free pass, and that is the crux of much of the problem. ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted Fred Bauder 20:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * I'll go much much further. I'm about ready to burn WP:CIVIL. As important a principle as this is, it is abused to denigrate others' comments far more than it is honored in spirit. In the extreme, it is abused to silence users with whom one disagrees -- users who simply used the wrong word. WP:NOT CENSORED and calling something "bullshit" is no less civil than the same sentiment expressed in more words, although the latter may appear more professional.


 * I'm particularly upset at a pattern I see of hostile thoughts expressed in superficially polite language. Good manners are a value in themselves and serve to distinguish us from the animals. But an icy layer of "please" sprayed on top of cold venom and dismissal is much worse than naked insult. At least the latter is read quickly and easily dismissed for what it is. Elaborately courteous language should never be permitted to stand for well-founded, logical, rational argument, rooted in reality and speaking directly to the substantive issue. John Reid 06:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


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


 * Comment by parties:
 * Well yes and no. Candid comments on other members' actions, yes. But not on article talk pages, not on project pages (except those that relate directly to user conduct), and not on project talk pages. Discussion of users -- like all discussions -- should take place on the talk page corresponding to the subject and nowhere else.


 * Strongly agree that any charges of malfeasance -- like any specific statements of fact, anywhere, in or out of articlespace -- be supported by factual, verifiable evidence, not rhetoric. John Reid 06:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Accepted Fred Bauder 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The extension to meta-disputes is spurious. In this case it's simply fatuous.  I was aware of no interpersonal or meta disputes with Giano at any time, except in the sense that he seemed to have singled me out as someone who was involved with him.  I wasn't. To me he was just a particularly noisy person in a public order situation.  I was barely aware of his existence. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Possible, when reasonable. Should not make it easier for problem users to subject the admins to trivial attacks implying the impunity. PA should not be considered as involvement that bans an admin from blocking a troll. Rule definetely applies to good-faith content dispute and civilly, while bluntly, expressed disagreement over the parties' actions. --Irpen 09:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The essence of Fred's suggestion is already in the blocking policy. I know it may be news to people who vow never to read policy because it gets in the way of "doing what's right," but you are not supposed to page protect, block, delete or undelete when you are in a conflict with a user first.  If Giano is calling you an abusive editor, Tony, you are not supposed to block him.  You are supposed to go to AN/I and get someone else to assess the situation, and...get this...you're supposed to let that person's judgment trump your own!  Funny, eh?  And yet that's what everyone else has to do.  Geogre 01:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Impossible. The very action of taking administrative action places you in dispute with someone.  Are we only allowed to interact administratively with each other user only once? Interpersonal disputes are hard to properly evaluate in that context.  That said, I'd counter argue that Tony followed what was required of him by bringing the block to the admin's noticeboard and accepting the overturning of the block. Hiding Talk 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Consultation should have preceded the block. Fred Bauder 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * On wiki or off? And I'm not convinced that is the case. We've seen situations resolved like this before, many times. Hiding Talk 20:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Every time an admin confronts a user who is behaving inappropriately, he or she is in a dispute with that user.  I'm referring to a narrow subset of these situations ... I will give some thought to coming up with a better wording.  00:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed Hiding Talk 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was my attempt to understand what you meant by Decisions are final, um, point 15. I'm not clear that your proposal at 15.1, "In RfAs, any changes or decisions by the Bureaucrats are final." is correct. An RfA is to my understanding, a debate to see if a consensus exists to give admin status to an editor.  That consensus can change, and so the crat's decision is not final and should not be treated as final.  Hiding Talk 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To relate it to the issue at hand, it appears relevant to the fact that the crats made a decision which broke with what their mandated power is. If it is, as described above, "to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions", then they stepped over that with the probation they issued.  I think a crat's decision cannot exist in a vacuum, and it has to be recognised that they determine consensus, and equally, that it's possible they will determine consensus incorrectly at some point.  I don't think we should dictate that either our crats are infallible nor that they are ultimate arbitrators of community consensus.  That consensus is defined as fluid, and thus the two are in conflict.  Unless, of course, the system allows for a desysop process in which the crats determine consensus? That appears the only way to balance the two principles.  The community must have the ability to either change its mind or declare a crat wrong. Hiding Talk 20:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The community has no process by which to register a changed consensus regarding an admin's status
29) Whilst Consensus can change guides that "It is important that there is a way to challenge past decisions, whether they have been reached by poll or consensus. Decisions should therefore practically never be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back", the consensus granted by the community within an admin's promotion is not currently subject to this through any clear process which is practically available to the community.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. Not a statement of principle but of fact: We do not have a workable process for admin or b'crat recall and every proposal made thus far is embroiled in controversy or rejected outright.


 * This is not merely a social issue; the MediaWiki engine currently has no "friendly" user interface that permits removal of privs. Stewards are few; they reach across all Wikimedia projects; and cannot be expected to spend time determining consensus in contentious recall discussions.


 * Incorrect. The Desysop extension is available, but not currently used on any Wikimedia projects. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 06:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * At present, the "normal" way to de-admin an editor is through ArbCom action. This is needlessly complex and contentious in routine cases, does not subject admins and b'crats to recall by the community which gave them office in the first place, and makes the entire status of admin and b'crat far too much of a big deal.


 * It is not clear what solution is available and suitable but surely something is needed -- badly. John Reid 06:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed Hiding Talk 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That there isn't a functioning community based deadmin process is a fact. That there should be one is a logical consequence of Consensus can change.  I think it would help deal with the entire situation.  I also don't think the arbitrators can declare one into being.  But everyone who looks at this page, including the parties and arbitrators, can try to figure out what such a process could look like.  GRBerry 06:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There have been a large number of proposals for such a deadmin process. None have yet achieved consensus. Grass roots efforts to put one in place that would at least work for SOME admins ( Category:Administrators open to recall ) are in my view the best hope for such, as they allow for gradual adoption, but this view is not widely held. (the category includes about 4% of the total admin population at this time) If no consensus is possible to achieve, despite many tries, is ArbComm, if this principle is accepted, prepared to mandate one? Which one? This strikes me as potentially quite contentious. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is a public order issue. Sometimes bad behavior must be dealt with so that civilised discussion can be nurtured.  You can't hold a discussion while a lynching party is being assembled. --Tony Sidaway 03:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fred. --Irpen 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Patience is the key. - Mailer Diablo 09:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't hold a civilized discussion while arresting half the assembled citizens on suspicions of vigilantism. John Reid 06:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * John is correct but you also cannot hold a civilised discussion with uncivilised participants, especially if they reject any attempt to suggest ways in which they could be more civil. Nor can you hold one with participants whose version of reality significantly differs from your own in fundamental ways. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Summarise off-wiki discussions
31) If discussions on off-wiki venues (eg. e-mail, mailing lists, IRC channels) lead to groups of administrators, bureaucrats, or arbitrators deciding on a course of action (eg. archiving a thread, intervening in a dispute, blocking a user), then said discussion should be repeated, summarised or linked somewhere appropriate on the wiki to ensure transparency and accountability. Proposed by Carcharoth 10:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC) See also proposed principle 48.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Discussions on #wikipedia-en-admins are confidential, but are available to the administrators who subscribe to that channel. --Tony Sidaway 15:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But admins should always be prepared to follow up on-wiki actions with reasons and justifications, and be aware that they may have to repeat arguments they have just had off-wiki. If someone asks why such-and-such an action was taken, just saying "it was discussed on this mailing list" or "in this IRC channel", is an inadequate answer. Fears of breaching confidentiality must not be confused with failing to provide transparency. In other words, discussion of non-confidential material on a confidential mailing list is a bad idea. If something is not confidential, either discuss it on a public mailing list that you can link to, or discuss on-wiki. Do you see what I am driving at here? If admins get used to hanging out in confidential areas, they may fall into the bad habit of discussing everything there. And then they have to disentangle the confidential stuff from the non-confidential stuff when they are asked to justify their actions on-wiki. Carcharoth 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your feeling, but here there was no problem. I performed an edit, somebody reverted it, a bureaucrat reverted it back and that was that.  It is, after all, the bureaucrats' noticeboard.  Had anyone asked us at the time why we were getting rid of this horrible stuff, we would have said (a) it's horrible stuff and (b) we discussed this on IRC and decided it would be best to get rid of it because this is a bureaucrat's noticeboard, not a Usenet newsgrouop called alt.flame.bureaucrats. --Tony Sidaway 04:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing done or discussed by admins or b'crats should be confidential. For the rare situations when something must be done quietly, we have Danny, the oh so necessary evil. Everything else should be done openly for all to see, although the appropriate forum for this is within projectspace, not Main Page.


 * Good government advocates have fought hard for many years to enact sunshine laws; these have proven themselves even as they are opposed strongly and often ignored by the politicos they seek to reveal. Secrecy fosters bad government; transparency banishes it. John Reid 06:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. There was no secrecy here.  The contents of the channel are confidential but the agreement to go ahead and refactor was not intended to be secret. --Tony Sidaway 03:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So, umm, "for those we clear to join the clubhouse, they can see what they themselves have said, but for anyone else, we cannot tell them?" Golly.  That inspires absolutely no confidence.  Either open the channel to all or drop it or log it.  Otherwise, don't treat it like your private He-Man-User-Haters-Club (Little Rascals reference).  Because of present rules, I cannot, for example, provide a nice, juicy example of Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin, and some others actually announcing plans to look for every possible excuse to ban someone, examples of those same superusers to "do penance for a week" over this very case, and the establishment of collective enemies lists.  I can't see any good that comes from this darkness.  Geogre 10:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The reasoning behind this is that blanket statements like "discussed on IRC" or "following discussion on <x> mailing list", are rather unhelpful, and failures to reveal what was discussed and how conclusions were reached, leaves a big information gap and disenfranchises those who were not privy to the discussion. It also increases the perception that "real discussion" is taking place elsewhere among a nebulous, ill-defined group of people. Carcharoth 10:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea is that "we discussed it on IRC" is exactly not an adequate explanation. Any decision reached on IRC or email is no more than tentative by a subset of the community, and can not be thought of as accepted or consensus until it is exposed and subsequently accepted on-wiki.  The prior off-wiki discussion is not additional evidence for the merit of the tentative decision reached there.  GRBerry 06:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * People thinking that chat room conversations are somehow relevant to the project is a large part of what got us in this mess. #wikipedia (and, even worse, other more secretive channels) are detrimental to the project- they subvert transparency and encourage a cliquey, junior-high-school atmosphere.  I suppose there's no preventing people from using IRC, but we can at least drive home the fact that getting your like-minded chat room buddies to agree with you doesn't count for anything.  Some people seem to have the attitude "If I don't know you from this chat room, your opinions mean nothing to me", and that's just astoundingly wrong.  We should judge the statements of other editors on their own merits, not on the basis of whether the editor is our "friend" or not. Friday (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, based on WP:SOCK with trivial changes. abakharev 10:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Should be rephrased to "is considered extremely malicious and is subject to severe consequences". ArbCom is no playground for silly or insidious games. --Irpen 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. (For those mystified, they need only look at "new" accounts immediately welcomed by people who never welcome new accounts, whose first edits are exceptionally savvy, and whose only actions are on talk and policy pages.  If any of the people in this case fit that description, from the person lodging it to the people offering evidence, then there is likely impropriety.)  Geogre 10:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * This applies generally to all sock edits. It serves no purpose to make that general policy into a more specific rule. --Tony Sidaway 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What do sockpuppets have to do with the current case? Kirill Lokshin 15:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is bizarre to me, too, but I know Kelly Martin has admitted to having a number of socks. Perhaps this is about that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware she had done that; but they're not, as far as I can tell, participating in the case, so that doesn't make too much sense. Kirill Lokshin 16:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See this diff "a significant fraction of my recent encyclopedic edits have been on a different account", the full text of which is currently residing at the Giano thread subpage of WP:AN, ie. Administrators' noticeboard/Giano - BTW, it took ages to find that. I assume the Giano thread will be put back in the 'proper' archives at some point? Carcharoth 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * InkSplotch seems like an obvious sockpuppet account, so the proposal is clearly relevant. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I get that a lot. Sad, no one's told me yet who I'm supposed to be.  Anyway, not that I could stop it but I happily invite anyone to submit a checkuser request.  I post from two primary IPs, work and home.  It might be possible there's duplicates on the work IP, but I'd be surprised.  I, the person behind this account, have one and only one account on Wikipedia.  I am not a sockpuppet, and I do not have any sockpuppets.  --InkSplotch 17:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you list which other accounts you have ever edited with? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, I can repeat, I have one and only one account on Wikipedia. I have never edited under any other account than this one (which I thought was implied, my apologies).  --InkSplotch 18:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just so unusual for a new editor to have only 295 edits over a period of 9 months, with only 17 of those to articles, and to be so interested in admin actions only, and to have been present at the most controversial RFAr's during those 9 months. --Interiot 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say my interest lies in the way in which Wikipedia works. The policies, processes, and ways people interact day-to-day that keep this place functioning.  Other media outlets keep saying this project can't possibly work, or if it works it can't possibly succeed.  And yet, it's doing quite well.  This fascinates me, so I observe it all closely and when I interact with the system, it's to try and make things better.  I know starting an RFAr after such a contentious event hardly seems an improvement, but I think real progress is being made here and I hope good things will come of it.  --InkSplotch 20:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're definitely not me. This is getting a bit surreal. Could we get Kelly to do a checkuser? Oh wait...--Tony Sidaway 19:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's probably poor form for someone involved in an RfAr to do a checkuser for it, whether she has the ability now or not. --badlydrawnjeff 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought it was obvous that I was joking. Apologies. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at Inksplotch's edits, I'd say he seems to be quite interested in me, and he tends to have views broadly sympathetic to mine. He isn't me, though.  Who else he might be, if one assumes for a moment that he's lying about this being his sole account, I have no idea.  Surely not Jimbo. --Tony Sidaway 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think InkSplotch is Tony's sock but strong, although, circumstantial, evidence of his/her being someone's sock is there. Even the checkuser is not a fullproof. It is not difficult to start the Firefox from a remote computer in any part of the world (not even an open proxy) if one has an account and can ssh to it. With fast connections on both ends, editing would be seemless. However circumstantial, the evidence that InkSplotch is either a sock or a reincarnation is pretty strong. The user just created an account and heads on to WP:ANI, RfA voting and WP:Arb like a newborn turtle to the sea. Ever since the user made no edits (8 to be exact) to the Mainspace but hundreds of edits to Wikipedia and Wikipedia_talk namespaces. Then the user opens one of the most controversial ArbCom cases, apparently "on his/her own". We can only wonder about the private communication that were involved, but it seems obvious that this is not just an account like many others. --Irpen 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Does it ultimately matter? The arbcom will decide based on the merits, not based on the support of the mob assembled before them.  I mean, I think if anyone does ever use a sock on RFAr or other important policy places, that it's pretty poor form, but I don't know that it's all that important to take this RFAr on a detour over basic suspicions.  (also, Kelly had significant experience with checkuser, and a lot of technical knowledge besides that, so if she's a suspect, it's not like a checkuser would necessarily be the least bit conclusive).  --Interiot 21:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can only state that however strongly I have disagreed with some of InkSpotch's statements I have never had anything but respect for the manner in which they were presented. I find him reasonable, civil, and thoughtful.  I'd object to any checkuser here, as sockpuppets are only a problem if used in an abusive manner, and I've seen no evidence that this has been done here.  Further, if in fact some ill-advised checkuser turns up the this is am alternate account of a known user, I won't give a rat's arse that he "lied" above in saying this was his only account. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know who this is targetted at, but I believe the implication of Kelly's comments was that she edits articles with a sockpuppet. Absent a reasonable finding of fact that Kelly, or anybody else for that matter, has edited anything to do with this request for arbitration, I believe this principle is unnecessary. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 06:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * Comment by parties:
 * If I had to pick just one criticism of Tony, this would be it: the pattern of contempt. Tony is often right in what he says; he works like a dog; and he's been around long enough to half justify his arrogance. The best of us lose our tempers at times and just call another editor an idiot -- especially understandable given the number of idiots who pass in and out.


 * But there is just no excuse for a persistently contemptuous attitude toward everyone with whom you disagree. I have to include myself in that packet; I tend to look down on the common run of humanity; they've made little effort to develop their minds or use what they have. No small part of my personal growth over the last 30 years has been an investment in respect for other people -- and I'm still not finished. Editors who shoot first and dare victims to complain must be restrained. John Reid 06:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, although let's also note that they should never be using their administrator's buttons to go to war with other administrators, either. Geogre 10:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Yes, absolutely. - Mailer Diablo 07:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Very important principal, and strongly relevant to the mess at hand. Friday (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is how issues are determined on Wikipedia
34) New processes require the consensus of the community to work. How that consensus is determined is subject to circumstance, but no-one outside the board has the power to impose a decision.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Our general method of decision making is consensus. There are good policy reasons for this. We are a voluntary organization and require the willing, even enthusiastic cooperation of the community to function. If this matter involved a breach in consensus decision making that should not be glossed over but candidly examined. My current take on the situation is that the Arbitration Committee needs to be much more cautious about putting desysopped administrators in the position of having to go through Requests for Adminship. We can do that by exercising our continuing jurisdiction over the case which involved the former administrator. There is, however, a time and energy problem. We need to be able to process current disputes, not constantly be going over old matters. I know I did not have the energy at the time to go back over Carnildo, but then I did not vote in his case anyway. I couldn't stand the userbox wheelwar and avoided it. Fred Bauder 11:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred, I've looked at Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war and I'm not clear there was an onus on going back through Requests for Adminship. Carnildo was told he could reapply after two weeks. The method of reapplication wasn't dictated, and maybe that's an area to look at for the future. I take your point about all of this, though, and that's one of the thrusts to my thinking too, that there needs to be more clarity in these issues. Hiding Talk 12:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * We'd need to get consensus on this. --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed Hiding Talk 13:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. Yeah, okay, I'm probably fussing. I just feel like people are trying to force things through in some of the principles above that just don't sit with Wikipedia being the encyclopedia anyone can edit.  I don't want to see a principle or precedent established which identifies a cabal, be that the crats, admins or arb-com.  I would hope we all agree we're answerable to the community, and that the community ultimately decides. If we need a fiat, that's what the board's for. Hiding Talk 19:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is not, some things are determined this way. NPOV, NOR, fair use policy etc are dictated from above, and with good reason.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to have not read what I wrote. Only the board has the power to dictate from above. Your argument therefore seems redundant. Hiding Talk 11:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy
35) Wikipedia is not a democracy. Admins and Bureaucrats should make decisions based on the arguments brought forward, not head counting.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Neither is consensus, our policy Fred Bauder 22:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where this is going. Where was the argument brought forward to create probationary admin promotion? Part of the problem here is that to some that felt like a rug was pulled or a rabbit was pulled from the hat.  I found it odd, but I saw it as a rabbit, not a rug. Well, maybe not a rabbit, I just felt the Emperor looked good with no clothes on.  Hiding Talk 19:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Pedophilia userbox wheel war has already been dealt with
36) The instances of behaviour not considered suited to the interests of the Wikipedia or the Wikipedia community raised in Pedophilia userbox wheel war were dealt with in Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Nope. The RFA was part of it.  Previous proposals have dealt with ArbCom modifying its previous ruling on Carnildo.  If it does this, then the matter will be finished.  If it does not, then the matter continues and morphs into "two present and two former ArbCom members buttonholing bureaurocrats to suggest that they never needed to look at all those votes or reasonings."  Geogre 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, the instances of behaviour were dealt with. The issues arising here are ones of technical flaws in the decisions, not regarding issues of behaviour. Hiding Talk 11:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Hoping we might be able to put it to bed? proposed Hiding Talk 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship is not a vote
37) The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy [for adminship] are a significant factor in determining consensus (few RFAs succeed with less than 75% support), but a request for adminship should not be perceived as a vote: the bureaucrats exercise some discretion in deciding whether consensus for promotion of the candidate has been achieved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The wording is from Requests for adminship/Front matter. This is related to the Finding 1.2 (the supermajority alternative to 1.1). --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So, we can tell who is "trusted by the community" by asking four people who we trust? I object to this entirely, as, out of context, this is being used to justify an inappropriate action by the beaurocrats.  I'm reminded of "proof text" battles by fundamentalists.  Geogre 10:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Broadly agree. Hiding Talk 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * However, it is important to note that apparently many users do think it is a vote, and act accordingly on the RFA page. <font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  11:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That does not mean that the numbers have been meaningless. One measure of the strength of consensus is the number of people who agree vs. the number of people who disagree. Anyone closing discussions have been allowed some discretion in close cases, but they have not been given absolute freedom. If it were absolute freedom, there would be no point with an RFA discussion/vote/straw poll/debate (take your pick), we could just replace it with a board of bureaucrats who people can petition to for the admin bit. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrators may make mistakes
38) Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administrators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * From Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, proposed Hiding Talk 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive comments or actions can lead to a block
39) A user may be blocked when that user's conduct disrupts the project. Broadly speaking, this means that their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Copied from Blocking policy, applies to finding of fact 10. proposed Hiding Talk 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith
40) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Copied from Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, proposed Hiding Talk 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Civility
41) Wikipedia editors are required to maintain a minimum level of courtesy toward one another, see Wikiquette, Civility and Writers rules of engagement.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Copied from Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, proposed Hiding Talk 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
42) In conflicts where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Copied from Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, proposed Hiding Talk 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
43) No personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Copied from Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, proposed Hiding Talk 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Decision making and dispute resolution
44) Decision making on Wikipedia is usually done through discussion of issues leading to consensus, see Consensus and Policies and guidelines. In some instances, policy represents a codification of existing practice, or decisions made by the administrative superstructure of Wikipedia (Jimbo or the Board of Trustees). When disputes arise regarding what is policy or what ought to be done, forums such as Administrators' noticeboard are available for discussion regarding the matter, and failing agreement, Resolving disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm a little surprised to see the wording here. The administrators' noticeboard should never be the first place to go with a policy dispute, and must never pre-empt the dispute resolution process.  It should be reserved for cases where administrator intervention is required.  The place to go with a policy dispute is the talk page where the policy is being disputed, followed perhaps by the talk page of the relevant policy and in some cases the Village Pump page for policy.  User talk pages should also be used.  Resolution should then be pursued in the normal way.  Abuse of the administrator' noticeboard results in all sorts of useless clutter already. --Tony Sidaway 18:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Copied from Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, proposed Hiding Talk 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucratic standards
45) Bureaucrats should adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * While this case involved decisions made by bureaucrats, no bureaucrats are parties to this case and no conduct by bureaucrats has been brought into question in the evidence. This principle is true but is only of tangential relevance to the case. --Tony Sidaway 17:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * see Requests for bureaucratship/Essjay number 3. Hiding Talk 12:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wag the dog
46) Wikipedia operates on the principle of consensus. It is undesirable for a small tail of vehement objectors to wag the dog of Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Consensus is not a system of minority rule. Fred Bauder 00:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See this excellent comment by Ligulem. Fred Bauder 13:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Let's not turn this into Karmafistopedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Semantically nil. Geogre 10:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I object to Fred's assertion that there was "a small tail of vehement objectors". The point has been strongly disputed in Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings_of_fact. I'm not sure who Karmafist was and I don't think it's wise to mention him, without explaining what "Karmafistopedia" is supposed to stand for. Ligulem's comment seems to assert that the Wikipedian nomenklatura should adopt double standards, invoking consensus when an ordinary guy goes through RfA and referring to simple majority when a good guy needs to be promoted. If the double standards are indeed adopted, we should amend policy pages accordingly and let the Bcrats bear the brunt of explaining in which case which principles need to be applied. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  09:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This principle is too vague to be useful. Nandesuka 11:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cabals
47) Wikipedia operates on the principal of consensus. It is undesirable for a small number of parties consulting through private or semi-private channels to try to control its operations.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Consensus is not a system of elitism. Fred Bauder 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed. Only information necessarily private for the secure running of Wikipedia and the confidentiality of individuals is in principle private.  I would support the publication at the discretion of the arbitration committee of all IRC statements by me on the IRC channel.  I am aware of no cabals (although, my opinions on this being widely known, I don't think it likely that I would be invited to a controlling cabal or faction). --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "The door was open only for you", Franz Kafka. Fred Bauder 00:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll stand out here in the rain, thanks. :) --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred's statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of "consensus" or "elitism," one. Consensus has to be of the site for decisions that affect the site.  It isn't "consensus among me and my buddies."  If it were, then the Super Article Brigade had consensus to indefinitely block people like Eternal Equinox, but we went to ArbCom.  Were we just being fools?  Were we failing to exercise "consensus" (hey, we discussed it and agreed -- and that's consensus!) or being (Tony's favorite term) "process wonks," or would we have been perfectly justified in blocking all who got in our way and never have been an "elite?"  The special pleading here is far too thick.  Geogre 01:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Other side of the coin. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. Although having been in #wikipedia, I can understand why the Powers that Be might want a private place to thrash things out.  Talk pages are nice, but they aren't very good for real time conversations.  If conversations relating to RfAs could be logged and those logs made available to the rest of Wikipedia, that could go a long way towards proving that, that would go a long way towards proving that there really is no cabal.--*Kat* 02:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The admin channel was really only created so that really important subjects that have to remain confidential could be discussed. In time #wikipedia declined somewhat and became an unwelcoming place for serious discussion, and that was sad because it meant that much previously public discussion, of a pretty harmless nature, migrated to the private channel.  But that isn't the point.  Subject to obvious safeguards on disclosure of sensitive information about people, the arbitration committee in my opinion should at their discretion be granted access to and right to publish all conversations on that channel related to the English Wikipedia, editors of English Wikipedia, or anything else the Committee believes is relevant to English Wikipedia.  --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * #31 (summarise off-wiki discussions) is a better alternative. It's less "they are controlling us", and it's more cognizant of the fact that OTRS/#wikipedia-en-admins/arbcom-l/wikimania/personal conversations can't / won't be going away.  --Interiot 04:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OTRS? I've performed OTRS actions and knew that they had to be done quietly because of what was involved.  This isn't the kind of thing a high profile editor can do, unfortunately.  If we get to the point of summarising an OTRS discussion, often it means that we have comprehensively failed.  Wikipedia is dancing on a knife edge, and only continues to exist in a viable form because of frantic work by volunteers, lawyers, employees and board members. --Tony Sidaway 04:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "#31 (summarise off-wiki discussions) is a better alternative"? Why, thank-you! :-) I'll provide a link to it here so people can go and have a look. The basic thrust of my argument is that people should by all means engage in off-wiki discussion on any and all topics, but they should be aware of the way this can cause problems. Mainly for them, in that they will need to repeat themselves when discussing things on-wiki. Carcharoth 13:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Off-wiki discussions cannot claim consensus
48) Any off-wiki discussion or decision that can be discussed on-wiki (ie. not private or legal) needs to be discussed on-wiki before it can be said to have achieved consensus. ie. Off-wiki discussions cannot be used to claim consensus. Only on-wiki discussions can achieve consensus. Proposed by Carcharoth 13:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * We have already determined this a dozen times, it seems. All IRC is unrelated to Wikipedia, in the first place, and may not be entered into evidence, in the second place.  Private e-mails would be even more definitively inadmissable.  I.e. this is already a determined principle.  The reasons are really obvious, too.  Geogre 10:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Can you point me to where this principle has been decided already, and then it can be linked from here. I think this is an important point that it is worth emphasising, as that will help discourage the attitude of those who feel an IRC discussion means they can ignore dissenting opinions on-wiki. The correct attitude is to engage with people on-wiki to reach a consensus. Not to discuss things on IRC and then do things on-wiki on the basis of said IRC discussions and fail to discuss on-wiki. That is bad practice and this needs to be said loud and clear. Carcharoth 12:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  13:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm terrible at that, I'm afraid (finding old decisions), but it was one of the resolutions, I think, of the idiotic Web Comix RFC, and even then it was treated as a well established known. Geogre 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is self-evident. It's really not an issue in this case.  Nobody has claimed that Wikipedia in general makes decisions off-wiki.  This doesn't mean that people can't discuss matters, say, on the admin channel, and decide a course of action to take in editing.  Boldness in editing is all very well, but it's nice to confer sometimes. --Tony Sidaway 02:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I found the essay I was looking for. It consists of a merge of an older essay that initially opposed use of mailing lists and IRC channels, then, following Jimbo writing a counter-point essay (see the talk page), the two essays were merged. See Off-wiki policy discussion, and in particular the bolded bits: "Consensus" in the Wikipedia context means consensus amongst comments posted on Wikipedia. Off-site discussions do not contribute to "consensus". [...] Although policy discussion on mailing lists is primary, policy should never be dictated on a "consensus" from the mailing list alone without first consulting the broader Wikipedia community. Private Wikipedia mailing lists should be used only when appropriate. [...] Serious policy discussion should be common on IRC. When good ideas or proposals result from such a discussion, participants should publicly post a summary of the idea on Wikipedia.". Now, you say this might be self-evident, but getting the balance wrong between off-wiki and on-wiki discussion has been raised here, so obviously it is not self-evident to some people. You also say it is not relevant here, but I think this is one of the underlying issues causing problems like this. This is a long-term problem that is not going to go away unless people recognise where the balance point should be between how and where certain issues are discussed. Carcharoth 16:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody in this case has claimed to arrive at consensus in a discussion off the wiki. Therefore it is, as I said, not an issue in this case. --Tony Sidaway 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is an extension of principle 31 above: "summarise off-wiki discussions", and is primarily aimed at those who casually refer to off-wiki discussions during on-wiki discussions, often implying that consensus-reaching discussion has already taken place. This previous discussion should not be thought of as the main discussion. The main, consensus-gathering discussion, must take place on-wiki. Carcharoth 13:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To my way of thinking, what matters more is whether the decision stands on its own merits, not the process by which it was arrived at. Policy, not process, is what matters. If the decision is questioned, the decider should be able to justify it, that is, why it is correct, but should have no need to even discuss who said what when, as that is not relevant. Communication is a key part of decision making but the form of that communication is not, and should not be, an issue. Judge the decision on merits, not how it was arrived at. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility
99) A common reason for opposing an RFA nomination is incivility on the part of the nominee. Indeed, a nominee who is frequently incivil will almost certainly fail. This implies that the community expects admins to be civil. Nearly all admins, even those involved in disputes or dealing with problem users, are civil most of the time.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed but when an admin ceases to be civil, then it is time for them to go, the sooner the better, no matter who they are, Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, of the (now very silent) James Forrester. Admins are here among other things (such as to help build an encyclopedia) to lead by example.  This has sadly sometimes not been the case. Giano 06:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Civility is a big deal because being incivil hurts editor morale, and for a volunteer organisation morale is critical. For an admin, nasty behavior on talk pages is more hurtful to the community than e.g. out-of-policy deletions or violating the protection policy. <font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  23:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems right on the mark to me. Friday (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Productive policy discussion differentiated from trolling
50) Lengthy policy discussions, in order to be justified, need to be productive. Discussions which consist of head-butting and tendentious repetition of fixed positions are not productive. Participation in such discussions, if they cannot be turned to productive dialog, is a waste of time. Those who prolong sterile discussion are violating What Wikipedia is not.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 19:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Wholly disagree. There are far too many wiggle words in here, and they don't have any application.  If something is not "productive" because one party is abusing powers, it is not "sterile" to continue trying to work out the issues.  (Let's go not with anything put up here, but the "Warren Benbow" situation.  One person says that undeletion takes VfU.  The other says that he is not bound by such "process."  One just undeletes, entirely rewrites, and then, based on the rewrite, says, "See? There should never have been a deletion."  Delete/undelete then delete/undelete then delete/undelete over and over, and what's at stake is not the article but "do administrators need community input via VfU?"  One party won't use VfU at all, and the other insists that everyone has to.  The discussion is "sterile" because one person simply uses his undelete button to force his will.  Perhaps an Rfar needed to be launched, but the other parties were attempting to avoid that, so, by your proposal, the person trying to avoid an Rfar, trying to be nice, is to be punished?)  Absolutely not.  Geogre 10:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Determining the point at which a discussion becomes no longer useful is a sometimes tricky judgment call. If someone persists beyond that point, it may be tiresome or a waste of time, but we should not call it "trolling".  Trolling, to me, must be intentional, not a result of poor judgment. Friday (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. What appears to be trolling may simply result from ineffective technique. Fred Bauder 20:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * At some point, if you can see that community will not come around to a position, say, to give real examples, multiple articles with diverse points of view (the Wikinfo fork), or structured editing under the supervision of academic experts (Citizendium), it is time to shut up or move on. It is fine to occasionally revisit such positions, but as with the oath of fealty demanded on the Bureaucrats Noticeboard by John Reid there are reasonable limits. If a dozen elected Bureaucrats reject the demands made by a few users, there is a resolution. The answer is no. Fred Bauder 20:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, with the provision that those rejecting someone's comments as tendentious, must be clear why they are saying that. ie. Point to where this has been discussed and rejected before. Say, politely, that the discussion is now getting repetitive. Simply tersely saying that something is 'tendentious' (a word I had to look up) or 'trolling' (a vague term) is not clear enough. Carcharoth 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect to "a few users" I'd gently point Fred to WP:WEASEL and say that something over seventy is not "a few." And, in the event that it had been known that this was a 50%+1 style RfA, it might have been more than even this apocryphal few.  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 01:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Transparency
1000) Some people have expressed surprise at realizing who was on the arbitration mailing list. To avert future surprises, it may be useful to have a page on Wikipedia that shows who exactly has read access to this list.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I believe this was simply not thought of earlier, and that there are hardly any compelling reasons to not inform the community of this. Of course the content of the list itself is not meant to be public. <font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  21:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Editors owe no special deference to admins, bureaucrats, or arbitrators in discussion
1) While admins, bureaucrats, and arbitrators have responsibilities beyond those of the typical editor, those responsibilities do not entitle them to any special deference in the ordinary course of discussion. Simple disagreement with an admin, bureaucrat, or arbitrator is in no way sanctionable.  Editors do, however, owe admins, bureaucrats, and arbitrators the same duty of civility that all editors owe to each other.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * My hesitation is that I think this is already the case. Wikipedia was famously (do I need diffs to all the news reports?) founded on the assumption that the "rabble" of the public at large would be empowered equally with "experts."  Therefore, it follows that in everyday conversation none of us have to 'respect my authori-tay.'  We should have basic respect, and that respect means allowing other people to disagree with us, whether they are "lower" or "higher" in the fancied pyramid of responsibilities in Wikipedia.  Respect should be given, not demanded.  Geogre 10:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I should only add that Ghirla is correct that there are hosts of people who beaver away writing who have declined RFA's. They don't want it.  That they would then be considered lesser forms of life is an attrocity against the founding principles of Wikipedia, and that is the one thing that I campaign for.  I leave personalities alone, generally, but I have only one issue: flatness of hierarchy.  Anything that strives to differentiate, to make "some animals more equal than others," bugs me enough to step up and argue.  If I want to undelete something, I go to DRV.  If I need to block someone, I announce it and listen to what others say.  Speed is nice, but wisdom is nicer.  Geogre 11:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Per Bishonen's evidence that Tony's recent blocks are an attempt to make "defiance" a punishable offense.  I've struggled with the wording a bit here &mdash; obviously, arbitrators make make whatever rules they want on, for example, the RFArb pages, which is why I qualified this with "in the ordinary course of discussion."  If anyone can suggest alternative wording that captures the idea better, please feel free to suggest it. One can of course be blocked for disagreeing in a disruptive manner, but being blocked simply because one disagrees with someone is just a little too "l'etat, c'est moi" for my taste. Nandesuka 23:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. This needs to be said because certain people appear to think otherwise.  Friday (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said, Geogre. It's hard to say why Wetman, who contributed more quality content than anyone I know in Wikipedia, but declined all offers to pass through an RfA beauty pageant, should "owe special deference" to some useless IRC fairy, who "won" his RfA owing to sociability without contributing new content to the project. I don't even want to know who admins in this project are. If you have a broom, please make use of it against trolls and vandals when needed, but don't molest long-term contributors with your threats and condescending attitudes. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  10:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As concerns civility, I'm not a model of civility, but I would like to see a higher standard in admins. They are said to represent the face of Wikipedia. Therefore, they should be held accountable to higher standards of civility than we mere editors. Unfortunately, since the January poll nothing has changed and admins are not held accountable to anyone or anything. If an admin calls me "idiot", people let it pass. If I call someone idiot (although I don't), I am guilty of disruption and blocked. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  10:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This appears to be based on a misreading of my block message. Cowman109 had listed several examples of Ghirlandajo's disruptively aggressive edits.  I made a gentle approach but was subjected to exactly the same aggression, in which a conciliatory and sensitive edit was described as a threat.  This was a brief block for disruption, not an attempt to make "defiance" a blockable matter.  Ghirlandajo's problem wasn't his disagreement, but his chronic treatment of Wikipedia as a battlefield.  When I blocked Ghirlandajo, I thought that his constant warring on other editors ("useless IRC fairies" in his parlance) was unusual.  However it seems to me that his belligerent attitude is held much more widely than I had appreciated. --Tony Sidaway 14:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, my comment does not refer specifically to your block. I have sufficient experience to adjudge what's going on without recalling that particular incident. If my intention was to "treat Wikipedia as a battlefield" (as you allege), I don't think I would need write hundreds articles about architecture and arts, as I have done. Your accusation of "constant warring on other editors" is quite insulting and I hope you will bring apologies for this latest slur or provide appropriate evidence that I indulge in "constant warring on other editors". Although I'm not a party to the case, I feel obliged to remind that what your describe as "disruptively aggressive edits" was assessed by every other commentator as rather mild and RfAr was dropped. If you search for "disruptively aggressive edits", you don't have to scan the contributions of others. Since you chose to bring the matter here, I remind you that you blocked both me and Giano after we had disputed your incivil behaviour. Please never block people you are in conflict with. This is revolting and "disruptively aggressive". -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never, ever, been involved with any dispute with Giano or Ghirlandajo. Indeed I was only vaguely aware of their existence before their disruptive activities were made known to me by third parties. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Contributors are valued
1) Wikipedia is built upon the volunteer effots of its contributors. Our volunteers contribute in many ways, through writing and editing articles, shaping policy and process, maintaining articles, accounts and the infrastructure of the Wikipedia software.  The powers and roles (Editor, Admin, Bureacrat, Steward) are merely tools provided by the Wikipedia Foundation for a single purpose: building an encyclopedia.  Contributors should not be judged by the roles they fill or the tools they wield, but instead valued and appreciated for the effort they put into Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Very late proposal. A different view of "A Mixed System" perhaps? --InkSplotch 02:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Generally endorse the sentiment, per my "peroration" on the proposed decision talk page, though not sure putting any one-paragraph statement of Wiki-philosophy to a vote will yield a consensus. Newyorkbrad 03:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Another attempt to de-value Wikipedia's core mission, the creation of free content, by putting it on an equivalent pedestal with the neccessary evil bureaucracies surrounding it. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
1) Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Sigh. Thatcher131 03:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadly endorsed, especially the "sigh" part. Newyorkbrad 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: