Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings of fact


 * ../Proposed principles/

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Suggest a change to wording here. ...with the support of the Arbitration Committee could be construed as endorsement of the nomination. [ælfəks] 03:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We did support Carnildo's resysopping. Fred Bauder 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot
.85) is the operator of a bot  which removes images that are in Category:Images with unknown source and Category:Images with unknown copyright status from articles, so that administrators can delete them.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Fred Bauder 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Objections based on OrphanBot
.86) A proportion of the opposition expressed to Requests_for_adminship/Carnildo_3 was based on opposition to.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Fred Bauder 20:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:


 * By my count, six people out of 71 opposers mentioned OrphanBot, and one out of 10 neutral people mentioned it. Radiant! 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This was a small proportion of objections.  Whilst I was correct at the time to say that the "Carnildo resign" campaign was instigated by one person (Juppiter) who had objections to OrphanBot, I don't think that means that a large proportion of the requests to resign were due to some OrphanBot matter.  I misread the situation.  I haven't checked the people who added their names to the requests on Carnildo's talk page, but I don't have any reason to believe that they did so on account of Juppiter's particular objection. --Tony Sidaway 00:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Tony on this point. Although I mentioned the bot in my vote, my main problem with Carnildo is his careless attitude towards his block of Giano. The faulty and retroactive functioning of the bot only served to expose Carnildo's problems in communicating with other wikipedians. Although I fully respect Danny's opinions, it is pretty evident that Carnildo is not admin stuff, as they say. He rarely responds to objections raised on his talk page; not the qualities that I would appreciate in an administrator. If you fail to discuss the performance of your bot with fellow wikipedians, why should you crave for admin tools which give you an opportunity to block them? -- Ghirla -трёп-  08:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Analysis of re-RFAs shows that most demoted admins who fail a RFA do so for a very different reason than the one that led to their demotion. For instance, because the former admin was inactive for months prior to repromotion, or has recent problems with civility. See also the evidence page. Radiant! 00:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tentatively support Radiant's analysis, but I think it's probably more complex than that. Honestly I think we agonise too much about whether a person is a sysop or not, except in obvious cases such as NSLE.   --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 02:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * A lot of this opposition seems to have been based on an unresolved grudge held by Giano and supported by people who sympathized with him. I find no evidence that Giano or any other party has ever used the dispute resolution process to attempt to resolve this bad feeling. In response to Kirill, I'll say that it seems to me that the particular opposition expressed by Giano and some others was that an apology must be made before adminship would be considered.  In my opinion this could be seen, in effect, as using the RFA as a stage upon which to pursue a personal grievance. This isn't the purpose for which Requests for adminship is intended. --Tony Sidaway 03:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The dispute resolution process was used and Carnildo was desysopped. I would not say they used the RfA to pursue "a personal grievance". Rather, they continued to focus on the same public issues which lead to Carnilo being desysopped. That was fine. The problem is vigorously continuing the campaign after the decision was made and extending the campaign to include a condemnation of those who made the decision. Fred Bauder 21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And with regard to the re-sysopping, there are proposed principles/findings above that the bureaucrats' decision on an RfA is final, which would conflict with any suggestion that Giano or anyone else should have resorted to the dispute resolution procedure to challenge their decision. (I personally express no view on the re-sysopping.) Newyorkbrad 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not comment on this RfA or on any involving this user; to my knowledge I have had no direct interaction with Carnildo on any level. I have reviwed the RfA in question thoroughly and find that participation was heavy, with many rational expressions of both opposition and support. The level of support did not meet community standards for promotion. John Reid 06:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest rephrasing '"including strong opposition from those he had blocked for "hate speech"' such that the phrasing in the final decision reflect that the "hate speach" accusation were firmly rejected by the community as baseless and grossly inappropriate. --Irpen 18:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


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


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


 * (I did not vote.) Administrators are supposed to be trusted. When people point to data that indicates somone cannot be trusted, that should not be discounted as a "grudge". &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No and it was not. Fred Bauder 21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there's got to be some form of closure on issues. Especially issues dealt with through arbitration. Hiding Talk 13:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Completely support Sjakkalle's comment. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comments by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus requires general agreement. Fred Bauder 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments by parties:
 * Endorsed. John Reid 01:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments by others:
 * Support. Speaks to my feelings on the issue. Hamster Sandwich 01:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue. Does it represent the known facts?   --Tony Sidaway 01:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I support the proposal because it presents itself thusly "Due to strong opposition to Carnildo's RfA there was a failure to reach consensus", and then linking to some relative pages. I read them. To me that in itself represents enough fact to support the proposal. I submit to you that this is not an unusal premise for me to use when achieving some kind of support level for any particular thing in WP. So yes, in my perception the proposal speaks to the issue of an RfA closing in which concensus levels supporting the promotion may have been negligable. I supported Carnildo, but there was alot of what I would call "Good Opposition" to him. That is to say, valid concerns and and a general feeling of "unfinished-ness" in l'affaire pedobox. So far this has unfolded just about as I expected it would, with three exceptions. I didn't forsee Karmafist throwing up his arms, but in retrospect it was kind of inevitable (New Hampshire is the "Live Free Or Die" state, after all). And secondly, I didn't think that Carnildo would be promoted after watching "Carnildo III" unfold, regardless of my support (does my vote count yet?). And third I had no glimmer when all this was taking place way back during the "user-box wars" and Carnildo's subsequent RfA that there would be proposals calling for sanction against you concerning any of this. And yet, here we are. Hope this answers your question. Hamster Sandwich 02:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a big "thus" (or "thusly", if you prefer). You're a bit wordy, you know, but I take it that you don't accept that RFA is not a vote. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Short and sweet then. Where have you made this inference? Please qualifiy such sweeping statements, particularily where they concern a comment I have made. Hamster Sandwich 02:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's hard to tell because you go on a bit and introduce subjects that have nothing to do with the question at hand. The proposal is that consensus was not reached.  Yet the bureaucrats (on available evidence) appear to differ with this conclusion.  I presume therefore that perhaps you think that RFA motions require a supermajority.  Current RFA policy appears to say that it doesn't, and that bureaucrats exercise some discretion.  If they exercised discretion inappropriately here (and I could be persuaded of this) then evidence should be presented to that effect. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * You still have this terrible chip on your shoulder. Essjay's criteria are somewhat out of date and have always been somewhat contentious, because they presumed that supermajority was and always would be the criterion for consensus. --Tony Sidaway 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This finding of fact seems concise and correct. As an observer, I support it. Nandesuka 11:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comments by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comments by others:
 * Please, for the love of god, can you make less words on the page Tony. The above could have just been a comment "how about a change to 'supermajority' from 'consensus.'"  I know that you enjoy this, but you've been asked nicely to limit your input, and it's been noted that too many words makes this page less usable.  I understand the irony in me using this many words to ask you to use less, but it really is a problem. -  brenneman  {L}
 * This finding of fact uses weasel words. 1.1 is better.  Nandesuka 11:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * Long and wordy, but I believe it all to be true. John Reid 07:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * *sigh* I suppose asking that we make a single version of this is too much to ask? - brenneman  {L} 03:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A question directed to Tony Sidaway, as he's stricken "just the facts" above: What statements here are not facts? brenneman  {L} 05:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take the removal of the stricken comment as indicating not that these aren't facts, just that it included facts that unpalatable to some. brenneman  {L} 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If we're to split this out, I suggest three sections:
 * A statement about the de facto standards for promotion,
 * A statement about the pseudo-votes on CoRfA3 and the subsequent promotion, and
 * A statment about the response.
 * Any statement that includes weasel wording about the facts (like hiding the number "2" in the word "those" ) is clearly unacceptable.
 * brenneman {L} 06:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 03:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Poor form indeed that people won't even work together in a finding of fact. It speaks volumes. -  brenneman  {L} 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the word "brief" from this title as it is deceptive. It's not that it's shorter than the other, it's that it fails to cover the same material.  I'd have changed it to "biased" but that seemed too provocative. -  brenneman  {L} 05:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Smart move Fred Bauder 13:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 02:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * To refine this, anyone can send email to the moderated list, but clerks' emails to the mailing list are normally unmoderated. Typically clerks use this facility for forwarding confidential evidence that is sometimes submitted via them, asking for arbitrators to clarify decisions, and so on. A clerk does not see any mailing list traffic at all; this has always been the case except where Kelly Martin, a former arbitrator, retained her read access to the mailing list in that capacity while acting as head clerk.  --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * With the exception of private communications to clerks from the parties, which are relayed to the arbitrators, the clerks normally see nothing that is not completely public in case after case. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggest adding: "Nevertheles, the ability of former arbitrators, especially those who lost their position due to a strong and legitimate opposition faced on the reelection, as well as the recused sitting arbitrators to comment on specific cases in the confidential list is often viewed controversial". This is an obvious fact that needs to be recognized. Besides, there must be a provision that clarifies who has access to the list. Until recent post by Raul, the answer to this question was never clearly stated. --Irpen 18:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * My understanding was that all editors had write access, is this not the case? - brenneman  {L} 02:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Might be Fred Bauder 03:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony's answer is correct, and to clarify, yes, everyone does have access to the list, and many prties have used it for appeals and such before. Dmcdevit·t 03:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to closing of RfA
5) Following the closing of Carnildo's request for admin considerable criticism was expressed concerning both the novel 2 month probationary period granted and the closeness of the poll, Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/archive3, User_talk:Carnildo, and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_68.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 03:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Support, of course. Tony, it's not a game, it's business -- and there must be rules. John Reid 07:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Is it really useful to have this spun off from the existing proposed findings on this RFA? I feel strongly that these forks indicate that some parties are less interested in creating a neutral statement of facts than in making revisionist history. -  brenneman  {L} 05:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You make your proposals; I'll make mine, but keep talking about how and why yours are better. Fred Bauder 10:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This is probably at the center of the case, I think. It concerns an editor using Wikipedia as a stage upon which to pursue a personal grievance, without following dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway 07:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How was he supposed to engage in dispute resolution. That had been done. Carnildo had been desysopped. Fred Bauder 10:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet Giano felt that that was not enough. --Tony Sidaway 12:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What's really poor about this proposed finding is not whether it is true or not but whether it matters. Insulting a speaker does not invalidate his argument. Fine, Giano has/had a grudge against Carnildo. Let's stretch it out to say that Giano spends all his nights grinding his Carnildo-axe. So what? This may be unwise on many levels but let's take a look at the content of his remarks. For example, here Giano casts a pseudo-vote, makes one statement freighted with heavily biased terms, another statement of fact, a prediction, and voices an opinion on a general policy issue. The entire comment is pervaded by the bias that this proposed finding attempts to surface; it's hardly hidden away. The relevant assertion of fact -- that Carnildo never apologized to Giano for an action that was overturned and condemned -- is either true or false; this can be determined by examining Carnildo's contribs. A raving lunatic or Mother Teresa could make the same assertion and it would make no difference at all to the truth. John Reid 07:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This fails to seperate the pejorative term "grudge" from the instance where an editor has reasonable cause to believe that someone has displayed a pattern of behavior. - brenneman  {L} 07:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this a grudge, or is it legitimate distrust? Being unfairly blocked indefinitely is a punch in the face, no matter how quickly it is unblocked, and I think it is a bit ureasonable to expect or demand that Giano be happy about seeing the person who did this to him readminned. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Let us say that based on his past behavior there is good reason to distrust Carnildo. That formulation extends good faith to Giano. Opposition to his request for adminship is acceptable, including statements regarding past wrongs, failure to show remorse or appropriately apologize, and his rather brief responses to inquiries about future behavior. Fred Bauder 10:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- 69.236.160.1 Richard 16:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * Removing the biased word makes this a much better finding of fact. John Reid 07:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Comment by others:

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

Objectors to the decision
6.3) In addition to Giano  , vigorous opposition was voiced by Bunchofgrapes      , R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)        , Chacor , Ghirlandajo      , Ligulem  , Bishonen , MartinRe  , Marskell  , Splash    , Grafikm fr , The Land , Grue , David D. , Friday , Mailer diablo , Zoe , Alex Bakharev , Casey Abell a more neutral observation,


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Giano does not particularly stand out. Fred Bauder 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * At the time, this had the appearance to me of some kind of agitation with the intent of destabilising Wikipedia in order to achieve the repeal of the decision. I still think there was an element of that, simply because most of the most vociferous objectors were long time associates of Giano and some of them were involved in (legitimate) loosely organised campaigns to improve the status of primary content producers within Wikipedia: the campaign against bull and the disgruntled wikipedians' coffee club.  There was clearly a degree of orchestration, but it seemed to me that it was informal, spontaneous and benign.   Only where an editor seemed to have gone over the bounds of reasonable expression did I intervene (removing John Reid's comments after discussion on the IRC channel, and blocking Giano briefly when he made accusations of a widespread conspiracy). --Tony Sidaway 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to imagine that any of the others engaged in such grossly false and damaging accusations against the entire engine of dispute resolution and the bureaucrats, and even some named individuals. --Tony Sidaway 04:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


 * Comments by arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Comments by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 22:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 22:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Perhaps it could have been put more diplomatically, but I think it's an accurate observation. --Tony Sidaway 22:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that I removed attempts to derail discussion from the issue at hand onto personal criticism, which would have been better off on user talk pages. The front matter debate progressed smoothly without irpen's continual carping and the stable result was substantially that which I had proposed. --Tony Sidaway 21:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that you should refactor discussion in this way. Fred Bauder 22:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Tony Sidaway 02:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just an extra quick correction. Above Tony graciously uses inoffensive characterization "irpen's continual carping" for what's actually described below at section and at his talk. What Tony calls "the stable result [that] was substantially [what he] had proposed" was actually Irpen's own edit. Let's just be straight with facts. --Irpen 02:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I took this comment as intended to mean that Tony was highly dissatisfied with the current RfA process and was pleased that the bureaucrats did not feel bound by the result of the !votes cast through that process.  I didn't, and don't, see the comment as intended as a personal attack on the individual RfA voters or the majority of them, although several readers predictably disagreed.  (To use a legal analogy, the statement wasn't "of and concerning" a particular person or small group of persons so as to constitute a personal attack.)  Tony is hardly the only user dissatisfied with current RfA voting/discussion/whatever procedures and standards.  His remark certainly could have been put more diplomatically, particularly in the contentious atmosphere already present, but it doesn't call for ArbCom action. Newyorkbrad 00:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Making civil remarks about the appalling state of RFA and praising the bureaucrats for showing some backbone is to be encouraged. This is what I did. --Tony Sidaway 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a technical correction. I am only responsible for the comments in diffs 86, 87 and 88 above. The rest were made by Tony Sidaway and most of those comments are not related to anything that I wrote. I'm sure that it is hard to keep track of who said what in which diff so I can only assume that the mistake was just an unintentional error. -- 69.236.160.1 Richard 16:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 13:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Too tepid. These diffs (and other comments by this user) are highly inflammatory. John Reid 07:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Too tepid, yes. I have proposed a remedy based on this finding over at the workshop page (announcing it here in case the page proliferation makes it harder to find). Bishonen | talk 18:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC).


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Fred Bauder 13:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


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


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


 * Comment by others:
 * At least part of the conflict here involved editors whom have near-continous wiki-drama surrounding them.
 * The "accept" statements failed to limit/exclude this line. If the committee does not want to turn its lens this way, please do say so.
 * I'm well aware that (as I'm the one who raised it) many parties will sweep this into the same "grudge" category that's raised above.
 * Regardless, both have had Arbitration cases raises against them in the quite recent past. This looks as good a time as any to do this.
 * I'm going to start a discussion thread on the talk page, as I'm already frustrated with the odd manner in which this page is progressing.
 * brenneman {L} 07:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just thinking in public and you are trying to help me. Fred Bauder 10:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have plenty of evidence of this if it's needed. I'll compile and add in the next 24-48 hours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Focused on Sidaway per Fred Bauder. If somone wants to create a Kelly section, feel free.  brenneman  {L} 13:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway
8) Effective September 25, 2006 has resigned as arbitration clerk after a request that he do so by the Arbitration Committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 11:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Duly emancipated. --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred's compliment is appreciated. I worked hard at a time when there was nobody else to do the job, and I felt appreciated. I am happy to leave the clerks' corps after seeing our three new clerks do an excellent job of taking over.  I think that my evidence makes it plain that I believe that it should be permanent.  A controversial sysop is not a sensible choice of clerk, no matter how good he may be at the job.  There is a conflict that, with experience of the role, we have come to acknowledge.  Some editors (notably Geogre) warned us from the start that the choices of personnel were unwise, and they were right. Nevertheless I would defend the choice of personnel on the basis of the paucity of people who are both willing to do the work and capable of doing it well. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to McGinnley, I was asked to resign as a clerk in an email from Charles Matthews. I made a couple of edits which had the effect of removing myself from the clerks' corps.  I had spoken to Jimbo the previous day and he said he thought "declerking" would be likely.  I didn't find that surprising. --Tony Sidaway 21:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to McGinnley for the second time: I have resigned as a clerk. I have no intention of becoming a clerk ever again. I have told the Arbitration Committee that I think that having people like me as clerks is a bad idea. --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * A very minor point: I was reading up on the history of the clerks, and I found this subpage which seems rather out-of-date (last edited back in June and doesn't mention Tony at all). Can anyone help fill in the history or redirect to a more informative page? Thanks, and apologies for putting this side-point here. Carcharoth 12:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neglected page, but not inaccurate. Fred Bauder 13:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now been directed to Arbitration Committee/Clerks/current (a sub-subpage below the subpage I had found). The history is there. The reason I failed to find the history in the history of the subpage was because the sub-subpage was transcluded to the subpage using a template. A little trick I had forgotten, but which catches me out every time. I wonder if there is a way to make such things more transparent? I find use of templates helps editing-editors, but hinders reading-editors that want to dig into the histories. Carcharoth 17:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Could the ArbCom clarify - was the request 'to resign' or was the resignation the result of a different request - it's a little ambiguous as currently written? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Will Arbcom confirm if this is a temporary suspension or a permanent dismissal and what its purpose is? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think much of it, cutting our nose off to spite our face, but I think there was a sense that Tony's actions reflected badly on the Committee. I think they reflect badly on Tony, but he was the best clerk we have ever had. Fred Bauder 17:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So, sorry to labour this, but is Tony temporarily suspended from his duties as clerk for the duration of this arbitration, or is the intention that it is permanent, or will it be decided after the findings? --Mcginnly | Natter 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony's responded above. Newyorkbrad 00:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * In response to User:Grafikm_fr, I don't really know of anyone else who said that, basically, there was this massive conspiracy within the top level of Wikipedia. There were some other pretty odd protests, but nothing like that. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has levels? Zocky | picture popups 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are levels of responsibility. Bureaucrats have the responsibility of deciding consensus in nominations, in the privileges function, and arbitrators have the responsibility of resolving intractable disputes in the dispute resolution function.  Needless to say, false and baseless accusations encompassing the entirety of such functions are, in the absence of substantial evidence, pretty serious and good evidence of a fellow who may need a bit of a rest. --Tony Sidaway 00:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's get back to my nitpicking with your choice of words - what top level? Who are these people you are referring to? What makes these people more top than you and me? Or are we part of that top level? Or what? Zocky | picture popups 01:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just explained that. This doesn't mean that those people are better than you or me.  However as individuals and groups they have been given the responsibilities, respectively, of deciding consensus on RFA discussions, and resolving disputes.  Accusing me of being involved in some heinous conspiracy with some other person might be bad, but I'll get over it (it happens all the time and it isn't any more true that it was the first time).  Accusing the dispute resolution machinery itself, well I think that's a bit much and, without any evidence, I think that's where someone is basically getting a little too paranoid. My choice of words is immaterial.  We simply cannot afford a policy of assuming bad faith of Wikipedia itself.  --Tony Sidaway 01:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If your problem is with him speaking in bad terms about the arbcom and/or bureaucrats collectively, I can only agree - people should be treated individually, especially when criticizing them.
 * That still doesn't answer my question: what makes bureaucrats and ArbCom "top level" of Wikipedia more than writing FAs, or sorting stubs, or voting on RFA makes other groups of editors "top level"? Zocky | picture popups 04:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the responsibilities. Arbitrators are required to fill the role of the top level of dispute resolution (in the absence of an appeal to Jimbo).  Bureaucrats are required to determine consensus.  But this isn't the point.  If Giano had claimed that there was a massive conspiracy involving the Featured Article writers and the Stub sorters, it would have been no less absurd and no less insulting.  It would still have been a sign of an editor who neeeded a bit of a sit down and a cup of tea. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you see any parallels with insulting RFA voters collectively? Zocky | picture popups 04:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * None. When people act as a rabble, the correct collective term is rabble. Wikipedia must never be a rabble. --Tony Sidaway 05:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, the basic principles of civility apply only to people other than Tony Sidaway. I'm really beginning to wonder if reasoning with you about you has any chance of being fruitful. But I'll give it one more go:
 * You must surely see by now that there are a lot of opinions and evidence that your involvement in heated situations often makes matters worse, and that your words and actions are more commonly contested and argued about than those of the average editor. Regardless of your good deeds and intentions, your words and actions often cause an unproportional amount of aggravation, drama and waste of time. In short, you are doing more than your share of harm. Since you seem to care for the project, you should consider why this is and try to avoid it in the future. Maybe it's just an attitude problem - most of us think that working on Wikipedia should feel like working in a large office where you have to share space amicably with people you don't know, maybe you misunderstand and think it should be like an evening with the boys complete with exchanging jocular insults.
 * I'd say that the problem is your misuse of language, or maybe ignorance or misunderstanding of problems and techniques specific to written public communication. Irony, jokes, and mostly everything that depends on prosody, stress, facial communication, inside knowledge, and/or assumptions of common sense is certain to be misunderstood when there are people who don't hear you, see you, or know what you know, nor know you, reading what you wrote. That's why "being civil" has different standards when talking to somebody in your living room and when commenting on Wikipedia. Misunderstandings arising from your failure to follow ettiquete reflect badly on you, not on people who misunderstand you. Zocky | picture popups 05:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The last sentence applies to me too, so I'll stop poluting this section with off-topic discussion. Zocky | picture popups 05:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but no danger of that. Fred Bauder 05:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Looks biaised as it is, there was a lot of protests, singling out Giano as it is now is biaised. -- Grafikm_fr 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Viewed in the context of the other comments he does not stand out. Fred Bauder 22:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Diffss
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=75773359 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=76873013 User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2006_09_24 (bookmarks, don't delete) Fred Bauder 17:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway blocked Giano
10) At 21:07, September 14, 2006 blocked  with an expiry time of 3 hours (Making quite hysterical accusationsand needs to cool down a bit). The block was reversed 13 minutes later by.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Let me just get straight what I'm seeing sprinkled around: This section is inviolate. The words above shall be edited by no-one else.  Is that really what we think is the best way to proceed?  More accurately, is that what committee members other than Fred think is the best way to proceed? -  brenneman  {L} 14:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Propose alternatives, don't change any proposal you did not make yourself. The /Workshop page works this way because I invented it and am usually the only arbitrator that uses it regularly. It would be unusual for any other arbitrators to show up. I have a strong commitment to public discussion of decisions, transparency, if you will. Fred Bauder 14:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse Fred, if that's not presumptuous. A major problem with wikidiscussion is that when proposals are edited, prior comments may be misconstrued. Creating alternate proposals for even minor variants is bulky and unwieldly but less ambiguous than trying to decide if someone was trying to hit a moving target. John Reid 07:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point Fred Bauder 14:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Fred Bauder 17:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Bureaucrats' noticeboard
10.02) Shortly after the announcement of the Carnildo decision Splash commented on Bureaucrats' noticeboard "Making it up as you go along", John Reid, response by Redux , Christopher Parham , John Reid power, Tim Smith , Durin , Kelly Martin , John Reid , Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway , Angela ....Tony Sidaway (Requests for adminship is not a vote, Dragons flight , Kelly Martin "fickle and ill-informed populace", John Reid "community will", Johnleemk "encyclopedia, not community", nice summary of positions by Durin, Kelly Martin , Durin. Kelly Martin license, Haukurth, Durin exit, ALoan ArbCom gravity, Dragons flight , Newyorkbrad community decision making, The wub , JzG , Tony Sidaway , John Reid , ALoan , Durin , UninvitedCompany , John Reid oath of fealty, ALoan , Durin , Nichalp, a Bureaucrat , RM occasionally consensus is wrong, Radient! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=75549178 A more neutral question], Tony Sidaway removes oath of fealty "Ridiculous", JoshuaZ restores, Giano endorses oath, Durin, John Reid consequences of failure to take oath, no neutral question, Tony Sidaway reaction to demand for oath, Giano "who continues to serve consensus?", Nichalp, a Bureaucrat , John Reid , John Reid demand for answer from Nichalp, Tony Sidaway "You could fucking whistle", Nichalp response to demand, ALoan , Durin , Taxman "false dichotomy", Kim Bruning "please stop trolling", RM , Tony Sidaway "loud and resounding contempt", Durin , Giano "hypocrisy on such a grand scale", Tony Sidaway again moves oath of fealty, Kim Bruning , Tony Sidaway moved responses and comments, removed Giano's comment as a personal attack, Giano "amazing", Redux, a Bureaucrat extended thoughtful response, Radient! , Nichalp, a Bureaucrat break, John Reid "left the room" "who is boss", John Reid Taxman, Tony Sidaway "revolting hectoring has to stop", Rdsmith4, Giano WTF, Gmaxwell , Nae'blis "pushing too hard", Cowman109 call for calm, Voice of All removed oath of fealty, The Halo "HUAC", Redux, a Bureaucrat [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=75754502 "Understand this: no Bureaucrat believes that s/he is above consensus, but our job consists precisely of determining consensus within the context of RfAs, as well as acting on it in the best interest of the community. That is what we were appointed to do; that is what we do."], JoshuaZ "please stop", Tony Sidaway removed attack and requests to stop removed more material, ALoan restored, Voice of All "please stop it", Centrx regarding John Reid, Durin "too much", Tony Sidaway archiving to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/John_Reid more archiving "ignore all rules", John Reid "sweep it under the rug", Redux, a Bureaucrat "enough", Ghirlandajo 'So, the answer is: "Sweep it under the rug"', RM consensus is a guideline, TenOfAllTrades enough, RM "loaded question", Rdsmith4, a Bureaucrat "remove trolling", Richardshusr, Radiant! , part archived by bot.


 * Comments by arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 12:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

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


 * Comments by arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 12:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments by parties:

Comments by others:

Tony Sidaway blocked Ghirlandajo
10.1) At 15:32, September 5, 2006 blocked  with an expiry time of 3 hours (Unreasonable and defiant response to request to tone down after multiple instances of gross incivility). The block ran its course. Ghirlandajo's response bit more.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed -- Grafikm_fr 15:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm not very civil. --Tony Sidaway 21:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If I were you, I would not be very proud of it. -- Grafikm_fr 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not proud of it. Why do you think that I am? --Tony Sidaway 23:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Giano was blocked during the Carnildo RfA
12) Giano was blocked during the Carnildo RfA (31 August by ) related to his comments concerning the RfA, and this block was hotly debated on ANI. 18 hours after the block Giano struck out his oppose vote on the Carnildo RfA.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Although there was good reason for the block, as the discussion at on ANI shows, there was no consensus in the community that Giano was engaged in disruption that was severe enough to justify a lengthy block. I think it is important to run the problem by Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and engage in open discussion about it for a period of time before actually blocking. This serves a number of purposes, foremost of which is to build a record regarding the user and their activities. Once the community understands the problem they will support action. Fred Bauder 12:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Before blocking me Kylu and I had not had any contact whatsoever. Her edits have always been in a completely different field to mine, before issuing her block she discussed the matter on IRC with other admins  I demand to know why, and with whom she discussed it and why it was not discussed openly.  I think this could be very relevant to the case and needs to be explored.  It is hardly surprising one suspect plots when one read this kind of comment. Who and why please Kylu? Giano 11:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Now Kylu seems less keen to become involved why should an admin suddenly take this view - is this the behaviour of a responsible admin? Giano 16:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so, not taking your bait is smart and responsible. Fred Bauder 23:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Kylu doesn't want to talk to you. She wants nothing to do with you.  Have some respect for her wishes.  --Ideogram 23:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If Kylu presumes to exercise her admininstrative powers in the future, she should explain the reasoning for her block. If Fred thinks that Kylu's escapade does not pertain directly to the subject of this arbitration (although the heading proclaims that Giano is the subject), then she should explain her ill-IRC-advised actions elsewhere. Is she aware that "blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block" are considered by WP:BLOCK controversial? Why would not a simple warning suffice if she thought Giano's behaviour was delinquent? It's not good to sweep the issue of gratuitous and mysterious blocks under the rug, as some non-editing admins would like to see it done. -- Ghirla  -трёп-  07:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What needs to be addressed here is not Kylu. The issue is how appropriate it is for a certain user to see the need of the block on one hand and, for whatever reason, preferring to act through a proxy of a newbie admin advising her on (semi-)confidential channel to impose a block. --Irpen 18:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a new one. Are you accusing Lar of using Kylu as a catspaw? --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To accuse anyone, we need first to know what exactly happened. Kylu made it clear that she blocked on someone's advise. I do not understnd why that someone refuses to identify him/herself, whether it is Lar or not. --Irpen 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Giano's note below (last edit in this section as of this writing), this is now resolved in his mind. Per the other discussion in this section, this issue should probably be dropped now.  (That's not to criticize its having been raised to begin with.) Newyorkbrad 20:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No objection from me to dropping the issue. Sorry then for resurrecting it. --Irpen 20:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Knowing as you did that nobody had used Kylu to perform a block, you should not have knowingly made the false and extremely damaging claim that someone did. --Tony Sidaway 20:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Knowing as you did..." I did not and I still don't know who advised Kylu to issue a block as it was done in a private channel rather than properly on WP:ANI. I asked the question to find this out. I received no answer but I agreed to drop the issue per NYB's request. Your accusation that I make deliberately false statements is baseless. --Irpen 21:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed as more background of events two weeks prior to the block by Tony Sidaway. -- NoSeptember  16:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Kylu was doing her duty as she understood it. See User_talk:Kylu/Archive_5 for some background discussion. If she's disinclined to continue to be involved with this RfAr or specifically with Giano, perhaps it is because his response to her involvement has been to disparage her and her abilities as well, just as he did to me when I tried to engage him in civil conversation on my talk page earlier. While any editor can edit any page, he's been "disinvited" from posting comments (that some, including myself perceive to be disparaging or harassing... such as some of these: removed as personal attack,, , , ,  [] ) on her page. There is more background there if it is needed, I can add it to the evidence I presented on the events around his block during the RfA. I suggest to everyone that Kylu's part in this has been completely well meaning, and that she has acted for the good of the encyclopedia, remained completely civil in the face of severe provocation, and in general made outstandingly positive contributions to try to resolve this matter. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes exemplary behavior. Fred Bauder 00:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred, I avoid mentioning Kylu by name in my recent post on the Evidence page—as you say, she's not a party to this case—I have merely linked to her block message—but if you hold her up as an example here in the Workshop, I must protest here. Rather than exemplary, I would call her behavior (actually just did call it, in my evidence) painfully, toe-curlingly, condescending. Her message to Giano is a concentrate of all the Newspeak blocking clichés: "Please note that this isn't a punishment, it's a 'time out' to give you a chance to recover and take time away from the Wiki. You do good work here, and I'd hate to lose you as a contributor, but the attitude really needs adjustment, my friend." As I also say at /Evidence, I excuse her because she's a new admin; but her block message is the last thing I'd recommend as an example. I'm sure Kylu will learn to communicate with blocked users in a more straightforward way as she goes along, and, I hope, will never again call one of them "my friend". Bishonen | talk 05:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC).


 * A lot of these characterizations of tone are matters of individual perception. You disagreed with the characterizations of Ghirlandajo's edits as incivil, now let me disagree with your characterization of Kylu's message as condescending.  Who is right?


 * And if you felt the words "my friend" were condescending, how do you feel about this edit in which Ghirlandajo accuses me of stalking, and then kindly signs off "Take care"?


 * Discussing Kylu's behavior here is completely irrelevant for at least two reasons: First, you have quite eloquently argued with me that incivility must be returned with politeness; if you would hold Giano to this high standard surely any possible provocation should have no effect on his behaviour.  Second, Kylu has no wish to be part of these proceedings, and it is blindingly obvious to me that the polite thing to do would be to respect her wishes, which Giano is apparently incapable of.  --Ideogram 06:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ideogram, I thought our disagreements were in the past, but I see that you still hold a grudge against me. Ghirlandajo's fabled incivility is not the subject of this arbitration and Ghirlandajo is not even a party to the case. Please don't bring your personal vendettas to inflate the case which is quite messy as it is. Thanks, Ghirla  -трёп-  07:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a grudge against you. However, I have already decided talking to Giano is pointless, and now I have decided the same for you.  --Ideogram 08:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough Ideogram I did not wish to be blocked, and there was scant regard for my feelings there. I merely want to know who it was that persuaded this seemingly shy newbie admin to block me. I am asking civilly and politely - why is it such a secret? I'm not going to go away so please ask her (I will not presume to go to her now sacrosanct page and ask myself) to answer. Giano 07:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't this the "playground logic" of "she offended me first" that you were so quick to criticize me for? So if someone blocks me I'm entitled to pester and annoy her?  And it's not a secret (I'm biting back a personal attack here), it just so happens that you're the only one in the entire affair who thinks it's important.  At this point I really don't care if you go away or not, and I'm certainly not going to be your tool in disturbing her.


 * I am not sure this is the right thing to do, but I cannot stand it any longer. Kylu is dealing with some very serious issues in real life that are far more important than this stupid arbitration.  I am absolutely furious that some people are so selfish that they cannot accept a simple request and force me to reveal private information in this way.  For the last time, and the love of God, leave Kylu out of it.  --Ideogram 07:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I am absolutely furious that experienced admins who if they wanted to block could easily have done so, let a naive newbie act in such a way, perhaps I am the  only one in the entire affair who thinks it's important, because I am the one she was persuaded to block.  I am so sorry she has private issues, but for all you know so have half the editors here, and I am certainly developing a few issues now! Finally, for very private matters I find email is quite successful. Giano 07:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ideogram, firstly Giano is not the only person interested in this subthread. Secondly, no-one forced you to reveal private information. As Giano said, please use e-mail next time. I would suggest removing private information (presumably the "very serious issues" bit) from this page. The correct place to announce something like this, if Kylu wishes it to be made public, is her user page. It does no-one any favours raising the emotional stakes here like this. Carcharoth 11:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh and who did you expect me to send private e-mail to? Giano?  And who would that benefit?  Kylu?  No, it would benefit Giano.  Why would I do anything to benefit Giano?  See how even in the face of these pleas he persists?  His rampant disregard for anyone but himself is plain for all to see.  And if there are other people interested in this thread, what do you want me to do, wait for them to comment and then e-mail them all privately?  Do you think that would have worked with Ghirlandajo?


 * Frankly it was a mistake for me to even comment. Far better to let Giano choke on empty speculation and silence.  --Ideogram 11:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No you send a private email to the clerk, who then informs respective parties of the situation, and would probably have removed this whole section. You do not try to make another editor out to be a villain because he is unaware another editor has personal problems.  The point of this page is to be an enquiry - here people legitimately enquire.  This section has been here since it was raised by User: NoSeptember on 25th September, and anyone is entitled to comment here. Kylu and you have had since 25th September to have this section withdrawn. Giano 12:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't. Lecture.  Me.  --Ideogram 12:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Lar, I've been waiting for you to show up. What is going on here? The diff you give here  as personal attacks are laughable.  Are you aware that Kylu engaged with me first? Hence,  I am entitled to ask any questions here I like of her concerning her block of me as it relates to this case.  May I point out also that User: NoSeptember has first raised her name here, not me.  she has told us she blocked me  following discussions on IRC, as she is too shy to do so perhaps you can explain -  with whom did she discuss blocking me on IRC. Well Lar - who on IRC  persuaded this shy  newbie editor to block me -  You have put yourself here as her champion - who?  Please just answer the question, no ifs and buts - who? Giano 19:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, Giano... I've been here all along, check the evidence page. As for the diffs I gave, I think they speak for themselves, however you might want to spin them. When someone like Theresa Knott removes one of your comments with the edit comment "personal attack" that pretty much says it all doesn't it? She warned you to be civil in your comments to me, and instead of taking it on board, you exploded at her about it, so she blocked you. Seems pretty straightforward to me. How she noticed really has no relevance. You're an awesome contributor but you just don't get to bust on people when they ask you nicely to be nice. No free passes. That goes for you and other prolific content creators, and for those whose massive contributions are in the housekeeping area, as well. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've looked at those diffs, and I don't think the whole story is there. What I would want to see is: (1) whether Kylu explained why she blocked Giano; (2) if Kylu was persuaded that the block was not appropriate, whether any apology was offered; (3) if Giano agreed the block was appropriate, whether Giano apologised; (4) the diff where Kylu said she blocked "following discussions on IRC". That last one is important, as it relates directly to the principles I've proposed here and here. Carcharoth 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Kylu is not a party to this case and has no obligation to participate. Fred Bauder 00:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Sorry for going off-topic. Carcharoth 02:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel that such diffs would be relevant to the case, please locate them and add them to the evidence page. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Once more, with whom did she discuss it? Giano 06:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What part of "Kylu is not a party to this case and has no obligation to participate. Fred Bauder 00:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)" were you having trouble understanding? I think this thread itself shows the basic problem with your approach to matters amazingly well, actually. Unless you are prepared to discuss how it is your friends seem so ready to stick up with you and how they came to know about it and when and where, how something was noticed is just not relevant. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Lar, since you have made yourself a participant, if not a party, in this case, may I ask if you advised Kylu to block Giano? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not relevant. Stipulating that the answer is not relevant, and need not have been supplied to you or anyone else, and with explicit denial of precedent to establish relevance: Kylu and I know each other. We watch each other's talk pages. She saw that Giano was acting in a wholly inappropriate manner, and in the course of discussing other matters with me she mentioned that she was considering warning Giano about his wholly inappropriate behaviour. I said I'd rather just ride out his boorish behaviour (I point out that I subsequently was awarded the civility barnstar by an observer for how I comported myself under his attacks on me) and that warning him was not likely to be received well because it was my view that he has a past history of not taking any criticism of his behaviour well. She took it on herself to warn him nonetheless, feeling it her duty as an admin to try to help matters. (very commendable, and we would be well served to have more admins like that, admins willing to do difficult blocks) He exploded at the very notion of being warned, as you well know and will admit if you are honest... (recall that you yourself tried to get him to be more rational at one point) as if anyone could possibly have any standing to suggest that he was doing anything wrong, and she decided to block him to try to get him to calm down. That is my recollection of events. I'd have to access private IRC logs to validate the exact words used. Those logs are explicitly not available to you or anyone else without permission of all parties since they are private discussion, and you explicitly do not have my permission. So then BoG, how was it that YOU decided to involve yourself in this? Please give as full an accounting of your motivations as I have for what I surmise Kylu's to be, or admit that there is no basis for your question other than to be difficult. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's relevant in my view: IRC-mediated decisions are a backdrop for much of this case. The fact that we apparently aren't even entitled to ask who else Kylu consulted with when deciding to block is actually quite appalling. Anyway -- my involvement. I don't believe I was doing IRC at the time of Kylu's block of Giano and my subsequent unblock (I am now, as you know). During the period when Giano was on your talk page, I cannot recall sending or receiving any related email, either. I was following Giano's postings quite carefully at the time, and in some degree of personal distress -- Giano is a friend and I agree he was being incivil to you. As you note, I told him such, on-wiki. Probably not because of that, but only because of the passage of time, I saw Giano calming down, slowing his postings, then stopping. Hours later, I see Kylu announce her block on his talk page. (Which I of course have watchlisted). I rush over to Kylu's page and begin a discussion about it -- my position is that this block is ill-timed, coming after the situation was calming, and was sure to inflame. (Gee, was that correct, you think?) Kylu states that if I disagree with the block, I should undo it. I do. Discussion subsequently takes place on AN or AN/I too. So that is my entire involvement as far as admin action goes. I had no external communications regarding it of any sort that I can recall. Have I discussed the situation in email and IRC since? Of course. Since you ask how I decided to involve myself, I should also add that I found the decision against consensus at Carnildo's RfA quite worrying, and I found the treatment Tony Sidaway gave to those who were expressing that view quite... wrong. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My involvement question was about your involvment at the time of your unblock of Giano. And you answered it, you watch his talk page. But you may not have watched Kylu's and thus missed where he savaged her expressed his feelings about being warned. I think (guess) that was the instigation for the block, so I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that the situation was calming. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I was following all his contributions pretty closely at the time, I'm well aware of the timing. " Savaged " her, hey? That appears to be a smear unjustified by evidence. This was Giano's post on her page that you so characterize. Here's the text: "Please do nit make veiled threats on my user page, unless you have the authority and justification to carry them out. You do not intimidate me, so please do attempt to do so." This is savaging? This was at 21:25, August 30, 2006. The block was at 01:55, August 31, 2006. That was more than four hours later. Now, if you really think Giano's post there is the instagation for the block, then this really was a terribly bad block. I will AGF and continue to assume that this was a far-too-late block for Giano's earlier genuine incivility against yourself. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with my characterisation of Giano's comment to Kylu in response to her warning as inappropriate, but if you think savaged was too strong, I'll strike it. In fact I already did. What you all are missing is that he acted inappropriately and gave Kylu rather a hard time for trying to do his duty, and in my view continues to do so. In passing I note this recent contribution (and you can find plenty more like it if you look) which suggests something about his state of mind even now. Mocking the term "no free passes" suggests to me that perhaps he still feels he has one. But this is a side issue. The evidence I introduced was intended to show that there was stuff that happened before his block by Tony. I think that's established. If in passing we've also established (as we have, to my satisfaction anyway) that he continues to mock and harass those he disagrees with, that's not what I intended, but so be it. I'm not really sure there is much more useful to add to this side issue by you, me or anyone else. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * At least such was my perception of Giano's block at the time. It seemed to those concerned that the matter was decided on IRC (as becomes routine with controversial blocks). Sigh... -- Ghirla -трёп-  15:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Decided? hardly. Discussed? Perhaps, inasmuch as when asked I advised against it. But that's because I knew in advance that Giano thinks he has a free pass to act in ways that some think are like a prat, as he has amply demonstrated, including in this thread. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No-one has any obligation to participate - not me, not Kylu, not Lar, not even Giano. Yes, Giano made some pretty sharp comments and asked (and asks) some pretty pertinent questions (understandably, I think, based on the blocking), and I can also understand why Kylu does not want to speak to Giano (even without the unspecified personal problems, of which I was not previously aware).

If an IRC discussion persuaded Kylu to block in circumstances where no block would have been made without that discussion, then it would be interesting to know who was involved in that discussion, and why it was not undertaken in a more public and transparent forum, such as WP:AN or WP:ANI. That block is part of the background to this case, and I think the means of communication and the participants are entirely relevant - part of the underlying problem here is secret discussions between a like-minded subset of Wikipedians, and decisions taken behind closed doors. (And, let me state for the record, that I can't think of an occasion when I have sent a message to another Wikipedian via an out-of-wiki route, although I have received the occasional e-mail.) If Kylu does not want to share that information, perhaps the other participants in that discussion would be so kind as to enlighten us instead, to avoid further distress to Kylu. However, at the end of the day, everyone, including Kylu, has to take responsibility for their own actions.

I have no idea why Lar and Ideogram are getting so cross about perfectly simple and legitimate questions. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As a starting point, if Kylu is disinclined to get further involved in this matter for supervening real-world reasons, I think that request should be honored.
 * As for Lar's points, I think Lar began his interaction with Giano during the Carnildo RfA by remaining quite calm in the face of Giano's initial angry reaction. Lar also expressed willingness to reexamine his views in light of Giano's contributions. However, there came a point when Giano was ready to drop the matter and Lar insisted that their dialog contine, which it did with the resultant further escalation of the tension. After that point, a portion of Giano's comments to Lar were in response to Lar's direct questions. The resulting discussion was unhelpful but does not justify ArbCom action against anyone. Newyorkbrad 16:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree with the last part of that. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To ALoan: He asked the question, and was told it would not be answered.  He asked it again, and was again told it would not be answered.  He asked again and I exploded on him.  And now, he, and you, are still asking.  Ask as many times as you want, you will never get an answer.  And I'm not going to explain that to you again.  --Ideogram 17:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Are friends of Giano incapable of distinguishing essential matters from minutiae? Do you think Kylu's involvement is central to the case? What is your case? Are any of you able to make a concise, to the point statement that doesn't waste the reader's time? For people proud of their mainspace contributions you are pathetically poor writers. --Ideogram 18:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * None of us brought the case, nobody seems to know what's central to this case, I'm not sure what you're looking for. But thanks for the insult! It brightened my day! &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't know what's central to this case, but you are certain that digging into Kylu's super-sekrit communications will resolve it? --Ideogram 20:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am certain administrators shouldn't make blocking decisions such as these via "super-sekrit" communications. If they do make such decisions in off-wiki consultations, they should be more than happy to at least give a summary on-wiki. You really feel otherwise? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You really feel Kylu is hiding some massively important decision making process from you in her "super-sekrit" communications? Important enough that you are willing to pursue the matter to the point of driving her off Wikipedia?  Who is abusing their oversight powers now?  --Ideogram 20:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh no. You've made it perfectly clear nobody is allowed to ask. I'm just trying to explore why that is. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not that people can't ask, it's that people don't have to answer about who they talked with or what, if it was a private conversation. She's not a party. The ArbCom can decide if there is relevance to her block decision, and if so, add her. Even as a party, she (or anyone else) doesn't have to answer. That could well be a factor in the decision of course. But I am with Ideogram here, the point established itself nicely, Giano has a history of incivility (as you yourself admit) and Tony's block was not out of the blue against an editor who previously was the very model of sweetness and light. Even his fans (and I used to be one before he came to my talk page uninvited and tore into me for having an opinion, and then claimed that he was somehow forced into changing his !vote...) have used terms like "sharp" to describe his interaction style. Your digging into entrails isn't going to change that finding I don't suspect. It's not allowed, it's just not useful any more is it? So why bother? ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (reply to Bunchofgrapes) You have the right to ask. You are abusing it. --Ideogram 21:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I really, honestly, don't get what you are talking about. I asked Lar one question, he answered it, and ever since I have just been responding to your questions and lar's comments in this thread. Show me some diffs of this so-called abuse. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case can we agree that this section is done and move on to more productive discussion? I may as well apologize here for the gratuitous insult.  I do respect you, which is why I am still talking to you.  --Ideogram 21:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Kylu has contacted me by email, and I accept she blocked me due to her inexperience. She  is now a lot wiser.  The matter is now as far as I am concerned closed  Perhaps in future it would be a good idea if new admins were allocated a responsible and community trusted mentor rather than having to rely on whoever happens to be hanging out on IRC at the time. Giano 17:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think this wording is complete bollocks. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify for Jeff: "are often needlessly harassed or worse by administrators who show less commitment to the encyclopedic goal of the project" is complete bollocks. --Tony Sidaway 03:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Objection withdrawn. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorse Fred. This issue is real and important but not germane to this proceeding. John Reid 07:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * People may not like it but there is a growing divide between those who write articles and those who busy themselves on the administration side of the project, there are too many naive admins who have attained their positions through chatting in IRC rather than cutting their teeth editing the encyclopedia. In fact for some of them the production of an encyclopedia seems to take second place to enforcing ridiculous rule and regulations, gaining powers and gossiping with each other in secretive places on IRC. Giano 21:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. This is a better wording, IMO, of the above.  To use an example of someone directly involved in this, Tony Sidaway has very few recent articlespace edits (and I'll toss those in the evidence section later simply for the sake of evidence), but his contributions to the project (with his clerk duties in particular, but also in other WP spaces) were never in question, regardless of people's personal issues with how Tony handles and carries himself.  For someone like Giano, who cranked out FA's faster than I can stub-sized articles, this divide becomes more apparent - neither editor's contributions should be belittled, but it's obvious that the growing divide between editors and administrators fosters some ill will and strife, especially when it comes down to people who are actually creating content feeling as if they have to leave the project due to people who rarely create content. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, which part is "complete bollocks?" And what are "policy matters" in this context? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * I would not support this finding unless it had some "no free passes for contributions" wording included. Which goes to both content and housekeeping stellar service. Short of that it only exacerbates the discord. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For me, the statement of the divide is the most important issue raised on this page so far. The divide resulted in the present arbitration; it is the greatest problem Wikipedia needs to overcome if the project is to compete effectively with other free online encyclopaedias. Quality contributors need to be encouraged that irresponsible blocks by Tony Sidaway and those who habitually support him (Doc, Werdna, etc) are not given a free pass. We need to determine why, in this self-proclaimed temple of knowledge, the priests (i.e., contributors) are mysteriously blocked and gratuitously silenced by janitors (such as Kylu, Lar, and others). That's the meaning of this arbitration, at least for me. If the priests are banished from the temple and contributors are treated as expendable cogs (as they have been in this case), they are free to try their talents in some more editor-friendly projects. -- Ghirla -трёп-  08:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say that if you dug up the logs of many people who have passed RfA, the contribs die out a lot after an RfA, without a corresponding increase in delete/protect/block actions. When it comes down to the crunch, only 50 or so admins do any substantial amount of these jobs, such as clearing image backlogs which are usually 3-4+ days overdue (and when it is cleared, it comes back again two days later because those who cleared it took a rest and nobody else will step up). Apart from the 5% who do basically all of the rubbish disposal, everybody should continue contributing as they did before. Clearly this is not the case -there are lots of admins who suffer a massive 50-80% drop in output after passing RfA, but maintain their appearances on IRC, Esperanza, and engaging in wiki-political fluff at the same level as before, or even to a greater extent. Many times I seek to use #wikipedia-en-admins to enlist more help in clearing backlogs but never get more than one person helping, whilst most continue with their conversation. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It takes persistence, but you can get results. When I needed people to close arbitration cases from which I was recused, the admin IRC channel was the only place where I could regularly count on a response. I think it's inappropriate to suggest that all editors should keep blasting away on all cylinders all the time. Most admins have many thousands of article edits and really have nothing to prove.  All this willy waving about article writing is getting a bit tired. --Tony Sidaway 05:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your last two sentences is what I'm getting at. "..have nothing to prove". I think that this is not an effective mentality - administrators are supposed to be "one of the boys [girls]" who have been entrusted to do a job, which is apparently extra responsiblity, not privilege or a seat of honour. Wikipedia will work best when everybody "remembers their roots" rather than if they "graduate" to administrator status and stop doing work. I'm not expecting people to spend all day on WP, the problem is after RfA, the net contributions (editing+delete+blocks+protects) of a lot of people drop dramatically, whilst the other fluff is maintained or increased - this would show an attitude shift towards highhandedness. The "nothing to prove" thing is typically what sportspeople say once they have gone over the hill and ceasd to produce any results. If they have nothing else to prove, then they should retire. If an administrator on Wikipedia feels that he has nothing left to prove, and no longer feels like doing work, then they should also retire, or at least not command others about. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the logic of this. Admins don't command others about, and admin work has nothing to do with editing.  --Tony Sidaway 06:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I'm being referred to as somebody who 'habitually supports Tony Sidaway', and it seems to be implied that I expect, or receive, a 'free pass'. I'd like to think I'm subject to the same rules as everybody else here. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 09:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Having had a few days looking at the edits made, "for fuck's sake" seems quite mild. Obviously he is a sucker for trolling and needs to wise up. Taking all the bait offered will lead to ill-considered comments and actions. Fred Bauder 00:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. -- Grafikm_fr20:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. --Tony Sidaway 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never misspelled "fuck" with an asterisk (corrected). --Tony Sidaway 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I do not think "for fuck's sake" is very uncivil. It's a colloquial usage, an expression of exasperation.  To be used sparingly, most surely, and if used repeatedly and egregiously a reason for action under a civility parole (though I have found this to be controversial and accept that not all agree that it is a reason for action in such circumstances). --Tony Sidaway 21:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Endorse Newyorkbrad. WP:DICK, although that's something of a dick-move in itself... John Reid 07:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Addressed to Tony Sidaway: Tony, I just defended one of your more controversial remarks elsewhere on this page, finding it a legitimate expression of opinion, albeit expressed in a less than diplomatic fashion, as you acknowledged. Having said that, I have to add that I don't see why you can't sometimes moderate the tone of your language and the blast of your sarcasm.  I don't support any sort of sanction against you because you use strong language; my proposed remedy below, if any, would go no further than (another) "urging."  Sometimes strong language is in order, and sometimes your wordings are priceless.  Yet we also know that you are perfectly capable of making yourself clear without turning up the heat, especially when there's more than enough heat in the room from other sources; we've seen your very different and dignified persona when you had your ArbClerk hat on, for example.  I have to ask you at this point: Does the sheer number of users who consistently express concerns about the way you address other people on this site mean anything to you?  Newyorkbrad 00:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there is a distinction between incivility and pithy expression of an obvious truth. Nevertheless one can take this too far and I do agree that I'm often uncivil. --Tony Sidaway 03:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Candidly acknowledged (and that shouldn't be used against the acknowledger). So the next question is, is there any chance you might be able to reduce the amount of incivility, or is this just a feature of Tony Sidaway's personality that we have to live with as something that comes along with your contributions to the project? Newyorkbrad 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think any small amount of incivility involved here is even close to being an issue for Wikipedia. I'd rather we concentrate on gross incivility,  such as we saw during the fallout of the Carnildo RFA.  I've focussed on Giano's case, but Ghirlandajo's was another example of overstepping the line to an unacceptable level.  This kind of sniping and, frankly, trolling is damaging for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been learning a lot about what civility is through my experience here at Wikipedia. Although perhaps not as uncivil as Tony, I would not claim to be a paragon of civility.  I have been learning that others consider certain phrases to be uncivil when I do not.  There are some people who consider "silly" and "nonsense" to be uncivil.  Others consider "crap" to be uncivil.  There are different standards and it is really hard to honor everybody's sense of civility.  However, I think that Tony's sense of civility sets far too low a bar.  For example, I think Tony needs to understand that the "F" word has very strong negative impact on a number of people and that incivility is in the "eye/ear" of the reader not in the mind of the writer.
 * -- 69.236.160.1 Richard 16:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He is a sucker for trolling? That is by far the most ludicrous statement committed to text yet in this arbitration.  Please, for the love of Bob, demonstrate that this is something other than some weird Arbitration attempt at humour.  I've asked three times for Fred to narrow down his arm-waving about "trolling" and be precise.  No reply has been forthcoming.  Can we have just a few examples of where someone has been "trolling" Tony, as opposed to more rhetoric like that incredible statment above. -  brenneman  {L} 00:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The clearest example was John Reids oath of fealty on Bureaucrats Noticeboard, but provocative over the top statements abound. Sometime instead of reacting to the heat it is wise to attend to the light. Fred Bauder 01:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred, I must admit I'm curious about this too. As one of the editors accused of trolling by Tony in this ugly mess, your statement is of particular interest to me.  I feel (obviously) that Tony's repeatedly accusing me (and others) of trolling was way over the top and part of a pattern of unacceptable behavior.  Friday (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He could have read and considered your messages instead of feeling he had to respond. Fred Bauder 01:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen that happen too many times. Someone puts forth well-argued, lengthy arguments for a position, and people just ignore it. If there is no response, there is no debate. And that is a bad thing because the various people involved continue to think divergent thoughts, and they have not really talked to each other and the debate has merely been deferred, rather than resolved. I agree that certain statements can be over the top, but the correct response (as opposed to silence or accusations of trolling) should surely be to politely point out that things are getting overheated, ask for the other person to calm down, and then pull the discussion back on topic and find things that people can agree on. ie. return to productive discussion, rather than overblown rhetoric. As you say, light not heat. Carcharoth 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I could go through the contributions of any participant in this debate to prove my point, but rather than attack another, and start a slug-fest, I offer myself. I regret much of the tone of my own remarks during this debate - which was no better than that of parties cited in this case. On all sides of this, there was little glory. But no individual should be singled out. During this debate I accused others of ranting demagoguery, delusion, insane arrogance unworthy of respect, idiocy, idiotic ranting, madness and arrogance, perennial trolling. I offer the diffs not from pride, but to show how even a (I hope) normally restrained user was acting during this. Serious (although unsubstantiated) accusations were being made, provocation was high, and so to scapegoat any individual participant would be a mistake.--Doc 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that scapegoating is a bad thing. But something caused all this, and I don't think it was just heated debate and general incivility. Those seem to have been sparked off by underlying issues. If those issues could be clearly identified and carefully discussed and rulings given (where needed) by the arbitration committee to clarify the issues which caused the ruckus, then this arbitration case would have served a useful purpose. Carcharoth 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "We should just give up because arbitration is hard" isn't really an appropriate finding of fact, in my opinion. This seems unfair to the hundreds of Wikipedians who read and followed the debate without descending to abusive behavior. Nandesuka 12:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. I didn't say it was hard to single out individuals (indeed that's almost too easy), I said it was unfair and unhelpful. --Doc 16:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I simply disagree. "Scapegoating" is the process of punishing an innocent party for actions they did not engage in.  I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should not be scapegoating anyone.  I disagree with you that holding people accountable for their words and actions constitutes scapegoating.  As I indicated above, I believe it is unfair and unhelpful to give people &mdash; particularly admins &mdash; a pass for outrageous behavior when most of the community behaves with restraint and reason.  Nandesuka 17:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Even if he did not meant it, the remark was still highly offensive. -- Grafikm_fr 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could stop spewing that horrible signature all over this page? --Tony Sidaway 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you have against my signature? It is perfectly compliant. -- Grafikm   (AutoGRAF)  21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously. I think James_F's comment was excellent, well put, and perhaps would have worked if some people hadn't gotten a little too self-important. That it failed was due partly to his misjudgement of the situation (and that was his responsibility alone) and partly to the, well. prevailing hysteria.  Which was of course what the comment was about in the first place.  Not James_F's finest hour, but a much appreciated attempt to bring the class to order. --Tony Sidaway 03:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * James's comment was particularly ill-advised, as Tony Sidaway had blocked both me and Giano several days before that for having criticised the way Wikipedia was run. Although our blocks were extensively discussed on WP:AN and dozens admins deplored Tony's actions, no arbitrator bothered to comment. James_F's speedy comment in defense of Tony seemed to imply that blocking people who contributed tons of articles/images and tens thousands mainspace edits to the project is acceptable, while blocking a person active primarily on IRC and making such edits ("a fellow sysop" as he termed it) is not. Since neither me nor Giano have been interested in admin tools more than content, we are certainly more vulnerable to any malfaisance on the part of admins: we have neither access to IRC nor tools to unblock ourselves, as admins do. In other words, James's assumption that blocking a "fellow sysop" is more harmful that blocking a "mere editor" is a trap arising from the growing gulf between content contributors and non-editing administrators. People wishing to do admininstrative tasks are a dime a dozen, while editors of Giano's level are genuinely irreplaceable. -- Ghirla -трёп-  12:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You say, "Although our blocks were extensively discussed on WP:AN and dozens admins deplored Tony's actions, no arbitrator bothered to comment." Actually this is generally for the best. If we are constantly involved in disputes we are in no position to resolve them. Fred Bauder 11:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, a comment calling someone "idiot" can never be well-put per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. And arbitrators are also subject to that rule. -- Grafikm   (AutoGRAF)  13:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I must endorse Ghirlandajo's comment. JamesF jumping in to take the critics of Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway to task, and the tone that he did it in, was embarrassing especially in its stark contrast to the audible silence from arbitrators on Tony's blocks of Ghirlandajo and Giano. I note Tony's opinion of the stylistic values of James' post—he's entitled to it—but in my opinion, Tony embarrasses himself in calling that "excellent" and "well put". Also in imputing "self-importance" and "hysteria" to some (unnamed) people in the "class". Wikipedia is not a class. JamesF is not its teacher. Critics of Tony Sidaway are not children. I'm not self-important. Wait, no, I am, but that's not the point here. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC).
 * It's utterly ridiculous to claim that Ghirlandajo or Giano were blocked for criticising the running of Wikipedia. This failure to recognise that a line was overstepped by a wide margin is central to the case. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Yes, I think I missed that part of Ghirlandajo's wording, I didn't focus on it. No, you're right. I don't endorse Ghirlandajo's claim that he and Giano were blocked for criticising the running of Wikipedia. And also, while I think Ghirlandajo's last sentence is strictly true, I wouldn't have expressed the same thing so harshly ("a dime a dozen"). I still say he made an excellent point, though. And I still say your tributes to James' barking and snapping and feeble sarcasms ("Some fool once told me that, apparently, we're here to write an encyclopædia") are embarrassing, Tony. The discussion in question had included posts from, to grab a bag at random, Raul, Mackensen, FloNight, MONGO, ALoan, Bunchofgrapes, Dmcdevit, JKelly, Newyorkbrad. And that was "possibly the most calmly stated and well worded statement in the discussion to that point"? Please tell me you're joking. Where's the calmly stated and well worded part? Bishonen | talk 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC).
 * As I said, I thought James_F's ill-judged but obviously well meant and kindly worded "wake up" call would have helped to bring people to their senses, had they not managed to get themselves all frothed up into a frenzy. Alas, they had managed to do so and there was nothing that could have saved the situation.  At that point you will note that I withdrew from the wiki, but I was active on IRC trying to dissuade other editors from getting involved.  When people get so worked up, sometimes you just have to leave them to it for a while. --Tony Sidaway 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a question of word choice, and is in the same vein as the criticisims often leveled at you, Tony. I look at James' statement and I see him trying to blow the whistle and rein people in. A majority of people focus on the title and, dispite the retraction in the next sentence, interpret that one phrase as the thrust of his comment.  When you use vulgarities, even when you intend your comments to be civil that word choice changes people's perceptions.  So, I prefer 15.1 as more accurate but I felt I needed to include James as a party in this arbitration because I felt the reaction to that one action was strong enough it needed to be addressed.  --InkSplotch 22:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * James F calling people "idiots" indeed overstepped a line by a wide margin. Nandesuka 18:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was, at most, mildly uncivil. It was possibly the most calmly stated and well worded statement in the discussion to that point. While it was ill-judged, it would have brought people who had not strayed far from their usual sensible, decent moods to their senses. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to be that it was a smart move to try to extinguish a fire by throwing gasoline on it. I think all reasonable people disagree with you. Nandesuka 17:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

However, one assesses this, the remarks display an error of judgement unacceptable in a member of the arbcom, or even a new admin. A new admin could have the error of his ways pointed out. An arbcom member should and must know better. James Forrester should be de-sysoped, sacked from the arbcom. Giano 09:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think desysoping is really an option. James's unfortunate remark is the symptom of a wider malaise: some ArbCom members seem to spend so much time on IRC that they are out of touch with Wikipedia reality. When there were last ArbCom elections, me and about dozen people I know voted for those candidates who promised to ban trolls as soon as possible. I'm sure many others felt that Wikipedia was being ruined by nationalist trolls and that there was no remedy to counter the threat. Now that the problem of nationalist trolls seems to have subsided, the block-happy arbitrators still rule the day and act as tough as possible. The problem was exposed when they proposed to block Giano; then Irpen was blocked. I've got an impression that they cannot tell those who have made Wikipedia in the top 13 from those who keep it from being better. That's one of the problems we have here. -- Ghirla -трёп-  10:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I suggest that we reword this proposal as "James_F was right, if not completely civil." --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I shortened it slightly, though not quite to that extent. :) Newyorkbrad 02:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments by others:
 * Caveat by proposer: Jdforrester made favorable reference to me in the remarks in question, so take this for what it's worth. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Aside from all content, calling people "idiots" is never a good thing. -- Grafikm   (AutoGRAF)  08:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying "You're all idiots", even when followed by "ok, not quite all of you" is a personal attack, isn't it? People keep telling me WP:NPA is policy, not to mention WP:CIVIL; is this a policy that does not apply to James_F? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I kind of take the view that this is all contextualised. This was posted to a place where long-standing users were engaged in debate, and during a fairly frank conversation.  It's a fairly common term in England, and can be endearing as much as it can be offensive.  It's a shame the internet can't convey the subtleties the English language actually contains. It's also common to settle everyone down with a quick bark to get their attention.  I don't think it's a personal attack, it's actually rather impersonal, and I think, if no other attack was made, which it wasn't, people would assume good faith and contextualise it as an attempt to bang heads together.  The debate was getting out of hand and I guess James felt it was worth a try.   I don't think anyone is attempting to state policies don't apply to James, but if James felt it would help, then he may have decided to ignore all rules.  Hiding Talk 20:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant to the case, unless JDforrester is added as a party to the case. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 07:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He is a party. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, :-), my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out, SV. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 01:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * He still has a festering grudge against Carnildo. You could get rid of me, Kelly and James_F and you would still have an editor with a festering grudge and a number of friends who nurture it. We just happened to be people who got in his way on that day. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In reply to Kirill, an administrator who has not apologised for something can be approached and asked to apologise. The problem with Giano is that he seems to have had a grievance but has never attempted to use the dispute resolution process. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Carnildo was asked to apologize several times for different things on his RFA, and ignored it. -- Grafikm_fr 19:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The next step would be RFC. This isn't rocket science. --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Re: Tony: Blaming particular people really cuts both ways; it's just as easy to talk about how we still have a (curiously) re-promoted admin who's completely unapologetic about the abusive behavior that caused this mess in the first place. Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: Tony, why would he? In his mind, the dispute resolution processes weren't going to do a lick of good. What reason did he have to trust it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: Tony: We've been through this point before, haven't we? The dispute between Carnildo and Giano was taken through the dispute resolution process (the userbox wheelwar case).  While Giano has never been particularly fond of Carnildo afterwards, you might notice that it was only after the remedy in that case—Carnildo's desysopping—was (in Giano's eyes, unjustly) undone that things fell apart; the previous six months seem to have passed without any acute conflict. Kirill Lokshin 02:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that there as some conflict involving Giano during the RFA, although I was not involved (so sorry I wasn't available as a handy scapegoat to blame for that). --Tony Sidaway 21:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


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


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


 * Hmmm. And you have proof of this, Tony, or are you doing what you say I do?  In the Giano misstatement, I retracted quickly.  I do not, it's true, spend my time filling lists with enemies and diffs for future prosecutions, don't bring Rfar's, don't block very often, but I never knew that was a major character flaw.  Geogre 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm English, for fuck's sake. It's my language. ---Tony Sidaway 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not from Yorkshire. Fuck is a perfectly normal English word, in use throughout England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and apparently known in other countries. --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replied to Mcginnly on his talk page. In my opinion "stupid fuck" would be grossly uncivil and a personal attack. Quite inexcusible.   I make no "international/British" distinction; I simply state that England is the birthplace of the English language and I am English. --Tony Sidaway 00:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fuck might well be in common usage, but I'm also English and if someone called me a 'stupid fuck' it's still insulting - unless it's my best friend, so the International/British distinction is entirely spurious. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Yorkshireman or not, using the F word is not a good idea. A lot of people might find it offensive. When I speak Russian, you better get women and children out of the room, but that's a cultural difference - the culture is like that. In English, I try to avoid such words as much as I can. -- Grafikm   (AutoGRAF)  22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by the above statement. You say that swearing is acceptable due to culture, but reject the idea that Tony's language is based upon his culture?  Hiding Talk 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that there are people with a lot of different cultural backgrounds here, so we have to have rules common to all of them. Thus, usage of such words is prohibited. -- Grafikm   (AutoGRAF)  11:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * Going back to "disgusting rabble" (referring to the state of RFA) and "malodorous filth" (a metaphor associated with lancing a boil) I would really hate to think that Wikipedia is not capable of accommodating such frank expressions.  This is certainly not incivility and if it upsets some editors that others use the English language with great skill then that's a shame. --Tony Sidaway 03:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying "fuck" is not incivil in itself, and neither is using colourful language. What is incivil, however, is continuing to use that kind of language in a setting where it is unwelcome and where you have been repeatedly asked to stop by a great many people. Or to put it more simply - we don't mind you saying "fuck", we mind you behaving unpleasantly. Zocky | picture popups 02:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, are you saying the expressions "disgusting rabble" and "malodorous filth" are examples of the English language being used with great skill? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Language serves a purpose; nicely turned phrases do not hang in a vacuum for all to admire.  I have no doubt that such phrases as those listed above described Tony's sentiments with admirable clarity, but I am equally sure that they were highly counterproductive when publicly uttered on this site.  We need not accomodate expressions which inevitably serve to escalate conflicts.  Tony's words were not skillfully chosen for the purpose of defusing an incipient verbal brawl.   --RobthTalk 05:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Disgusting rabble" was used when there was no hint of any brawl. It was an honest and, I think, easily understood description of my opinion of the state of RFA.  "Malodorous filth" is what comes out of a lanced boil.  Yes, those phrases are good because the convey my meaning with precision.  There is, I admit, something to be said for hiding one's meaning. Perhaps I should work on that. --Tony Sidaway 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

As Tony himself will attest, he is skilled in the English language, and thus I find it hard to credit his post-facto claim that "rabble" referred to "the state of the RFA." A rabble is a group of people. It is not plausible that Tony didn't know that when he said it. Nandesuka 12:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * With the best will in the world, I find Irpen's recent contributions unhelpful. He did not help to resolve the situation one bit, at one point accusing me of "forcing" a quite simple but extensive edit on the preamble to RFA which was taken without any significant opposition and has remained ever since, at another point posting a rant on RFAR accusing me of "vexatious litigation", and overloading my talk page with endless complaints that I was dismissing his arguments simply because I did not agree with them. This is not however a matter for this arbitration process. --Tony Sidaway 04:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed all the developments at this page too closely, but the above summary of the events is incorrect. Following the events too familiar to repeat them, Tony created a one phrase page "RfA is not a vote" and without discussing anything with anyone placed a template: "official guideline" on its top. When I replace the template pasted into something that no one but Tony have yet even seen for "tl:proposed", Tony persisted with keeping a "guideline" tl (See history and talk). The full story, can be found here but suffice is to say that while Tony was accusing me in various sins, in fact I merged the idea proposed by Tony into the part of the "front matter" where the material logically belongs in a slightly moderated form. AFAIK, the version I wrote is still there after some copyediting. The full account of events may be found here (please forgive a somewhat more emotional form of the outline presented under that link).


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


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


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


 * I particularly object to a pastel-praise review of an editor used as an argument node for a range of specific issues related to the editor but not to his past performance. John Reid 09:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposer's note: I am not as familiar with Irpen's contributions as I am with those of some other parties, so someone more familiar is welcome to augment this comment.
 * 100% support. -- Grafikm   (AutoGRAF)  21:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Grafikm_fr. To answer the possible lack of familiarity expressed by Newyorkbrad, I am first of all by far less of a FA creator than the users named above. I helped with creating several FA's and a even more GAs and DYKs but nothing comparable to Giano or Geogre. Still, most of my work are in the mainspace and is devoted to a rather narrow part of Wikipedia, particularly, the Eastern Europe, chiefly Ukraine, but also Russia and Poland. --Irpen 09:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As far as I'm aware, the named parties played little useful role in those discussions. I believe I was the prime mover in the change from voting to non-voting RFA, and of those named I only recall Irpen expressing an opinion, which was to the effect that I was attempting to bully or force a change to policy.  As I remarked above, the change was accepted over his objections and has remained ever since. --Tony Sidaway 04:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The charge above is incorrect. The change was made not over my objections but, to the contrary, by myself. Please see the previous section for the event's chronology. However, overall I generally participate in Wikipedia-space discussions much less than in Mainspace editing and talk page discussions over the article content as I find writing articles much more interesting and useful both for myself and for the Wikipedia. --Irpen 10:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This would be a finding of fact Fred Bauder 14:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * These phenomena, if they exist, are policy questions. Fred Bauder 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is very much a first cut. I want to aim for a wording that will satisfy everybody.  I want to characterise the debate from the point of view of editors like Geogre, Giano, and so on, who undeniably produce great content. --Tony Sidaway 14:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fred that really it's a Finding. I do think that this is about the emergence of a class, as defined by patterns of behavior that are, overall, of benefit to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorse Fred. This issue goes way beyond the bounds of anything that this RfArb can address. This proceeding is largely about whether a discussion of this issue can even take place without excessive hostility, dark threats, block wars, personal attacks, and attempts to derail the discussion by deleting other editors' comments. This is not the proper place for the discussion itself -- however badly I wish to participate in it. John Reid 09:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't think the phrase: "the emergence of a class of Wikipedian" is a good idea, since it suggests a caste system/heirarchy, rather than just emerging trends in editing inclinations. "...about Wikipedians who..." might be preferrable. - jc37 17:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Replying to Tony, this is something that a) should be a finding of fact per Fred, and b) should probably be written by those of us with the point of view in question, and not someone who doesn't share it, as this doesn't seem to reflect the view that I'm sharing with Geogre et al. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is this here? Is it relevant to the case at all? &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 07:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Kelly Martin was bullied off Wikipedia. We should not be treating our best people like this. --Tony Sidaway 04:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin was a bully, and she left with the capability of not only returning, but reasserting every right that she gave up. One does not obviate the need for examination by shouting, "I quit."  In the past (the userbox fiasco), she did much the same thing.  The things she did rise well above the level of demotion, but it is not possible to present these things in the evidence on-wiki.  This is not a question of "one of us doing penance for a week."  Geogre 18:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * If she returns - what then?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously I didn't appreciate every word that she uttered during the last few weeks of dialog, but I don't think she did anything that would rise to the level of warranting ArbCom sanctions were she still actively participating in the project. Beyond that, I don't have a view about "what should happen if Kelly Martin wants to return" that I'm confident enough to embody in a proposal, nor do I know whether the Committee would want to address a hypothetical situation. Newyorkbrad 23:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll continue this on the talk page.--Mcginnly | Natter 23:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Those interested in seeing Kelly's offer to resign can look here.--*Kat* 18:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Endorse proposed finding. John Reid 09:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Yes. Moreover, Tony was blocked for a highly incivil remark. -- Grafikm_fr 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Proposed by Newyorkbrad 21:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I too don't think this needs to be looked at, the situation resolved itself amicably between the involved parties. Hiding Talk 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Another version, similar to last, which removes the element of "engaged in discussion." I think more people (on AN) felt the block was either unwarranted or just not useful, not that Tony was too involved in discussion to have been the one to block. --InkSplotch 02:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To NYB, oddly...that's the bit I had the most trouble with. "Predictable" in a finding of fact.  This could be newness showing, but perhaps we should address it in the Principles?  This might just be the time to declare "cool down" blocks as ineffective.  For the record, I've never felt "cool down" was a reason of itself, nor do I think it's seriously used as such...I view it as shorthand for "general disruption or other blockable offense."  But it seems lately the short, 10 min, 15 min, 3 hr blocks are taken worse than the 24 hr, 1 week, indef blocks.  Maybe either a principle against the under 12 hour blocks, or a principle suggesting admins think twice before undoing such a short block.  --InkSplotch 02:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * However, blocks, like the timeouts loving parents give their children who need the opportunity to rest and reflect, should be given with little comment -- certainly not hostility. It's enough to point to the action that prompted the block and leave it right there. Block sums such as Making quite hysterical accusationsand needs to cool down a bit are not constructive, either to the editor's development of self or to the community's understanding of the block rationale. John Reid 09:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


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


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


 * The worst diff I reviewed included these words:


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * User:Geogre/Blug Fred Bauder 22:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What about it? I believe that was simply the rough draft/sandbox version of Geogre's evidence in this case. Newyorkbrad 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what it was. I am awful at digging diffs.  I hate doing it.  I hate prosecutions.  I don't even enjoy arguments, whatever my skills at it may or may not be.  I wanted to draft it so that I could tighten what I knew would be a verbose presentation.  In the end, every time I went to trim, I ended up wanting to heighten one point or another.  The "summary" section, in particular, still seems inelegant to me.  The third paragraph of it mixes subjects, which is not something I'd normally do.  Having my evidence (in a private user subpage) be evidence of my misbehavior is the utmost in queer.  Geogre 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Based on Inksplotch's evidence. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In reply to Slim Virgin: not hyperbole. Geogre's clearly stated intention. Directing editors away from Wikipedia is not helpful to Wikipedia. Agitating for a strike (although possibly justifiable as I have noted) is intrinsically warlike. Geogre was taking actions and pursuing a course that, though arguably justifable by his perception of the circumstances, amounted to warlike behavior.  Geogre's justification was that he perceived that the action of others was damaging Wikipedia and that a strike would help to provoke a change. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony, it would be more helpful if you would reply as part of the thread, not in another section. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll keep these two elaborations here because they summarise and extend my argument. If I have further things to say I'll reply in threaded form. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In reply to Newyorkbrad, I sympathise with his view that "there was no applicable dispute resolution process to resort to." Perhaps it seemed that way to Geogre. But had he tried?  There are RfCs, arbitration and appeals to Jimbo.  Indeed you will note that I referred to an appeal to Jimbo for intervention in my evidence.  That appeal was made by me.  --Tony Sidaway 18:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Giano's persistent and uncivil assumptions of bad faith, evidenced on this thread and elsewhere, are perhaps a good example of the underlying problem. I had no part in provoking this.  He had declared war on those who he describes as "non-editing administrators" long before I had heard of him. Wikipedia cannot permit a state of civil war to exist between editors. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * My point is that he does make extremely negative and trivially false statements, that on examination turn out to be blatantly false. This isn't acceptable.  And when one makes a negative statement of fact about another individual, and one doesn't bother to check whether it's true, obviously that's a de facto personal attack. --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * "clearly intended to damage Wikipedia" is outrageous and unsupportable, and there was no applicable dispute resolution process to resort to. Newyorkbrad 18:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "... some of which were clearly intended to damage Wikipedia" is hyperbole, and it's Tony's opinion only that they were unhelpful and "warlike." SlimVirgin (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * When I read this attack here on Geogre by Kelly Martin I decided enough was enough of the absolute rubbish and threats and something needed to be done.  Now Tony Sidaway further insults Geogre by saying he "clearly intended to damage Wikipedia" to say that of the editor who has (IMO) done more over the years to improve it than any other in abhorrent.  Than Tony Sidaway can call  me a "wanker" (find the diffs yourselves) is of no account (at 13 I probably was) and excuses his language because it is  his native Yorkshire culture is frankly pathetic, does that give me leeway to swear in another tongue at him?  I've seen some rubbish on this page, but this is worse than an insult to Geogre.  It is a blatant lie.  Now for those of you about to block me (yet again) in order to "calm down" or "have time for reflection" - please be assured I am perfectly calm, in fact I am icy cold, and shall be editing an article for the rest of the evening - so you have the page to yourselves - and why is TS allowed to start a confusing thread here? Giano 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Giano's persistent and uncivil assumptions of bad faith, evidenced on this thread and elsewhere" Persistant? This was my first comment on the whole debacle. I have jusyt made one more. It will be my last. Tony has the field - I wonder how many posts he has made on the subject? I take the hint, everything I say is twisted and turned to bad faith by Tony, I shall leave him to it. Giano 21:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This finding of fact is not supported by the cited evidence. Nandesuka 17:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this might have been perceived as "robust criticism" by John, but he continued after editors had complained, and seemed to relish the fuss he was causing, perhaps perceiving it as a sign of success. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Comment by others:
 * What does that have to do with this case? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was part of the activities of administrators and bureaucrats to deal with the fallout of the Carnildo affair. --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * John Reid's not a party to the case; you can't add a proposal regarding every single thing and every single person who commented after Carnildo's promotion. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to take that back. I see John's added himself. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, SV. If I could stay out, I would. As it is, I'm disappointed to get my invitation to the party so late. Even as a troublemaker, it seems I'm not high up the totem pole. John Reid 10:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, anyone can introduce evidence and make proposals about anything he thinks is relevant to the case. I made this proposal and notified him.  As he has added much very sensible commentary to the case and has more than corrected my original poor impression of him, I'm rather glad that I did.  Like all involved here, he's a fine Wikipedian, even if we disagreed with one another on this.  --Tony Sidaway
 * I agree with Tony's comment that John Reid has added sensible commentary to the case. In general I find John's commentary insightful and helpful, and I fail to see why he was accused of trolling. Some people, by their nature, discuss things at greater length and more forcefully than others. Learning to deal with people who have different discussion styles is all part of the Wikipedia experience. I would also like to note here that I have been impressed with some of Tony's more conciliatory comments and responses in this case. This is a side of Tony I have not seen before, and in my eyes does a great deal to mke up for his incivility elsewhere. Carcharoth 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've presented evidence connected to this finding on the evidence page. I think it's likely I influenced John's usage of the phrase "Let the record show", and that might mitigate the fact; he's seen prior usage of the term by by an admin. I have to note that whilst I find John a very good Wikipedian, I do find his commenting style to be robust at times. Hiding Talk 12:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Note Fred Bauder 21:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Tony, if you are concerned about messages you consider "obviously calculated to inflame" at the top of user talk pages, would you consider removing "coup d'etat in progress" from the top of yours? Newyorkbrad 05:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not intended to inflame anyone, but I'll gladly remove it. This is the first time anyone has even mentioned it to me. It was intended, and I think this is obvious, as a rueful comment on the insurrectionist language of Giano, Bishonen and Geogre last week.  That time has passed and I think they've calmed down a bit. --Tony Sidaway 05:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I so try to avoid examining someone else's mind, but I have to ask. If it's an "insurrection," then who is the government?  Is holding you to account a revolution, a coup, etc.?  In what way do you feel that you have more "government" than I?  Are we not both administrators?  In what way does Kelly act more as a "government" (that could be overthrown) than I?  Is she not merely an administrator?  In what way would even ArbCom represent "power?"  Are they not a consented body for dispute resolution?  I see no power anywhere, much less a government.  This can be proven, at the expense of the project, but it should not be necessary to prove it merely to get certain people to realize that their fantasies about power are harming themselves and the venue.  Geogre 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a stick that is used by those who participate more on the article-writing side of Wikipedia to beat those who prefer to participate in its administration with. Different editors have different skills, and there's absolutely no reason to hit people who prefer to help out with administering with this sort of crap. I'd like to note that this is also entirely irrelevant to the case. I'm expressing mild curiosity as to the number of similar proposals on this page. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 07:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Article-writing should not be viewed as a "side" of Wikipedia. It (along with other production of free content, like images) is the core; everything else is simply scaffolding. This is an encyclopedia project, not a project that has some poor unfortunates somewhere down there laboring to build some encyclopedia. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Some Wikipedians' talents do not lie in writing articles. Many have skills in managing communities, typo-fixing, copyediting, wikifying, vandalism patrol, software development, and other areas which are not directly article-writing. I do not write new content as much as many others do, however I've contributed in other areas such as copyediting, software development, and vandalism patrol to name other areas. I find it insulting that people consider these tasks less worthwhile. They are all just as necessary. I'm also wondering what the hell this FoF has to do with the case. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 01:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a note, not a finding of fact, but the attitude expressed may involve disrespect. Fred Bauder 01:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to look at events on Giano's original talk page. There was certainly a strong strain of disrespect, expressed in a needlessly nasty way, for non-editing administrators. --Tony Sidaway 02:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the basic idea, just with its hostile expression. Fred Bauder 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


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


 * Comment by parties:
 * Needs to be stated. While the objections encompassed some false and damaging accusations of unprecedented ugliness, the number of objectors was actually rather small. The anti-Tony and anti-Kelly people have seized on this (and even anti-James_F! wtf?) but that's one of those interpersonal matters.  The situation got ridiculously out of control, so obviously the damage-hounds got involved, and on this occasion the noisemakers scored a hit. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 71 oppose votes were recorded, and some of the neutral voters also expressed concerns. Even if we accept that there was a lot of sockpuppetry going on (though one would expect those votes to be indented and not counted), that still leaves dozens of editors, many of them long-time contributors, who objected. That hardly qualifies as a "handful". Zocky | picture popups 04:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * John Reid says it wonderfully well, and I have little to add, except that what this wording is seemingly aiming at is "those who reacted after the reRFA was presented as a fait d'accompli were few in number." Perhaps, as news of it was sort of restricted to those paying careful attention.  However, I've noticed a good bit of "let X be my champion in this" going on, where a whole load of folks are afraid of "being discussed in detail" and prefer to let others speak, so we can't honestly know who would have stepped up had loudmouths like me not done so.  Geogre 11:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is a very loosey-goosey finding, and doesn't seem to be supported by any actual evidence. Nandesuka 17:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally contradicted by finding 6.3. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ~70 opposes is not a small number on an RFA. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, let's be clear as to what is being said. There were around 70 votes opposing the resysopping of Carnildo by voting Oppose DURING the RFA.  HOWEVER, there were far fewer than 70 people who objected to the bureaucrats' decision by expressing dissent AFTER Taxman's announcement of the opinion.  I haven't counted but I would guess that the number was in the range of 10-15 (maybe as much as 20).  Thus, the finding seems appropriate if we're talking about the number of people who objected to the decision of the bureaucrats (i.e. 10-20) as opposed to the number of people who objected to the resysopping (i.e. around 70). --Richard 07:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As an active participant of major new-article-announcements boards and DYK, I've got a subjective impression that every long-term quality content creator on humanitarian subjects, from User:Dbachmann to User:Wetman, was involved into the post-RfA debacle. (I don't talk about people interested only in their own countries or Pokémon-level stuff). Such a range of responses, from so many unrelated content contributors, is totally unprecedented during my two-year stay in Wikipedia. The failure to appreciate the wave of indignation triggered by Carnildo's resysoping and the blocks that followed, is incontestable evidence of the growing divide between content-creating editors and nomenklatura. The arbitrators may dismiss the community as the "howls of the mob", but I can't help thinking that it's this self-righteous attitude that brought the matter to the present stalemate. -- Ghirla -трёп-  08:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * Comment by parties:
 * I wasn't provoked in that particular case, Fred. I said that RFA had become a disgusting rabble and this was an instance of careless speech.  The statement was my first in the case and it was not an auspicious start.  I do feel very worried about the subject but this did not excuse such careless and insulting language.  The provocation is two-sided, because I say something I feel strongly about in a very strong way, and this attracts many people, some of whom may be acting from less than Wikipedian motives, some of whom are rightly upset.  But the root problem in that instance was my failure to observe the basic rules of civility, and this is a chronic problem. --Tony Sidaway 02:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Trolled? He was trolled?  Fred, you are expressing a highly derogatory evaluation of those who objected.  Please reconsider.  Geogre 18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Tony has several different justifications for several of his incivil, inflammatory, or offensive remarks.  He seems willing to stipulate to having been incivil as a general principle, yet when it comes to examining specific remarks seems to have many post-facto explanations of why they don't mean what everyone who read them believed them to mean.  Therefore, I think it is probably best to treat them one at a time, rather than treating them as a group.  In the instant case, Tony has claimed after the fact that "disgusting rabble" referred to "the state of RFA", and wasn't intended as an attack on people.  Given Tony's acknowledged mastery of the English language, I find it hard to credit this characterization.  A rabble is, by definition, a pack, a group of people.  We can't know Tony's mind, but we can judge his words and the effect of them.  I'd like, therefore, to establish that walking onto any page in Wikipedia and saying "I'm ashamed of the disgusting rabble here" is, indeeed, a personal attack and should be treated as such. Nandesuka 12:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know what behavior constituted "troll[ing] at length." This is the third time I've asked an arbitrator to specify this in a stament on these pages.  I have yet to recive a response. -  brenneman  {L} 03:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Aaron. What is meant by "trolling" here? Elsewhere, I have seen many people provide widely varying definitions of an internet troll. The most common one being of someone who deliberately baits someone with the intent of provoking a reaction. But my definition of a 'pure' troll is someone who starts a thread and (crucially) does not participate in the thread. They just step back and watch the mess unfold (they consider it an artform, apparently). Someone who participates in the discussion, but is just arguing for the sake of arguing, would more accurately be characterised as a tail wagging the dog, or to use Jimbo's phrase, a "squeaky wheel" (at least that is how I have always interpreted that bit on his user page). In any case, I find the words 'troll' and 'trolling' to be so unhelpful that I avoid using them. I would even go so far as to say that accusations of trolling could be considered a form of personal attack. The problem is, it is extremely difficult to know where the line is drawn between those who are passionately arguing for what they believe in, and those who are just arguing because they enjoy it. Carcharoth 16:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sustained provocative behavior
33) Several users, claiming to object to the favorable closing of Carnildo's RfA and events that flowed from it, engaged in a prolonged campaign of hectoring behavior directed at the Bureaucrats as a group, at the three Bureaucrats who closed the RfA, at in particular and at administrators and the arbitrators in general, attacking  and  in particular.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed, need subsections for particular users Fred Bauder 01:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it's not really worth to continue arguing there. Fred's suggestion is a fine example of "sustained provocative behaviour", in itself. His one-sided vision of the situation seems to illustrate my worst apprehensions, voiced on RfAr page (now deleted for some reason), about the IRC-run circus that this arbitration will evolve into. I don't see much sense in contributing to this page after that and I won't. --Ghirlandajo 08:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If this arbitration is IRC-run, then this would only be because the arbitration committee would discuss it on their private IRC channel. Your statement was moved to the talk page of the arbitration case, as is customary with statements by nominally uninvolved parties.  --Tony Sidaway 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I hate to be the one to say this, but so? Wikipedia is made of words, and people get held to account for their actions.  We are never, ever going to be a place where mere users are supposed to hold their tongues and tug their forelocks in the presence of exalted arb-ers or bureauocrats.  If the individual users performed individual acts that require injunctive remedies, then they need individual RFAR's filed over those actions.  Otherwise, Taxman and the others are big people who can handle their own.  (If we do become a place where respect toward one's betters is demanded, please let me know, so I can pack my bags, as that would be worth shaking the dust off one's feet over.)  Geogre 18:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Respect is essential for the functioning of the project, mutual respect. Fred Bauder 02:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then are you disrespecting me or I you now? I take it as an element of respect to be disagreed with when I'm going wrong.  The more wrong, the more vociferous the disagreement.  Kelly was going way, way, way, way, way wrong.  There is no quiet and humble, cap in hand gentle whisper to be expected when that sort of thing happens.  Would I be expected to behave that way if it were, for example, Ghirla instead of Kelly?  Why not?  I.e. if you believe Kelly's "contributions" are such that she deserves more delicate treatment, then why not the contributions of Ghirla, whom Tony certainly felt no "respect" for?  Why not of Giano?  Why not Bishonen (called, last night, "demon bitch from Hell" on that wonderful administrator's IRC channel)?  Do we only get respect like this when we do nothing on the wiki and everything via IRC and our private associations with Office members?  Why this motion here relating to Kelly, but not there in the John Reid or Giano sections?  Geogre 01:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I also object to the "hectoring" being included as part of the finding. The concerns were legitimate and were raised, mostly, in proper fashion. Such formulation disparages legitimate objectors to certain practices that led to this mess. Legitimate calls for replacing the people associated with recent negative developments is not "hectoring". Such associations may be erroneous but calling it "hectoring" assumes bad faith on opponent's part. --Irpen 20:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This needs some evidence attached. I don't recall that the people who "hectored" the crats are all the same people as those who were "attacking" Kelly and Tony; there seem to be three distinct groups here with a bit of overlap.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Lots of evidence in the diffs above, but I agree a lot of work needs to be done to separate out personalities. Fred Bauder 11:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Proposed modification: Several users, whose mainspace contributions approach to nil, claiming to "defend" Wikipedia from "disruption", engaged in a prolonged unsustained campaign of intimidating, bullying, and eventually blocking directed at a number of prolific contributors, notably User:Giano. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  08:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, why is this necessary? This sounds like exactly the sort of recrimination and micro-examination of recent events that I think many of us think should be avoided. Second, depending on who are identified as "[s]everal users," the heading of "[s]ustained provocative behavior" may either be an exaggeration, or flatly false. Third, the words "claiming to object" suggest disbelief of the users' stated motivations for their comments. I see no evidence that the people who posted objections were acting from any motive other than those they identified themselves. Newyorkbrad 14:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The workshop page refers to "baiting" of Tony several times, and I guess this is the proposed finding of fact that it rests on. The problem with that is that both "baiting" and "provocative behaviour" imply intentions of these editors without any proof that I have seen. The fact that Tony and Kelly were provoked by things people said doesn't mean that people said those things to provoke Tony and Kelly to do what they did. Zocky | picture popups 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In my book, criticizing someone's behavior is not the same as hectoring. Many people were accused of trolling and/or personal attacks in this whole mess, frequently unjustly.  Since we already know that criticism is welcome, we need to be very careful about painting critics with a "hectoring" brush.  If the folks being criticized felt it went on too long, just maybe this is partly due to them not modifying their behavior after having been asked repeatedly. Friday (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The hell with "modifying their behavior". They didn't hardly even deign to respond and defend their behavior.  That's what really galled me.  It smacked of an elitist attitude that said "Let the heathen rage.  We can't be troubled to defend our actions against such whining and complaining by the rabble."  No, they didn't say that but Tony and others did and by saying nothing, the b'crats appeared to endorse the pronouncements of those who defended them in this way.  Taxman did say a few things but glossed over most of the issues.  Nothing came out of the other b'crats until Redux posted a message with the edit summary titled "enough".  I can find the diff if it's needed.  BTW, I wholeheartedly supported the thrust of Redux's comment on the matter.  I just thought it was too little, too late.  The damage had already been done by that time.  --Richard 08:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who stayed far, far away from the RfA et al, by the time this overflowed out into all the other venues it was impossible to tell who was provoking whom. The phrase mutual combat is the only description I can think of, and I don't know that I'd say that it's fair to blame any one side for having continued it. I think it only lasted so long and got so ugly because both sides kept it up. I think it's naive to blame either side for the eventual scope of the argument; both sides had to be participating actively for it to have gotten that bad. Georgewilliamherbert 02:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It is difficult and it is unpleasant, but an example has to be made, in the words of one arbcom member "pour encourager les autres" Carnildo has to be de-sysoped again in order for the crats to learn that such behaviour in not acceptable. Those that opposed this decision have had  insults hurled at them by admins both high ranking and low a  present arb-com member  and emeritus one, this situation cannot be allowed to continue.  There has to be a re-run of the RFA that is seen to be open and fair.  Otherwise the crats will continue to do just as they please knowing that a protest from the "rabble" and "idiots" can be ignored.  It cannot be ignore, it must not be ignored.  Funnily enough, before someone yet again claims otherwise, I no longer bear Carnildo a grudge, I think he is probably as much a victim here as many others who have been dragged in to hide the fact this whole case is about defining and understanding the power of the crats. Giano 09:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No we've had enough. Not going to do it again. Fred Bauder 11:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is somewhat irrelevant, as Carnildo is not on trial. As Sjakkalle says, it's the way it was done, not Carnildo himself.  I maintain my reservations about his behavior before the wheel war, but no one should be arbitrated over my doubts.  Geogre 18:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I think people have really been more upset on the way Carnildo was promoted than the fact that Carnildo was promoted. If this finding is OK, I don't see any point in desysopping again. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Right Fred Bauder 11:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that Carnildo should step down and give up adminship until such time as he passes a proper RFA. HOWEVER, for form's sake, I will point out that, as far as I understand it, this is the fact-finding part of the RFARB process and so we are stating facts not making recommendations for ARBCOM's actions on those facts.  If my understanding is correct, the proposed text is OK but any comments about the implications of the proposed text are inappropriate at this time.  This includes not only Giano's comment that Carnildo should be desysopped but also Sjakkalle's and Fred Bauder's comments that desysopping is unnecessary. --Richard 07:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I object to that proposal. I do think that Carnildo showed loyalty for the project by continuing to work away quietly after the humiliation of being desysopped. People sometimes leave Wikipedia after being blocked or desysopped, or in the middle of an RfA that isn't going well. Or they start trolling, or join attack sites. It's very much to Carnildo's credit that he continued to work for the project. I also would agree on the surface that he has behaved well since being resysopped, in that he hasn't committed any act worthy of censure (as far as I know). However, if I stole €100 from someone last February, and I know he wants the money back (or even if he doesn't), and I do absolutely nothing about it, but continue to do good work in my own way, then my behaviour is not exemplary. Every day that that hundred euro remains in my pocket while I make no attempt to repay it, I am not behaving well, regardless of the number of old ladies I help across the road. If someone has been falsely accused of something, and is upset, and I happen to have evidence that would clear him completely, and I just continue to help old ladies across the road while doing nothing about the injustice that I have a duty to correct, then my behaviour is not admirable. Every day that that injustice continues and I remain silent, I am not behaving well.

Carnildo harmed three other users in February. The loss of one of these editors may have been a result. I know that he had spoken of leaving anyway, but he might have changed his mind without this insult. Another was desysopped as a result of his impetuous reaction to something that Carnildo should never have done in the first place. Another has been blocked twice since then as a result of comments that result either directly or indirectly from his indignation at the original, outrageous block. In other words, Carnildo directly sullied the block logs of three respected and valuable contributors (to say nothing of this disgraceful block coming after this vote), and was the indirect cause of a lot of further pain, humiliation, and ill will. Of course individual people bear responsibility for their own individual actions, but Kelly's "you're-all-being-watched" comment, Tony's "lancing-a-boil" comment, James's "you're-all-idiots" post, the subsequent voluntary desysoppings, Geogre's angry but civil posts of protest, Fred's unbelievable proposed remedy and his very unprofessional taunt of Geogre, and perhaps even Canadian Caesar's unfortunate departure (does anyone know?) are all in some way connected to what Carnildo did in February. If Carnildo were an innocent catalyst, whose inoffensive behaviour had triggered a series of disasters, I wouldn't be so heartless as to drag him into it. Nor would I wish to increase his distress if he had shown remorse. But I think I can confidently say that the atmosphere on Wikipedia is more poisonous now because of Carnildo's unjust actions and his refusal to make even an attempt at amends than it would be if he had never joined Wikipedia.

Do I want Carnildo to leave? No. Do I want him desysopped again? No. (Though I should point out that I was more "oppose" than "support" in the RfA, but didn't vote because I don't like to increase someone's humiliation by piling on "oppose" votes when an application is going to fail again &mdash; a personal policy which bureaucrats should have considered, and which I will have to rethink for the future because of the amazing result of that RfA.) He does great work with unlisensed images, and showed character by continuing to serve after being disciplined. But his attitude to the sullying of respectable editors' block logs is a huge, huge problem, and every second he spends on Wikipedia without attending to what should be his first priority &mdash; an attempt to make amends, to reach out to those he hurt &mdash; is a further insult to his victims.

It's quite possible that if he apologized, Giano and El C might not accept his apology. (He can't apologize to Carbonite or GordonWatts, as they have left.) But at least he would have made the gesture. The closest he seems to have come to apologizing is where he says that it was a "mistake". (Was it Canadian Caesar who said that it's a mistake to leave your money lying around, but it's not morally wrong?) Most people (I can't speak for all) who are shocked by this are not looking for blood. But why should it be so unreasonable to expect someone to say, "I'm sorry, I did something wrong, and caused a lot of distress. I regret the damage I caused, and wish I could undo it"? (I notice that Lar went to some trouble in asking if the block logs could be cleared, and I commend him for that, alhough the request seems to have been denied.) Is it too much to expect some sign that Carnildo would like the stain he placed on other people's reputation to be removed?

Unless the people who support the above proposal can state explicitly either that keeping the money you stole last year and refusing to retract a false accusation you made last year are examples of exemplary behaviour as long as you don't steal any more money or make any more false accusations OR that there is evidence of Carnildo trying to make amends, I strongly urge that this proposal should be withdrawn. Better still, perhaps Carnildo would be prepared now to express some regret for the harm he did? AnnH  ♫  11:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree. I don't see Carnildo's words as worth all this.  I really don't.  And that's what this boils down to.  Wikipedia is not a battleground.  I can't see how anyone, after all this time, can still believe there is an onus on Carnildo here.  His words indicate he accepts he was wrong.  For people to still harbour sore feelings on this issue is simply unhealthy.  Block logs aren't badges of honour, they aren't things we should invest pride in, whether they are clean or not.  It is not our block logs that should be important, but our actions.  Carnildo accepted his actions were not best placed.  Whilst a sincere apology may smooth the waters, that is nobody's to give but Carnildo's, and nobody's to ask for but the users' who have felt slighted.  But one cannot continuously keep asking for an apology and bringing this issue up.  Carnildo's actions have been dealt with.  We simply cannot bear grudges on Wikipedia, not to this extent.  It is harmful.  Look at all this.  Is this all worth it?  You can't keep picking at a scab, it will never heal. Hiding Talk 13:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder has taunted Geogre
has taunted Geogre in this edit. It is especially unbecoming for a user in a position of power to sneer at or be disrespectful of other contributors.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others
 * I haven't read all of the dialogue relevant to this arbitration but I will say that, of what I've read, the one thing that can be said is that the same arguments have been repeated over and over again ad nauseam on both sides. Perhaps it was a bit out of line for Fred to criticize Geogre for sounding like a broken record given that plenty of editors in this case also did.  However, I doubt that Fred's comment was off the mark with respect to Geogre.


 * That said, I did also detect a tendency for some editors (e.g. Tony Sidaway) to consider athe repetition of arguments to be "trolling" or "disruptive" and thus worthy of blocking.


 * --Richard 06:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

InkSplotch is not a sockpuppet
1) is not Kelly Martin's sockpuppet, as established by Checkuser, and remains an editor in good standing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Checkuser is infallible, is it? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Only when I'm speaking ex cathedra. However, given the complete lack of evidence that he's anyone's sockpuppet (and especially not Kelly Martin's), I think we're on safe ground here. Mackensen (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then say, "there is no evidence in support of this." Don't presume the negative case just beacuse you can't prove the positive. -  brenneman  {L} 11:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten it to be more narrow. Mackensen (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We need to be clear that there is evidence that he is not Kelly's sockpuppet. Mackensen (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean "there is no Checkuser evidence that is a sockpuppet".  I am no technical expert, but how about ssh to a remote host and then editing from there? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's always a possibility, but there's other evidence (which, I regret, I can't share) which mitigates against that explanation. Put this way: if you came to RFCU and asked, any checkuser would come back and say "Unrelated," especially as there hasn't been much corroborating behavorial evidence put forward. I mean, we're almost begging the question here. Mackensen (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No - simply that Checkuser is not infallible. There may be evidence that editors are related or not related, but it is not possible to state categorically whether two users are or not by those means.  Checkuser does not establish realtion or lack of relation - it gives evidence for relation or lack of relation.  I have stated above one mechanism for avoiding relation.  Even positive returns could be two independent people who happen to have the same IP, at an internet cafe, or whatever.  Yes, editing patterns, time of use, etc, make the evidence stronger, but you don't know for sure without standing in the room behind the editor in question.  Can we see the photographs? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear on three things: I don't believe he's a Kelly sock, I don't care if he's Kelly's Sock, and I geniuenly I like Inksplot whatever little man is hiding behind the curtain. But it's simply untenable to say "Just trust us" on this one.  While the mechanics of checkuser are arcane, unless the claim is that CU cannot be fooled then this finding is logically flawed. -  brenneman  {L} 11:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the claim continues to be made that he is a sock. If he is, the claim cannot be proven by checkuser, and while we're not infallible, I dare say we're pretty sharp. If he's not a sock, then a good editor is having his name drug through the mud to no good purpose. Aaron, I have to ask you to trust us, because I'm unable to do anything else. Revealing the evidence publicly would be a gross and disgusting breach of Foundation policy and several users' privacy (as Geogre and SlimVirgin have rightly noted elsewhere). Naturally I'm prepared to make a full report to the Arbcom, and most of them have checkuser anyway and can look for themselves. Mackensen (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do understand that there are matters which should remain private. Could we have a wording which assign some weight to this "not guilty" finding then by having people sign on?    As it is it's an obvious question magnet., perhaps something like "Evideince was submitted to the commitee privately and checkuser ws performed and reviewed by Mr. Foo, Mrs. Bar, and Miss FUBAR?" -  brenneman  {L} 11:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I trust Mackensen to have done it correctly. If I do it, it will simply show that the two editors consistently edit from unrelated ips. Fred Bauder 14:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that is neither necessary nor sufficient for the conclusion drawn. I have no idea whether InkSplotch is or is not a sockpuppet, but this is tantamount to the ArbCom declaring that the Higgs boson does or does not exist (yes, there is evidence, and it is a good explanation, but we can't say for sure). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: