Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision


 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Status
The arbitrators have been actively discussing this case. I anticipate that a proposed decision will be posted, by me or another arbitrator, within the next few days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not want to sound fatalistic, but a similar promise was made already at May 31 -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been proven wrong, there is movement at the workshop page! YEAH! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And, as gently as possible, even if it does transpire this time, then the "It was all only down to Brad" conclusion will be unavoidable. I'll have an even lower opinion of the commitee (collectively) if only now that he's back they finally get off their arse reach a decision. - brenneman  02:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The previous 'promise' was made by FT2 just before a serious of announcements including the OM false start. The community backlash shut ArbCom up for some time, stalling cases like this out even further, I'm thinking, to let the focus return to the message and not the messengers.  But no, this page has become a cess pit for everyone to cast their stones at ArbCom, whilst pinning every ill upon them they can think of.  While I hope the end to this case comes before the fall of Western Civilization just like everyone else (see sections above to decide for yourself if we're too late), the raw vitriol here has left me with a fairly low opinion of the Community too.  --InkSplotch (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Raw vitriol?" I'd take your implicit claim (that nothing is the committee's fault, but that we are instead to blame) more seriously if it were not linked to such outlandish hyperbole. -  brenneman  03:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your implicit-claim-o-meter is off. I'm extending no such grace to ArbCom.  I'm just not disbanding them, hanging the fall of wikipedia on their heads, or Jimbo's head, or even readying the tar and feathers until I see a decision posted.  I think vitriol is a very apt description, and if most of the negative comments posted here recently aren't hyperbole; if it's really destroyed so many people's faith in the entire dispute resolution system, then why are you all still here circling like vultures!?  It's disgraceful. --InkSplotch (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not "circling like vultures", we're hoping against hope. user:Everyme 18:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like hope...hope is good. But I'm fairly in agreement with your statement here  too.  --InkSplotch (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * more evidence to be added tonight (my time) - basically recent evidence showing that JzG's trend of using toosl abusively continues (moves page in middle of dispute over naming to the version he had argued for and then blocks any reversals by applying move protection - no consensus eithe rway existed at that point) Viridae Talk 01:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's too late, UNICEF lost out on $165 already...just kidding, it's all cool, I'm sure all of us want to see this saga come to a conclusion. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Could you include a statement explaining why the discussion was done in private and why the Workshop wasn't used? Kusma (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Trust Brad. He is the most honest broker available here. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 12:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Brad will save us all.  The whole case got solved the second he came out of retirement.  It's an entirely different ball game now, and the outcome is likely to be a truly fair one. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The wiki-messiah has arrived. :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Praise the Lord! At least one member of the Arbitration Committee can look at a community full of pitchforks and torchs and think to himself "Maybe they are unhappy.". Regardless of outcome, this's been hanging over everyone's heads way too long, and's been making everyone a little CuCkOo, eh? Wily D  13:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I for one don't want to "just see this case closed ASAP". I want to see it closed the right way, which basically means the opposite of how they did it on the Mantanmoreland case. I'd love to be able to blindly trust that the ArbCom members (all of them!) see the need to fulfill their part of the deal to avoid an us vs. them atmosphere, but I remain heavily sceptical, and not without very good reason. My own private worst case scenario is that they dismiss most of the evidence yet again, and it all ends with a slap on the wrist instead of some bold but direly needed action. And the very worst (but far from implausible, I'm afraid) would be if the long time they took for this case would later be used as an argument against reviewing the case or the issues brought up during the course of it ever again. What they need to understand is that we don't have a double jeopardy rule. If the issues richly outlined in the evidence continue, the community will act on their own sooner or later, and it would then be to the further detriment of the ArbCom as an institution. user:Everyme 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I hope the ArbCom don't go down the route of a couple of tame sanctions and a couple of pats on the back. Middle ground would be fallacious here. Although I haven't looked closely enough at the evidence against FeloniousMonk, I think there's more than enough good evidence as it relates to Viridae, JzG, and SlimVirgn. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I daresay that not even the ArbCom can protect FM from desysopping anymore without irrevocably (and unilaterally!) ruining their institution, and especially not in a way that wouldn't cause a serious community backlash. Looking at the evidence, he will most obviously be desysopped. I'm more afraid that—realising that his bit is already for the birds—they will sacrifice him as a pawn to appease the community, when imho the issues (and according evidence, which is far from being complete btw, some of the worst and most consistently ongoing stuff is not even in there) around SlimVirgin's behaviour are far more worrying on an even deeper-running level than anything FM has ever done. The things he did are an insult to the sheer idea of "community trust", but very obviously so. The question that has been bugging me throughout this ordeal is not if the AC and the community learn, but when and how fast. FM should have been desysopped ages ago, if only to make way for the investigation of more serious issues like SV's slightly less obvious but far more detrimental pattern of disruption, fostering of bad atmoshpere and also backchannel manipulation. user:Everyme 17:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a set of proposed principles to the /Workshop for comments. Please see my introductory note at the top of my section on the Workshop. I see above that a party to the case has indicated that he plans to add new evidence. Anyone wishing to provide additional evidence is requested to do so by 1600 (GMT) on Sunday. Please note that only genuinely new and significant evidence is likely to be helpful at this late stage in our review of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is just a wider problem. I don't see why ArbCom cannot stick to the common sense solution - "we've kept it open for this long so rather than take more time to have new principles or modified existing ones be reviewed by the community, let's stick to those original ones that were appropriate to begin with as they'd be more than sufficient to deal with the case anyway (and findings and remedies are of greater importance here)". The recent pattern of poor decision-making by members of the Commitee is ensuring that the community's faith in the Committee just continues to drop...at this rate, it's a small matter of time before the crash. I do hope they're well-prepared. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't think I follow the point you're making here. Are you saying I've diminished respect for the committee by posting principles to the workshop for comment? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Ncmvocalist is just commenting on the length of time it has taken the Arbitration Committee to lay down some proposals. It would be reasonable to extend the case for people to introduce new evidence, but as Ncmvocalist observes, the evidence presented at the start of this case was sufficient enough to present solid findings and remedies. Correct me if I'm wrong. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No Newyorkbrad, you did not diminish respect for the Commitee by posting principles to the workshop for comment - the entire community have always legitimately expected proposals (including findings and remedies) to go through workshop first. My point was quite different, and Nishkid64 said almost all of it (above). The bit that was missed was: the evidence presented at the start of the case was also sufficiently supported by the principles used in previous cases (absent of the proposed changes) - those principles in their original form still carry the same level of weight as they did back then. Given that the case has already been left open for an unreasonable length of time, the priority should have been to wrap this up as quickly and effectively (and appropriately) as possible using those original principles. Instead, it seems more time has been devoted to making substantial modifications to the principles as they've been known, and giving even more time for evidence. I don't know how ArbCom can genuinely justify this poor sense of prioritizing/decision-making. But I do know if ArbCom have adopted the mentality (in this case) that it is "the basic, well summarised, standard principles that apparently have failed to resolve this matter" (so new principles and concepts are required), then I genuinely think the crash date will keep creeping closer to the present. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"...within the next few days." Hm, I see. Wizardman 13:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was away for a long offline weekend (see note on my talkpage, which I probably should have copied here). I'm aiming to post a draft decision by Tuesday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * “within the next few days, not counting the days on which it isn't”? ;-) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You have proposed One Big Ol' Slap on the Wrist. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 06:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * SlamDiego, ArbCom's power is its ability to focus attention on a problem. Arbitrators like Newyorkbrad, who are very broadly trusted by the community, can exert a very strong influence over public perception by clarifying or distilling the facts of a matter.  Once ArbCom shines its bright light into a dark corner, the community must step in to resolve the problem.  Remedies can only be enacted through community action at WP:AE.  If we, the community, form a consensus behind the principals and findings of fact, we are normally able to resolve the problem.  Remedies provided by ArbCom may help, but they are the least important component.  On the other hand, if ArbCom is out of step with the community, they can pass whatever remedies they like, but there is no way they can compel the community to enforce them. Jehochman Talk 19:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Accepting that remedies are the least important component is certainly not the same as accepting that they are an unimportant component. The ArbCom could be over-ruled on each and every score by the broader community, but if that means that each and every component is ultimately unimportant, then we should do as many have argued, and kick ArbCom to the curb/kerb.  It would be far better for the ArbCom to declare themselves unable to agree on a remedy than for them to call for yoga.  Newyorkbrad had the option of offering proposed findings of fact without proposed remedies if he couldn't offer any genuine remedies that would gain majority support. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, now: Let's see which, if any, of the remedies selected by the ArbCom are rejected by the community, and which, beyond those selected by the Committee, are added by the community. ;-) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Archived
This discussion page was in excess of 350KB, so I have decided to archive all threads before Newyorkbrad's post. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest News
(NYB's post moved by Privatemusings for readability...)

I've posted some proposed findings on /workshop. It's after midnight, so I'll have to finish tomorrow. Comments welcome, of course, but please first read the introductory comment I placed atop the findings of fact section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * your hard work is appreciated... it's hard (and probably not so helpful?) to comment in depth prior to proposed remedies being posted.... when we've cut to the chase, I'm sure commentary will follow..... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ps. I think it's outstanding that these have been posted to the workshop - thanks!

A complete proposed decision is now available for comment on the workshop, under "Proposals by Newyorkbrad." Please read the general comments under "proposed principles" and "proposed findings" before commenting. Please keep all comments civil and to-the-point. Please do not shoot the piano player arbitrator; he is doing his best. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ah... to be succinct, I'd be interested to hear if folk feel there are material differences between this write up, and this one. Still - it might help, and huge thanks for your efforts, Brad. Privatemusings (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the conclusion is that there's no difference, I shall mourn my many wasted hours and cry bitterly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't mourn your wasted hours or cry bitterly. But there's no difference.  If we're all forced back here in 30 days, we'll all share wasted hours and bitter tears, but not for not having tried.  Thank you for trying, Brad.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * chin up Brad! - at least let me send you a decent bottle of single malt to keep you company....! I'm basically just saying that you've analysed and discussed things beautifully (and I certainly feel that I've learned from reading your posts) - but the 'arbcom' would (if the proposed decision is finalised, and I don't see why not at this point) have done pretty much nothing. There may be a communication issue here, and I should offer a productive idea at this point as well, so I'd echo others' posts in saying that voting clearly on some specific and substantive outcomes (Cla is banned from policy space, JzG is under a restriction to not swear, and Privatemusings is made an admin. or somesuch) would help - feel free to copy those over to the decision, or grab my bottle and a glass at your discretion :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the remedies aren't as strong as some may have hoped for, they probably represent the most realistic approach to close the present case. I appreciate NYB's fair and reasonable efforts to do so. Cla68 (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the notions that the remedies are realistic or fair, and thus with the notion that they are reasonable. Rather than being remedies, these proposals are not meaningfully different from an indefinite postponement in reaching a real resolution. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 06:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is that your proposal might be an honest admission of ineffectuality, as opposed to an attempt to save face by ArbCom by issuing a Big Ol' Slap on the Wrist. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 06:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did this need 4+ months just to get to the stage of an arb, any arb, doing anything? This case has been a farce from start to finish. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The defendant punches the plaintiff in the middle of the courtroom. The bailiff jumps out to restrain the defendant.  So far so good.  Until one of the judges takes the defendant's side, agrees the plaintiff deserved a good punch, and demands the bailiff resign.  Always a bad omen... --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a case involving long-term interpersonal disputes. The arbitrators have not lived these disputes as the participants have, and so merely making sense of the detail in in the evidence (which, last time I checked, is more than half a megabyte of text, with what must be around 1500 diffs), let alone considering the implications of that detail in terms of appropriate findings of fact and remedies, takes a substantial amount of time.
 * We are either criticised for being too hasty or too tardy. I prefer well-considered to ill-considered. --bainer (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bainer, you all were told that an RfC was in the works, but accepted the case anyway. Don't you think now that you should have allowed the normal dispute resolution process to have been used first?  That might would have helped you out if this had come to you later.  Why were you so quick to accept? Cla68 (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, maybe we should just backtrack. Arbcom is for when the community can't come to a consensus, but maybe now that Arbcom's returning hte matter to the community, it might be profitable to pick up where we left off, and see if at least a consensus can be formed for SOME of sub-issues.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be right. Cla68 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't agree. We now have two very clearly identified problems: 1) plain evidence of the actions and effects of abusive admins, and 2) ArbCom's inability to deal with that.  I don't support dragging on the obvious or prolonging any further dissent or divisions among editors, when this is a systemic ArbCom failing.  I believe a better way forward is to focus specifically on installing shorter ArbCom term limits and looking forward to how this can be solved next December.  Can we blame admins for continuing abusive patterns when those patterns are allowed by the very ArbCom we elected?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to make a comment but you've summed up my thoughts better than I can. I think this case brings into focus, though, that not all Wikipedians are born equal. The extreme delays in this case suggest to me either that friends are being protected (which in good faith I honestly doubt), or that ArbCom is afraid of the consequences of offending "cults of personality" and their indomitable supporters. Orderinchaos 03:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "ArbCom is afraid of the consequences of offending "cults of personality" and their indomitable supporters."
 * Should be of absolutely zero concern. If the Arbcom can't be above politics than the arbs that are aware of such political nonsense in the back channels need to spill the beans so that the arbs who have basically gone traitor to the community can be cleaned up. I really hope this isn't the case and you're kidding. rootology  ( T ) 03:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not ready to go this far (yet). It seems to me that the problem we're seeing may be just a natural consequence of the three-year terms.  Three years is a very long time in internet-years, and it's possible, perhaps even probable, that longer-serving arbs may naturally lose touch with changes that occur in community standards and expectations.  I suspect that some of the abusive admins were so accustomed to their old way of doing things as "business as usual" that they, and perhaps some arbs, may not realize that today's editors expect professionalism, expect that the pillars of the Project should be respected and upheld, and that Wiki is no longer their own backyard, where they can demean and demoralize publicly other editors who don't hold (and push) their same agenda and POV.  It strikes me that ArbCom itself may be stuck in the older, behavioral norms of those editors in whom they fail to see the issues that are so repugnant to other editors.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see one very simple aspect. We asked an admin to stop doing x, and the admin kept on doing it.  Our approach to that is to ask again, even though we've already asked twice and we acknowledge that this has demoralized the community.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, looking at NYB's postings, it's even simpler. Two parties have been warned in the past, repeated the behavior, haven't responded to the case, and have given no public indication that they understand the demoralizing effect they have on the community or that they will attempt to change.  Three parties have never been warned before and have either stopped the behaviors, agreed to stop the behaviors, or indicated they will try to stop the behaviors.  Looks fairly simple from my lowly regular editor worker bee chair (and I join in the thanks to NYB for trying).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The best way to resolve the case, as has been mentioned many times before, is to simply hold public votes on individual proposals. I can see no legitimate reason for the ArbCom to not do that. This business of reaching a consensus behind closed doors before presenting a decision to the community just makes the ArbCom even less transparent, and makes it that much harder for the community to hold the arbitrators individually responsible for their refusal to heed the community's wishes. Everyking (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, the generally to a nonsensical degree intransparent approach (actual sensitivities notwithstanding, of course) may falsly make it seem ok for individual arbitrators to be in personal contact with one or more parties to this case, which might cloud the impartiality of their judgement. How can someone be impartial about the desysopping of someone they're in friendly contact with, if only over a mutual friend or as part of a loose group of frequently like-minded users? Could they still tell someone whose viewpoint they're more or less personally invested in, "you should be desysopped for the mid- and long-term benefit of the project"? It's exactly these kinds of back-door politics that have plagued and undermined the AC's credibility from the outset, and even though it may not be directly relevant in most cases, in this one it is. Parties to this case are known to regularly indulge in offwiki coordination and canvassing to advance their personal agenda. This must not be tolerated, and any attempt in that direction should actually be included as evidence against them. I remain sceptical and am still afraud that it will (be) play(ed) out differently, once again. user:Everyme 17:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Degrees
Note the issue of Sceptre today - two incredibly stupid abusive edits got him indefinitely blocked by an arbitrator, and there's allegations of sockpuppetry on top of it. Two plus years of abuse from administrators in this case, with some allegations of sockpuppetry on top of it, brings us to the proposal on the floor. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's entirely different. Sceptre indulged in long-term malicious harassment with overtones of stalking and the clearcut intention to out other users. Some of the parties may have gone a tad overboard now and then to prevent stuff like that. Entirely different. No, really, it is. user:Everyme 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure it's different. User:Sceptre committed 6 acts of vandalism while logged out of his account, which he has acknowledged. He has apologised and promised not to do it again. He's now blocked and will remain blocked until he can appeal the block to Arbcom - because he lives in the area of a sockpuppeteer (as do around 1,000,000 other people). See the difference now? --RexxS (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, we're not talking long term abuse of the encyclopaedia, we're talking a few juvenile and perhaps spiteful episodes which could probably be avoided if he had some form of mentorship. Taken in balance of his contributions, he should be given two things - the benefit of the doubt in this case, and a fairly tight leash. Orderinchaos 03:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I'm impressed to read of the number of candidates for the next Arb Com elections. MikeHobday (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Update
As the pace of comments from the community has slowed to a trickle (and the parties and my fellow arbitrators are contributing little if at all), I expect to move the case to a proposed decision and voting in the morning. I have replied directly to many of the comments posted, and have read each and every one; all will be considered as I refine the wording of the proposed decision, which will reflect some changes from the draft on the workshop, although I certainly will not satisfy all of the objections to my proposals. I also remind everyone that there will be about 10 other arbitrators voting on everything, all of whom are free to make their own comments or proposals.

Just as I have carefully considered all the comments received, I hope that those who disagree with one or more of my proposals will review and think about the responses I have posted, and also take note of changes in the posting to /proposed decision that will be based upon them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * An August break slowdown has been noted across content review processes (FAC, GAN, PR); three days from Proposed Findings of Fact to final Proposals might be a bit fast, considering August vacations for so many editors. Particularly after almost four months.  Just a thought.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a holiday weekend in the United States and I will travelling for a few days with limited Internet access. If I don't post by mid-day tomorrow, it probably won't be until Wednesday night.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, NYB. The community demands SOMETHING from the arbs and whatever you provide will be much appreciated.  Even if what you are proposing will not satisfy anyone. Tex (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it will satisfy SOMEONE, even if not everyone. I think people are undervaluing the effect that these particular findings (and they will change in some respects in the final version) might have in affecting the future behavior of the parties in question; and if changed behavior does not follow, I am deadly serious in stating that further sanctions would quickly result. The decision I post will be my considered view of the best available disposition of this case at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I've been critical of some aspects of the process, but I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your efforts and determination to move this forward, and look forward to a fair conclusion of the matter. Orderinchaos 05:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I expect that you will satisfy SV, FM, JzG and their supporters. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a proposed decision for comment and voting by arbitrators. Others may continue to comment on this talkpage and comments will be carefully considered. The proposed decision is not identical to what was workshopped and everyone's comments there have been considered (whether or not reflected in the final proposed decision). Please note that I will be travelling over the holiday weekend with limited Internet access until Tuesday night or Wednesday morning; no inference should be drawn if I am unable to respond in any detail to any further comments until that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick feedback: Looks good; I like the changes. Many thanks for listening to the opinions of the community.  If you're still around, may I suggest two word tweaks: Under "Parties specifically instructed", items (i) and (ii), I would change "unnecessary" and "unwarranted" both to "unsupported", which is somewhat less subjective and more explicit in what it requires of the person making the allegations (which is, to back up their claims with supporting evidence). alanyst /talk/ 19:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here we go --NE2 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(below is moved from main proposed decision page. Wizardman )
 * Comment: Please see the applicable RFC or RFAR regarding the cabal nonsense.  Not saying ID cabal, yet implying same, is both off the mark and not what I'd expect from an Arbcomm member.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PD page
Do not edit the main PD page unless you are an arb clerk or an arb. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. Just corrected a typo. Sorry about that. I hope this refers to the other bits of editing I saw earlier in the page history. The proposed decision is interesting reading, by the way. Finished reading it. Spotted a few more typos - all obvious enough to silently correct, so I'll do that now. Carcharoth (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Obvious typos are OK. Pruufreeding is gud. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom and "fairness"
I have already expressed concern about proposed principle 18. Although I'm pretty sure nobody will care, I still want to say for the record that James F.' comment in support of the principle is profoundly wrong. James says:
 * I know that some find this controversial, but our duty is to the project, not to "fairness".

For one thing, why are scare quotes needed around fairness? Fairness is a pretty simple concept. It is incredibly short-sighted to state explicitly that fairness in decisions and sanctions is not a valued objective! In the long run, the project needs fair treatment for its contributors. While sanctions imposed on a valuable contributor may in the short term hurt the encyclopedia, the ArbCom should weigh this against the long term consequences of excusing egregious behaviour and creating a class system so incompatible with the core values of the project. James is explicitly undermining the community's trust that the ArbCom values fairness. Yeah, yeah, cynics will say "oh but we already know that ArbCom doesn't value fairness" but I have more faith than this and I'd strongly urge James to think long and hard about the stupidity of that one comment. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've thought about it, and I agree with it. Our job isn't to be fair; our job is to protect the encyclopedia. Hopefully we can be "fair" while doing it (and those aren't scare quotes, they're quote quotes, as were, I'm sure, James's), because being fair is a good thing, but it's not the only thing, nor, in our case, the most important thing. What I try to be is "just". -jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * if you are REALLY interested in protecting the encyclopaedia, you would actually support desysoping some of the participants, because that would bring back other editors who have left due to the actions of these admins. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 09:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I'm even more worried! One problem involves the coinage of the mantra "protect the encyclopedia" as if the only thing that ArbCom needed to avoid is the destruction of the encyclopedia. ArbCom is the last resort of dispute resolution: it seems patently absurd to attempt the resolution of disputes with fairness as a side issue. If ArbCom was thinking in terms of also protecting the project, it might see how prejudicial is the idea that the requirement of fairness can be dropped when it's getting in the way. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem in my view is in seeing "fairness" as in any way separate from the appropriate administration of the encyclopedia. There's nothing "fair" about letting someone who isn't able to edit appropriately do so anyway, simply because they'd like to edit or are trying, etc.  In a project with explicit goals, its entirely understood that you can only edit so long as you're able to contribute positively; similarly Wikipedia doesn't make promises about how other editors will act, or about what will happen to them if they break a rule.  On the other hand, I think "fairness" would generally be understood to mean treating people as they are due to be treated under the facts and circumstances, obviously including the goals of the project.  In that sense the only factors fairness excludes are those that are indefensible or fail when examined under daylight.  Presumably that isn't what people mean when they say that they are compromising on "fairness," but I think it is what those like Pascal Tesson and others mean when you have this disagreement about whether Wikipedia should be fair. Mackan79 (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you put "defending the project" ahead of fairness, you risk falling into "Defender of the Wiki Syndrome", cleverly parodied in this blog. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (unindent) Mackan is eloquent in his explanations and provides clues to a possible misunderstanding. However, in the context of this particular case, fairness clearly doesn't refer to treating competent and incompetent editors separately as all parties have certainly proved to be valuable contributors. As pointed out below, James' comment on fairness is a sad companion to his differential treatment of positive findings of facts about editors. In my mind this makes it unambiguously clear that James does not value the objective of, as Mackan put it, treating people as they are due to be treated under the facts and circumstances. In earlier comments on this page, I tried to explain my concerns about the ArbCom's failure to recognize and failure to address the feeling of injustice that is borne out of this. This has serious long-term consequences: declining faith in the dispute-resolution process and the ArbCom, increased incentives to play politics, increased frustration and sense of helplessness from those involved in disputes with people perceived to be in some ruling elite, increased drama because people are reluctant to solve these disagreements through a dispute-resolution system they do not trust. I'm not much of a hot-head so I don't get into long protracted disputes but on at least one occasion, I gave up on complaining about long-term behavioural problems of an editor because my contact with ArbCom left me with the impression that he had sufficient political backing to avoid real pressure to change. In retrospect I have mixed feelings about not pursuing this: on one hand I regret my choice because it was more or less an act of cowardice to look the other way, on the other hand I realize that my assessment that clout can be traded for leniency was in part correct. I don't want to be viewed as a cabal conspiracy-theorist. Power structures do exist on Wikipedia, nobody can really dispute this, but they are not clearly defined or organized, they don't come with ritual initiations and secret handshakes. They're based on natural friendships and mutual respect that arises among those who have fought similar battles, faced similar hardships, worked together to build important facets of the project. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it when people are mindful of the potential ensuing distortions. When these friendships make fairness a secondary objective, we come dangerously close to corruption. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Josh has expressed my consideration as eloquently and concisely as I could ever hope.
 * James F. (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * James, you might have missed how vacuous Josh's comment really is. "I try to be just, not fair" is his response. Please look up "just" in your favorite dictionary... My two favorite say "equitable, fair to all parties as dictated by reason and conscience" and "guided by truth, reason, justice and fairness". And if you prefer Wiktionary you'll find "Fair; even; equitable". Both of you are dancing around the issue as if playing semantics will make it go away. Your explanations below are equally lame: you justify your vote by saying that an unhelpful number of Cla68's and Viridiae's actions have been vexatious. I have no problem with that, in fact I'm tempted to agree. But on the other hand, you've supported four findings concerning vexatious actions of SlimVirgin, yet somehow that doesn't stop you from supporting the finding concerning her value to the project. This is not being fair, nor is it being just and I don't know how you expect outsiders to believe that it is. I'll grant you that arbitrating disputes between people you know and love is very difficult but it seems like the only solution ArbCom finds to that challenge is the denial of its very existence. I can't figure out whether you realize that you're being partial but don't really think it's an issue or whether you are truly oblivious to the fact. And I'm not sure which scenario is least worrisome. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment on impending decision
In the main, I support the approach of the Arbitration Committee in this case. Many editors who would prefer more punitive responses more quickly may be succumbing to desires for retribution, rather than truly asking what approach will most benefit Wikipedia. I do, however, have one quibble. According to a longstanding notion, receiving the admin tools should be understood as "no big deal." I think this is correct and a valuable idea. Given this, it is my belief that there is far too great a reluctance to express this in converse manner: removing the admin tools from administrators who abuse them is perceived as a much bigger deal than it needs to be. It is as though there is a belief that removing the tools will be so dispiriting that it will drive valuable contributors away. I do not believe this is nearly as great a concern as it seems to be perceived to be. In my opinion editors who clearly abuse the admin tools should find it likelier than they currently do that the tools will be removed from their possession. This is not a desire for punishment, but simply a practical matter for the benefit of the project: Wikipedia would benefit from a much clearer culture that abuse of these tools invalidates the right to possess them. There will still always be others willing to apply to take up these tools. As far as the specifics of the present case are concerned, I do not wish to comment on most of the evidence, as I have not reviewed it extensively. I will say, however, that user FeloniousMonk clearly abused the admin tools, after he had already been officially warned about his conduct (I am talking about the evidence I gave in the case; there seems to be other, related evidence also). Abusing the tools is not an accident that befell him; it was rather a decision he took, figuring he had a fair chance of escaping consequences. It is, in my opinion, difficult to understand why so many "second chances" need to be handed out. Again, I hope readers do not understand this as a desire for him to be punished on my part: I truly believe that it would be beneficial to Wikipedia if there was a stronger feeling among administrators that the privilege of possessing admin tools is extended only so long as they are used properly. In the case of FeloniousMonk, it is a question of conveying this understanding not only to him directly, but to those around him, some of whom are administrators. FNMF (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've expounded on this at length, but never very clearly. I will try here, hopefully with more success.
 * "Sysopship is not a big deal" is not, despite first glances, a balanced statement. Instead, it sets up a very strong presumption on the granting of sysophood. This is because of the "logical" steps that people follow in their social understanding of "status". There is seen to be the following equivalence:
 * "being a sysop is no big deal"
 * "anyone who's anything like normal can get to be a sysop"
 * "there must be something seriously wrong with you if we're not happy to let you be a sysop".
 * This means that refusing someone sysop access is a very high-profile way of saying "there must be something seriously wrong with you".
 * This is compounded even more by the ridiculous, relentlessly-increasing "requirements" passed down by the regulars at RfA (raising the ladder after themselves, as it were): people who are already sysops know that once it's gone, it's almost never coming back.
 * Thus, IMO, the two factors combine to make de-sysoping a traumatic experience both for the individual concerned and the community at large, a destabilising effect without much to speak to it unless there is a compelling reason to remove a user's access privileges.
 * James F. (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. It is pretty much as I thought: the notion that de-sysoping is a "traumatic experience" means that it is avoided as a remedy. And I do have to say that in my opinion this line of thought is exaggerated. Furthermore, in my opinion the bar for "compelling reasons" to remove the privileges is too high, if it is the case that an administrator can wrongly block a new-ish editor in a dispute in which the administrator is himself highly involved, in which the block is made in order to prevent proper application of core policies because the administrator possesses a bias against the subject of a biographical article. If an administrator can do all this, and still count on retaining their admin privileges because of the trauma the loss of those privileges might cause, there is in my opinion something wrong. Lastly, I would like to add that I truly believe that if Arb Comm resolved that clear abuse of admin tools would result in loss of those privileges, and were consistent in the application of this policy, the trauma for individual and community would be far less than they think. And it would be beneficial to the atmosphere as a whole. But thanks again for the reply and for your work on this case. FNMF (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Another comment
This guy gets banned for a year, but these administrators, who have over a hundred diffs worth of alleged abuse, get merely a slap on the wrist?? Are the standards of conduct way lower for administrators than for ordinary users? For friends of ArbCom members? Or what? Admittedly I am not well informed of all of the subtleties of the case, but looking at it neutrally it's obvious that the committee has handled it with kid gloves. TotientDragooned (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Principles
Personally, I think for the most part NYB did a rather good job attempting to condense/extract/etc. the thoughts and concerns of editors concerning the principles on the working page into what is listed here. - jc37 09:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Question to James F. re voting on Proposed findings of fact
Hi James, on the proposed findings, you wrote that you cannot support the subjective findings that Cla and Viridae are valuable contributors. However, you were able to support the same subjective language for the other parties. Is your concern with using subjective analysis at all, or is your concern that the specific parties are not valuable contributors to Wikipedia? The disparity is confusing and seems unexplained. rootology ( C )( T ) 14:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This question has already been posed on his talk page.  naerii  14:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Preferable the answer come here, as more interested and concerned parties may be observing this page. rootology ( C )( T ) 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just pointing out that the issue has already been raised. However, I doubt you will get any satisfactory answers, if indeed you get an answer at all.  naerii  14:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is indeed ironic that an arbitrator who signed off on a finding that the community has been demoralized by "perceived double standards" is seemingly holding a double standard himself. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dan, please remember this is also the arbitrator who did such splendid work on WikimediaUK (version 1, that is), and who showed such courageous leadership facing the community on the AdminIRC troubles. And let's not forget his contributions to the mainspace, where his edits, well, they speak for themselves. With all of this, Dan, what would one expect? --Duk 15:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Now remind me, is there a policy on assuming good faith? Seems in pretty short supply on this page. MikeHobday (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no point in "assuming" good faith when you have clear evidence to the contrary.  naerii  16:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply asked why he supports a subjective view on one set of editors, but not another--it's either an error, or deliberate. That needs clarifying as it's such an odd thing for a sitting Arb to do. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If an arbitrator really can't show a basic level of respect for the contributions of involved editors like Cla68 or Viridae, it would have seemed clear to me that he shouldn't be evaluating the case. That has as much to do with the need for mutual respect between the committee and the community as anything else. Mackan79 (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have more than "a basic level of respect", but I feel that the wording is unhelpful with regards this situation. All users of Wikipedia, even (to an extent) the vandals, and especially the passive readers, are "valued" (by me, at least); to go out and explicitly use Brad's formulation, however, takes me to a level with which I am uncomfortable to commit for Cla68 and Viridae, given that an unhelpful number of their actions have been vexatious.
 * James F. (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you've just compared Cla68 and Viridae to vandals&mdash;that is, they deserve a comparable level of public praise. I recognize that Cla68 has stirred the pot at times, but don't you suppose that his mass of featured articles deserves at least as much praise as JzG's mass of profanities? We are here to build and encyclopedia, after all&mdash;not win friends and influence people.
 * At any rate, thank you for forthrightly sharing your views. Cool Hand Luke 21:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, so Cla68 and Viradae's actions are "vexatious", while SV, FM, and JzG's are not? Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * James, unfortunately your comments do not show a basic level of respect at all. If you believe the correct way to address this situation is really to affirm with general statements which editors you believe are valued and which you don't, and this was not a mistake, my only conclusion is that Wikipedia needs a much better process for selecting arbitrators.  The comments are arrogant and offensive, and you should retract them.  Mackan79 (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that as a result of this discussion, I'll oppose any "valued member" sorts of findings, except in the quite rare case of an editor who has been seriously and wrongly maligned by those in authority and then been found blameless by the committee. As James says, perhaps clumsily, all editors and readers of Wikipedia are valued (though I disagree with him about the vandals). --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which of course would be fine. But note that James, while endorsing the findings of fact about unacceptable conduct for all the parties, has decided to support the "valued member" findings for only three of the five. And somehow, he's still seemingly surprised that anyone would take issue with that. The lack of awareness is baffling: you'd hope that by now, arbitrators had carefully appreciated the delicate nature of the case. What exactly do you guys discuss on that mailing list? Cricket? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my proposals as to all of these editors. We are in the position of telling dedicated contributors, who have given thousands of hours apiece to this project, that they have messed up in significant ways to the point that their behavior has become problematic at the arbitration-decision level and needs to change. (Indeed, the arguments that we should be sending an even stronger message to one or more of the parties are by no means frivolous.) The suggestions here and elsewhere that these proposed detailed findings, in the case of established contributors, are meaningless, do not persuade me; I know that I for one would take such a ruling as is proposed here very seriously indeed. Although it is possible that one or more of the parties will not accord it the requisite seriousness, I hope that this will not be the case (and I am certainly serious about my willingness to support serious follow-up action if it is). I have no problem with making negative findings about even our most senior participants; if they misbehave and wind up before the committee, that becomes part of our job. That being said, though, to publish a lengthy decision focused exclusively on the negative aspects of these editors' behavior would strike me, given the record of their various overall contributions, as churlish. I know that others may disagree with me on this point, if only as a matter of style; I do wish that any concern about subjectivity in the wording had been drawn to my attention on the workshop, at which point I could have quietly adjusted it, rather than at this point where any change will become a cause celebre. In any event, based on the form of the decision as currently structured, the introductory paragraphs are necessary to the form; I suppose I could go back and prepare "objective only" versions of each (either minimalistic or more expansive), although for me they would remain second choices to the current versions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I really hope that Brad does not alter those introductory paragraphs. When I look at Proposed Principles - Decorum and Civility - to which I hope any contributor would subscribe - the first and third sentences gain their power from the words "dignified", "constructive", "collaborative", "courtesy" and "civility". Those introductory paragraphs in question form the very foundation of how the arbitrators in this case should behave in their interactions with others. Describing editors as "valued contributors" is the least measure of civility to be accorded to any of the parties before this arbcom and Brad was quite correct to begin this way. If "administrators and experienced editors should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors", then how much more so should arbitrators? --RexxS (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's just be crystal-clear here. Brad says this: "We are in the position of telling dedicated contributors, who have given thousands of hours apiece to this project, that they have messed up in significant ways to the point that their behavior has become problematic at the arbitration-decision level and needs to change." and this: "I have no problem with making negative findings about even our most senior participants" - this begs the question whether this includes members of the committee, or even ex-members of the committee or other "senior" participants (see my list below). Given the right presentation of the evidence and the right wording, I would hazard a guess that it would be possible to propose "negative" (even if only slightly) findings about any long-term member of this project. It is rare that this would rise to the level of arbitration, but picking up Pascal's point above, there are long-term members who have significant (for want of a better word) "political" capital invested (ie. "vested users"), and are not afraid to use it to "help the encyclopedia" (in their view) and "help advance their position" (in the view of others) or simply stand firm to their principles without realising how their "status" is influencing how others act. That is part of what led to this situation. I have every sympathy with those trying to resolve this situation, but it is important to send a clear message that anyone who comes before the arbitration committee with patterns of behaviour like those seen here will, regardless of their "status" (be they founder, arbitration committee member, board member, senior level person on a sister project, proficient featured article writer, dedicated image reviewer, tireless OTRS volunteer, skilled bot programmer or developer, or whatever), will face the same level of scrutiny and, if necessary, admonishment and sanctions. This is a crucial part of fairness, in my view, that justice is seen to be done, regardless of "status". That is necessary to give even the lowliest (they should actually be the highest, not the lowest, but that's another argument) of new contributors confidence in the system. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say, even if I disagree with people's reasoning, I do applaud the degree of, well, frank honestly exhibited in this case and its decision.


 * For years now, I've often heard speculation perhaps a few members of arbcom hold certain members might hold some admins in such high esteem that they let such partiality affect their rulings. In essence, I've heard it speculated that that for some arbs, the goal of being "fair and impartial" often takes a backseat to other wikipolitical concerns. (With the understanding that such arbs do sincerely and in good conscience  believe the "positive ends" more than justify the means that might be a little lacking of fairness and impartiality).


 * For better or for worse, such speculations have now been resolved, and this case is sort of the last nail in the coffin of doubt. Yes, for a few arbs, WHO you are does have a lot to do with how you will be treated during the arbitration process.


 * Perhaps this is as it should be. I don't think it good way to run a dispute resolution system, but I do understand how people, in good faith, can disagree on that.   And I know I, for one, prefer to hear people speak the honest truth of the matter, rather than having any partiality glossed over or hidden.


 * So even though this case ended in a "hung jury" and I don't think anyone genuinely believes this case is really the end of the dispute resolution process in this matter-- but none the less applause should definitely go the arbs in general for at least closing out this case; to New York Brad in particular for taking the steps necessary to get the proposed decision; and to all of the others who have taken the time to explain their reasoning to us.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed a very revealing set of votes, especially the combination with James his support for proposed principle 3.1.13 (Consistent standards, last sentence: "Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing.") is noteworthy. Lets hope other arbitrators follow his honesty in voting... --Reinoutr (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Newyorkbrad's finding was a no-brainer. These are all valued contributors. We actually want them all to continue their work. They are not like vandals, and their edit histories proves it. We can publicly proclaim that an editor's work is valuable, even while telling them their behavior must change. I'm surprised that James F. would go out of his way to demonize these two; it seems out of harmony with the findings. If he really feels that way, perhaps he should propose sanctions on those two. Cool Hand Luke 07:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * His "impartiality" is all over town. I'm actually surprised that it worked as well as it did with such people on the ArbCom. This is the sadness of it: In the decision of this case lies the final proof that these people will never stop protecting each other's behaviour and aggressively persecute anyone who dares stand up to them. They have no decency and that's it. user:Everyme 09:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Newyorkbrad has been herding cats, and he has been as good a "cat herder" as they get. (To Everyme): I find your language extremely unhelpful, could you please consider striking some of the more vulgar language? Anyway; the person I am most angry with now is....myself. Why? I just saw My.Worst.Edit.Ever. Sigh. Huldra (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry - according to this little history lesson you didn't get a say in it anyway. Viridae Talk 10:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Viridae, for taking the guilt off my shoulders! ;- D  Huldra (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Huldra, what you see here of my comments is already the heavily self-censored compromise. You probably wouldn't want to know what I had initially typed in to accurately express my thoughts. user:Everyme 11:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I regret that my actions have been interpreted in the way they have (as attacks in any way on Cla68 or Viridae); it was not my intent.
 * When we were shaping the case, I had originally intended (and had highlighted my intent) to vote against all of the subjective comments. However, it became plain to me that it would have been hypocritical to fail to support what were essentially re-wordings of FoFs for which I had voted over the past four years. Thus I was left to make empty comments with which I did not particularly agree, and had to judge my varying level of discomfort as to whether I could go ahead; in two cases, I felt unable so to do.
 * Again, I apologise for how my point of view has been so coarsely, and inaccurately, conferred, but I fear that I cannot un-ring this bell. My remorse will have to suffice.
 * James F. (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't get a word of what you're trying to say here. All I understand is that for all practical purposes you are still —in your function as an arbitrator— saying that Viridae's and (more importantly imho) Cla68's contribs are worth less than those of the other parties. What exactly is it that prevents you from revisiting that? Assuming that you are well aware that your only chance of staying arbitrator beyond the expiry of your term is a unilateral action by Jimbo as with your colleague FloNight, I can only presume that it is your declared goal to wreak as much havoc as you possibly could for the remainder of your term on behalf of what I personally for lack of a better description feel can only be plausibly called a more or less loose cabal of users. Try as I might, I am unable to recognise it as anything else. So, working on the assumption that it is indeed your goal to be less objective and more subjective than the consensus by which 25 articles were promoted to featured status, I have to say: Mission accomplished. But you can't win an occupation. It was a chance to at least go out with style; and I for one have always felt that one should know to appreciate at least either style or substance. user:Everyme 11:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I can clarify from what I've read. When you try to infer motives from JDF's actions, you are forming an opinion. At the end of the day, even if most other people would agree with that, it is still an opinion. I don't believe it is the purpose of this talk page to try to influence arbitrators to change their votes (which are based on their opinion). Indeed, I would say that JDF has expressed his opinion clearly. He dislikes FoF's that are subjective, but does not want to contest the sort of FoF's which he has supported in the past. In this case, he has put a value on the contributions by SV, FM and JzG (which of course is not just the sum of article edits) so high that he is prepared not to object to calling them "valued contributors". Whereas, he finds the contributions of Cla68 and Viridae so "vexatious" that the value he places on them is too low to allow him to support that part of the FoF. We've all read the evidence and we're all entitled to form our opinions on it - as is JDF. I've never found it productive to try to change another's opinion when we have both considered the same evidence and I would suggest that we instead put our energies into encouraging the other arbitrators to vote so we can see the back of this case as soon as possible. --RexxS (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to sway him. But arbitrators should precisely not base their voting on "opinion" as in "hunch" or "gut feeling". That's not what we're making such a fuzz about their election and appointment for. They should be qualified and ready to neutrally examine all involved facts. JDF most obviously did not do that (25, for heaven's sake), which is exactly the problem: he followed his allegiance not to the community but to a subset of the community; and that very simply means that as an arbitrator, he has failed completely here. user:Everyme 16:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would, with all respect, have to disagree. Arbitrators are required to form an opinion - based (hopefully) on the evidence before them. I believe that JDF holds his opinion sincerely and that is all that is germane to the issue of his vote in this case. As for the issues of "election", "appointment", "allegiance", etc., I would respectfully submit that this is neither the time nor the place for that discussion. A great man, whom I was privileged to know, used to say:
 * "There are five questions you should ask of somebody who has political power. You should ask 'What power have you got?' 'Who gave it to you?' 'To whom are you accountable?' 'On whose behalf have you exercised it?' And the most important question is, 'How do we get rid of you?'"
 * In my very humble opinion, the examination of those questions is best served elsewhere. --RexxS (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, agree that it's not the correct venue for what I think should happen. But it was good enough to vent my feelings. I think I've done that now. user:Everyme 00:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to follow your explanation here, James, it's just too strange. Right now you're supporting findings of subjective praise for three editors, and opposing it for two, specifically because it would be subjective praise. The idea that you've previously praised some of those involved so you have to do it again here -- even while making such a point that you can't praise the two others -- is nonsensical. Does this also confirm then that your findings don't just address the context of this case, but the full careers of these editors, and you still can't say that Cla68 and Viridae are valued members of the community?

That's really beside the larger issue that would probably benefit from further consideration at least from some on the committee: Is ArbCom still elected to apply community policy in order to resolve disputes where the community isn't able, or is it now elected to promote its views on what's best for Wikipedia, whatever they may be? In truth I've seen not just James express the latter view, including the idea that it's ArbCom's place to decide which editors Wikipedia should accept or reject on a personal level. Whatever supports this view, I think some of the real problems are worth noting. For one, the approach isn't consistent with ArbCom's history or design, of applying rather than developing policy, and of beginning with neutral principles derived from policy rather than simply issuing its bare assessments. For another, the role has drawn the committee into disputes, pitting it against groups of editors. Third, it creates implications and expectations which the committee probably most often doesn't want and that later prevent it from taking simple actions. Fourth, it places the committee in a position where it isn't qualified, and rendering decisions of a nature unsupportable by the evidence it's able to review. Perhaps most importantly, it leaves the community without a binding dispute resolution panel that the community can trust to accurately resolve disputes.

I'm sure there are arguments that support the view, possibly that the community needs the leadership, or that political posturing is sometimes needed. What should at least be reason to pause, however, is when committee members start to see this as their first choice, or don't even see it happening (even as it's clear several of the arbs are sensitive to these issues). Mackan79 (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Question
Is there any evidence that a dispute exists between Viridae and JzG other than accusations by JzG? --Random832 (contribs) 15:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Viridae follows him around and antagonises him. This is a fact obvious to anyone who's been reading ANI over the past 6 months.  naerii  15:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence of this other than JzG's accusations? What I see is: Viridae questioned and/or reverted one of his actions once, JzG claimed it was because of a personal dispute, and he refused to roll over and let him do what he wants based on that unfounded claim. --Random832 (contribs) 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Viridae has reverted JzG's actions way more than once. I'm not going to spend a half hour digging through their logs to find it. Look for yourself.  naerii  18:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he didn't revert him more than once. I said that the reverts were not due to a dispute between them, but due to the individual actions being incorrect each time. Hell, the most recent time Viridae was implementing a community consensus and people still claimed he was pursuing a vendetta against JzG. --Random832 (contribs) 19:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But it would, perhaps, be better for everybody if he stepped back a bit and recognized that there is at least the perception of bias on his part where JzG is involved, so it might be better if he let somebody else with less perception of prior involvement take any actions that might be necessary to counter incorrect actions on JzG's part. I'm saying this as an ally who usually supports Viridae's side in the various battles; it would be better for everybody, and for Wikipedia, if people would get and take constructive criticism from their friends instead of just being egged on and enabled as often happens in all "camps" of the fights. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dan's spot on here. As I've said in other cases, we've got many hundreds of active admins; there's no need for any admin to take action against someone who they clearly have issues with. Ask someone else. That's what WP:AN is for. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And, indeed, this can be extended to many of the participants in this case and more widely, as per R2. James F. (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * However, Viridae has already agreed to refrain from reverting any of JzG's administrator actions in the future. In fact, both of the above commentators have endorsed that FoF. It might be more fruitful to ask why at least two other parties to this case have not acknowledged any misconduct, let alone made any effort to promise to amend their behaviour. Brad's proposals are only going to work if all the parties accept the decision, in the way that Viridae already has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs) 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)  Apologies - sinebot is faster than me in spotting that I hadn't signed! --RexxS (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there not a standard "participants will accept the decision of the committee" principle attached to this case to forestall any responses of the "do not accept the decision" kind (either openly or by silent disapproval)? Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The only time I've ever seen such a thing used is in Requests_for_arbitration/Stevertigo, so I doubt it should be considered controlling precedent in this matter.  MBisanz  talk 03:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A comment from an uninvolved editor
Although I have read the evidence sections of this case, I haven't followed it on my watchlist or kept daily tabs on it. (Well, to some extent keeping daily tabs would have been pointless, but that is another subject.) More particularly, the only parts of the workshop I read were those written up by Newyorkbrad and FT2. I wasn't involved in any of the events for which evidence was presented, and have had little or no interaction with most of the parties. That makes me about as well-informed but considerably less involved than just about everyone who has posted here.

All of the parties in this case (whether or not they have administrative permissions) have given a lot to this encyclopedia; all of them have crossed lines too. Some of the transgressions were more serious than others, but all had a negative effect, directly or indirectly, on the encyclopedia we are all building. I also note that this case was accepted way back in May, and it is now September. Newyorkbrad has developed what I believe are the best set of principles, findings of facts and remedies that can reasonably be made at this point. Putting an end to the harm caused to the community and the encyclopedia by having this case continue to be open is, in my mind, the most important result that should come from this decision. From my uninvolved perspective, I don't care who was meaner, or who drove away more editors, or who was taken advantage of, or who was treated worse; I want this case closed so the gaping wounds can start to heal. All of the parties are on notice, it's pretty clear that at least a number of the arbitrators on the committee are willing to take steps if any of them get even a toe over the line in the future, and that should be the end of it. Can we now move on to breathing a sigh of relief that the end is in sight, and encourage the last few arbitrators to vote so this case can be closed? Risker (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * while I agree mostly, two of the administrators who are party to this action, have been specifically warned in other arbcom hearings about manny of the same actions that are at issue in this case. Is warning them again really going to help?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, FeloniousMonk has taken a break since mid-July, making only 2 edits in the past month. One can hope that he is re-evaluating his use of tools and his editing stance. SlimVirgin's most recent administrative action was 4 weeks ago, and she has made exactly one edit since then; she is also a named party in another arbitration matter, the result of which we can hope to hear before (Canadian) Thanksgiving. Whether either of them may say so, my opinion is that this case has made a rather indelible impression on them already. It is often said that the best decision is one that is equally distasteful to all parties. I'd rather see a decision that gets finalised despite nobody being entirely satisfied with it, than one that never gets made at all. Risker (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd much rather see no decision than one that leaves the Magnum Force empowered to continue to mete-out rough “justice”. It would at least be easier for previously uninvolved members of the community to recognize the problem if it were not papered-over than it will be if the ArbCom has to be, in effect, over-ruled for administrative tools to be taken from those who have persistently and even systematically abused them. —12.72.73.41 (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edits
The Help file says, in part: "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute" and "Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word..."

I think there is a weakness in FOF 5(E). The first sentence states that SV has marked many edits as minor, even though they were not. I agree. The second sentence says that editors may not watchlist minor edits, or may not review her edits because she has marked them as minor. Stopping with that is not enough. Experienced editors watching a page know that they have to review SV's minor edits. That's not the point for most of the community. The practice of marking non-minor edits as minor is disrespectful of other editors, forces them to read every single edit, flouts an admittedly minor yet equally clear community norm, and, I will admit, might deceive a less experienced editor. It is the equivalent of using a slightly false edit summary. If we saw a new user doing this, we would go to their talk page and correct them. An experienced editor should not be held to a lower standard. I think ArbCom needs to say that this is a problem, that it is not ok. Jd2718 (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Or alternatively, they should make their existing endorsement of that double standard clear and open. But everybody knows that the ArbCom is unwilling to deal with the issues at hand anyway. They're not even considering simple facts like the one that some of the parties have signalled their willingness to undergo behavioral improvements while others have not. They're disregarding the fact that FM and SV filed this case solely as an attack against Cla68 and to once more stifle any legitimate criticism of parts of their behaviour. The AC just doesn't want to and they're insulting our collective intelligence and basically telling us to fuck off. James F.'s unacceptable malicious personal attack against FA-veteran Cla68 in not supporting this FoF when he simultaneously supports those findings regarding all other parties (except of course the one regarding Viridae) has sealed the deal for me. Once again: All of those parties for whom James F. supported the respective findings recognising their contributions, have less featured contribs on their records combined than Cla68 alone. Not to mention the long-term disruption. And that's it. It's over, folks. There's no hope in ArbCom when it comes to anything regarding their old friends. It's all just the same dodgy compromise, and some of them are not even following through with that. Completely ridiculous. user:Everyme 14:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Responding to Jd2718) The proposed finding of fact finds that the editor in question has tagged many of her edits as "minor" when they were not (I accepted your suggestion on the workshop to modify the wording in this regard), and explains (albeit not in enormous detail) why this is a problem. The first proposed remedy directs the parties to the case to discontinue their behavior that is identified as problematic in the findings. I believe it is clear that the proposed decision finds that the practice of overusing the "minor edit" label "is not ok" and needs to stop.
 * (Responding to Everyme) I spent an enormous amount of time preparing what I thought was an appropriate decision in this case. Criticizing the proposed decision, urging that it be different or stronger, suggesting changes (I adopted many proposed modifications from comments on the workshop), all are fair game. Disagree with what we say and do as much as you like. But "insulting our collective intelligence and basically telling us to fuck off" is not, it is submitted, a fair and reasonable summary of this proposed decision or any part of it.
 * (General comment) I have posted an observations higher on this page regarding one of my colleagues' partial dissent from the "valued contributor findings," adhere to them in toto, and will not repeat them. It seems to have escaped attention, however, that this same arbitrator made an observation concerning the remedies proposed, as against those parties to the case who have been before ArbCom in the past. This comment has probably been overlooked because it was contained only in an edit summary and was not posted on the proposed decision page itself. I do not purport to speak for my colleague, with whom I have not discussed this case at all, but taking this comment into account may possibly provide another or a broader perspective on his view of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Concerning that last note, James' comment in the edit summary is rather mysterious as it does not explain which editors he's referring to. But perhaps more to the point, I have to ask again what it is that you guys discuss on the mailing list: I'd expect little details like this to be ironed out beforehand, not commented on during the final stage, and certainly not in an edit summary. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Brad, the remedy is clear. I am still concerned that someone in good faith could disagree with the second sentence in the one part of the FoF while agreeing with the overall thrust (as has seemed to happen). Setting this minor issue aside for the moment, I'd like to express my overall appreciation for your efforts here. Far better to have some way forward than to accept, take evidence, and dismiss. And I do not believe there was another way that would have passed. Jd2718 (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I support NewYorkBrad's handling of this case, I think he's done a great job in bringing to a conclusion what was obviously a very difficult case to deal with, and doing it in a balanced way. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue at this point that Cla68 has been victimized or that his evidence has been swept under the carpet, so I think Everyme's assertion that the conclusions prove some sort of favouritism are totally off base. The findings are about the best the community could hope for in the circumstances, so I think it's time to simply thank NewYorkBrad for his efforts and for the peanut gallery to go home. Gatoclass (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "peanut gallery" ? You talkin' to me? — I know that Brad has done his best, and as usual his best is actually very good and I also agree that his proposals are the result of a lot of work, knowledge and skill, and even more importantly of a sincere desire to do what's best. I'm just frustrated by what James F. did and I will continue to be unless and until he corrects his grave error by apologising to Cla68 and resigning from ArbCom. user:Everyme 05:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Shame on you James
You can't support the barnstar FoF for one of our most prolific FA writers and yet you can for someone with such a spotty history as FeloniousMonk? I choose FM, because out of all the people you "supported" he is by far the most egregious violator of policy with the tools. I remind you that User:Tango lost his adminship for much less controversial actions. Yet FM deserves to be praised while one of our best editors should not be? If you can't support the FoF for Cla68 or Viradae, at least have the decency to abstain from all such FoF rather then just picking your wikifriends. Shame on you, James, shame on you! --Dragon695 (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dragon695, that's completely absurd. PhilKnight (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The language is immoderate, but I personally find it difficult to argue very strongly against the sentiment. Brilliantine (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What part of that do you find absurd? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Echo both Brilliantine's point and Dan's question. user:Everyme 02:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what the hyperbole is supposed to accomplish: there is a more tempered discussion of this issue just three sections earlier. I do find James' stance problematic and I hope that he will heed earlier calls to reflect seriously on reasons that underly it. But the probability of this happening goes down if these calls turn to "shame on you". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pascal, though I understand the frustrations of dragon695. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems like a reasonable reaction to an exceedingly bad decision. Those finding of facts remind me of the joke, "by a 5-4 vote, the board wishes you a happy birthday".  James' vote clearly demonstrated bias and I have nothing whatsoever positive to say about Arbcom's ruling of "you didn't listen to all those warnings before, but for the 50th time, please try, if it's not too inconvenient, to not block people you are in a dispute with." --B (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. This decision amounts to a full exoneration of sv and fm's abuse of the community.  While I appreciate that nyb has made a huge amount of progress in even dragging this nearly dead horse this far; rather than beating it more, it needs to be shot.  Else, users who are of a harder head than I, will be back here in a few months to go through the same excercise.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait ... what's the difference between beating a dead horse vs shooting it? ;) --B (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * When life gives you dead horses, make horsemeat! *Dan T.* (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's only nearly dead right now....it's time to put it out of it's misery. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm predicting a lot of new arbcom candidates this December. Too bad there isn't a recall mechanism. --Duk 01:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll make a further prediction: ArbCom policy, having been grossly politicized by its present membership, is going to become far more of a political football. With varying degrees of disguise, more candidates will run in the hope of effecting predetermined outcomes in future disputes. —12.72.74.65 (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but is it an American football, or a football in the most-of-the-rest-of-the-world sense (soccer to us Americans)? That determines whether somebody can pick it up and run with it, or just kick it around. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are actually many footballs besides American football and soccer, and many of them are far less nauseous than either of those footballs. Anyway, whether kicked or carried, every election from here on out will primarily be an attempt by various parties to gain control of the ArbCom to ensure that outcomes are achieved regardless of stated policies. —12.72.74.65 (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't buy into this sort of pessimism. For one thing, a number of current members of ArbCom are doing an honest job and many are fully aware of the current problems of politicization. Moreover, I don't think there's much incentive to run for ArbCom in order to "affect predetermined outcomes in future disputes". It doesn't make sense to sit on ArbCom (with all the extra work it entails) for the sole purpose of protecting your friends or quashing your enemies. I also expect that most candidates in the next election will be motivated by their wish to change this situation, not by their wish to take advantage of it. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that a number of members of ArbCom are indeed doing an honest job. Unfortunately, honesty is simply not enough; history is a bottomless pit of counter-examples.  And once one has acknowledged that a significant share of the present members of ArbCom are politicized — an admission that you are within an a hairsbreadth of having made — there is no point in trying to wave-away the thought that politics will be a motivator to become a member.  The politics here is largely sincere.  The reason that we have a squad of administrators dispensing “rough justice” is because they think that they are serving some important principle(s) in doing so.
 * Anyway, I'll assume good faith, and expect you to break your back trying to fix things when you are proven wrong. —70.166.81.2 (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no intent on retracting my comment. Perhaps it is over the top, but for all I know, James F. is a sockpuppet of Tony Sidaway. They sure seem to be on the same wavelength in that "Cla68 is a vexatious editor." --Dragon695 (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Two people who both take a position with which you disagree? Yup, by definition either sockpuppets or a cabal. MastCell Talk 23:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you agree that these jokes which are used to ridicule the notion that something like a cabal actually exists are not particularly useful in a section that deals with what can plausibly be perceived and desribed as more or less straightforward cabalism, or alternatively less than coincidental double standards if you're not so much into addressing things in a straight manner. Unless, that is, you're loosely associated with that group. And that group does very much exist. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 00:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I do agree. Would you agree that the profligate, unthinking use of words like "sockpuppet" or "cabalism" to describe any group of editors with whom one disagrees actually cheapens the term and undercuts any serious effort to deal with actual cabalism? MastCell Talk 04:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with those people I'm thinking of right now —most of whom I wouldn't list here mostly because they more or less loosely and occasionally associated with each other; but SV certainly is one of them— quite frequently as far as content and project issues are concerned. I just happen to disagree with the cabalism. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 05:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually laughed at that one James F. is a sockpuppet of Tony Sidaway. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony Sidaway is his own sockpuppet. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You just blew my mind.  Or-- what if like, Tony has multiple personalities and it turns out that I am one of Tony's personalities, and all my memories are actually just the back-story he concocted in his own mind for a sockpuppet, but really, I only exist when Tony imagines me, and if a checkuser ever reveals that I'm a Tony-multiple-personality/sock and I get permabanned, I will cease to exist.
 * I've got to stop reading stuff by Philip K. Dick... it's just not healthy. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what they say... Don't be a (Philip K.) Dick! *Dan T.* (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am Tony Sidaway. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 04:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm Palmer Eldritch...... dave souza, talk 05:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: what is Tony's current username, if its public knowledge? Jehochman Talk 05:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The last username under which Tony Sidaway has publicly edited is Tony Sidaway. Before that was RegenerateThis (aka Jenny). Risker (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I though he was User: In anticipation of a new lover, or something like that, but I can't find it now Giano (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony Sidaway>User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The>Jenny. Stopped using the last account after the 24 hour block. Dunno what he's doing now. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As well as User:Rosy Palmer although like Big G I can't locate the actual account... brenneman  07:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User:RegenerateThis/Usernames gives a more full account. - brenneman  07:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. Basil &quot;Basil&quot; Fawlty (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, it's funny that his original name was Minority Report, given the discussion of Philip K. Dick above. And strange how I should be the one to raise this... :) the wub "?!"  16:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the shelf-life of Kool-Aid?
With the fourth mensiversary just 8 days (and a little less than three hours) away, only four of the Arbs have drunk the Kool-Aid voted on the proposed decision. —12.72.73.68 (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We should have a sweepstake on when it will actually be finished. Bags I December 24th, just in time for nobody to notice. DuncanHill (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A problem with your proposal is that never can't really be made an option, since at no time $$t$$ has never actually arrived. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Confused
I've been thinking about this for a few days now, but I'm not sure about the proposed decision. I think it's unfair to group all the parties into one big lump, and create group remedies. Here we have administrators who have undertaken different levels of disruption, had differing sanctions in previous arbitration requests. In my opinion, the scope of the case means that it would be extremely difficult to make group judgements - the problems are so different. Some administrators need heavier sanctions, others need lesser - I really hope that some more proposals are made to address this.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason there are group proposals is in order to avoid officially recognising the difference in behaviour between different people, in order to (hopefully) appease most people without being completely limp-wristed. I doubt that more proposals will come up; most arbs just never do that sort of thing. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree with RyanP that some specific remedies for various parties would be valuable, I don't see that happening. It has been far to long since the disruption now for the committee not to see any real sanction as 'punishment' rather than protection.  I disagree, I feel the current decision fully exhonorates the abuse of the community by FM and SV.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have it the wrong way round - FM and SV's actions have been spun, but there's little or no substance there, just the whole Poetgate and related WR smears. Cla, on the other hand, engaged in blockable threats (and while he has claimed they weren't threats, he doesn't seem to have disavowed the tactic of which he spoke).  I'd say he got off pretty light on his abuses.  Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting things quite a bit. At no time has there ever been consensus on WP that Cla's comment was a threat, much less that it was blockable.  Cla was also quite clear that he did not even have the capability of "outing" anyone, nor did he intend to do so.  So, perhaps accusations of "spin" shouldn't be thrown around so casually. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Or you could say: "I think you have it the wrong way round - Cla's actions have been spun, but there's little or no substance there, just the WR smears. FM, on the other hand, engaged in inappropriate use of admin tools, coordinated editing and failed to assume good faith; while SV accused editors of harrassment unnecessarily, made personal attacks, coordinated editing and designated minor edits even though they made material and significant changes to the page (and they don't seem to have disavowed those tactics highlighted in FoF). I'd say they got off pretty light on their abuses."
 * You see, anybody can spin it any way by emphasising the behaviour of one side and playing down that of the other. Maybe Brad has got it right? I'd be happy to trust him - hopefully Ryan can too. --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, FM and SV's actions have been spun to seem not so bad, lesser abuse has gotten several admins deadmin'd, or put such pressure that they resigned 'under a cloud'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If ArbCom has truly taken so long that they cannot do anything because it would seem like punishment, then they really need to fall on their own swords, banning themselves from Wikipedia, to “encourage the others”. —70.166.81.2 (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbcom has glossed over abuse of the admin tools here that is long-term and far more serious than what occurred with the new Sarah Palin case. I'm watching that case with interest to see if the hug and make up philosophy will be enforced there too.  Arbcom has created a clear double standard where being popular, part of the "in" crowd, an "established" admin, or whatever you want to call it now exempts you from the rules the rest of us follow.  I have stayed blissfully uninvolved in the Palin thing (and am self-recusing from any admin actions relating to the election other than dealing with simple vandalism until the election is over with) and I'm finding this new case to be rather interesting. --B (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish I knew what's caused NYB's proposed decision to be rejected. It could be that the silent arbs are considering stronger actions against some of the parties.  It could be that they're waiting to reach a decision on the other SV case, with an eye towards harsher or lesser statements here depending on the outcome there.  Or, it could be they're just MIA, and haven't gotten around to even considering it one way or the other.


 * Almost everyone, on all sides, tends to feel this stagnation isn't a very good outcome, but it's hard to know how to fix the problem without knowing what the problem is. (Or, indeed, if there even is a problem-- perhaps progress is being made and the arbitration is running smoothly, and only looks stuck to us because we're not on the mailing list). --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that stagnation is the very worst outcome. The amount of drama that a dragging ArbCase imposes (along with the direct cost to the project, as several of the parties have suspended most of their work), almost certainly exceeds the value of any additional nuance that the arbitrators can add. ArbCom should strive to be a speedy forum in order to reduce the cost of drama. Cool Hand Luke 16:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, stagnation is working out quite favorably for some of the parties; look at the meme being promoted here (and increasingly in other places as well, where we see allegations that need to be held up to a mirror and reflected back on the persons making them). I'd like to know how that commentary applies to Marskell, Tim Vickers, Jeffpw, myself and many many others who took the time to weigh in.  Of course, I'm also curious if ArbCom (or maybe just James F.) intends to send the message it's sending to FA writers about the value of their contributions, and has considered how that will affect our best content, but that's rhetorical, I suppose.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The delay certainly fosters the "getting off easy/lost in bureaucracy" meme. However, given the committee's actions, I'm not convinced that a more rapid resolution would dislodge the meme. Some of the committee apparently believes that a contributor who has worked on 25 featured articles doesn't deserve even qualified praise. That's our loss, and prompt service won't help us. Cool Hand Luke 20:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motion
I would like to propose the following for the case: The Arbitrators recognize that the excessively long time taken for them to deal with this case has caused disruption and undermined the community's trust in their ability to deal effectively with matters presented to them. The committee will produce, on closure of this case, a detailed explanation of their delay in dealing with it. The committee will also produce, in not more than two (2) weeks from the closure of this case, a set of proposals based on the recent Arbcom RfC designed to improve their functioning, and will submit these proposals to the community for approval.

DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd support that, minus the "detailed explanation" for the delay. I suspect that asking for a detailed explanation for the delay would only be the cause yet more delay. It would be best to focus on how this case could be used to improve ArbCom's procedures in the future, rather than raking over the same set of coals once again. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to know the reason for the delay. It will likely cause to much loss of faith in the project and the committee.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Echo that. :/ <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 04:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong disagree. I would much rather know the bad news, thus enabling a house cleaning via ArbCom elections. Hiding the bad news is enabling something else entirely&mdash;that is, it is enabling those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 06:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Members of the committee were given the same opportunity to give input to the RfC as everyone else. Some of them were involved in it. I think spinning wheels over it at this point will be meaningless. We have a set of reforms that had very good support, that will be up for ratification during the next election, and I expect a set of them to be ratified with a large majority. It's time to start moving on from this I think. The various members of the committee have made their positions known, or decide to keep silent for their own reason, and the community has gone through the normal process for correcting issues in a wiki way. No need to keep poking the ants nest with a stick at this point. --Barberio (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong disagree again, see above. 'Without transparency, ArbCom elections are profoundly meaningless.Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 06:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked those responsible for the current state of affairs to do the decent thing and resign. But they didn't. There's nothing else we can do under the current arbitration policy. So we wait for December's vote. The Arbitration Committee do not have any significant say in the voting process, and it's totally owned by the community. So they can't stall and ignore it.
 * Note. The policy changes do include a new redress system, that can't force someone out, but will make it hard for them to continue in the position with any authority.
 * I fully expect the majority of the changes to be ratified, which should correct some of the poor behaviour of certain committee members. --Barberio (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, I think the fact that this case didn't solve the problem is just an instance where we're asking the arbcom to do something that they aren't capable of. A hammer can be a good hammer, a wonderful tool-- but it can't defragment your hard drive.  If you need that done, it's up to us, the community, to find some other way to solve the problem-- either by using other tools in the toolbox to solve the problem, or by using those tools to build a better hammer.


 * Perhap's my analogy is too confusing. I guess what I'm saying in-- arbcom is doing it's best, but it can't seem to solve this kind of problem.  It's widely agreed there's a problem--  so fix it (WP:SOFIXIT).


 * With the important caveat that I don't actually know how to fix it, and I imagine nobody else does. But that's the direction we should be looking, I think.  Arbcom, for whatever reasons, can't provide anything more than a gentle warning (and even that looks like it may not pass).  If people feel arbcom hasn't provided the solution, let's light a candle rather than curse the darkness.  How can the community construct a solution, rather than expecting an overworked and obviously divided arbcom to solve everything for us?  --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I just can't reconcile the idea of a "gentle warning" with Brad's declaration, "... if changed behavior does not follow, I am deadly serious in stating that further sanctions would quickly result." Perhaps this is a new meaning of the word "gentle" that I hadn't come across before? --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt the sincerity of Brad's statement, but I do doubt it's accuracy. If warnings were to be quickly followed with sanctions, then sanctions would have occurred months or years ago-- because there were warnings issues months and years ago, and the problems have persisted. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wondering
I'm hesitating asking this on this talk page, since there is much here I disagree with, and I really am starting to wonder if any post here may be seen with a connotation of "guilt by association".

But, with all the way forward that NYB and others have recently done, why is it taking so long for more than just these 4 to comment? Is everyone else on WikiBreak? or are the rest abstaining by not commenting, perhaps even hoping for some sort of vest pocket veto?

I mean no disrespect for or to the Arbitration committee members, I'm just wondering. - jc37 00:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's a fair bet that the remaining arbs want to do more than slap wrists, but are are on opposing sides about which (if any) sysops are Übermenschen. —70.166.81.2 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion, but I was/am looking for actual reasons, not just guesses. - jc37 05:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you needn't bother to have asked. ArbCom would already have provided an explanation, before you asked, if they wanted us to know the answer. —12.72.69.94 (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that sentiment. And I believe that it doesn't hurt to ask. (Presuming, of course, that it's done in a fairly positive way - i.e. not a personal attack, or incivil, etc.)
 * Anyway, with the onset of speculative comments, I now doubt to see a response even had they wished to. It would seem that User:Jpgordon had quite a valid point at the RfC. - jc37 11:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Experience from this case tells us that most of those who haven't voted in the PD yet at all probability wouldn't have responded anyway. So your question really started that speculation, we're just running hot wild with it. And why not? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 11:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You (jc37) are using an “immunizing” or “inoculating” argument. There was already a lot of speculation here and elsewhere when you asked.  If you get an answer, then the reasonable interpretation was that you were right to ask, and if you don't get an answer then the reasonable interpretation is that you would indeed never have received one regardless. —12.72.68.208 (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's speculation all the way down, so we might as well enjoy it while it lasts. My wild guess is that some of those Arbs who haven't commented yet are indeed not even interested in the mild wrist-slapping and since some may have a social obligation that prohibits them from ever supporting e.g. a FoF that states that Cla68's contribs are an asset to Wikipedia, they just don't comment at all, hoping for poether things to obscure the long-standing issues outlined in the evidence, and if at all possible to deny a solution that could ever be interpreted and eventually referred to at a later point the way NYB intended: as a mild, but stern, but mild warning that if these issues continue, there won't be any harmless wrist-slapping next time around. Filibustering at it's very very worst. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 09:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Poether"? Did you mean "PoetGuy"? [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] --NE2 09:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh noes! I meant other. What a weird typoet. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 09:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * eeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk, having just read the summary of that saga....please if you value western civilization at all, don't bring that into this case....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Too late. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 16:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If we could only see their hats
When I was small, and rationing was still in place, I used to go to the Saturday matinee at the local flea-pit. Cowboy films were pretty popular. All of the good-guys wore white hats and all of the bad guys wore black hats, so there was never any problem in figuring out who was good and who was bad. If only we could see the hats of the players in this wiki-drama, we would have no problem in sorting all of this out. Sadly, life isn't like that and, despite all the spin (in both directions), there's still no consensus among the whole audience about who is wearing which hat. We each have our opinions on that of course, but different viewers seems to have reached opposing conclusions - and there's no guarantee that the whole thing is black-and-white anyway.

So here's what I suggest: the remaining arbs should just vote for Brad's proposals. After all, those do the least damage to any vested interest. We then await and see what the behaviour of the parties is. If it turns out they were all wearing white hats, then we celebrate, because that's the outcome we really want. If one or more shows us their black hat, the case gets re-opened, wrath descends and we all shake our heads sadly and mutter, "for the good of the project".

Surely that's a win-win scenario that everybody could live with? --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's reasonable if that were really what would happen. I think a lot of people are very skeptical that future sanctions will materialize, even should problems continue.  After all, the last time arbcom issued the similar warnings to some of the participants, and yet, here we are again, with the expected sanctions yet again reduce to, at most, more warnings.


 * If you don't think there is a problem, then everything is functioning as it should. But if you think some of the admins in this case are problematic, then a promise that "maybe next time we'll fix it" isn't particularly reassuring. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Brad has given his word that this won't be another case of saying, "Stop! Or We'll Say Stop Again!" . Cla68 (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And I definitely believe he means it, too. But in the end, he only speak for himself.  If a majority of the committee had used similar language, I'd feel much more confident.  Ever since some committe members sided with one of the parties over their own clerk-- demanding the clerk's resignation rather than admonishing the involved party about misusing tools--- it seems to me a certain percentage of the committee is basically "sewn up" and will support some people indefinitely.
 * (Not that those arbs are acting in bad faith-- they just have a very different point-of-view about the project than my own.)
 * At one end of the spectrum, we have Brad (et al) with his personal promise to try to get this solved if the problem persists. At the other end of the spectrum, we have a couple arbs who feel there is no real problem here, other than perhaps a few WR-trolls baiting good people into doing bad things.  And then, there's the remainder that haven't weighed in either way-- the silence is deafening.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd like to believe that the delay is merely because there is an ongoing discussion on another venue (since the arbs have such several venues besides here), and that's the cause of the delay. And that they haven't said as such due to the contentiousness of even just this talk page. Consider the attacks that both NYB and James F. recently received. Would any of you want to deal with that if you weren't forced to? (Don't bother to answer that, I doubt I'd believe the armchair QB responses.) So in the meantime, I'll attempt to believe the best, knowing and accepting that the "worst" is also possible. - jc37 23:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Desysop proposal
I'd like to say that this proposal does not, to me, dilute the effect of the remedies originally proposed. In fact, I think it can only strengthen them, by giving a clear message of "When We Say Sanctions Will Be Taken, We Mean It". --Barberio (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Faith restored; crux of the case finally identified. If ArbCom doesn't recognize and deal with cases when past cautions have been ignored, the present case has no teeth, and in fact, ArbCom has no credibility or authority. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I'll be, Arbcom has balls. :) Wizardman  17:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Uhm, I don't think that there would have been any delay if none of the members had wanted to do more that issue stern looks and hugs. But the motion in question has, so far, only two votes. (And even those who wanted to issue only the looks-and-hugs don't necessarily lack guts.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 17:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This "FeloniousMonk desysopped" makes sense -- if you've no sense to begin with. Ah, but then I'm one of those bad, nay evil, eee-viilll, kabal members, right, incapable of comprehending reality and seeing things clearly, right?  Yep, must be why I get paid big bucks as an analyst.  Must be why I'm a materialist.  Must be why my personality type is INTJ.  Bah.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary was: "the mental sheep draw blood vicariously and gloat over the "destruction" of their mental superior. Nice. Gotta like it." I don't think this helps much. I'm not a big fan of gloating over punishments, but really. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Classic and confirmation. NYB cautioned about comparisons, but:  Cla68 contributes superior content and has shown a willingness to address concerns raised; SV does good work on content and on policy/guideline pages when she's not engaging in the behaviors highlighted in the proposed decision (and ArbCom has fallen slightly short in making it clear how she can avoid the problematic tendencies, like accusing others routinely of attacking her, while missing a chance to encourage her to do what she does well); JzG takes on difficult admin work and sometimes loses patience and snaps and has shown a willingness to change; apparently there were no findings on Viridae so no comment there; but where are FM's major contributions in content, admin or policy areas, where is the recognition of the issues, where is the rectification (after a year) of the accusations leveled at fellow admins and top content contributors Marskell or Tim Vickers.  If he is allowed to flaunt past ArbCom decisions, does he not become a role model for attitudes like that shown by Jim62sch's post and for certain behaviors which the ArbCom has up to now been willing to overlook, sending a message that incivility is welcome on Wiki, even on ArbCom pages?  Surely even the less "mentally superior" can see there was less of a case for desysopping SV or JzG than there is for FM, and I doubt that many editors think this wrist-slapping proposal except for the most glaring is worthy of "gloating".  At best, it will give some teeth back to ArbCom considering the trust the community has lost in them this year, and restore the community's confidence that they will actually enforce this case if the situation doesn't improve.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ArbCom does as much wrist slapping as it can. And it works slowly.  The way I see it is that they know things are basically out of hand in some places, and they are in motion, but very slowly.  The thing, whatever it was, with OrangeMarlin makes me think that they recognize some of the basic problems, and are willing to fix them- even if they bungled it.  But it's going to be very slow, with wrist slaps given along the way.  But then, I haven't made a deep study of it. Thoughts?  I know it's hard to analyze ArbCom, but it may be worth it for those of us who care not only what WP is, but about what it may become given the time to grow up. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "eee-viilll kabal" <-- is this the politically correct term to use now that we are not permitted to say ? I like it. --JWSurf (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know quite well what my edit summary was as I wrote it. In any case, reality sucks, yes?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm an INTJ too; it just goes to show that being in the same Meyers-Briggs quadrant doesn't mean you necessarily think alike. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of us have higher IQ's (for whatever that's not worth), and I doubt you're one of the former. But, I could be wrong.  In any case, the bottom line is that some of us can see the big pic, while some are motivated by hatred and dim ideas that being a prick and behaving utterly inapproprately yet having lots of FA's excuses being a prick and behaving utterly inapproprately.
 * As for Sandy's comment: fools seeking sacrificial offerings to prove that they are still god-like is utterly useless in restoring confidence in in the judment of said fools.
 * OK, you can ban or block me now, it just doesn't matter anymore. This isn't an encyclopedia, it's a pathetic "reality" show.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not feed the trolls, can I suggest that we ignore this attempt to cause drama? --Barberio (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, as there are 16 types, it can't be a quadrant.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But "hexadecimant" is rather awkward. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading these comments, I'm quite frankly surprised that you haven't been blocked yet. --Conti|✉ 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Per Barberio, SandyGeorgia and Wizardman- especially Wizardman. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Faith in the system just got a major booster shot, and the explanation for why this remedy was long in coming also makes sense.
 * On the lighter side of the news-- I'm an INTJ too! Is everyone in this debate an INTJ!?!  --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks good. FM had already been warned by the committee. Given the nature and weight of evidence against him, a second warning would have been superfluous and undermined the credibility of ArbCom. At the same time, it makes the final warning given to the other parties less than an idle threat. If this is passed, I think everyone can get back work now. Thanks for being the bold first proposer, bainer. Cool Hand Luke 02:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems that the ArbCom gets slowly there where many admins and editors are already. FM down, at least one more to go. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm flipping a coin in my head. Part of me says arbcom got it exactly right by desysopping the admin whose use of the administrative tools was far and away the worst and placing the other three under a microscope is sufficient.  But part of me says you don't become a saint through the sins of others - the question isn't whether anyone else's behavior was as bad as FM's, but, simply, whether it was sufficiently bad for a desysopping.  I'm leaning in the direction of this desysopping being the only "action" remedy necessary, but I have no strong opinion either way.  What I do hope is that they don't just decide to desysop Viridae just for the purpose of making an example of someone from each "side" - if Viridae is desysopped, it should be because of his/her actions, not just for parity. --B (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Who's talking about desysopping Viridae? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 13:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not me.... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too enthusiastic about it. One could argue that at long last FM's out of the way, to possibly allow a more thorough examination of other cases of more subtle long-term disruption. But his case was so clearcut for so long that he should have been desysopped long ago. In combining the obviousness of the necessity of this remedy with the time it took to reach it, I can only assume that the other cases will be addressed no sooner than 2015. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 13:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2015? Just in time for the flying cars and hoverboards of Back To The Future II! *Dan T.* (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG, and we have to prevent old Biff from stealing the Delorian and warning himself. Just imagine he had access to the almanac with all the numbers right now. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 13:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can someone tell me where I can sign up for my flying car and my self-drying jacket? Thanks. --B (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not proven
I think 2 (E.1), particularly its last sentence, has the appearance of a not proven verdict. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to not like it for the same reasons as Newyorkbrad and FayssalF - it's the sort of thing that would likely have been more public if more of the same comments were made, and many things aren't known. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Drafting requests for comment
I see at least a couple of problems with this proposal. First, it's clear that commenting "out of forum" has occurred at least equally on the other side of this case; consider posts to mailing lists and in user space which have continued to make highly charged arguments about this case that would certainly be disputed if presented here. Second, I'd consider the unusual events and circumstances of this case, and whether it's a good one for deriving this kind of rule. In fact I believe Elonka recently showed that she was able to respond in her own userspace to an RfC being created in ChrisO's. The case devolved for other reasons, but allowing a little back and forth of this nature could in more normal circumstances be worthwhile. Certainly I can see situations where material in userspace would be problematic, and the potential problem this gets at, but as an applicable principle I'm not sure it's quite right. Mackan79 (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (to no one in particular) The draft in the userspace did attract other people to the editing process and also comments from other people, allowing it to become more focussed on the issue. Viridae Talk 23:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Much of the input I received for the RfC draft on SlimVirgin in my userspace was by email from editors who stated that they feared retaliation if they participated openly. By drafting it on-wiki in userspace, it facilitated continuous input and cooperation, even if much of the input was actually delivered by email. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree a reasonable period of time is needed to draft an RFC, having one in userspace that for an extended period of time leads to a rather chilling situation of User does X, RFCer adds X to RFC, User does Y, RFCer adds Y to RFC, which as some point starts to intimidate User, even though no RFC has been filed. With GoogleDocs and MS Word to store things locally, maybe a 2 week time limit of RFC drafts would work best.  MBisanz  talk 23:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Although I can see value in regulating the drafting of RfC's in userspace (must be my ESTJ :p), I think the issue needs far more discussion - as evidenced in the proposal. For example, limiting the drafting time to a "reasonable period" is, in my very humble opinion, a recipe for controversy. Just consider how many different opinions on what a "reasonable period" might be. Secondly, although "the drafting should be taken (elsewhere)", what is the sanction to be applied if it is not? I can see a wheel-war over deleting, restoring, protecting, etc. somebody's user-space!! That's just not productive. Finally, "off-wiki" may have meant "the user's pc" (i.e. private) in bainer's mind, but I'd suspect that fayssal was interpreting it as WR or similar (i.e. very public) when he raised his objection. In conclusion, I'd suggest that we need a well-discussed policy on drafting RfC's. That means taking it to the community, rather than being created from an ArbCom decision. I hope others can see my reasoning why this issue ought to be treated differently from the other ArbCom findings and perhaps the arbs can agree not to push this principle until the community can attempt to achieve consensus on it first. --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "...rather than being created from an ArbCom decision": I don't think I'm proposing anything new here per se, I'm just identifying what I see as a necessary consequence of the RfC system and its focus on the ability of everyone, particularly the subject of the RfC, to have their "right of reply" and offer their own view of the situation. Really that's an essential purpose of the RfC process; it's meaningless when people can't freely participate in it. As I see it, any practice that frustrates that essential purpose should be avoided, and that includes userspace drafting for an unreasonable time. As I mentioned to Jc37 on my talk page, another extreme example would be if an RfC page was protected. I'm sure there are other such situations.
 * Certainly if you have a better idea in mind, you should by all means make a proposal out of it, I would be interested to see it. --bainer (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle, bainer. At the same time I think it's fairly well recognized what would have happened if Cla68 had simply presented an RfC.  That is, basically a scramble to respond, very likely based much more on preconceived notions.  The possibility of actual reflection and/or improvement would IMO have basically disappeared, and the level of drama would probably have increased.  It's an interesting innovation in the RfC process, at least in my experience, but in truth one with some merits (Viridae and Cla68 mention some others).  Regarding the right to respond, I think it's also fair to note that SV did not attempt to comment on the RfC, or as far as I know ask that it be removed.  As I think the the situation with Elonka and ChrisO demonstrates, SV could have responded, and I think Cla68 would more than have welcomed any response.  In slightly different words, helpful dialogue has clearly been frustrated in this case, but I'd see Cla68's approach as more a symptom than a cause, and possibly one that needed to run its course. Mackan79 (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, bainer for your response. I fully agree that it is unsatisfactory to have accusations against another editor in one’s userspace for an indefinite period and believe that some guideline or policy ought to be established to regulate such a practice. I therefore concur that “drafting of user conduct requests for comment in userspace ... should be limited to a reasonable period”. As I previously indicated, the devil is in the detail, since “reasonable period” is not defined. I would propose that a defined time limit be expressly stated in order to avoid differences in interpretation. This then leaves the problem of drafting any complex and lengthy RfC within the set bound.
 * In addition, I would prefer to see outlined the mechanism by which this kind of policy/guideline would be enforced. I see several kinds of approach using either existing DR or a specific mechanism. I can suggest a modification to your PP of this sort:
 * Drafting of user conduct requests for comment in userspace, which by convention is usually not edited by other users, should be limited to 14 days from its creation to ensure that the ability of others (and particularly the subject of the request) to offer their views is preserved. If the page remains in userspace (without an RfC being filed) for more than this time, any of the parties affected by the draft may commence dispute resolution with a view to removal of the draft.
 * Drafting … preserved. If the page remains in userspace (without an RfC being filed) for more than this time, the owner and any affected parties should seek a third opinion from an agreed uninvolved administrator who will either delete the page or fix a date when it will be deleted.
 * Drafting … preserved. If the page remains in userspace (without an RfC being filed) for more than this time, any affected party may file for removal of the page using the miscellany for deletion mechanism.
 * I’m not at all sure that we can regulate the drafting of an RfC on an editor’s own pc, but I would suggest that publishing such a draft publicly elsewhere could fall under PP 12, “extraordinary circumstances” and could be dealt with by that.
 * As I hope you can see, there could be considerable debate about “14 days” and what sort of remedy should be available as well as the definition of “off-wiki”. I could be wrong but I suspect that the community might wish to express an opinion before a conclusion is reached. --RexxS (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Re "MS Word to store things locally"... or, you can use plain ASCII text in a plain-text editor and avoid proprietary formats that support M$ hegemony. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Or even a local install of MediaWiki :) --bainer (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

FayssalF's comments on Cla68 2(E.1)
On Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, part 2(E.1), Arbitrator FayssalF wrote:

—19:38, 13 September 2008, Raw edit

My response to this is this: the difference between the uncountable volumes of points the Committee has no evidence over, and this particular instance, is that in this case editors have made the point without evidence. The point of this proposal is that a number of editors participating in the case have ascertained that "Cla68 has made any further comments of this nature in the ensuing months", but that the Committee has found that there is no evidence substantiating that point.

In other words, I think you may have misinterpreted the intention of that proposal's wording.

Anthøny  ✉  13:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can help me out here, Anthony? I can't find a single editor who has stated that "Cla68 has made any further comments of this nature in the ensuing months" (i.e. since the original comments in early part of May 2008). I know the Evidence and Workshop pages are lengthy and it's hard to find such statements, but if no editors have actually made the point, then surely fayssal is right to ask what is different? --RexxS (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthony: In which cases do you believe that there should be a negative finding of fact where charges have been leveled without being adequately supported? —SlamDiego&#8592;T 15:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * RexxS, that's precisely the point: the Committee's attention has not been called to instances of such comments being made. The finding is, essentially, dispelling a very understandable concern: that Cla68 could have continued to make such comments, despite his apology.


 * SlamDiego, you seem to have answered the question in the very same question that you asked it: a finding that a user has not continued to engage in behaviour XYZ would be passed in any case where it has been suggested that that user had, contrary to the actual facts of the matter, indeed continued to engage in such behaviour. Findings are passed only when they are relevant to the dispute at hand.


 * Anthøny  ✉  15:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that could entail many findings of fact, simply as a result of lots of sh— er, stuff being thrown at the wall in the hope that something will stick. The Findings of Fact could become a sea of shot-down accusations, drowning more important Findings.  Indeed, I could see accusations thrown out for exactly such purpose.
 * I'm not saying that there should never be negative Findings of Fact, nor am I saying that this particular negative Finding is necessarily inappropriate; but I think that the criteria for explicitly reaching them need to go beyond simply that a false accusation had been levelled. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 16:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification, Anthony. But since PFoF 2(E) and PFoF 2(E.1) both dispel "... a very understandable concern: that Cla68 could have continued to make such comments ...", what's the difference? As nobody has suggested that Cla68 has made similar comments since, does PFoF 2(E.1) do anything other than cast a little doubt on Brad's original "He has made no further comments of this nature in the ensuing months"? --RexxS (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could prefix the statement in question with a reference to these claims? Something like "Despite innuendo to the contrary, the Committee has no evidence that Cla68 has made any further comments of this nature in the ensuing months."?
 * James F. (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If he only made the one statement ever that is known, wouldn't it be eminently more appropriate and accurate to say simply "He said it once" and be done with it, without conditions of any sort? Its neither the Arbcom's job to make anyone look good, nor bad, but to vote on the facts. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 23:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the alternate statement is good. I believe NYBrad's point was that Cla68 has made what appear to be sincere amends for the particular incident (or, at minimum, stating the evidence to this effect).  Still, Jpgordon's point is fair that the committee generally shouldn't assert facts it can't or doesn't know.  Since the alternate appears to be the simplest way to solve that problem, I don't think the other inferences are actually required.  (On the other hand, I see another article where NYBrad's point is discussed...) Mackan79 (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I preferred my original proposals for the reasons stated on the decision page, but the alternate is also acceptable to me and I don't think it is worth spending more time fussing over this wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I think the first statement is better. The point is that not only has no evidence been produced, there is no suggestion anywhere in Evidence or Workshop that such evidence may exist. Fayssal's question remains: Why pick on this statement unless it is intended to cast doubt on Brad's formulation? That was placed there to say "Cla68 did this once, but hasn't done it again" - much better than "Cla68 did this once, and he might have done it again, but we don't know about it". To counter JPG's point, it's not the ArbCom's place to speculate either. --RexxS (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to Anthony
 * Thanks for the notice Anthony. I don't believe I took my decision based on the intention of the proposal.


 * The second proposal suggests that, in this particular instance, the Committee did act as a fact-finder before finding "no evidence exists." It has not been the case. Yes, the Committee may have acted as a factfinder but there was no plaintiff in that instance.


 * Mackan explains it well (i.e. evidence of absence -- absence of evidence when evidence should be present; which is not the case) and Newyorkbrad's makes a good point when he says that "[NYB]'s confident that if Cla68 had made another comment perceived as threatening in the months this case has been pending, it would have been drawn to our attention."


 * That said, I'd be satisfied with dismissing both confirmations for both proposals. I believe that can do the job and would have no problem to propose it.


 * I'll give you a parallel... In the case of JzG, there was a RfC where user's actions were addressed. The RfC's final outcome was to observe the user's posterior and future actions (i.e. how would a user act after a RfC). In this case, a follow-up (though non-binding) was needed. That explains why we had to re-evaluate and then re-affirm and confirm the unconfirmed (i.e. JzG's posterior actions - see (E) for JzG).   fayssal   / Wiki me up® 19:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to the community consensus to observe JzG's posterior? :) MastCell Talk 20:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your thinking here is now much clearer, Fayssal. Thank you for expanding on your initial vote comment. Regards, Anthøny   ✉  20:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Anthony. MastCell, we can spend a zillion years before getting tired while finding no consensus (in the RfC sense of course). We can agree about common sense at least.  fayssal   / Wiki me up® 20:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Sorry, I was making a probably ill-conceived joke about the connotations of the word "posterior", not acutally commenting on the RfC. My bad. MastCell Talk 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Barberio left me a note at my talk page as well. My bad! :)  fayssal   / Wiki me up® 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was trying to avoid a string of bad puns about Rebuttal and Rump Government. --Barberio (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If it helps, MastCell, I got your joke; I simply didn't think my noting *chuckles* on a discussion page attached to an on-going Arbitration case was quite appropriate. :-) Anthøny   ✉  16:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Majority?
The header of the Proposed Decision page lists that there are 9 arbs active on the case, i.e. 5 constitute a majority. However, the implementation notes list several elements (among them the new FM desysop remedy) as not having a majority, even though they have 5 supporting votes. What gives? Some quirk of procedure I'm missing? NewSolution (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are missing the timestamps. The implementation notes were made before some of the votes came in.  Which is why the notes are only notes until after a motion to close passes.  GRBerry 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GRBerry. I would not have worried except I think NYB had commented on the clerk's summary after those votes. In any case, I see the clerk and NYB are discussing further in implementation notes, so I am sure it will get sorted out, even though I think they are still not fully aligned with the "9 active arbs so 5 constitute a majority" at the top of the page. NewSolution (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 9 active arbitrators, so 5 are a majority. However, the policy is that an arbitrator who abstains on a given item is not counted toward the majority on that item (otherwise, an abstention becomes the equivalent of an oppose vote). Thus, if 2 arbs have abstained on a given proposal in this case, there are 7 potentially participating arbitrators on that given item and the majority is reduced to 4 for that item. If you pick up any discrepancies that this does not explain, please let us know here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Who's happy?
Or at least "not entirely dissapointed." While the progress was glacial, I must say that these are some of the best structured outcomes I've seen. I'm almost totally pleased. - brenneman  23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * happy at a hearing like this? not really.  But I'm surprized and heartened that the communties concerns were taken seriously.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What is there to be "happy" about? This isn't a sport like college football where you are happy when your team wins and the other team loses. --B (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a bit backwards. Ceteris paribus, I have no real reason to root for a college football team on the field (and, thus far, haven't rooted for any).  But if there'd been violations of the rules, then I might well root for such things as the suspension or explusion of players.  I might even be happy about some of those suspensions.
 * Thinking about other processes, I could imagine a case where I wanted one outcome until I found out that members of the faction that I supported had done unconscionable things, at which point I might be happy were those members penalized, even if it came at the cost of the outcome that I originally desired. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 07:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Go Colts! [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] --NE2 08:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably happy about the decision, although I still feel that the leniency for SlimVirgin is mind-boggling. But the handling of the case will remain a huge disappointment: though the committee eventually came to its senses, there was a proposed motion to dismiss and there were obvious signs of a deadlock. I think the ArbCom's credibility has been damaged despite the end-result. The most difficult arbitration cases this year have all revealed problems with the committee's independence and they made me (and a few others) pessimistic about its ability to render decisions which are not influenced by Wikipedia's power structures. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the expected outcome regarding SlimVirgin. She definately is made of teflon, nothing sticks on her, she can do what she want. Ok, the Arb's promish that they draw a line in the sand. Well, the proof is in the pudding as they say...... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The parties in question can certainly not "do whatever they want." They are now under considerable scrutiny, not only from offsite harrasers, trolls and "stalkers" (as was the perception, say, 2 years ago) but also from a number of respected and influential editors.  Times have changed, and though certain administrators will never be subject to exactly the same rules that govern the average editor, they no longer enjoy the level of unconditional protection and support they did in the past.  None of us can be perfect, but I can almost guarantee you these admins will make at least a superficial effort to behave themselves.  Many of you wanted to see heads roll as a result of this case, but a subtle cultural upheaval, though not as dramatic, may have a greater and more lasting positive effect.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Like most always, I agree with the wisdom of the Fat Man. Not perfect, absolutely, and I will definitely be remembering this come ArbCom election time. But better than the status quo ante. Kelly  hi! 23:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said. Cla68 (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure how much of your reply was directed at me but my disappointment doesn't stem from a lack of decapitations! However, I can't entirely share your optimism about the dawn of a cultural upheaval. One can see the glass half full and argue that ArbCom has rarely been able to severely criticize, much less sanction well-connected editors as they did here to some extent. On the other hand, the near-dismissal of the case and the incredible strain it seemed to put on the committee is strong indication that the culture of impunity is still prevalent, though I have to agree that it has been dealt a blow. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the Fat Man, by and large (though I probably find some of the cited abuse less egregious than he does). I think the Arb Comm's findings of fact are bang on (including, it must be said, the finding that all parties have a history of excellent contributions to Wikipedia).  I think their decision to take action against an admin who showed no repentance or interest in changing was also correct.  Perhaps they failed to take action against another admin who showed no repentance or interest in changing, which is slightly disappointing, but the shots have been fired across the bow.  As one of Brad's proposed findings said, hopefully no more action will be necessary. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the findings of fact regarding SlimVirgin are helpful (I don't know enough to comment on the others). I've had the experience of being the target of SV's rage, over a content dispute that I won't mention for fear of exploding another motherlode of Wikipedia emotional baggage. The double standard was well in effect at the time and very few people were willing to stand up to her. There were plenty of arbitrators looking on and if even one of them had said, "SV, your behaviour today doesn't necessarily merit desysopping, but for the record you're acting like a complete asshole" it would have made me feel a lot less demoralized.

Articulating a problem well is a powerful thing. It may not change the perpetrator's behaviour much - given that SV is well into adulthood she is unlikely to change. But it makes a difference to the culture of the community, and it especially makes a difference to the morale of the people who are targets of the behaviour.

This is my first comment on any of the pages of this case, although I have thought about giving evidence or comments nearly every day since the case began. I put it off, not so much out of a conscious decision that it wouldn't be worth the effort, but more because doing so would have been emotionally painful and human nature is to postpone pain. I'm very grateful that others have worked so hard to identify bad behaviour and to protect the community from further harm. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, Clayoquot, I feel what you're saying; you were kind to me once when it was happening to me. I'd still be there with you, in silence, except that I was drug out of my silence by the ArbCom at the end of last year, and by watching the assault on yet another FA writer this spring. I am not happy that anyone had to go through this, I never am, we should all be writing articles, but I hope we can all move on to more productive editing.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I for one am not happy. I don't have anything to say regarding the issues between the various editors, but I cited a clear case of one of the admins using his admin tools inappropriately and this has had zero comment by the Arbcom. Frankly, I don't care about WP any more. I see vandalism all the time -- am I going to bother to correct it? Probably not. Will I ever edit on WP again? Perhaps, if there is definite personal gain for me in doing so. Will I edit out of altruism again? Probably not. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but it seems to me that the outcome is that people are being admonished not to do things they have already been admonished about. What's the point? Will it really change anyone's behavior? Captain Nemo III (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Finding of Fact 2(E)
Sorry to bring this up at this late stage, but the Implementation notes seem to be missing the fact that PF 2(E.2) is also passing. I don't know the rules for deciding between two mutually exclusive proposals that both pass. At the time of writing, PF 2(E.1) is 6-1 while PF 2(E.2) is 6-0. On the other hand, of the arbitrators who seem to have expressed a preference (either explicitly or by not voting for one or the other), four seem to prefer PF 2(E.1) over PF 2(E.2) while four seem to prefer PF 2(E.2) over PF 2(E.1). Perhaps someone can clarify which PF 2(E.x) is the accepted version being voted on? --RexxS (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole thing will be checked again when it is closed; the implementation notes were last edited several days ago. With 2(e), both e.1 and e.2 pass. From there it devolves into assessing preferences. At this point e.2 has more first preferences. --bainer (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Conduct following this decision
The basic idea underlying the proposed decision is that the conduct of the parties needs to change with regard to the issues specified. My own view was that a strongly worded admonition to each of the parties to this effect would be sufficient, although I cannot fault my colleagues' ultimate conclusion that a stronger action was needed in one instance.

I am concerned that even before the case has closed, there is a tendency to be reacting to it in terms of who won or lost the case, or how the decision might be used against parties in the future. For example, Jim62sch's comments on this page were unacceptable and inappropriate and represent precisely the sort of input that is unhelpful on an arbitration page, or any other page.

It also bears emphasis that neither I nor the other arbitrators found that every word of any editor's evidence presentation was accurate. To the contrary, I stated on the workshop (and perhaps should have included in the final decision itself) that many items of evidence that were characterized as diffs reflecting misconduct, actually represented innocent misunderstandings or trivial disagreements. No one should be pointing to a presentation made on the evidence page and saying "the Arbitration Committee found that all of this is true!"

It will be sufficient to deal with further problems involving any of the parties to the case if, in the future, there are any. The committee's (and my) observations about how such problems may be treated should speak for themselves. At this point, the parties to the case should complete the process of disengaging from public discussion of one another and focus their energies on the areas of their long-time and valued positive contributions to Wikipedia, which I am glad to see my colleagues agreed to acknowledge in the final decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted above before I read on down the page; I'm done. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What's particularly important in what Brad has said is regarding the evidence in the case. It's common -- entirely too common -- for people to pile all sorts of things onto evidence pages in contentious cases like this. That ArbCom does not comment on a piece of evidence does not mean ArbCom in any way endorses the evidence, or the conclusions the submitter of the evidence wished us to arrive at. I strongly advise all parties to put every aspect of this behind them, and find something encyclopedic to work on. And let's not pretend we're in a vacuum here; behaving politely toward fellow editors on Wikipedia, and then trashing them on Wikipedia Review, does not constitute what any reasonable person would consider civil behavior. Look at it like this: sure, you can have your own expectations of civility in your own home, and the guy next door can have his own policies; but even if the guy next door is quite polite when he visits you, if he puts up signs at his own house saying what a creep you are, you're not going to feel very good about working alongside him in any venue. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well said, and I couldn't agree with that sentiment more.--MONGO 14:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

jpgordon, can you state for the record just who it is you are characterizing as "behaving politely toward fellow editors on Wikipedia, and then trashing them on Wikipedia Review"? --Random832 (contribs) 19:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's me. I trash people on Wikipedia and on the Wikipedia Review.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Those that do these things should know who they are.--MONGO 20:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about we not digress into another disruptive round of 'he said/she said' ranting about Wikipedia Review or Anti-Wikipedia Review groups and what they may or may not have done.
 * Move along here, nothing to see.--Barberio (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to say, MONGO, is that not everyone may agree on who has indeed done such things, and I want to know who it is that jpgordon himself specifically thinks this is the case for. --Random832 (contribs) 04:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(To NYBrad) As far as the subject of "who won" this case goes, I think that, if this case decision sticks, then I am, among many others, a "winner" in this case, albeit indirectly. During the evidence section of this case, and during the building of the RfC that apparently precipitated it, you might be surprised at the number of editors who emailed me with links and suggestions, but who were clear that they didn't want their participation in this regard known because of a fear of retaliation for having done so. I believe that the evidence presented in this case makes it clear that their fears of retaliation are/were justified. Now, if this decision helps to remove this unacceptable atmosphere of fear from this project, then that's a win for all of us. Cla68 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you poisoning the well? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, I also received a number of e-mails from individuals who were afraid to post on this case in fear of retaliation, particularly from denizens of a well-known attack forum. And, based on history and the evidence presented in the case, it is clear that their fears were much more based in reality than the people e-mailing you. The people who e-mailed you are in exactly the same "danger" that they were in before, as are the people who e-mailed me; however, the former is imaginary, while the latter is real. And I doubt this decision will do much to remove the unacceptable fear of the latter from this project. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty big accussation. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, and Cla68's wasn't? Odd that you just responded to mine. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't say what I said if there wasn't evidence to back it up, in this case, plenty:     .  Anyway, if this decision helps discourage this kind of behavior from anyone, not just the parties in this case, then we're all to benefit.  Cla68 (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but your threat was actually carried out. Not by you, but by some other member of that certain attack forum.  Now I'm sure it's just coincidence, I'm sure it's in no way linked to your threats.  Yep, just coincidence.  Guettarda (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the evidence supports that Cla68 made a "threat," or certainly that anyone else has acted at his behest. Mackan79 (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to have understood Brad's point at the top of this section. Just because someone posts something as "evidence", it doesn't mean it's accurate or true; quite the opposite, as a perusal of said evidence quickly proves. Anyway, if this decisions helps discourage various editors from making false claims about others (e.g. falsely claiming they are "Lying"), then we'll all benefit. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like sweeping statements in general. It is silly to say that all complaints by some people are baseless, and this applies to both complaints about behaviour by people from WR and people here. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In my involved view, it's most likely better for people not to suggest how this case will affect behavior, unless perhaps they have or are addressing specific criticisms of the decision. Mackan79 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That mysterious Additional Request
Getting back to more direct discussion of this case, just what is the mysterious "additional request" that is delaying the closing of the case right when it seemed to be about to finally be over? No new proposed decisions have shown up. Apparently, something is being discussed in private? *Dan T.* (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * one can only guess, and I'm sooooo bad at that it's better not to. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally reading metaphorical chicken entrails, but assuming people tend to present requests to the arb they feel most likely to welcome it, and assuming the arb who requested the pause in closure is the arb who received the request, you can sort of make an educated guess about which "pole" in the case is making the request, and therefore you can start to guess what sort of requests would be made, and then, if you factor in fact that the moon is in saggitarius right now, iocaine comes from australia, and that in global thermonuclear war the only winning move is not to play-- ... well, I lost my train of thought. :)  --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that they thought they had acted with unseemly haste from the beginning of the case til now and so now wish to slow down a bit for appearances sake. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's only been open for four months and five days, a few more won't hurt... Stifle (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A section of my evidence was titled "History of asking that procedures be extended". SV asked if she could submit evidence after votes to close another ArbCom were in, although there had been ample time during the case, and fragile editors were involved.    Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that (those SV diffs) for a different case? DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarified above to another: thought that was clear from "History". Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, I just wish that arbcom were as quick, and helpful, as you are. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure my edit above (adding another) was a good one, as the sentence now seems to make implications I didn't originally make, but whatever. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * {outdent} It may be my fault. I queried which version of PFoF 2(E.x) was going to be adopted. So it may simply be the time ArbCom needs to take to decide between 2(E.1) and 2(E.2) by email, as there's no obvious on-wiki mechanism to do that. --RexxS (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It could also be that they want to formalize what NYB and JP just said that evidence presented in the case doesn't necessarily mean something is a fact as long as the arbirtrators are concerned unless they specifically passed a finding making it so. If so, I can understand that they might need a few days of discussion to get the wording right. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah so desu.... Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Request that this case now be closed.
On the 19th, despite having a majority vote to close, this was halted on report from an arbitration committee member that "an additional request [had] arisen". It is now two days since then, and the additional request has not been disclosed, nor any further information released, nor any other activity on this case.

I think this is bordering on inappropriate action, and I think I should request one of the following to take place now,
 * The 'additional request' to be made public.
 * jpgordon to return his vote to close, and allow this case to close and make the remedies active.
 * Some other arbitrator making a vote to close, and allow the clerk to close the case and make the remedies active.

And to be frank, this does appear to be yet another black mark against the current committee in their handling of this case. The remedies should not be left 'hanging' like this, and I sincerely hope that the 'additional request' is not a last minute special pleading.--Barberio (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll just reiterate the same theme I've made before.


 * If the request, whatever it is, concerns something that only came up in the last week (and I expect that's the case), then one last pause to make sure everyone's had their say is probably fine. But if whatever request is being made could have been made a week ago, or two weeks ago, or four months ago, then there's a danger that even entertaining such an eleventh hour appeal might be seen as favoritism.


 * To find out, we'd ask-- are the rules being are evenly applied?  If, for example, Cla, a party whose "valued contributor" status is in dispute, had asked for a closed vote to be reversed so he could have time to make a special request, would the arbs in question have granted him that?  If yes, no problem, but if no-- then maybe Barberio's suggestions should be carried out. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Two new proposed principles are currently being voted on by the Arbitrators. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are these additional proposed principals the "additional request" or not? That is not at all clear from what has been posted by the arbitrators. DuncanHill (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem so. Josh asked for extra time, and just put up the two principles. But you could ask him directly. FWIW, I think they are good principles, just a shame that editors needed the sharp wrap on the knuckles. Jd2718 (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If they think we deserve to be told, we will be. If they think we don't deserve to be told, we won't. They read this page, but apparently learn little from it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We should be careful not to confuse the overall, massive delay with this request for a little extra time at closing. The former still needs to be addressed, carefully, soberly, after this closes. Jd2718 (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These two principles are, in fact, the reason for the time. User talk:Jpgordon. They are each at 4-0, so half a day would seem about right to close. Jd2718 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously Arbcom, and jpgordon in particular, have some decorum - this is starting to look like purposeful drama engineered for added oomph. --Duk 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of all the sitting Arbs, I think Josh is the last one who would stir up drama. Let's give them a chance to get this right. Jehochman Talk 23:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. They have had months to get this right, and just when it looks like they've finally pulled their fingers out, it stalls again, and none of them have the decency to say what this "additional request" is. DuncanHill (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the proposed principles per se but I think there is some unjustified flack being thrown at Cla68 over the evidence. If someone believes his evidence was too focused on little things, for instance, it would be worth getting some examples of what those were. I see two theories of presenting evidence. One only presents the most significant issues, on the theory that they're easier to assess, and that one or two very clear poor judgments are all that really matter. The other aims to show the volume of questionable actions, without claiming that any one is actionable by itself. It seems to me that some people here have assessed the latter as the former when that isn't the intent (there is legitimately poor evidence presented in this case, but I don't believe it is Cla68's). I also believe the clarification is based on a misconception of Cla68's comments, which didn't suggest that ArbCom had endorsed the evidence, but simply that the evidence is now available to assess the basis of future claims.

It's also worth asking, however, why did this request need to be private? Without intending to be too pointed about it, when I ask privately that my blocklog be expunged after an arbitrator suggests it, it's put up on AN/I of all places, without even asking me (surely a simple enough oversight, but all the same). If Cla68 requested a proposal in private, I can't imagine someone would do it rather than telling him to raise it on the page. Some editors, on the other hand, have basically postured as not recognizing the validity of this case, but now appear to be privately asking for a finding to disabuse Cla68 of the idea that the evidence raised here may be brought up in the future. I'm quite positive about the committee's recent efforts here, but that isn't in my view a good sign. Mackan79 (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Practice what you preach, ArbCom. It's your courtroom; attempt to maintain some order.
Though on its surface, this seems a reasonable principle, a close reading suggests a backhanded swipe at the community who elected them in the first place. You want order in the courtroom? There are simple steps you can take to maintain it yourself. Kick out the troublemakers--restrict those who make habitually unhelpful contributions from participating. Don't fire the Clerks who have the cajones do exactly that.

And do you really want that "peanut gallery" to disperse? Don't make them sit around for 3 agonizing months while while you threaten to dismiss a case (one that you accepted on its merits!) out of an apparent lack the initiative to resolve obvious problems without yanking the only truly responsive committee member out of retirement to do your difficult work for you.

There will always be clowns, trolls and hooligans (myself included) attracted to proceedings like this--but along with them you have a great number of respectable and rule-abiding contributors whose very confidence in Wikipedia's leadership has been shaken. But by letting them down, by refusing to reassure them with a show of strong leadership, by allowing the wounds this case has opened to fester indefinitely, you created an atmosphere where cries of the non-constructive complainers are tacitly legitimized. Having a hard time making up your mind? Taking a long time to sort through the mountain of evidence? A little communication every now and then wouldn't hurt, just to give the illusion that you haven't altogether abdicated your offices.

Despite my own ongoing whininess concerning these matters, I am reasonably happy with the proposals NYB and Bainer have effected. What I don't like is the cynical way in which you've--once again--painted the community as the villain. At the end of the day it's the Arb Committee (with one or two exceptions) who come away with the most egg on their collective face.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with this statement. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I mostly concur with the underlying point-- if you want order in the court, don't let the courtroom gallery get the impression that the trial has devolved into anarchy. Don't fire your bailiff for enforcing order. Take some time to reassure the gallery that justice (or its wiki-metaphor-requivalent) will indeed be served. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't take it personally. Behavior on ArbCom case pages routinely showcases some of the worst violations of our conduct policies to be seen anywhere on Wikipedia. A general principle to the effect that ArbCom has noticed this is welcome. It would be even more welcome to see it given some teeth, but only time will tell. ArbCom could have handled the case better - I doubt any sane person would argue that premise. I don't see this as shifting blame to the community, which would be futile in any case; there are very few people open to having their minds changed about this case at this late, late juncture. MastCell Talk 18:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Make adminship require periodic reelection

 * Adminship in wikipedia should not be indefinite, it should only last a certain amount of time, say 1 year for example, and then admins should be put for reelection. It will prevent many of the problems discussed here.


 * Desysoping is not a big deal, people can still edit and contribute to the project. They can always reapply for adminship and if they are found worthy by the community they will become admins again. If they aren't found worthy the second time then they shouldn't have been admins anyway.


 * All admins involved in this case should minimally be desysoped and allowed to reapply, it will allow the community the option to decide if they deserve to be admins or not.


 * Please act decisively on this case, many people worked very hard for a long time to get to this point, this whole issue is very detrimental to wikipedia credibility. Transparency and equality are indispensable in this project. To harsh a judgement will be much easier to correct with time then too lenient one, act boldly. Enemyunknown (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Reforming adminship is outside the scope of this case. If arbcom wants to desysop the four admins named in this case, that is their prerogative, but requiring all admins to stand for reelection is outside the purview of arbcom. --B (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to propose periodically subjecting administrators to re-election.
 * It isn't the prerogative of the ArbCom to approximate such a policy by desysopping admins simply because they have been challenged. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've beaten the WP:AMR drum louder than anyone. I agree with B & SD that this is hardly the venue to push for such a change, but if the community decides to make it happen, let me know how I can help.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Procedural question on edits to principles, findings, and remedies that already passed
It appears that FT2 has been making changes to many of the principles, findings, remedies, etc, after they have been voted on by other arbs. I think a lot of them are just grammatical changes but there are some that are now substantially changed. Doesn't this invalidate the votes? Don't all the arbs need to revisit them and strike or revalidate? I thought normally the process was that alternates were proposed and voted on, rather than the originals being changed, unless it was merely a grammar nit that was being changed. Perhaps if the arbs vote for closure afterwards, that vote constitutes approval? I hate to see this case drag on longer but I'm concerned some might rules lawyer about what the case actually said, since it was changed mid flight... ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Weakening of a statement, subtle alteration of a ban against threats to include 'warnings' unless 'proper', appears to be an unwise edit to a proposed decision after voting had taken place. Could that please be reverted. --Barberio (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the first diff you link to is FT2 changing his comment on that part of the decision, not the decision itself. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Sorry. The second one should still probably be reverted, as it does change the intent. --Barberio (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * when I looked at ft2's changes, I don't see that they substantively change the intent of the items. maybe slight changes in emphasis to some things.  YMMV.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Delay for an apology for the delay?
Please tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks delaying the closing of this - exceedingly long running - case whilst Arbitrators decide whether or not they should be apologising for how long it has taken (Proposed Remedy #6) is bordering on absurdity... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * welcome to en.wikipedia, have a nice day. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting way to put it but I'm afraid the absurdity goes beyond that extra remedy. The delay is also related to two additional principles. In a nutshell, the first says "the community shouldn't attempt to interpret ArbCom's silence", which is a very interesting concept given that the committee almost opted to dismiss the case, thus leaving the community with the ultimate act of silence. The second principle says "the community has to do a better job of handling arbitration cases with grace". Oh the irony... As for that extra remedy, well for starters, it's kind of interesting to consider a half-hearted apology as a remedy. I say half-hearted because of the mysterious reference to "reasons for this to arise". An actual remedy would be for ArbCom to disclose these reasons. Not in a specific "it was person X's fault" way, but in a way that can help both the committee and the community understand the deeper source of the problem. I find it very telling that the committee chose to apologize for the horrendous delays and not for the near dismissal of the case: in the end, the whole committee unanimously acknowledged the existence of real problems, going way beyond the "vexing but unsanctionable". Yet for more than a month, only one arbitrator opposed the dismissal. Yes, most people following the case found the delays ridiculous but time isn't the issue. For a long while, ArbCom decided that ignoring the case was a reasonable way of handling it. Now that deserves an apology. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that the committee was ignoring it is an assumption as would be saying that the delay was because the committee was involved in intense debate and locked into opposing viewpoints from which a workable compromise was impossible until NYB stepped in. We don't know which of these, or neither, was the case, for now.  So speculation on it doesn't really get us anywhere.  The important thing is that a decision is almost in the books, and, if enforced, should hopefully remedy the issues that required this case to happen. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "ignoring" is too strong an assumption but Occam's razor sort of forces that interpretation given that the proposed dismissal stayed on the table for that long. With regards to this case, having a decision in the books is indeed all that matters. But the problems encountered by ArbCom in this case clearly extend beyond simple disagreements about the evidence presented and these issues need to be addressed, not for the sake of this case but for the sake of ArbCom, its independence and its credibility. A reasonable first step would be for ArbCom to admit that such problems occurred but the new remedy about the unacceptable delay offers very little and in fact sends the signal that none of the underlying issues will be discussed publicly. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the community has a right to expect an apology, and given the length of this case, I don't think it'll matter if it is delayed by a few days - given how much it was delayed already, the effect is no different, except that at least there's an acknowledgement. My view is that the Committee should support proposed remedy 6, for their own sake anyway (in the light of what I've said here earlier). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would the Committee also apologize to John Vandenberg? Cla68 (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * beer shoots from nose I'd be unspeakably surprized for something like that to happen. Several arbs posted to his talk page that they'd like him to stay, those who did not know the WP:TRUTH from which they asked for him to resign.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the harrumphing on this. Whatever the situation was over the summer, since NYB's return and his taking the bull by the horns, the case has been proceeding appropriately and a slight additional delay at this point should not be a cause for alarm. Let's review the last few weeks: one arbiter proposed a decision on the workshop, takes in input, and then proposes a slightly revised version on the proposed decision pages. Reasonable arbitrator input ensues, including the tightening of remedies against one party. Motion to close, followed by a request for an additional delay, followed by contribution from one arbitrator noticeably absent before (and others) generating two new principles and an additional apology/remedy. Very reasonable and compelling arguments can (and have) been made for these additions. One could debate whether they could not have been put on the table earlier, and if they were not, whether their net benefit was worth the extra delay, but given the situation, the Arbcom taking the little bit of extra time to get it "as right as they can" seems to be far from untoward. The gist of the decision is clear and not at all likely to lessen in impact with another few days delay. Martinp (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, I think the item should read "The Committee acknowledges..." rather than "The committee acknowledge..." - can someone go ahead and correct this grammatical mistake? TML (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a mistake, just a particular variety of English. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, see American and British English differences... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Commitment not to discuss
I've been asked to commit to not bringing up this case or the history leading to it unnecessarily. I commit to doing so. Cla68 (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * err who would ask for such an unnecessary promise, and how should it be seen (particularly) in light of the immediately previous perspicacious remarks by Pascal and others...rhetorical question of course, although I'm curious as well luke (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Several people actually. They didn't ask me to never bring it up, just not to without good reason, if I understood their suggestions correctly.  I don't think that it's an unreasonable request.  If you'd like to discuss it in more detail, perhaps email would be preferable. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a fine and resonable gesture, and I hope the other parties can follow along as well. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * you do yourself an injustice...why should you bring up this case *unnecessarily*.... think about it :lol: luke (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The definition of "unnecessarily" is at the crux of things, isn't it? *Dan T.* (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've not been asked to commit to not bringing up this case. Which is good, because I intend to do so during the ArbCom elections this year, and following elections. --Barberio (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I you want a wound to heal, don't pick the scab too much. Good move, Cla68. Jehochman Talk 14:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That advice should apply to all participants, especially those who have continued to cast aspersions, not just Cla68. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not been asked not to discuss, but I think generally that moving on (and particularly, avoiding even the appearance of baiting) is good advice all around. Specifically, I'm troubled at the baiting of Cla68 that has already occurred on this very page, and hope that ArbCom will stick to its word on enforcement so that we all can move on. Inevitably, however, this case will be the source of many questions at 2008 ArbCom elections; the integrity of ArbCom is in question, and it's frightful to think where we'd be without NYB. But, I continue to be mystified by one proposed Finding of Fact, so now's the best time to raise the question. Several ArbCom members refrained from endorsing positive statements that couldn't be proven, yet did endorse one for which there was evidence to the contrary:


 * FOF 5(B). SlimVirgin has been an outspoken opponent of any sort of on- or off-wiki harassment or stalking of editors, and has commendably worked to call attention to serious problems in this area, ...

"Any sort of"? Harassment and stalking was at the center of the Zeraeph ArbCom, yet SlimVirgin enabled the behaviors of the person harassing me and others and her admin and other actions didn't work to protect the other victims of stalking and harassment in that situation. I don't know how anyone who knows all the evidence in that case can support SV as "any sort of" advocate for victims of stalking and harassment. So, this FOF is a mystery to me, and I hope ArbCom intends to keep an eye on the situation beginning next January. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm probably missing something obvious, but what happens next January? --B (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably . --NE2 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessary to bother with ArbCom. I will happily keep an eye on that situation, and I'm sorry I didn't see it developing the first time around. FWIW, SandyGeorgia's evidence does undercut the FoF, but at this point it's probably the lesser of two evils to put this case out of its misery rather than revisit it. MastCell Talk 17:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no intent to revisit, I was just curious at what seemed like a discrepancy in some of the findings (endorsing a positive finding for one party while not others). I'm all in favor of putting all of this behind us as soon as possible, and seeing all of the valued contributors return to doing what they did well.  And thanks, Mastcell; I hope there won't be any need for any intervention.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate and welcome Cla68's commitment. Let's draw a line under this. The hounding must stop. (Tony Sidaway) --82.18.14.143 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Request to Amend
Heads up to all who were involved: Based on recent events, I've requested Arbcom consider amending its decision in this case. See Requests_for_arbitration. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)