Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 16

Request for clarification regarding Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba
I made a request for clarification on 9 September 2006. I am not going to wait any longer and will edit the set of articles related to Sathya Sai Baba according to my interpretation of the arbcom decision. Andries 16:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Vivian Gaither HS Arb
I did not want to interject this irrelevancy on the arb page itself... but has nobody seen the movie Hackers? (See Plot Summary (with spoiler warning), third paragraph.) I suspect the inventors of the pool-on-the-roof hoax at this high school (and I suspect, hundreds more around the country) have seen the movie, even if nobody on the ArbCom has. :) 6SJ7 21:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and: The parallels are pretty funny and/or ironic, when you think about it:  (Warning, film spoiler follows):  High school student watches movie about fictional high school student computer hackers who start out by faking each other out with a hoax about a pool on the high school roof, then not only fools other students in the school with the same hoax, but vandalizes (or, if you will, hacks) an online encyclopedia -- with a doctored photo taken from yet another web site -- to try to make it seem like the hoax is real. Pretty neat. (Unless of course you are serious about building an encyclopedia, then maybe it's not so neat. But at least it's funny.)  6SJ7 21:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedians aren't at all humorless. There are some appropriate places to be funny on this site. Taking another user to arbitration isn't one of them, and I hope the user who filed the "Gaither" case understands that now. Newyorkbrad 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is that case?? --SunStar Net 00:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The case was rejected: . DarthVad e r 00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Question
Forgive my ignorance - I've got what I consider evidence of disruptive conduct of a user who's conduct is the subject of a request for arbitration. Specifically. This user then procedeeded to make significant one sided edits to the organisation he'd said should be hanged from lamposts. The user has also made allegations of Hinduphobia towards editors after the neutrality of her/his edits were challenged. I'm not sure where this information should be placed, as I haven't been party to dispute resolution with this user - these issues have only come up recently. Feel free to move or consider as seen fit. Mostlyharmless 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You can either make a statement on the main page, or wait until a case is opened and then make a section on the evidence page. There is no requirement that parties making comments must have personally participated in prior dispute resolution.  If you feel you have been personally injured or affected by the user you can also list yourself as a party to the case, although you can present evidence without naming yourself as such. Thatcher131 23:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Such statements made by this user are also attacks on me:

Hkelkar 00:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, people who present evidence in an arbitration case may find their own conduct examined as well. The arbitrators tend to look at everything. Thatcher131 00:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is very good. I thank you for your information.Hkelkar
 * It wasnt Hinduphobia it was Indophobia (anti-India). Its not like AI is all good, AI has its biases (which Hkelkar has done a good job of uncovering).Bakaman Bakatalk 02:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Participation
Regarding the Cbuhl79 case, why have we received only one ArbCom member issuing an opinion regarding accepting this case? It should be noted that (1) this opinion was issued before three other editors issued statements regarding the importance of accepting this case; and (2) there is a clearer and more in-depth presentation of the evidence at USER:Blaxthos/RfARB_Cbuhl79. /Blaxthos 04:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you check out User Calton?
Hi,

I have had some problem with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Calton and notised that I am not the only one. Maybe he is dooing a good job and then I hope you excuse me....Just check out someone, please? I for one feel harrassed by him.--Swedenborg 10:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:DR. If you would like to make an arbitration request, follow the directions and do so. This talk page is not dispute resolution, and we're not here to "check him out". Dmcdevit·t 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

User: Cbuhl79 Arbitration
Please allow me to state that I hope all arbitration requests aren't handled similar to this one. For the record, I had lukewarm support at best for taking this user to the ArbCom when this was originally filed. However, my view changed once presented with evidence of possible sockpuppetry and trolling under these sockpuppets by user.

My problem with the Arbitration Committee is the relative callousness shown by them with respect to this case. As Arbitration is a last resort, and is often entered into by editors who have become exasperated in their attempts to reach some sort of resolution, the Committee should be receptive to that fact. Here, one Committee member voted "no" before other members invovled in the dispute even had a chance to comment. Said Committee member even acknowledged possible malfeasance by the user, yet didn't change his vote. For 48 hours no ArbCom member voted. After receiving four accepts, another Committe member voted no for unknown reasons. Today I find out that three members of the nine member committee have sparse participation in voting these requests. In conjunction with the current criteria for passing, this makes ArbCom an almost impossible avenue in the dispute resolution process.

I'm sorry if my tone is too harsh but this whole process has been very disheartening because there are so many users who come to Wikipedia simply to vandalize and troll articles, and an equal number who actively wish to move the project forward. However without support from the top our attempts become impossible. If there are ArbCom members who don't care enough to vote up or down within a specified timeframe, why should editors like Blaxthos, Auburn Pilot and myself care about the trolling and sockpuppetry of Cbuhl79? It just isn't right.

Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no view of the merits of this RfAr or the underlying issues in the proposed case, which I haven't looked at, but I agree there is something odd about a rule that a case with 4 votes to accept and 2 to reject is deemed rejected, particularly when 4 votes can often be a sufficient majority for an actual decision. In fact, one can imagine an even more perverse outcome: theoretically a case with 8 votes to accept and 5 to reject would also be rejected, even though 8 votes would be a majority of the entire committee. Newyorkbrad 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Oppose" votes indicate active resistance to accepting a case. If we just accepted any case that got 4 "accept" votes, then there would be no point in voting "oppose" at all, since it would have no impact on whether or not a case was accepted. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, true, but it seems sensible that a case would be accepted if it received (i) at least four accept votes and (ii) more accept than reject votes. I understand how the rule evolved to what it is now but I don't think that anyone designing the system now would plan it this way. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You really think a case should be accepted if it receives 4 accept votes and 3 oppose votes? That doesn't make sense to me; the views of those who oppose should carry some weight too, they're the ones who will also have to deal with it if it is accepted. Jayjg (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't the most important issue in the history of the project, but the presumptive standard is a majority, so yes, I do think a case should be accepted if it receives 4 accept votes and 3 oppose votes, indicating that a majority of the participating arbitrators think it presents an important problem or issue ... and I certainly think a case should be accepted if it receives 6 accept votes and 3 oppose votes, or 4 accept votes and 1 reject vote, both of which would also result in rejection under the current rule. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is the "presumptive standard" a majority? Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would think, for the same reason that the decision on any issue before the Committee, from stating a principle to finding a fact to issuing a remedy even up to banning a user, is made by a majority. I think from the tone of comments in the case acceptance section of the RfAr page, cases already start out with a bit of a presumption against acceptance ("show us that the ArbCom is the best way to resolve this issue and nothing short of us will work"), so if a majority consisting of at least 4 arbs think the case belongs before the Committee, it probably does.
 * I don't want to beat this issue to death, but I still don't see a rationale for a 4-2 vote (or 4-1 or 6-3 vote) in favor of accepting a case to result in rejection, especially when as you note below we de facto may have a 7- or 9-member committee right now. I'd be curious whether any of the other arbs have a view on this issue. Newyorkbrad 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Being involved in this request, the problem I had with the reject is that the only 3 ArbCom members who didn't vote, should really be listed as inactive. Here's why: There are three ArbCom members who had yet to vote: Neutrality, Mindspillage, and Raul654. Curious as to why this is, I looked into their contributions here at the ArbCom. ArbCom member Neutrality appears to have only voted in approximately 5 cases since January 1, 2006; the last one being May 1, 2006. ArbCom member Mindspillage has mostly been on a wikibreak for the past several months, only voting in 3 cases since the end of September 2006. The final active member, Raul654 hasn't voted to accept/reject a case since August 12, 2006 (The only time in the last 1000 edits, dating back to the end of July). With active members so inactive, a case such as this has a snow ball's chance in hell. (This comment was originally left within the request) -- AuburnPilot talk 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Neutrality last voted on a case on October 28, 2006: . It is true that some members of the Committee are rarely active, even when "active". Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My reference to voting was on the accept/reject end, seeing how this is the major problem with the 4 net vote system. A case can't get to the proposed decision stage if it isn't even passed in the first place. -- AuburnPilot talk 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. The 4 vote system can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. Don't forget, in order for a case principle, finding, etc. to pass it must be supported by, at a minimum, a majority of active editors. That means that, in theory, 8 votes could be required, whereas acceptance of a case would still require only 4. The only time it seems to stack the odds against acceptance is now, when burnout has brought the number of effectively active arbitrators down to 7 (from 14 originally). Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate all of the ArbCom members who bothered to vote (in either direction). My intent in commenting is not to offend or be overly critical of the ArbCom -- like I said, I know they're busy and they provide an invaluable service. I do think perhaps this shows a potential weakness in the Arbitration process, but some could argue that this worked exactly as designed (however I believe it's an unfortunate outcome). In any case, I have no doubt that this spectre (regarding USER:Cbuhl79) will raise its head again, and it appears there is already good evidence that he's already started in with a sockpuppet (investigation ongoing). A hardy thanks to ArbCom for taking the time to consider the case and especially those who took the time to chat with me about it. It's my hope that our paths won't cross again, but it's my belief they will. ;-) Regards!  /Blaxthos 02:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just want to second Blaxthos's comment. I am not upset that it wasn't accepted. I'm just upset that in the current reality of ArbCom, it is almost impossible to get a case heard--even when there are serious issues to be discussed.  I am sure the process of accepting a case, was discussed seriously and this current format was the best solution to the problem.  However since there are only 7 "really active" members voting, may I suggest that a good way to go about is that you'd need 2/3 of the voting members to get a case heard in situations where other ArbCom members are burnt out.  Just a suggestion. And oh, make sure to vote when all of the complainants and witness to the dispute have made a comment. :)  To the ArbCom members who took the time to consider the case, Thanks. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I must say that I didn't like the recent change from four votes to four net votes needed for a case acceptance. It should have had more discussion before being implemented. In our previous system, I can't really recall ever coming across an accepted without merit case beause of this aspect, and the current system at the least slows us down, and at worst probably misses deserving cases. Four is just an arbitrary number anyway, so changing it to net four doesn't make it less arbitrary, but rather it effectively just raises the standard. Dmcdevit·t 00:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Was that the purpose of the change? /Blaxthos 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Crzrussian admin abuse
Recently a friend of mine got banned by User:Crzrussian. The admin in question claimed that my friend had been trolling, and thus banned his account, his 2nd account, and his IP indefinately. He later went on to vandalize his User page User:Uncle Mart removing any content he had, and on the talk page of Uncle Marts profile Crzrussian claims that Uncle Mart had deleted several entries from talk pages, where the fact is he only removed entries on his own talk page. When i asked the Crzrussian to elaborate on the matter at his talk page, he refused which brings me here, since i find the evidence of admin abuse overwhelming. (Cloud02 16:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC))


 * This page is not part of the dispute resolution process. I would start by posting on the administrators' noticeboard.  Admins do tend to stick together so it will be best to take a moderate approach.  Don't call it abuse; ask for a second opinion, and provide some diffs to show your case.  If you can get one or two people to agree that your position has merit, the next step would be an WP:RFC. Thatcher131 16:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Will post it there then.(Cloud02 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

Iran-iraq War Arbitration
I've pulled out of this arbitration due to too much focus on me and no responses from anyone else actually named in the arbcom. That and the edits I was fighting over have stabilized although other NPOV issues remain for the others involved. NPOV has always been the issue and the reason I tried to get mediation in the first place. That failed because one other would not sign. I have had to leave a defense to an issue brought by an uninvolved party who had personal issues with me from another article. This user SAJordan filed vandalism charges against me after temporarily missing a closing link in a refrence he added and was reprimanded for that. I asked him to strike his testimony from this case as I'm no longer involved and he has refused so caveat lector. Marky48 19:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, a final determination will be up to the arbitrators, but they may consider you a party despite your attempt to withdraw, based on your edits to the article and comments you made on talk pages in relation to the attempted mediation. I would strongly suggest that you at least keep an eye on the evidence page once the case is opened, so that you can provide counter-evidence to any arguments made against your behavior.  the case should open some time today. Thatcher131 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One cannot back out of arbitration as arbitration is not a voluntary process. The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over every contributor to Wikipedia (excepting the Board of Trustees), party or not a party, and may draw in such parties as they see fit, and sanction any and all. You may choose not to participate in the arbitration case, but it is tantamount to refusing to raise a defense in court: If you don't participate, your side will not be heard, and the results may be adverse to your interests. Essjay ( Talk )  01:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I will have to as much as I'm sick of it at this point. My edits to the article will certainly stand on their merits.Marky48 19:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I just saw Essjay's comment but since I'm the only one to participate so far I certainly will post a vigorous defense to any indictment focused at me directly, especially if no one else is seen on the radar screen as seems to be the case thus far, not to mention charged with anything. I've provided adequate defenses to the personal conduct accusations which I see as a side issue allowing actual editing biases to take a back seat. I look forward seeing some sort of justice in this regard, but will not edit this article again ever regardless. It's just not worth the trouble. Thanks for clarifying the rules. Marky48 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about removing disputed tags

 * Moved from the main RFAR page as it does not concern an editor under current or proposed sanction Thatcher131 19:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There is currently an edit war on the article Temperature record of the past 1000 years. One of the participants is User:William M. Connolley. WMC's edits were surprising for me; I checked his history, and found that ArbCom has previously had him on 6-month parole for trying to impose an extreme non-factual POV on climate-related articles. In my opinion, he is continuing that.
 * That is not a fitting or correct description of what has happened. ArbCom has not had im on a parole for "trying to impose an extreme non-factual POV on climate-related articles", but rather for reverting without sufficient explanation in an on-going edit conflict (in which the other parties where sanctioned much harder), and moreover, it has lifted this sanction after reconsideration.--Stephan Schulz 11:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding of what happened was based on the discussion that ensued following his ReqfAdminship.  I think that I summarized the relevant parts of that, but I was unaware of the subsequent lifting.   TheSeven 13:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what you get for using bad sources. The original cases are available (see my links). There is no need to use second-hand comments made by people during a heated RfA debate.--Stephan Schulz 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There is one action by WMC that I have a general question about. After the edit war started, I put a Disputed tag on the article. WMC reverted the article to the version that he preferred and removed the Disputed tag. As far as I can tell, there are no Wikipedia policies/guidelines about removing Disputed tags. My question is this: is there such a policy and, if not, should there be one? I am not an expert Wikipedian; my (possibly naive) view is that it would be preferable to have some policy/guideline prohibiting removal of disputed tags while an article is being actively disputed. TheSeven 09:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Its unclear to me what this has to do with the arbitrators. TS has just had this pointed out to him, but it doesn't seem to have done any good William M. Connolley 13:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the tie is to our action in the climate change case which arguably constitutes a "black mark" against you. However one of our principles is that if a user moves on and becomes a productive and respected editor they should not have old issues like this thrown up to them. So the inquiry is without merit as far as I am concerned. Fred Bauder 16:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have looked at Talk:Temperature record of the past 1000 years. Without much more intense analysis than I (or the other arbitrators) have time to do, it is not evident whether a dispute tag is justified or not. Fred Bauder 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I guess my question was not worded well. My question is a general one, and the mention of WMC was to give an example. Herewith, my question: "Is it inappropriate for someone to remove a Disputed tag during an active dispute and should Wikipedia have a policy that pertains to removal of Disputed tags?"

My question arose because it seems inappropriate to me for someone to remove a Disputed tag during an active dispute. In the example that I gave, the removals have been continuing (i.e. the Disputed tag has been removed while simultaneously a statement that I, and others, believe to be incorrect has been reinserted). But this is only an example; it is the general question that I put to ArbCom. TheSeven 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not seeing this a good venue for this question. --FloNight 18:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect the arbitrators are not going to offer you a ruling on this question, as it is a content dispute. In general, a dispute tag placed in good faith should not be removed until the editor's concerns have been addressed. If the dispute has previously been addressed, or if there is a strong consensus of other editors that there is no dispute, a polite explanation should be offered.  A tag placed without explanation or to make a point has much less weight.  You should probably think about the dispute resolution process, specifically either a third opinion or article request for comment, to get a wider view. Thatcher131 19:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The Dispute tag was indeed placed in good faith (by me), and the dispute was (and is) definitely not resolved.  I am not the only editor who is on my side of the dispute.  And the tag has now been removed several times.
 * I don't see that my question is a content dispute. If so, that is obviously a problem, if ArbCom does not rule on content disputes.  Another editor, for example, who joined in this dispute said that he has been driven off before by WMC's rudeness.[]  I too do not wish to engage in an extended edit war, but hope for a better way than "let the most tenacious win".
 * In any case, I thought that it might be worth considering a general policy on Dispute tags: your description of when a tag should not be removed looks quite fair to me. TheSeven 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There have been problems with rudeness in the past. As to the disputed tag, I could not from the talk page understand what was disputed and why. Doubtless I am not the only one. Fred Bauder 20:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone else made the same comment. I then replied (at 08:33 21 November) on the Talk page as follows:
 * The reason for the disputed tag is given in the prior Discussion, and should also be clear from the History. To repeat, the statement "M&M offered no explanation as to why their analysis also differs from other reconstructions" is grossly misleading: M&M have never proposed a reconstruction, they have only criticized other reconstructions. I and others have tried to correct the error, but WMC reinserts it. If that statement were deleted, then the disputed tag could be removed.
 * The dispute might seem like being over just one sentence, but it is fundamental to understanding the criticism of the hockey stick (i.e. of the article's topic). Again, though, this is just an example to illustrate the main question, asked above.
 * TheSeven 22:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is not the "Hockey Stick", but rather, as the title suggests, the temperature record of the past 1000 years, of which MBH98 (the "Hockey Stick") is just one reconstruction. The article contains a diagram comparing 10 reconstructions from the peer-reviewed published literature from 1998 to 2005 (and the instrumental record, as far as it is available). These 10 reconstructions vary significantly (but share the fact that the late 20th century warming is extraordinary - that's the current state of the science).--Stephan Schulz 22:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not so: all the reconstructions have been claimed to have a hockey stick shape. And none of this is relevant to my main question for ArbCom.  TheSeven 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with the template
After reading Bishonen's and Giano's comments, I just noticed that the phrasing "Yes both parties- defendants are notified" was identically used in all three cases on this page. Upon checking, this wording appears has been inserted into the new-case template itself. I agree with Bishonen and Giano that the word "defendant" is inappropriate in the context of a Wikipedia arbitration case, and additionally, I fear that having that wording there may lead to the assumption that named parties have been notified when they actually were not. It does not appear that Fred Bauder deliberately adopted this characterization for this case. To avoid future misunderstandings, I recommend that the template language be changed. Newyorkbrad
 * fixed. Thatcher131 22:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. I would have addressed this without posting to the case page except that I thought it was important that Bishonen and Giano understand that the characterization wasn't Fred's. Newyorkbrad 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well you can put it back if you want. Thatcher131 22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll add back one sentence which mentions it's been fixed. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Where are clerks?
Why is this threaded discussion entry still here? Should not they be routinely removed? Users have their own statements to post their thoughts, aren't they? --Irpen 22:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved it earlier today. Thatcher131 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Disproportionate amount of work for arbitrators
No offense to the other arbitrators, but why does it seem that Fred Bauder is doing most of the work on the arbitration cases? In the case I opened, it seems that so far only Fred has been actively participating in the arbitration. Looking at the other cases, they seem to show the same trend. I understand that many of you may be busy with your own personal lives or other activities on Wikipedia, but I'm also pretty sure that most of you ran for these positions. This is not fair to Fred. BhaiSaab talk 16:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am an elderly retired person. I have a lot of free time. While my other avocations suffer, there is no harm done. I still have time to cut wood and walk the dogs. I note that a few of those running for arbitrator may be interested in doing some of the initial research and proposing. Fred Bauder 17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that there are also several recent cases in which Dmcdevit has done the primary drafting. Newyorkbrad 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He's recused from my case which is why I assume he hasn't touched it much. I still hope that though that the upcoming arbcom elections solve this problem, even if "there is no harm done." I know that I wouldn't like to be reading about other people's problems all day while other co-volunteers do not. BhaiSaab talk 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How can I get an Arbcom to recuse himself if he refuses?
How can I get an Arbcom to recuse himself if he refuses? Were do I go to file this? Travb (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean an admin, or an arbitrator? If you mean an admin, recuse from what? Newyorkbrad 02:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He means arbitrator, and you can't force an arbitrator to recuse, it's a personal decision. In theory, you can appeal to Jimbo, who it the ultimate authority, and can overrule an arbitrator or even the whole arbitration committee. You could also contact other arbitrators and ask them to weigh in on the workshop page.  Keep in mind that Fred's proposals are not addressing Seabhcan's side of the dispute because Seabhcan is out of town and has not presented evidence.  Significant new proposals may be added next week after Seabhcan presents his evidence.  Also, there have been cases where's Fred's proposals are voted down and new proposals added by the other arbitrators in the voting stage. Thatcher131 02:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You have made a motion for me to recuse. I have considered the matter but have found no basis for recusal and responded giving the reasons I find this so. I have placed the the motion on /Proposed decision, if the motion passes, I will recuse. Fred Bauder 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Newyorkbrad, Thatcher131, and Fred Bauder for your time. Have a nice evening. It is chilly for this part of the country tonight--65 F. Nice to be inside. Brrr....Travb (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Four net votes for acceptance - where did that come from?
For quite a while – as long as I can remember – the threshold for the acceptance of a case for Arbitration was four Accept votes. Someone brought to my attention that the header on WP:RFArb was recently changed to state that
 * Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes.

The Arbitration policy was also changed to reflect this (with the edit summary "Change to match new criteria added on main RFAr page").

A quick glance through Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy doesn't reveal a discussion of or explanation for this change. Trawling through the history of WP:RFArb reveals that the change was made back in mid-October by Jayjg, with the edit summary "per Arbitration Committee list discussion".

This strikes me as a pretty big shift in the way that the ArbCom does business. When I was asked about the issue on WP:AN/I I actually thought it was an inadvertently-introduced error by someone who confused the case opening and closing criteria. It seems to me that it raises the bar for taking a case to Arbitration very high. Was this the intent of the change?

I am concerned that there may be unintended consequences that at first blush don't appear to make sense. For example, there are nine active Arbitrators at the moment. If six voted to accept a case while three voted to reject, there would be a two-thirds majority in favour of accepting&mdash;but the case would be rejected under the 'four net votes' standard. (Similarly, there could be cases rejected by five-to-two or four-to-one margins if – as often happens – not all Arbs participate in the vote.)

If this change and its effects were deliberate, I think it would be a good idea (heck, I would appreciate it) if the ArbCom (or at least a few of its members) could comment on their reasoning here. Thanks, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

(If there's a long discussion somewhere on-wiki that I've missed, that would be helpful too.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If there was a discussion it was on the arbitrators IRC or mailing list. I remember discussing it, but don't remember any definite outcome. Fred Bauder 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I raised this very concern on an ArbCom member's talk page. I was hesitant to bring it here, as I have little experience with this facet of Wikipedia.  The ArbCom member in question gave me the impression he will be running for re-election (I have not verified this) and he (and another potential member) both expressed understanding of the concern and promised to address it.  To quote my original post:
 * "I brought this here because I'd rather have an informed opinion on the current state of acceptance than open a can of worms prematurely. Note this is not sour grapes for a case i felt should have been accepted... I'm more concerned about a well-intentioned policy that may have consequences far beyond the scope the change originally envisioned. As you (and others) have pointed out, when fewer than the full ArbCom becomes participates in RfARB acceptance procedure, the possiblity of appropriate cases being delisted with significant support (as occured in my proposed case), all compounded with ArbCopm members posting deny votes before involved parties can comment... it seems like the ArbCom process has been castrated, and with it those who would game the wikipedia system have more opportunities to do so with less fear of repurcussion.  If the intent of the policy was to lessen the burden on the ArbCom, it definitely does that -- but at what cost?  If not, what mechanisms would be appropriate for addressing this unintended consequence?  I haven't done the research to see if the semi- or non-participating members are at the end of their appointment term... if so, perhaps it is simply burnout.  I think either way this is a problem that needs attention of those who are better informed and poised to address the issue.  Am I off base?  If not, how would you recommend I proceed?  /Blaxthos 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)"
 * I'm not sure if it's appropriate to link or name the parties who participated in responding (or the userpage on which it was posted) but I was assured that the issue would be addressed by the appropriate parties. Please let it be noted here that I do not support the change at this time due to the (possibly unconsidered) ramifications it has caused.  /Blaxthos 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See here for discussion of this issue in the context of the first case in which it made a difference, for my view and, more importantly, comments by two of the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 21:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, I'm not privy to private ArbCom discussions on the mailing list or IRC, so I expect I'm missing a good chunk of the story. Still, I'm a bit troubled that the only public comments on this issue from Arbs are from Jayjg (who implemented the change), Fred Bauder (who doesn't recall any definite outcome of discussion), and Dmcdevit (who has said he doesn't like the change).


 * My apologies for rocking the boat during ArbCom elections. (Is that why Arbitrators are reluctant to comment here?) I was away on vacation when the (brief) on-wiki discussion linked above occurred.  To a lay outsider like me, it appears that there may have been a bit of a breakdown in communication among arbitrators and between Arbs and the community, and that lack of communication has resulted in a dramatic shift in the criteria for accepting a case arbitration.


 * The old criteria required four accept votes – not even a majority of Arbs – for acceptance. In other words, if you could convince even a substantial minority of the committee that a case had merit, it would be accepted for full consideration.  (Jayjg's comment that this process negated the opinions of Arbs voting 'oppose' holds some water here.  Nevertheless, if four Arbs smell smoke, it may be worth looking for fire.  Oppose voters are also entitled to make their case for rejection, and all voters are entitled to change their minds before a case is accepted.)
 * The new criteria require a supermajority. Right now, we have cases where only five Arbs can be bothered to express an opinion, and those cases go rejected based on a single 'oppose' vote (4 accept less one oppose makes three 'net' votes.)  With a committee up to full strength of fifteen, cases could be rejected on a 9-6 vote.
 * If the ArbCom is having workload and burnout problems, it might be a good idea to consult the community for suggestions. We're always glad to help, and I'm concerned that the bar has been raised too far without much consultation.  Aside from the suggestions that have been floated regarding creating subcommittees of the ArbCom to handle straightforward cases, there's also the tool of recusal.  Any Arb is free to say "I don't have the time right now to give this case an appropriate amount of attention; I withdraw from voting" or some variant on that theme.  I actually rather hope that this happens more in the new year; having a full panel of fifteen Arbs working on every single case is almost certainly overkill.
 * But I'm still speculating and suggesting in the dark. More comment on the reasoning and process involved in this change would help a great deal.  I may be entirely incorrect in my guesses here, and if that's the case then I'd like to know.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We always have problems at this stage. Soon a new crew will come aboard and this question might be addressed anew. I guess my question is, What should our policy be and why? Fred Bauder 18:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"What should our policy be and why?"

 * Quoting Fred to open a new section...

For starters, I think it should be easier to open a case than to decide a case. Right now a vote of 5-2 will approve an article or even site ban but will not open a case. It is my understanding that it takes 4 votes for SCOTUS to accept a case—a minority can open a case but it takes a majority to decide. I also think the issue Jayjg raises that reject votes should count somehow is interesting, but ultimately a red herring. Arbitrators who oppose hearing a case can make comments that may sway other arbitrators, or use private channels to try and persuade the others. Thatcher131 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This and a couple of other nuances of the arbitration policy should probably be reviewed once the new arbitrators are chosen. Newyorkbrad 19:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thinking scientifically, we are dealing here with Type I and type II errors. A Type I error would be rejecting a case that should be opened, while a Type II error would be opening a case that should have been rejected. The 4 net vote procedure makes Type I errors more likely and Type II errors less likely. So one important question is, how many Type II errors occurred under the old scheme. Only 4 cases in 2006 were accepted that would have been rejected under the new system. (Actually, there is only 1 clear rejection, as the others were 4-1 and might or might not have attracted a fifth vote to open.)

On the evidence, only one or two cases of more than 100 (10 per month, more or less) in 2006 was arguably accepted when it shouldn't have been. Using a simple 4 vote count to open does not seem to have resulted in increased workload or the acceptance of cases that were not appropriate for arbitration.

Regarding Type I errors (rejecting a case that should be accepted), the only possible case I am aware of was filed against Cbuhl79. While Blaxthos continues to press his case, a quick check shows that has only 52 main space edits, 274 total edits, and has not edited since October 28. It seems (warning, mPOV ahead) that there wasn't a lot of "there" there, and that Charles Matthews had it right when he said "Let this dispute die a natural death, rather than putting it on life-support".

All in all, given the lack of evidence that a more lenient policy promotes Type II errors, I would support a return to the 4 total vote standard for the reasons I suggested above. Thatcher131 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I applaud the statistical analysis, but I do have a few comments. First of all, remember that your statistical reporting period is not sufficient to negate the Type I threat -- the change has only been in place for a few weeks.  That there was almost immediately a Type I error should be a red flag.  With regards to the Cbuhl79 affair:  it's very easy now to Monday morning quarterback and say "There wasn't a lot of there there"; however at the time the editor was taking drastically inappropriate actions, including falsely applying warning templates to userspace and making false reports on noticeboards.  There was no indication at the time that he would quit (nor should it have mattered), and regardless of that fact at least four ArbCom members thought his behavior was bad enough to warrant acceptance.  I think the statistics are skewed if you're basing your analysis on "all of 2006" (for Type II) versus five weeks (for Type I, in which there was immediately a Type I error).  I think it is very significant to note the near immediacy of an error following the rule change.  Definitely worth review, IMHO.  /Blaxthos 21:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

 * Actually, this is up again following an agreement from the other party to now go into arbitration. . we have been through the entire gamut. He has had admins repeat policy on the discussion page and still will not adhere. Just rely on personal attack.

Please note, this is not a content dispute.

I simply would like the policy matter of Verifiability clarified with or to this other user so that I can proceed with contribution without the consistent vandalism allegations from other IP address, bogus blocks being made upon me during which he can force through his POV and debate whis has persisted.''' The policy states;

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s) Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:
 * it is relevant to their notability;
 * it is not contentious;
 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

I don't see what fault I have in accepting it. 195.82.106.244 01:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The first problem with your case is that in the diff you provided you were "offered the choice of mediation or arbitration" and chose arbitration.  That is not a choice.  Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution and the arbitrators will generally not hear a case unless mediation has been attempted and failed.  Second, the arbitraotrs will generally not rule on what sources are acceptable or how to use them in an article.  The arbitration committee is not empowered to hear content disputes, and no matter how you describe it, the question of whether certain sources can be included is a content dispute.  The arbitrators will hear cases about disruptive behavior, or about editors who remove valid sources because they have a particular point of view about a topic, so I recommend that you offer some specific evidence of disruptive behavior like edit warring, article ownership, or trying to force the article to reflect a certain point of view and denying fair coverage to other points of view.  However even then, the arbitrators may ask you to try mediation first. Thatcher131 02:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mediation had also been attempted prior as per policy, as had RfC, admin requests, discussion, everything.


 * The question is not content dispute and no about which sources are acceptable. It to hold the other contributor to the Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s) policy NOT guideline stated above and - hopefully to stop these bogus blocks and vandalism threats.


 * I have shown in detail he has gone out of his way to block me using bogus vandalism reports from IPs within the same area/ISP that he kept secret and especially for doing so, even referring to his editing usename Riveros11 as a third party.


 * Stated at length and in detail stating time and dates and edits here 


 * Thanks 195.82.106.244 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have looked over your request for investigation and some of the linked comments. I think you have a strong case for arbitration but you have presented it poorly.  However, given your claim that Riveros is a current recruiter and you are a former recruiter and trainer, and your intent to expose wrongdoing in the group, there is a strong chance that you would be sanctioned as well, either probation or banned from the article.  It all depends on how good your sources are and how you have behaved in trying to add them.  If the arbitrators feel you have been trying to libel the organization with poorly sourced or unsourced scandals, you're a goner.  If they feel your sources are good and your efforts to add them are appropriately balanced, they may indeed sanction the other editor(s).  Many cases come down in the middle, with some form of probation or article ban for both sides.  It is very important to know that the arbitrators will consider the behavior of all parties and the person who brings the case will sometimes end up at the wrong end of the hammer.  If you are willing to proceed knowing this is a possibility, I will try and help you present your case in a way that it will be more likely to be accepted. Thatcher131 03:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Thatcher131;
 * Please see this link  It si about user 195.82.106.244. Here you will see plenty of evidence of this individual character (diffs are included) This dispute is about Content.
 * User .244 is an ex-mamber of Brahma Kumaris and has started this article here in Wikipedia. Obviously, his article has damaged the image of the institution where I belong to. If you would, please take a look at the archives. These archives will give you a pretty good picture of what has been going on. If there is no time for that, please get in touch with admin Jossi and user Sethie. These users have been "mediating" in a non biased way to improve the appearance of this article. Note that at this point, we have a version of the article by .244. He has reverted that article without previous discussion. In short, user .244 is using wikipedia to demonstrate his animosity towards a fine institution.
 * Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's hard to know after a brief review whether 195 is inappropriately attacking or you are inappropriately defending, which is why I indicated that arbitration cases can cut both ways. Thatcher131 15:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I admit that I was largely responsible for building this particular topic and would say that the "high point" of my influence was about here, .


 * I am happy to accept your judgement of whether that was unduly biased or an "exposé". (It was not finished or perfect but was a good base edit from which to work). Indeed, I had to face challenges over many objective facts from younger BKs that they unaware of, e.g. Kirpalani's prior involvement with the Vallabacharya sect and early opposition on behalf of the Arya Samaj to the Om Mandali and Om Niwas days of the BKWSU. [cited references available]. I am not concerned to raise issues about any person shenanigans.


 * Policy comes before content.


 * One cannot discussion content until policy is accepted by all parties. My question relates solely to the policy stated AND avyakt7 public acceptance of said policy. There are slightly extenuating circumstances here as the organization is religious, Hindu based and relatively new to the West from an academic point of view. Hence the specific request for a modicum of scriptural and purchaseable self-published resources.


 * And I am happy also to refer to the given reference, as it shows Luis referring to himself in third person which supports the RfI above,   which I only found following my discovery of which IP address he had been using to block me and others.  195.82.106.244 06:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131
Fools rush in, etc. If this case is accepted I will recuse as clerk. can we just clarify here, when one uses the word recuse, it generally suggests a disqualification on the basis of prejudice or personal involvement. Is this so?

Thatch, that other IP that Luis used to only block me from contribution came through as a sockpuppet. [ It is too hard to believe he 'simply happened to forget to sign in' on the one account he kept aside to block me so I would not work out where and he would look clean.

I just want to quote what you wrote on the checkuser page on my IP.

''Dispute at Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. Riveros11 and Appledell defending the article against an IP editor (195.82.106.244 (talk • contribs) who has been trying to insert poorly sourced negative information. Riveros11 reverts the article maintaining a reasonable attitude arguing against the quality and reliability of the sources. Appledell also reverts the article defending the organization but is less reasonable. Searchin man was targeted by the 195 editor as Riveros11, leading to the attempted disclosure of personal information by the 195 editor. (see separate case) The IP addresses have filed multiple reports at WP:PAIN, WP:RFI and WP:RFCU, which may be an attempt to intimidate the 195. user. All the IPs are in Tampa, and one signed as Avyakt7, Riveros11's signature, but I'd like to check to be sure. Thatcher131 03:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)''

You have written that I suggested that child abuse within the BKWSU was tolerated which is ridiculous. Are you trully impartial?

Now we have positive confirmation that the Tampa IPs were Riveros11, do you stick with your "reasonable" statement? I have always stated that I am happy to use the same cited data as him.

195.82.106.244 06:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbitration clerks do not play a role in deciding arbitration cases, and in fact have the same rights as any other user as far as commenting on cases after they are opened. The clerk's role is mostly making sure people don't post in the wrong places and generally keeping the cases tidy.  However, it is common practice that clerks who are involved in a case do not perform clerk functions with respect to that case.  Presenting evidence makes me involved, even though I have nothing to do with the dispute.  I originally looked into your evidence because I thought the dispute was interesting and had merit as an arbitration case, but was presented poorly with little chance of acceptance.  I was certainly unbiased before I started, having nothing whatsoever to do with BKWS, new religions, or Hinduism in general in my private life.  After looking at the evidence and behavior on both sides I believe there is a case to be made that only arbitration can deal with this situation, and as I said, based on the outcome of similar cases, I expect one or both sides could get banned from the article, or at least have their editing restricted.   With regard to Riveros11 being "reasonable", that is a characterization of the personality of the named account, which, I suggested, was maintained by doing the "dirty work" (filing complaints) while logged out.  This argument was necessary on the checkuser page to permit the disclosure of the IP addresses.  It is usually inappropriate for the checkusers to disclose or confirm private IP addresses per the privacy policy, unless, as in this case, he has disclosed his own address by his actions.  I made no comment regarding whether the filing of the complaints while logged out was an accident (your comment above in quotes is not a quote of anything I wrote) but the implication should be obvious.  Finally, in this edit  you inserted a Controversy section containing, and I quote, "Documented incidents of child abuse within the organisation brushed aside by leaders as due to the bad karma of the children suffering sex abuse and outside of their responsibility, the perpetrators avoid punishment or reporting to police", so yes, you do write that child abuse is "brushed aside" which is pretty much the same as tolerated, as far as I understand the English language. Thatcher131 09:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the confirmation of your neutrality.


 * No, "brushed aside" and "tolerated" are not the same. I would argue the first two in the case of the BKWSU, on the evidence originally presented and evidence presented since. I would not and have never argued the second. As stated, from my point of view, that would be a ridiculous claim to make and there is a clearly considerable difference.


 * Excuse my natural offense at having such prejudicial words put in my mouth. 195.82.106.244 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Riveros11 response to Thatcher131

 * Dear Thatcher131,
 * Please do not forget this: Thank you.
 * Dear SimonP; please take a look at this link and this If this is not considered to be a strong proof of user 195.82.106.244 sockpuppet with brahmakumaris.info and bkwsuwatch.. It will really surprise me that the obvious cannot be seen. BTW, If you have the chance to read all of his writings in the above mentioned post, you shall see that the root of the problem is content alone. That kind of content is just wrong for an on-line encyclopedia. Thank you. Bestavyakt7 01:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ps: Here you will see the comments below the video in Spanish. Take a look at "bkwsuwatch" endorsing brahmakumaris.info site... Let us see how is this being handled...
 * Best Wishes, avyakt7 01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * More on it: I just found out that user Thatcher131 removed my comments. Claiming that "evidence" should not be placed here... I wonder if he realized that user .244 is doing that and his comments are there as well...Anyway, here is the link I would really like to know from user Thatcher131 how a "traceroute" is possible without IP addresses... Can you do that by using just user names? How is this performed? and most importantly : Is user .244 coming from the same place as brahmakumaris.info? Why it was so easy for him to find that appledell, searchin man and myself are in different places and he/she did not mention about  .244 and brahmakumaris.info? Something just does not make much sense ...
 * Best, avyakt7 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to make additional comments, add them to your own section, not in the Arbitrators' opinion on hearing the case section. You can certainly add additional evidence but concise requests are preferred and additional evidence may be added when and if the case is accepted.  There will be a whole page just for evidence. Traceroute can be used to track a data packet to its destination, whether that destination is a domain name or IP address.  In this case, brahmakumaris.info is hosted on a server with the IP address 213.230.203.86, which whois shows is in Leeds. (try www.dnsstuff.com)   I'm not going to give a detailed explanation of how checkuser works on Wikipedia but see Requests for checkuser/Case/195.82.106.244.  It seems that User:brahmakumaris.info was not posting from the same computer as 195.82.106.244.  This does not mean they are not the same person, just that they did not use the same computer.  Checkuser is an incomplete tool and sockpuppet determinations are best made by human judgement.  Personally I think they are the same person, based on the BK forum posting you pointed to, plus the fact that they are both in England.  However, that possibility, along with any remedies, will be for the arbitrators to decide.  Other technical evidence mentioned in the checkuser case will not be disclosed publically but will be shared with the arbitration committee if they ask. Thatcher131 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved other users
I have moved the other user listed by Thatcher131 from the arbtration page. After reading up on the policy I can see no grounds for a third party adding them and loading the proceedings. I do not consider that any significant issues lie between myself and any other contributor, nor that their actions have contributed to the current situation. The policy issue is between Luis and I.


 * - no problem. New contributor, needs help rather vandal warnings, valid point from his own Indian perspective.
 * - non-aggressive editor. I believe I can find a middle ground following policy.
 * - no conflicts.
 * - non-aggressive editor, even as part of BKWSU IT team, if encouraged by Riveros11. I believe we can find a middle ground following policy.
 * - no conflicts.
 * - non-active.
 * - as 'Chief of Global PR for the BKWSU and Multi-Media, it would have been interesting to have BK Karuna on board but appears to have dropped out in July.
 * - non-active
 * - inactive. User name inactive/barred due to similarity of name to website contrary to policy.


 * Well, of course you don't have any conflicts with TalkAbout, but this arbitration will examine editing the BKWS article by all parties, and he has reinstated some of your edits that were deleted by others. Bkismonb may be non-aggressive but he has also rather disturbingly indicated a sense of owership about the article.  Searchin man was accused by you of being a sockpuppet of Riveros11.  They may or may not be active and may or may not present evidence, but listing them as parties gives the arbitrators a chance to examine the entire case, and gives them the chance to participate should they choose to. Thatcher131 16:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal disclosures and Accusation of non-provision of citations
Riveros11 continues even on these arbitration pages to make prejudicial attacks. I added thebibliography section in 2 April 2006 and continued to add the majority to it. Regarding my failure to once provide references October 2006 being the high point of the original article, I have continued to provide the majority of first 23 references the majority of which still remain on the page.

With regards to my making personal disclosures about the user, since 3 April 2006 as 70.119.13.124 he has signed comments as Luis or " Luis Alberto Riveros", in this case including copy of an email sent to the Wikipedia Foundation, making no effort to hide it. 195.82.106.244 12:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rejection (reply to Caracharoth)
''It would look better if the arbitrators made it clearer if they were rejecting the case because (a) they have briefly examined the dispute and think there is no case to answer, or (b) the person bringing the case has not provided enough details so the arbitrators cannot even begin to decide whether there is a case to answer. Carcharoth 00:12, 11 December 2006''
 * This is my own opinion based on experience, but I suspect the reason for rejection is (3), no prior dispute resolution. The arbitrators generally only accept cases where there have been serious attempts at resolution that have failed, partly due to workload, and partly because arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution and almost everyone is happier with a negotiated or consensus settlement.  It is certainly possible for someone to cross the line between efficiently "on the job" and ownership. Something along the lines of extensive talk page discussion or an RFC against Ral315 showing strong backing for such a position would generally be a prerequisite for accepting a case. Thatcher131 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Carcharoth 16:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As a gentle suggestion, some explanation of a reason from each rejecting member might be helpful -- that way, Nathan could decide whether he needs to go back and do dispute resolution, gather evidence for a better submission to ArbComm, or just give up. (Five or six words would be fine "No evidence of dispute resolution," "No diffs adequately describing dispute", "Would obviously fail per WP:SNOW", or whatever).  Thanks, TheronJ 16:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for injunction
In the open case at Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions, one of the issues is a series of several hundred non-consensus page moves. Evidently even with the open case though, one of the involved users, is continuing with these moves. How do I go about requesting an immediate injunction, to get the moves to stop so that the ArbCom case can continue without interference? --Elonka 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There would be a location for requesting a temporary injunction on the /Workshop page of the case. After discussion, if one of the arbitrators believes the proposal has merit, it would be posted to /Proposed Decision (which only the arbitrators can edit) for a vote. Newyorkbrad 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I took a stab a presenting it... Is this in the proper format? . --Elonka 23:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just a bystander here (and also have no view on the merits of your proposal), but it looks basically well presented to me. You should replace the section heading "template" with the caption, and including a few diffs never hurt anyone, either. Beyond that, I'm sure the Clerk for the case or one of the Arbitrators will do any necessary tidying. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. :) --Elonka 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for help
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask for help, but I am frankly overwhelmed by looking through all of tihs information. I am currently seeking help for a situation on the talk page of the Eva Perón article. Two users, User:Foolscape and User:Perón, are treating me in a very hostile manner, and they are making decisions on the page without regard for the input of others or previously accepted standards for the page. I fear that if I don't seek help now, this won't end. Does anyone have any suggestions on what to do? Thanks. Andrew Parodi 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Andrew: I've put a detailed (maybe verbose) comment on your Talk page. The short answer would be
 * This is not the right place
 * Start here: Resolving_disputes
 * Good luck. &mdash; edgarde 04:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

IRC logs
Hello. An excerpt of an IRC log were placed on and were subsequently removed from the project's talk page. I seek clarification from the Committee as to the extent to which we are we permitted to or prohibited from discussing the content contained in this excerpt (without direct quotations, of course). Since I have already commented on these, I would like to know whether I am in breach of the rules by doing so, so that, if applicable, I could rectify this and remove my comment accordingly. The pertinent comments are here. El_C 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion needs to go to Administrators' noticeboard in order to attempt to resolve the general questions involved regarding nasty behavior on IRC channels. The arbitrators did find No_personal_attacks in the course of our discussions. It would probably be best not to rely on those particular logs or discuss their details, but the questions they raise, and the other questions raised regarding hostile or dismissive comments on IRC need to be discussed. I doubt anyone would fault you for your comments so far. Fred Bauder 15:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Fred. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my question. While I do have thoughts regarding the particulars of the aforementioned excerpt, I will keep these confined to my mind, or at least, offwiki. For now. El_C 17:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on motion in Giano case
Sadly, Giano will be bullied and hectored by the likes of you no more, and has decided Wikipedia can have the government it truly deserves. Giano 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has no government (though it does has some somewhat-eclectic governance). But ignoring that, and assuming to speak for the rest of the Committee, we are sad to see you go, and hope that you will return.
 * James F. (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Feel free to remove this if this is not proper procedure, and move it to the proper area if need be - I'll note that baiting was an issue here. As it seems folks are very quick to vote on this one in particular, I impore the arbitrators to do some research into this to see if it's an issue before diving in on what will certainly (if it hasn't already) affect the quality of the project. As Giano was not as much as warned about civility, nor do any of the findings of fact of the case find civility to be an issue in context, I'm not convinced of the degree of punishment fits the alleged crimes given the possible baiting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to reject
This is ill considered and illicit. Furthermore, I would add that Giano has already suffered death by a thousand pricks, as people have already been blocking him whenever they've felt like it. These blocks have been instantly reversed in every instance. Therefore, the "penalty" is already status quo. Additionally, given the way that WP:AN and WP:AN/I is in flames due to a wedge of people pushing at Giano and a much larger group resisting, and given the fact that Jimbo recently unblocked Giano, this motion would prove to be far more disruptive than Giano saying that he doesn't expect Doc Glasgow to understand what it means to not talk behind people's backs! The motion is vindictive, and that's not what ArbCom does. Geogre 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) On formal grounds, this is not a proper request. There is no provision at Arbitration_policy that allows such a motion to a long-closed (3 months) case.
 * 2) On ethical grounds, this is not proper, as we see three support votes arrive within 13 minutes. It is so exceptionally rare that three votes appear on any proposal on any side of the issue that it appears that the voters were involved and therefore should have recused.
 * 3) On legal grounds, this is entirely inappropriate. Civility sanctions were considered in the original RFAR, and they were rejected.  In other words, that evidence was considered, those findings were made, and those motions were considered.  Barring a new evidence phase with new evidence of new wrongdoings, there is no way to overturn and re-arbitrate in motion form.  No venue for consideration or deliberation is presented here.
 * Geogre, this is arbitration, and not the place for streams of consciousness or lawyering. Most of what you've said here is nothing but procedural. I'm not interested in a circular argument, so here are a few short facts. Motions of this type are common; your "formal grounds" are simply factually incorrect. There are no "legal grounds" upon which to reject a motion: you seem to be under the misconception that ArbCom is a judicial body, when it isn't. The basis of this motion is continued incivility, not the old cases. Your accusations that this is "illicit," "vindictive," or that I and the other two are involved in some way have no basis whatsoever, and border on insulting. Please don't make such idle claims without evidence; resorting to ad hominem while skirting the actual basis for the proposal is unwelcome. Dmcdevit·t 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For there to be "continued incivility," there would have to be a finding of incivility to begin with, no? Reading the AN/I thread, I'm more and more convinced that certain parties are baiting him. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already commented on a couple of other pages that I was surprised to see this motion in a closed case presented for immediate voting, without at least providing the subject and others with an opportunity to comment on the proposal. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Much worse, it appears the damage has already been done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If it has or has not, the principle remains important, and this motion is not appropriate. Geogre 04:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd hate to be legalistic about this, but the Arbitration Policy states that "The Arbitrators will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to Arbitrate." Incivility by Giano is not mentioned at all in either the proposed or the final decision of the previous RFAr, so this flare-up between Giano and Doc looks like an entirely different dispute to me. Wouldn't it make sense to defer it to mediation or RFC, rather than immediately escalating it to ArbCom? &gt;Radi a n t &lt;  10:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the RFAr statements and evidence in that case. It is hard to come to the conclusion that this matter is unrelated; in fact, it was a central part of the case, if not the ruling. However, one of the rulings was indeed: "He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat.". Dmcdevit·t 00:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not in dispute with Giano. I don't know what we'd be mediating. I've been trying to de-escalate the community conflict all week, and I've no idea why Giano appeared on my talk page with personal attacks.--Docg 12:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Radiant, that part of Arbitration policy is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. In my case the committee thought nothing of bringing in a totally extraneous matter which had not been mentioned by any of the parties, and actually making a finding based on it without even telling me that it would be considered! That utterly appalling breach of the policy was accepted without demur. Shame on the idiot arbitrators who did so. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, let's honor it in the law, then. First, someone find that Giano is incivil, and then we can find that he is continuing to be.  Dmcdevit can say that I'm wiki-lawyering and insulting, but our usefulness at a website rests upon transparency and consistency.  If it's your ox being gored and you act swiftly and without warning, then you're hardly fit to call yourself uninvolved.  Also, if we are talking about things happening unusually, I note again that the acceptance of this happened at a blazing speed, compared to the usual.  It is almost as if part of constant communication.  Geogre 00:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's speak plainly. You asked me personally to recuse, and I have absolutely no reason why, other than that you clearly disagree with the proposal. Rescusal is for involvement or conflict of interest. Can you please tell me why I should recuse, as I have none of these, or tell me why you think I do when I don't see any reason to think that I do? Dmcdevit·t 00:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A call for some creative thinking
We need to de-escalate this thing. It has been going on for too long, and is far too damaging. I think it well obvious that the community can't settle this alone, and Arbcom may need to intervene. However, unless Arbcom want to be seen as just another player in a partisan dispute, care needs taken. It seems to me the issues surrounding Giano boil down to a vicious circle:


 * 1) Giano is incivil. (A quick look at the diffs in this motion are evidence enough)
 * 2) There is a wide perception that Giano is being excused gross incivility that would not be tolerated in any other wikipedian.
 * 3) This encourages some Wikipedians to try to 'get' Giano (or at least the perception of this): to provoke/bait his incivility to a point that he will be blocked or the community will have to act against him.
 * 4) The sense of being 'got at' (trolled, even) leads Giano to being more incivil, and to in turn bait his opponents (What was he doing on my talk page anyway?)
 * 5) The perception of a 'get Giano' campaign encourages other Wikipedians to defend him come what may, and to try to focus attention on the failings of his 'persecutors' (some of them justified).
 * 6) This defence of Giano (or at least the failure to blame him for the incivility) increases the sense of injustice.

We have got to the point that blocking Giano simply increases the temperature, yet not blocking him increases the sense of injustice. We need to do two things:


 * 1) As a community state that Giano's incivility/attacks must desist. If it does not then, regrettably, he and Wikipedia will soon part company. Giano must be treated like any other established editor.
 * 2) As a community ensure that any baiting, provoking or campaigning against Giano, or any perception of this shall desist. Giano must be entitled to be well-treated an protected like any other established editor.

A gentle word in Giano's ear by Jimbo has failed. Firmer action needs taken. Yet, this proposed remedy isn't it. It will simply be a permission for those who feel aggrieved by Giano to look for ways to block him. We can't expect him to tolerate that. And those that defend him will only feel the injustice of this.

I propose that Arbcom act creatively and try the following:


 * Arbcom appoint three independent persons and charge them to defuse the situation. They are charged and empowered:


 * 1) to block Giano for any future incivility as they see necessary, and/or to temporary ban him from any user talk page or other forum where his comments are likely to inflame.
 * 2) to warn, and if necessary block, any user who's future interactions with Giano might be construed as tending to bait or provoke him, and/or to temporarily ban them from further interactions with Giano.
 * 3) no other administrator is to block (or unblock) Giano without the consent of these persons or the arbcom.

I realise this is novel, but unlike anything else I've heard considered, it just might work. --Docg 12:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The proposed motion allows Giano to be blocked by any uninvolved admin. I don't see why this is insufficient, other than Giano's automatic assumption that everyone who advocates blocking him is an "IRC fairy" out to get him.  Giano's massives failure to assume good faith in this area is his problem, not ours.  I do think that for the sake of transparency, block requests should be made through the normal channels (AN/I or Arbitration enforcement), but I'm not sure that needs to be written formally into the motion, and even if it was I doubt it would lay to rest Giano's belief that he is being persecuted by the IRC cabal. Thatcher131 13:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was an uninvolved admin when I blocked two months ago, Chairboy considered himself uninvolved this time. That didn't stop the assumptions of bad faith, which are unfortunately not simply Giano's assumptions. Besides, I do think Giano has been subject to some baiting, and this remedy might encourage (or be seen to encourage) involved people to bait that uninvolved people might block. This isn't just about Giano, this is about a community at war. I'm looking for a general peace plan.--Docg 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What reason does he have to assume good faith at this point, though? AGF has its limits, clearly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ? I, for one, have acted in good-faith throughout. Giano has consistently chosen to assume otherwise. If he thinks I lie, then there is little I can do about that. We ask everyone to AGF, why should Giano be any different?--Docg 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced you're the problem here, although I see no reason for him to assume good faith of any "IRC fairies" or whatever folks who IRC are considered. There's many, many problems at stake here, and when people are actively baiting him, and he's unfortunately taking it, he's not the only person at fault. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think these are excellent points by Doc Glasgow. While Giano's behavior is problematic, it's not only his behavior that is problematic. Putting only Giano on parole implies that only he is to blame here. &gt;R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I continue to support my vote on the motion. It is a very mild sanction, and if enforced responsibly, may lead to resolution of the problem. The missing element is Giano, who must accept some responsibility and begin to work on acting nicer to other users. Others must help too, of course, but Giano needs to get on board, admit some fault, make a few apologies, and change a bit, himself. Fred Bauder 15:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that this "is very mild". Paul August &#9742; 22:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So he's baited directly following a ruling involving him where baiting is an issue, and this is considered mild? What, exactly, is the responsibility of those who continue to bait him if Giano must accept responsibility to the point of being sanctioned? I note again - Giano was not found at fault, warned, or anything in the arbitration case this references. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, we should have warned him, not cut him the slack we did. Fred Bauder 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Which I can accept. However, what I'm still failing to see is the balance on this - again, the evidence suggests plenty of baiting, on and off site.  If, "in hindsight," you can see a reason to have made this an issue in the original arbitration, I question why that same hindsight isn't being applied given the findings of fact in the case to the parties who are continuing to be bothersome. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You interpret Giano as a victim, I interpret this totally otherwise. The point of my suggestion was not that we agree I'm right, or that you are right. It was that we recognise that some people feel Giano has been treated unfairly and harassed, while others feel that he has trolled and consistently been given a free pass. We are never going to agree. We need a remedy that recognises both interpretations and allows us to move forward. If wither side insists on a 'win' here, then we all lose. The balance here is that it allows Giano a guarentee of protection from harassment, whilst insisting that he has to be civil in future. So hopefully we move to a situation acceptable to all (except those who want to 'win' a 'war')--Docg 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Giano is a victim here. Being the victim, however, doesn't give him a free pass.  I'm not requesting Giano be "let off the hook" or whatever, but for the arbitrators looking at this to actually propose something that reflects the findings of the previous case.  If an editor is being baited again after the previous case surrounding him had a finding regarding baiting, and nothing has changed, those involved with the baiting should be held accountable as well as Giano for losing his shit again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Editors who repeatedly engage in personal attacks get blocked. He has, he should. Anything else is a free-pass. Anyway it is all a bit academic now. His wikipedia days are now over.--Docg 23:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So do you want a list of people, in that case? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The list of people with a free-pass I hope is very short. Like empty short. The list of people who would get blocked for repeated personal attacks I hope is very long - like all of us. All my other lists are in my own head, and no logs are currently available.--Docg 00:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What action was taken for this? – SAJordan talkcontribs 16:16, 30 Dec 2006 (UTC).
 * Indeed. Looking over the evidence in the Giano course, I concur that a civility warning for him would have been appropriate. However, from that very same evidence, civility warnings for a few other people would also have been appropriate. Thus, a parole on Giano would seem to be a rather one-sided remedy. Also, given how easily people are accused of incivility these days, I do not agree that a year-long civility parole is "very mild". <font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  16:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Logs?
So what was in those IRC logs, Jdforrester? The suspense is killing us. El_C 10:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why was this comment not moved to the talk page, if dissenting views were? Geogre 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No idea; it's been moved now.
 * James F. (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are lots of claims about IRC logs existing, and various people quoting from them; I cannot vouch for said logs' existance or their accuracy, sadly, as, well, despite what people suggest, I'm not actually omniscient (yet). From what I can gather, it is in some way my fault, for being "in charge" of IRC, for being there but not stepping in to stop people acting, for trying to get people to discuss but not getting them to do what party x wants me to have achieved, or for not being there at all. I'm most confused, I have to confess. Were people to ask me direct questions, I might be able to answer them. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By now, I have read a portion of the logs (posted on this very page), and, if authentic, they reflect rather poorly on you. Unless you'd like to address this, there's really nothing left to talk about. I'm not inclined to play these games. El_C 23:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course they wouldn't reflect well on Jdforrester, they were posted by someone who has a vested interest in defaming him. I, for one, take them with a grain of salt based on that.  Cheers, ✎ <font color="#696">Peter M Dodge  ( <font color="#696">Talk to Me  &bull; <font color="#696">Neutrality Project  ) 23:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the "direct question" implied (albeit, perhaps not directly enough) by if authentic is: are they authentic? That is what I wish for him to address. I do, of course, take everything with a grain of salt, regardless, including "grain of salt" advises. El_C 00:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think more important is when it happened if it did happen. Everyone can find dirt on someone if they dig far enough into their past.  I'm not defending Jdforrester here - he wouldn't've been admonished to act more appropriately if he was acting appropriately, but I find myself skeptical that the logs are A: recent and B: relevant to anything but JDforrester's character. Cheers, ✎ <font color="#696">Peter M Dodge  ( <font color="#696">Talk to Me  &bull; <font color="#696">Neutrality Project  ) 00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If the the logs excerpt cited on this page are authentic, they appear rather damning, regardless of when the alleged conversation took place, although of course periodization is not unimportant. El_C 00:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My style, especially in groups of people with whom I am familiar, is very heavily skewed towards sarcasm; this is true on IRC, in real life, and on-wiki, too, but it's never been a problem, because said people are not only familiar to, but also with me. This means that I say things that, when taken out of context, can seem to be "disreputable", when in fact they are far from it.
 * If you refer to the particular log excerpt that Giano posted to this page (and about half a dozen others) from when he was embroiled rather regretfully in an Arbitration case, there are three lines of my text. In the first:
 * James_F> Redux> Apparently I'd have "influence" in my other votes. Which, to be fair, is entirely correct. I have lots and lots of influence with the rest of the Committee. That's because, err, this is my system wot I designed. :-)
 * ... I was laying out the reasons for several people requesting that I absent myself from the wiki during the (rather bizzare) Arbitration case that involved me. Note that I agreed with the requests, and carried them out, without any protest or objection; my comments, when seen in this way, more obviously show that I was using my normal sarcasm to show how, indeed, there was a potential for people to see a potential problem for the rest of the Committee in creating a conflict of interest. In the second:
 * <James_F> Tony_Sidaway> I never, ever actually would call someone an idiot on-wiki. It's far too impersonal. If I was to make personal attacks, I would do them on IRC (which, ahem, I control) or e-mail (both of which, ahem, I've ruled aren't under the Committee's jurisdiction).
 * ... I was being facetious, obviously, and again using sarcasm to highlight the real concern that I have, and, I hope, others have to ensure the Committee's transparency of process and clarity of judgement. Finally, in the third:
 * <James_F> Well. Doing Foundation- and Wikimania-related stuff, which is about the same.
 * ... I said nothing of interest to anyone, I'd imagine. :-)
 * In sum, I stand by my comments; they are merely examples of my poking (very mild) fun at myself for the dangers inherent in my position.
 * Oh, and yes, a quick clarification: These logs are, to my recollection, entirely accurate with regard to my text. Please do note accuse Giano of falsifying them on my account. Giano has enough difficulties without the bad faith assumption that what he posts is false. They are from, I believe, mid-September (2006).
 * James F. (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My doubt lies in the fact that if this happened significantly in the past there would seem no good reason to bring it up again other than perhaps to draw attention to Jdforrester's misconduct in a somewhat inflammatory way. Now, if it's happened since - then we need to ask some hard questions, and fast.  Cheers, ✎ <font color="#696">Peter M Dodge  ( <font color="#696">Talk to Me  &bull; <font color="#696">Neutrality Project  ) 00:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, here is a direct question for you (James F.), or rather two direct questions:
 * (1) Do you believe your status as an arbitrator affects your comments and actions on IRC, especially any comments relating to the Arbitration Committee?
 * (2) Do you believe your recent conversations on IRC maintained "decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator"?
 * Thanks. Carcharoth 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To (1), of course my status has an effect on how my comments are seen and interpretted, and thus, as I would hope any member of our community would so do, I try to weigh that which I say. However, I hold myself to a very high standard, and would do so whether or not I was in a position wherein some look to me for guidance, as to do otherwise would be dishonourable.
 * To (2), I'm not sure what particular "recent conversations on IRC" are those to which you refer; if you mean the quote made of my comments by Giano, which I disect above, they are over three months old, but nevertheless, yes, I would say that I would never violate the "decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator" - and I believe that I never have so done, for that matter (I believe, but cannot state for sure, that I talked quite a bit about the importance of "decorum", even using that word, back in '03 when we were forming the Committee, and I am happy to say that most if not all of the Committee agreed, and have continued to agree, with me, both in words and actions).
 * James F. (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the responses. Your explanations of sarcasm and being facetious in other replies have reassured me (and hopefully others) over what your words in those logs meant. Thanks again for clearing that up. Hopefully you, Giano, and others, can all move on now. Carcharoth 03:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break
Regarding the snippets of log that have been posted by Giano: they look to be about two to three months old, dating from the last arbitration case Giano was in. That is, if they are genuine. I've gone through my own logs and I've been unable to find this excerpted passage Giano is copying around. Now my logs are by no means 100% exhaustive, but I am in that channel far more often than not. --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys 00:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If it was during the previous arbitration, or before, then Jdforrester's already been admonished for it and I don't see much relevance in it being brought up again. Cheers, ✎ <font color="#696">Peter M Dodge  ( <font color="#696">Talk to Me  &bull; <font color="#696">Neutrality Project  ) 00:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it's kind of dishonest to be passing them around now, because even if they aren't fake, they are still very old news, and of no real relation to the current issue at hand. --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys  00:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is certainly subject to debate (possibly; I am no longer confident that this discussion is permitted &mdash; accordingly, I have sought clarification here). Irrespectively, it does underscore the problematic nature of IRC, as a seemingly free-for-all medium. El_C 00:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * People say stupid things. That's a fact not restrained to IRC.  Cheers, ✎ <font color="#696">Peter M Dodge  ( <font color="#696">Talk to Me  &bull; <font color="#696">Neutrality Project  ) 01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's misdirected; the issue is accountability and openness of IRC discussions. El_C 13:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it? That's a rather sudden swerve to the generic from the specific. If this is meant to be a discussion about the former rather than the specific, this talk page certainly is not the appropriate place.
 * James F. (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is another reason it was misdirected, but I felt it warranted a response. El_C 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope all ArbCom clerks recognize that they need to do their utmost to take a neutral stand on cases in arbitration. We expect the arbitrators to take a stand as they have been elected to do so, but it's important for the clerks to not pick sides in matters related to ArbCom cases. I suppose I could elaborate on why I believe this is important, but suspect one should be able to understand the need for clerk neutrality without further explanation.--MONGO 13:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wise words to heed, Thatcher131. El_C 13:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Clerks only need to be careful to be seen to be netural on cases from which they do not recuse themselves, much as Arbitrators are expected to behave. Of course, all Clerks and Arbitrators are of impeccable judgement, so would never deviate from a lack of neutrality. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I notice you voting for various sanctions against Giano. Should you be doing that when you are involved in the case? For example, you were involved in the build-up in the following conversation on Geogre's talk page:


 * I have absolutely nothing to do with the servers; it does, indeed, raise questions about what else you "know".
 * James F. (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Or, of course, how integral you are to the project, or how famous you are, or how much time I spend worrying about you. Really, there are multiple choices.  Geogre 20:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well would you like to talk us through what exactly it is you do do - apart that is from making false statements about running IRC on IRC; because I for one would love to know. Giano 20:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since Giano's complaint was that he was being unfairly treated by those in charge of things, shouldn't you voluntarily withdraw from this voting?


 * qp10qp 17:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was anything more than Giano's suspicions, sure. I would be insisting on it. But if someone is suspicious of everyone, that doesn't mean we all have to recuse and make no decision. Fred Bauder 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is more than Giano's suspicions: it is at least several people's suspicions. James appears to be winding more than one person up there with the theatrical "it does, indeed, raise questions about what else you "know"". J.Forrester may well be a good chap, whom you know personally and trust, but he was coming over as provocative to some of us who don't know him, which provocation obviously fuelled Giano's infuriation, surely. Giano blew partly because he was being goaded; J.Forrester appears to have been part of that. He would allay suspicion if he now voluntarily withdrew from the voting here and restored an appearance of objectivity to this arbitration. Even if J.Forrester is innocent of deliberate goading, surely any perceived conflict of interest (I'm not the only person who thinks this) muddies the transparency of the voting here. Does that not make sense to you, as a legal man? qp10qp 20:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * JD does have a right to vote, as an arbitrator, but I do agree that it would be in his and the Committee's best interest if he abstained, or voted a neutral vote if he really had something he wanted to say. Cheers, ✎ <font color="#696">Peter M Dodge  ( <font color="#696">Talk to Me  &bull; <font color="#696">Neutrality Project  ) 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

On UninvitedCompany's proposal
I am sure that Uninvited intends this as a kind way to enforce a wikibreak for someone who seems to be in a very upset mood at the moment. Even so, I cannot shake the feeling that this is really a two-week ban no matter how it is worded. I recall a cartoon (Penelope Pitstop?) where the villain places the heroine on the railway tracks, says that he is going to be very gentlemanly and not tie her down, and asks her to just remain down, upon which the heroine agrees. (Of course she is rescued in the last second.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He already left. All those articles in progress are lost to us.  A user is here for 3 years.  No one notices any "incivility" for two years, and then suddenly he must be "banned," according to Kelly Martin.  A dozen templates and blocks follow, where every comment from "you're stupid" to "go away" is a vicious "personal attack" that requires an instant block without consultation, and he leaves.  What changed, folks?  Him or us?  What is proven, that he is incivil or that anyone can be made to abandon volunteering for us if we are vicious enough?  Fools.  Geogre 15:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What changed is us: when this was noted, but this mild remedy rejected. Fred Bauder 18:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um ... how to phrase this? ... with the greatest respect to your work as an arbitrator, Fred, the remedy you proposed as to Giano in the case you refer to was not the one you cite (which does not mention Giano). It was this, which was considered wildly disproportionate if not bizarre by virtually everyone who commented and did not pass, but sat on the voting page for close to a month before being rejected because other arbitrators were away over the summer. Unfortunately and regrettably, I believe that Giano's anger at that proposal played a not insignificant role in how things unfolded from there. Newyorkbrad 20:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the link. The point is that even a mild remedy was rejected, although I do think the stronger remedy was justified. People who get caught do get angry. Fred Bauder 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's just an artifact of voting by committee. As you know, it has happened that some arbitrators support remedy A and oppose remedy B, and others support remedy B and oppose remedy A, and as a result no remedy passes at all, even if a majority believe that some remedy is necessary. In any event, if the committee had voted a formal caution for the teasing involved in the Eternal Equinox case, I think we just would have lost Giano (and possibly some others) in August instead of now. Newyorkbrad 21:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it was User:John Reid (now also lost to us) who opined, when he was a party to the original "Giano" case a few months ago, that he was he would readily accept and abide by a proposed ArbCom decision banning him for a week, but would never forgive anyone who actually blocked his account for the week rather than trust him to obey the ruling. I suspect that it is that spirit that UC is appealing to here. Personally, I don't think a ban would be helpful here, but that is something of a moot point if, as Geogre has noted, Giano is gone in any event. Newyorkbrad 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is intended to serve several important ends. As Sjakkalle perceptively notes, it is a two week ban. I believe that the level of discourse has deteriorated at Wikipedia to an unacceptable degree, with WP:NPA honored mainly in the breach. In order to fix this, we've got to start somewhere. Giano may not be the worst offender in this area, his responses may not be the most unprovoked, and his case may not be the best example, but it will nonetheless serve. A two week ban is neither a mere slap on the wrist nor is it something which should lead a dedicated and responsible editor to conclude that they must leave the project.

I would like to point out to Geogre and others who share his views that while Giano has left for the time being, he may well return at some point. Experience has taught us that many editors who leave in frustration ultimately return. What has changed? I'm not entirely sure, but I don't believe that it is wise for us to ignore ongoing civility violations once they are brought to our attention. No doubt you are correct that many earlier opportunities to defuse the situation were missed, but that's water over the dam at this point. Your point that people sometimes do get hounded to the point where they flame out is well taken, and I would agree that elements of that are present in this situation. That testifies for a need to address such hounding head on. It doesn't make the case that we should ignore an inappropriate response to it.

As I noted during my candidacy for the arbitration committee, I believe "probation" remedies have historically been overused. Having Giano subject to such a remedy, where he could be blocked by admins with relatively little process and limited opportunity for review, hardly seems useful. Administrators blocking Giano in such a manner in the past appear to me to have contributed to the intractability of the situation. Perhaps I'm being idealistic, but if the remedy is adopted I would hope that he would sit out the two weeks and return as a full-fleged member of the community.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand UninvitedCompany's reasoning here and appreciate the civility of the wording of his proposal, as well as the complexity of the overall situation. I understand the impetus for Dmcdevit's motion as well. But I think the fact is that if any of these remedies is enacted, we are unlikely to see Giano around here again. Now, that may not be an argument against the proposals; and it would be odd for me to contend in favor of tempering the wind to the shorn lamb with respect to Giano of all people, and he would be furious I think if anyone did so. But I wouldn't want anyone considering these proposals to conclude that they are anything but a path to this contributor's leaving for good; as has been noted, he's already got both feet outside the door anyway.
 * Candidly I am not sure exactly what should happen now. The situation is a mess, people are holding grudges, it may just not be repairable any more. I know that the project needs to have one set of standards for everyone, and that not every editor who gets into controversy is going to have the opportunity to respond to an invitation to greater civility extended by Jimbo personally.
 * Yet I also know this will be a less interesting place, and a lesser encyclopedia, without User:Giano (and without User:Bishonen, see her talkpage) than with them. Newyorkbrad 15:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it too much. Some people leave and never come back, some people leave and come back (sometimes under other guises). Some people are needed, some people aren't. I take a rather long-term view that although the number of experts and dedicated writers is not that large, they are not irreplaceable. No-one should be considered irreplaceable. I saw someone who had just become an admin depart in response to MONGO's desysopping (see here), and everytime I see principled, dramatic, making-a-point departures, I cringe in embarassment. I'm sure there is an essay about it somewhere, but dramatic exits rarely achieve anything and don't make anyone feel good except the person departing (and sometimes not even them). A considered departure, with a carefully written essay, and a minimum of drama, makes far more of an impact. Carcharoth 18:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The admin you link to left in disgust. He and others felt that the remedy of me being desysopped was extremely excessive...he left a simple note as to why he was leaving and then left...that is far less drama seeking than some long winded essay about the problems with Wikipedia or his rationale for leaving. I left too and would have stayed gone had I not gotten dozens of requests to return via email and my usertalk. There really isn't anyway to NOT create some drama by leaving...even simply ceasing to edit will usually raise a few eyebrows.--MONGO 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what annoyed me about that was that he said it was "open season on admins", when he himself had been an admin for less than a month. I respect the way you have stayed and carried on with editing. I like to see commitment from my fellow editors rather than inflammatory statements about trolls. That sort of statement I linked to is the dream of trolls everywhere. I understand that Doug was really saying that Wikipedia should do more to protect editors and admins from trolls, but I do wish he had said that at more length, rather than leaving a flippant soundbite that seems to have provoked a reaction in me. :-/ Sorry. Rant over. Carcharoth 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting Requests_for_arbitration/Giano
Since it appears that we are revisiting Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, I went back and read through some of the pages associated with that case. The situation here bears distressingly similar hallmarks to what happened then. I would suggest that the best solution might be to community ban all those involved in the latest contremps for two weeks and wait, with baited breath, to see if the encyclopedia collapses around our ears. I suspect that there might be stronger consensus in the community to collectively identify those involved and carry out such a ban than some of those involved might realise.

Failing that, it was instructive to see that the remedies included: Requests_for_arbitration/Giano: "Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator."

I would respectfully suggest that the time has come for this to extend outside Wikipedia, and that arbitrators, who should be role models for the community, should be expected to display decorum when discussing Wikipedia on blogs, in newspaper interviews, IRC channels, e-mails, personal websites, and so forth, as well as when representing Wikipedia in their official roles.

If this is thought to be workable, will one of the arbitrators consider bringing a motion to return to the Jdforrester remedy and modifying or restating it in an appropriate way? That would be better than the rather pathetic edit warring that is going on at the moment over these "IRC logs" in the edit history of this page. Carcharoth 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC) text struck out later by Carcharoth 03:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm obviously having a stupid day - exactly what is it you are saying here? Spartaz 18:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's possibly necessary to have seen the logs that Giano posted in order to fully understand the above comment. I am not, of course, going to post them again, and I assume the edits have now all been oversighted, so I'm not entirely sure how that could be resolved – Gurch 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They are still available in edit histories, at the least. And that probably ought to remain the case.  Now that the information has been made public, it's hard to argue that rules about handling secrets can still apply, if they ever should have.  Regards, Ben Aveling 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to Spartaz, I guess what I am proposing here is that if there is a formal recognition (through a new motion on a prior arbitration case) that Giano has been incivil, it would make sense to also formally recognise that Giano might have been baited. Baiting someone is pure trolling behaviour, and if it is happening, needs to stop. In effect, this makes my proposal a more formal version of Doc Glasgow's (Doc g's) proposal above under "a call for some creative thinking". Carcharoth 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Baiting someone is pure trolling behaviour" – In that case, it might be more civil for us to wait "with bated breath" rather than "with baited breath". Plus, you never know what you might catch. (Leggo my tongue!) – SAJordan talkcontribs 14:47, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).
 * LOL! See here for a discussion of the spelling of that phrase. I did notice, later, that my spelling could be considered a pun, but decided not to change it. Carcharoth 18:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Given responses by Jdforrester (James F) elsewhere (recognising the need for decorum), and the reminder that the logs in question are from several months ago, I'm withdrawing my suggestion above (striking out the text), and am directing anyone interested in this thread to WP:AN instead. Thanks. Carcharoth 03:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop is reopened. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Several months ago? Wow.  Giano must not have been posting very hot stuff.  I have pointed out that reopening that /Workshop is not going to be very helpful, as we're talking about very, very new wine in very old skins.  (It makes them burst.)  Geogre 00:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal in the Giano mess
Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop - bring on the rotten tomatoes - David Gerard 20:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * David, that links to the old /Workshop pages (three of 'em) about the previous "Giano RFAR." I put quotes around that because the RFAR actually didn't have a set of grounds well delineated, but Giano was not a big part of them.  Rather, the subject was, mainly, "Tony Sidaway's Blocking of Giano."  That's why the pages are so overrun with Tony and discussions of Tony and Kelly.  It's probably not helpful to start adding more bytes to that monstrosity.  I concur with the need for a clean slate to discuss upon, but that one's already dirty.  Geogre 00:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It makes some interesting points, but suffers from needlessly inflamatory mischaracterizations on David's part attributed to other users ("Satan"), much like in the blocking announcement thread ("Hitler"). I also note that it is entirely devoid of self-criticism with respect to David's own (arguably) escalatory role in issuing a block without discussion as well as (seemingly) little research. El_C 00:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It hardly seems conductive to criticise a user for past misconduct when they are trying to act in a matter following proper conduct in the present. Cheers, ✎ <font color="#696">Peter M Dodge  ( <font color="#696">Talk to Me  &bull; <font color="#696">Neutrality Project  ) 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain what you mean by "conductive." I offer some praise, as well as criticism. El_C 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I misread your comment as saying he said those things in the past. I apologize.  I would like to note that he appears to be attempting to be facetious, but I myself don't feel sarcasm is terribly helpful in this kind of matter.  Cheers, ✎ <font color="#696">Peter M Dodge  ( <font color="#696">Talk to Me  &bull; <font color="#696">Neutrality Project  ) 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, gladly. Yes, I realize that the aim is facetious, but I expect greater sensitivity & more diplomatic language. El_C 00:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone has their ways of saying things, but I think Gerrard could have tempered his sarcasm a little, at the least. Cheers, ✎ <font color="#696">Peter M Dodge  ( <font color="#696">Talk to Me  &bull; <font color="#696">Neutrality Project  ) 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)