Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Proposed decision

Voting
How can this case be in voting already when there are no remedies and half the stuff on the Evidence page isn't reflected in the findings of fact? PurplePlatypus 23:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Whining
What good will it do to block me for 3 days? I'd just edit articles and stumble around Wikipedia like usual if I wasn't blocked -- I won't start any more massive wikiwars. Promise.

And I don't know how my creation of Template:User paedophile "can't be [good faith]." Everyone who was trying to undo Template:User pedophile's inappropriate speedy deletion while it was on TFD seemed to have abandoned it. I created User paedophile so people could actually see what they're voting on -- usually helps, y'know? It would be like having an election where people can only see each candidate's name. 03:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wanted people to see what htey were voting on, you should have put it in a comment on the TFD page (or a talk page somewhere). Recreating it (in effect, expanding the scope of the wheel war) was not an acceptable option. As to the length of the block, considering that multiple long-time users have said they are quitting over this, I think it shows that we are bending over backwards to be generous (in an attempt to let everyone "bury the hatchet") Raul654 03:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the same reason I was wheel warring. Obviously, both things can be justified (or else we'd be nuts) but neither was the best thing to do. Arbcom imposes petty blocks like these to force people to put things in perspective. Just take a Wikibreak for a while; in fact, I would advocate turning off the computer altogether for a good number of days. If you live in Boston let's go clubbing. Ashibaka tock 03:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * May I draw your attention to this edit on WP:TFD which added "Userbox saying "This user identifies as a pedophile" with two related symbols" to describe the content of the template. violet/riga (t) 14:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a note
I do not think I could handle being permanently desysopped over this. Thanks and goodnight. Ashibaka tock 04:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't sleep, so I'll try to explain myself, although I'm not feeling very coherent. I was only a week into my adminship, didn't know the proper process for resolving disputes between admins, and was trying to do the right thing. As an additional stress, I was assured that David Gerard (who had much more experience than me and could have told me what to do) would be included in the ArbCom discussion but he has been ignored-- not even a finding of fact except to mind that other people attacked him. Sorry if I seem angry. I'm not angry, just stressed and miserable. I wish this had never happened. Ashibaka tock 04:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, relax. I don't think you did anything that would necessitate such a remedy. Get some sleep, take a break if necessary. Cheers, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "I was assured that David Gerard (who had much more experience than me and could have told me what to do) would be included in the ArbCom discussion" - er, you could have asked ... Note also that, per the block log, I appear to have been third after MarkSweep and Doc glasgow to see the thing and go "wtf. DIE!" on sight. But hell, I wouldn't desysop you permanently over this. Wikipedia policy is a disastrous big ball of mud in general ... blah. - David Gerard 11:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically, when you have sysop back, do feel free to ask me or Raul654 or indeed any suitable admin for any guidance or sanity checks you might feel you'd like to. Get access to #wikipedia-en-admins, it's actually an on-topic channel which is good for sanity checks and so forth. (It's also a good place to rant about something pissing you off without actually acting on it ;-) - David Gerard 20:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can understand your confusion over what happened. My first suggestion if this happens again is to just stay out of it if you're not sure what to do. Or ask other administrators you respect&mdash;that's what I do. If you find yourself reversing the actions of numerous other administrators, that's probably not a good way to resolve a dispute. I'm almost a year into my adminship, and I'd hesitate to reverse another administrator's action without contacting him first. Look forward to you returning refreshed from your break. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And the trolls will rejoice
I'm sure our pals at wikipedia review will glow over Arbcom's admission that tenure is most important criteria in measuring our users actions  and that the user namespace is the correct venue to distribute negative views about the project. Could we at least try to make the findings sound objective? --Gmaxwell 06:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Raul's 12th law of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is not a forum for Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee exists to help the encyclopedia, not the other way around. All Arbitration Committee decisions involve some sort of cost-benefit analysis. Users who have a history of improving the encyclopedia can expect more consideration than those who do not." Sannse's corollary: "However, good behaviour does not in itself excuse bad behavior." Raul654 06:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that makes things as clear as mud. What seems to be being said here is that those who have behaved before can expect to receive more lenient treatment than those who didn't behave in the past, unless of course the person under arbitration has been poorly behaved. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Carnildo indefinitely blocked three users with long, well established reputations - Carbonite, El C and Giano. This constitutes an abuse of admin powers.". Raul, the *only* reason given in this finding that Carnildo's actions were in the wrong is that the users had well established reputations. If indeed the arbcom does not believe that behavior is more important than tenure the finding should read "blocked three users unproductively, without justifiable cause, and outside of the norms of our blocking activity.". Given the contrast between what could have been said and what was said, I think the position demonstrated in this finding is fairly clear. --Gmaxwell 01:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a nice example of cherry picking evidence while ignoring the obvious evidence to the contrary. To wit, remedies 4.0/4.1: "For his [Carnildo's] actions in this case (demonstrating particularly bad judgement in permanently blocking 3 other well-estalished users without prior warning for reasons that are - at best - disputable)" Raul654 02:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654, I wish to say this in the most loving and respectful way possible... but your density, sometimes, approaches that of uranium. :) You're attempting to demonstrate my error of cherry picking text which makes it look like tenure is a pertinent factor in this case, ... with more text that supports my argument. The tenure of the users here is completely irrelevant as a claim that Carnildo's judgment was in error is easy to support without invoking tenure. As it stands, blocking of the tenured is the only flaw in his action that is clearly spelled out... That the blocks were in error needs little justification, but by repeatedly mentioning tenure we can not escape leaving the perception that stepping on the toes of the tenured was not a primary factor in our decision against him. --Gmaxwell 03:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "As it stands, blocking of the tenured is the only flaw in his action that is clearly spelled out." - false. In one sentence it spells out three seperate reasons why Carnildo's actions were flawed - (1) that he blocked long time editors (2) without prior warning (3) for shoddy reasons. "The tenure of the users here is completely irrelevant as a claim that Carnildo's judgment was in error " - also false. It's simply a fact of life that administrators do base their judgements about whether or not to block someone based on realistic concerns like that and we would be fools to go about arbitration thinking otherwise. Raul654 03:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A substantial percentage of blocks made on Wikipedia are without warning, so I wouldn't expect that to be the primary cause to complain about his blocks. So we're left with tenure and "shoddy reasons". Shoddy reasons is about as vague as you can get, we might have as well said 'because we don't like it'. The reader is left to understand tenure as the primary factor because 'without warning' is a common action which has never caused deadminship or arbcom involvement (in so far as I'm aware), and shoddy is completely non-specific. As to your last point, I'm not sure I understand... Are you saying that the Arbcom supports the idea that someone's tenure is reason alone not to block them, because some admins would include this 'realistic concern' in their decision?  It seems that we've circled back around to my initial concern: If the tenure of the blockee is a primary factor in the arbcom's decision that a blocker was in error then the trolls will enjoy that you've confirmed their allegations of cronyism.--Gmaxwell 05:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "A substantial percentage of blocks made on Wikipedia are without warning, so I wouldn't expect that to be the primary cause to complain about his blocks." - and you base this on what, exactly? Futhermore, if you discount blocks for simple vandalism, I would strongly suspect that the *vast majority* of bans have some kind of prior warning. "... so I wouldn't expect that to be the primary cause to complain about his blocks" You assume (incorrectly) that we require a primary reason, or that such a distinction is even meaningful. "So we're left with tenure and "shoddy reasons"." - Again, this assumes that a primary reason is required or meaingful. "Shoddy reasons is about as vague as you can get, we might have as well said 'because we don't like it'." - Carnildo's reasoning was spelled out in FOF 6 ("For statements he interpreted as hate speech") and the exact actions he took were described in detail in the summary linked from FOF 1. In the remedy we classified this as "at best, disputable". None of this sounds vague in the least to me, and is in fact far more detail than we typically go into in a proposed decision. The reader is left to understand tenure as the primary factor because 'without warning' is a common action which has never caused deadminship or arbcom involvement - again, this assumes incorrectly that we are required to have a primary reason, and is mixed with utterly specious reasoning. Lots of people are bald, yet the arbcom has never de-sysopped someone for being bald. Are we to presume bald people are immune from being desysopped? Futhermore, try as you might to dismiss the other two reasons given because you don't agree with them, and redefine the question in terms of tenure, it doesn't make those reasons less valid. "As to your last point, I'm not sure I understand... Are you saying that the Arbcom supports the idea that someone's tenure is reason alone not to block them, because some admins would include this 'realistic concern' in their decision?" - sorry, but I haven't finished beating my wife yet. What I actually said was that admins do take length of someone's tenure into account when deciding whether or not to block, and we'd be fools not to recognize that. When an admin (permanently) blocks 3 long-time users (an action clearly deterimental to the encyclopedia), he'd better have exmeplary reasons for doing so, which were not present in this case - all of which was clearly stated in the remedy. "It seems that we've circled back around to my initial concern: If the tenure of the blockee is a primary factor in the arbcom's decision that a blocker was in error then the trolls will enjoy that you've confirmed their allegations of cronyism." - again, this presumes falsely that a primary reason is required. Second, it falsely equates the fact that we give priority to the encyclopedia (which, ipso facto, means giving consideration to the people who help to improve said encyclopedia) with cronyism. Raul654 06:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I ran a report a while back, I thought you were in IRC at the time. About about half blocks the blocking user had made no prior edit to the blocked user's talk page. Obviously this number overestimates reality because it fails to account for the case where someone else has warned and the case of high-speed obvious vandalism... but clearly blocking without warning is not infrequent. I just ran the numbers again, and using the same metric on the blocks since Jan 1st I find that 59% meet that criteria for unwarned. There are a couple other criteria that I can test with, I'll work on a report... I'm a bit shocked that a member of arbcom was unaware of the rampent blocking without warning that happens on Wikipedia.
 * Frankly I think you're sabotaging my attempt to raise a simple but serious concern by being overly wordy. I never said, as you accuse me of saying, there wasn't good cause to find fault in his actions but rather that the findings provided failed to raise these issues specifically and insted focused on the matter of tenure. You appear to be equating tenure to contributions, but that is a false relationship. If the arbcom is interested, as you claim, in putting the encyclopedia first by putting the interests of those who contribute to it first, then it should be considering this case in light of the responses by those involved, this doesn't seem to be the case when a more harsh treatment is being handed down to a user who has simply continued his positive work than to users who have been disruptive in response to this case. --Gmaxwell 23:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're falsly equating tenure to contributions w


 * I think we're on the same page here, just a difference in expression. I read the "long, well established reputations" bit as meaning not that that is why the blocks were improper, but that that is why they were particularly egregious, since in the case there can be no question of good faith, and no excuse for lack of warning and harshness. I dno't want it to be read as we object to blocking people with good reputations in general, but that we object to blocking without good cause, especially in that cause. Perhaps adding "without good cause" to the statement will clarify it. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If the arbcom wishes to claim that there "can be no question of good faith" then they should do so outright on the fact finding page. In my view, such a position is not even remotely supported by the evidence. Quite to the contrary, I would believe that tenure makes a user less deserving of a warning. ... Although that is only relevant when blocking is the appropriate action, which is obviously wasn't in this case. --Gmaxwell 03:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO, Being a long standing user does not in itself excuse anything. In fact, I believe Carnildo's blocking was worse because he'd been here a long time and should know better.  On the other hand, the ArbCom is all about encouraging future behavior, not about punishment. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear to all involved, at this point, that it was not a productive move. :) --Gmaxwell 01:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed remedy = Admin death sentence
The proposed remedy in several cases requiring that "Two weeks after this case is closed, he may reapply for administrative privileges" is for all practical purposes a permanent desysoping. I don't know how closely the arbitrators watch the current RfAs (they may be abstaining from voting very often because of their role as arbitrators) but at the present time any chink in the armor of a candidate has been sufficient to defeat them (with only 20-25% opposition required to do so). Having a RfAr sanction is a fair size chink in the armor. Those who receive this sanction will effectively be desysoped forever for what amounts to a few hours of poor (or perhaps very bad) judgement. A "two month desysop plus a one year probation on certain admin actions" would be a much lighter penalty than the "reapply for admin in two weeks" sanction, precisely because they will almost certainly not succeed in a new RfA. I strongly urge the arbitrators to study the recent RfAs that have ended in consensus not being reached (50-79% approval rate), you should be very aware of what requiring reapplication is going to mean in reality. I had thought the Guanaco situation would have driven the point home of how difficult reapplication to be admin can be. He has been desysoped for more than a year, and his still being here is probably an exception, many people in his situation would have left the project, and you may very well be creating more former Wikipedians now if you apply this sanction in this case. This proposed sanction will set a very bad precedent. Permanent desysoping (and required reapplication fits in that category) should only be applied to repeat and recalcitrant offenders, not those whose judgements fails them for one night. NoSeptember  talk  08:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What concerns me about this is that you are effectively saying that people should keep administrator status even though there would be nowhere near community consensus (as far as it can be measured at RFA, anyway) for them to have that status.


 * Should people keep administrator status automatically just because the community would NOT vote for them to have it anymore? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * NOTE: I'm not saying they necessarily should not - more bringing this up for consideration. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is a problem here. Useful and active admins tend to step on toes here and there. I doubt many of our more experience admins would be confident of getting 80% support in an RfA. If you combine that with the fact that any misdemeanor (no matter how trivial) that leads to a post-desysopping RfA will cause many to oppose on principle - Arbcom saying 'may reapply through RfA' realy equals 'may never again (or for a very long time) be an admin'.
 * The problem then is that Arbcom on borderline cases, not meriting a 'never be a sysop' response, have no option other than short suspensions of privillages - which may seem too lenient. By demanding full community consensus in an RfA, the community is actually denied its say, since Arbcom will be reluctant to use the process - other than when it is a 'slam-dunk' desysop. (I suspect the objections to the Stevertigo case were principally that an RfA was always going to fail, so Arbcom should have simply desysopped and avoided the humiliation of RfA.)
 * I'm wondering whether what is required is a 'reconfirmation process' for erring admins, where the community gets its say, but the hurdle is set a little lower. Say that an admin will require not the consensus, but only the broad consent, of the community (a clear 50-60% vote) to continue. That wouldn't be a 'death sntence', but it would be a strong deterrent to misbehaviour. If he/she fails to get that, then any future attempts will require normal RfAs. Just a thought. --Doc  ask?  10:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Even without an ArbCom sanction hanging over my head, I don't think I'd stand a chance on RfA: I've annoyed far too many people by removing unsourced or unlicensed images from their pet articles. --Carnildo 18:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of current admins who would not get 80% support if they had to do an RfA today. As soon as you get involved in a big controversy, you can lose that minority of support that is enough to defeat you. I fully support the desysoping of truly problem admins. What I'm saying here is, if Arbcom feels that an admin should be desysoped, I'm fine with that, it should be an option for serious offenders, but don't pass the buck to the community with the pretense that the community is deciding. A sanction of "Desysop without the right to reapply for one year" would be an honest sanction that does not pass the buck. By allowing someone to immediately reapply, you are giving the appearance of applying a lesser penalty than a very long term desysoping, and there is the danger that this sanction will be entered into more lightly than a permanent desysop because of the apparent wiggle room (that the community is making the final call). Unless and until all admins must go through periodic reapproval, applying reapproval only to certain individuals is an unfair application of the consensus principle, since many current admins would fail to pass if they had to apply now. NoSeptember  talk  10:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'd support permanently desysopping anyone over this affair. I'm sure it's been quite the learning experience for everyone. (You can be sure I'll be paying closer attention to admin logs etc. when I see something so stupidly odious my first reaction is "wtf. DIE!") - David Gerard 11:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel that if admins have to re-apply, even if it's just an automatic rule, rather than a result of disciplinary action, they'll probably always meet stronger opposition than they did when they were ordinary users seeking promotion. The reason is that admins, by virtue of their adminship, make enemies. They block people; they warn people; they point out rules. Even the less controversial administrators will have a fair number of people who hold grudges against them. AnnH (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the old issue of those with a problem shout loud while the content are apathetic. I think I'm searching for a solution that's more than a 'slap on the wrist' and not a permanent desysopping. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You guys might try 1, 2 or 3 month desysoping. Being without admin powers would be a frustrating penalty which would make one careful not to be abusive in the future. NoSeptember   talk  12:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Frustrating? Adminship can be a positive chore, and on a good day thankless, on a bad day leads to getting abused. Those who do it well now face the problem of reversing bad admin decisions and getting slapped across the knuckles by ArbCom (if they go ahead with 1RR), and getting abused by upset editors who were unfairly dealt with. Did I mention we don't get paid to do this? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * At least you have a choice of whether you are going to wield the mop or do normal content editing on a moment to moment basis. Once desysoped you do not have that choice.  I see very few people voluntarily desysoping, so there must be something positive about it ;-).  NoSeptember   talk  15:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, you are talking to one of the few. I voluntarily had myself desysopped before, now of course I'm crazy enough to be back at admin'ing, though not as involved as before. To be honest, there really shouldn't be any positives to admin'ing, other than perhaps a reputation for being such a good editor you were entrusted with some extra admin powers. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * About where I'm at. I hope that the lessons have spread wider than the participants, that's all.  —Matthew Brown (T:C) 11:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this discussion needs to go elsewhere, since it is more general that this case. In any case any change will not be agreed before this case is disposed. --Doc ask?  11:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't support routine reapplication for RfA, precisely because sysops do pick up enemies doing their job. We elected the Arbcom to make decisions, when an admin truly deserves to be desysoped, Arbcom should just do it, no need for the pretense that the community should do it (which is an open invitation for the sockpuppets and enemies to raise some hell at RfA). And yes, all of my comments above are really about policy in general, not this specific case. NoSeptember  talk  12:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Full agreement with NoSeptember. AnnH (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm reading something wrong
Excuse me if I'm reading something wrong here, but I think I feel from the above discussion that people somehow are considering being an admin some sort of badge of honour. It should not be &mdash; it's just some extra tools (really useful, true, but you can live without them), and with them some extra responsability. Just as gaining the sysop flag should be no big deal, losing it should also be no big deal. --cesarb 12:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It becomes a part of your persona and can mean a great deal to you. And if the duties are performed vigorously and responsibly mean a great deal to Wikipedia. Any time we desysop someone we remove someone who in addition to some mistaken nonsense was probably doing a great deal to advance the project. So, you're excused. Fred Bauder 12:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed it CAN mean a great deal to a person. but SHOULD it? Rhetorical question but if it does mean a lot, isn't that potentially a bad thing? ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, it probably should. Desysoping someone implies that you no longer trust them with the powers given them. I'd be upset, though I wouldn't leave the project (we are, after all, making an encyclopedia here, albeit in an unusual way). - Ta bu shi da yu 14:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Vicious circle
Many people apply extremely high standards in RFA precisely because it is so difficult for admins to lose their privileges. A common attitude is to avoid promoting borderline candidates, because if they turn out to be bad we're stuck with them.

A recent straw poll gives strong support for the suggestions that admins should be held more accountable for their (admin) actions than they are now, and that the ArbCom should be less hesitant about de-adminning admins who violate Wikipedia rules.

Thus, I predict that once the ArbCom uses deadminning as a sanction more often, the community will be less hesitant to promote candidates with past issues, because reoccurence of those issues can then be dealt with.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On a more specific note, in my opinion Carnildo should be sent to RFA but Ashibaka should not, since Carnildo's actions were worse, and since Ashi has already promised improvement.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, genuine remorse on Ashibaka's part. Fred Bauder 12:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

El_C's actions
I think the Arbcom is missing the point in regard's to El_C's actions. Shortly after being unblocked, he immediately blocked the person who had just blocked him with the reason "WP:POINT". The number one rule of being an admin is "don't use your sysop privileges in something with which you are personally involved". I am not saying he should not have his adminship reinstated, but I think the Arbitration Committee should at the very least caution him about using sysop privileges in a dispute he is involved with. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree. His threat/intimidation should not go overlooked either. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * John, can you say whether you're involved in this case as a party, an observer, or a clerk, please? If as a clerk, I'm wondering whether it's appropriate for you to be passing judgment. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As a clerk, although I'll recuse if you (or anyone else) thinks this has clouded my actions on the case. I don't see how having a personal POV would affect this -- we all have our biases, and I prefer being honest about them instead of pretending I don't have any. It's more fair to all involved that my personal biases be known so that if they appear to be seriously affecting my behaviour, I can be notified. Johnleemk | Talk 03:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not that holding an opinion is a problem, John, it's that you appear to be actively trying to incur a remedy against one of the parties, and I'd say that's something the clerks shouldn't be doing. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If I were actively trying to do this, I'd be doing a lot more than posting a couple of times to the talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 10:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But how is it consistent with your role as a clerk? You are supposed to address the matters of the case fairly - especially in a case like this, where El_C is absent it's the role of the clerk to see to it that his opinion is fairly presented.  I cannot see how that is compatible with you calling for harsher penalties against him.  Guettarda 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't recall the Clerks' office being created for this purpose. It's supposed to aid the arbcom with formatting proposed decisions, the workshop, summarising evidence, etc. If my evidence summary, etc. misrepresents El C, then tell me. If it's perfectly fine, then don't take offense when I am forthright about my personal opinions. Or maybe I should just STFU and forget about letting my biases show through. After all, it appears people would prefer not to know them, even if they exist. Johnleemk | Talk 11:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He did something that needed doing - Carnildo's actions blatently violated policy. It would have been better to let someone else handle it, but it was more important to send Carnildo a wake-up call.  In addition, the number one rule of being an admin is not don't use your sysop privileges in something with which you are personally involved - the number one rule of being an admin is "act in the best interest of the project".  While Jimbo's actions are understandable, the fact that El_C got caught up in it is both unfortunate and more than punishment enough.  As valuable a contributor as he is, the project should be begging him to come back, not adding insult to injury.  Guettarda 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocking is for prevention, not punishment. Admins can do everything but edit while blocked. So what did this accomplish? And since Carnildo was so blatantly abusing the power, what was keeping him from just unblocking? --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Having gotten caught by the autoblocker a few days ago, let me tell it, it's a huge shock. Unless you are angry beyond reason, it will give you pause.  As for the punishment issue - what I am talking about is calls for the arbcomm to censure El_C more severely - that is punishment.  As for blocks - they may be designed to prevent, not punish, but they end up as punishment anyway.  Guettarda 15:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would beg to differ. Reminding El C that intimidation (look at what he said on Carnildo's talk) and punitive blocks are a bad thing is a preventive measure -- not just for him, but for others. People will know the arbcom takes this seriously. Johnleemk | Talk 15:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is now fortunately incorrect, Phroziac! While blocked, all admin privileges are restricted (they would be as if a non-admin tried to access them), apart from blocking/unblocking. See bug 3801. And to Guettarda, cautioning El_C that he should not use his sysop privileges in a dispute is not a punishment, it is a warning. It's a very important one to send out. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wonderful. Now when responsible people get stuck behind the autoblocker, there's no remedy?  And here I was thinking that all the truly stupid ideas related to this mess had been worked out.  Guettarda 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I said, apart from blocking/unblocking. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggested remedy re Dschor and Paroxysm
I was simply wondering whether since Dschor and Paroxysm's offences relate to userboxes, and Dshor certainly has a history of disruption through useboxes [], that Arbcom might consider placing a restriction on them creating or editing further userboxes (perhaps during probation, or even longer). This will not prevent them playing a full role in the encyclopedia, since userboxes are at best peripheral to the project. I hope the suggestion is not intruding. --Doc ask?  18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I will second any motion or petition which will see Dschor banned from userboxes, placed on probation, or banned outright for repeated and premeditated trolling and disruption. I'm not sure Paroxysm is guilty of anything other than poor judgement when he created that first box, and a comparatively minor WP:POINT violation (relative to where Dschor put the bar) when he created the second one. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that the ArbComm require further evidence concerning Dschor, but this is of interest: Deletion review. He has requested that the template be restored. ENCEPHALON  23:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Admins can now say that they will block on sight editors whose sexuality they disapprove of, regardless of their edits, and this is endorsed by the arbcom? The message is absolutely clear. -- Grace Note.


 * Oh Grace Note... and just when I thought there was some hope for you yet. . In point of fact, no, admins are explicitely forbidden from doing what you suggest. Had you actually read the proposed decision, you would have seen this: "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policy . Although I am not a lawyer, I do not believe pedophilia is a legally protected characteristic in any jurisdiction in the world. Raul654 04:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say, this is rather disturbing. I crafted a template of an inoffensive nature, for my own use, and have been placed under an injunction on the assumption that I was trying to make a point.  It seems more likely that the ArbComm is trying to make a point at my expense.  I have requested undeletion of the template, as it was speedied out of process, and meets no criteria for deletion.  As of now, I am self-imposing a two week hiatus from userbox creation in an effort to demonstrate my good faith.  I do not feel that any further action is needed at this time, and will object strenuously to any other injunction or probation.  I maintain that I have acted in good faith, and hope that the Arbitration Committee will be generous enough to do the same.  --Dschor 00:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dog glasgow's evidence concerning Dschor is interesting when matched against the above comment - David Gerard 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Those interested in Dschor's good faith may be interested to know that five minutes after leaving the above comment, he restored hiss user page to include user pedo as well as text versions of it, of his WikiProject Pedophilia userbox, and a box opposing Kelly Martin for the Arbitration Committee (!) [I had previously removed them.] &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And don't forget about User pedophile project. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are free to draw your own conclusions regarding the actions of Knowledge Seeker in editing my user page - I have made it clear that I do not wish to have my user page altered, and that I request that editors who wish to alter the page discuss changes with me on my talk page. Thanks.  --Dschor 01:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * taken from your page: This user understands that no user on Wikipedia 'owns' any of its pages and welcomes the assistance of others in making this page perfect. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 02:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, the irony is thick... Raul654 03:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that statement is on my page, right next to the one that says "Please do not edit my user page without my consent. If something needs to be changed please let me know." Just because I welcome assistance, doesn't mean that I want people to censor me.  --Dschor 13:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A note re: Jimbo
I've stayed out of this issue, and intend to continue to do so, but I'd like to propose a finding of fact/principle that could be useful as a precedent outside this specific issue. I believe the AC should, even though it is obvoius and potentially redundant to say so, include a statement to the effect of: === Jimbo as the ultimate authority === 12. Jimbo Wales has ultimate authority on any matter. This is a foundation issue of all Wikimedia projects, and is beyond debate. Jimbo is in many contexts an ordinary editor and administrator who performs edits and administrator actions that are subject to being changed due to community consensus, and indeed encourages others to challenge his editor/admin actions when necessary. However, there are also instances where Jimbo acts in accordance with his ultimate authority, and it is expected and obligatory that every member of the Wikipedia community abide by his orders irrespective of the individual's personal view on the action. (Definition of "abide": Subject to criticism, outrage, comment, appeal to the Board, but not to be reversed, not to be warred over, not to be defied, in essence: not tampered with and accepted as final.) The Board of Trustees is empowered to review such decisions by Jimbo, but in the absence of a decision by the Board to overrule, Jimbo's orders are final, and must be treated as such. The community is free and welcome to comment on and criticize such actions, but they are not free, welcome, or permitted to reverse or otherwise act in defiance of such actions. Editors and/or administrators who act in deliberate defiance of an authoritative action by Jimbo are subject to sanctions, including blocking and desysopping, particularly temporary/emergency desysopping.

My intent in proposing this is to remind the community that when Jimbo acts as "the Founder," it is unacceptible to defy his orders. Certainly, it is acceptable to disagree, comment on, and criticize actions that one opposes, and doing so should be encouraged. However, the recent trend (I'm thinking back to the Category:Living People deal) to defy Jimbo's orders is disturbing and unacceptable. A common response to "Jimbo has the final say" is "No, the Board can overrule him" and this is often seized upon by those who do defy his orders. '''In the absence of an actual Board vote to overrule his decision, there is no justification for reversing or otherwise defying his orders. None, period.''' I'm speaking of active defiance, such as undoing a block or deleting a category, rather than something passive like refusing to block a user (as another admin can and will do it) or refusing to add articles to the disputed category. We are not automatons; we can refrain in protest from taking actions, but taking opposing actions (or reversing actions) crosses the line into the inappropriate. The community needs to be reminded that while the Board is an avenue of appeal from Jimbo's orders, it is not within the authority of the community to act in definace of his orders unless the Board has actually overruled him.

I realize that this is something that should be common sense to most users, but quite unfortunately, there has been enough support expressed for active defiance of Jimbo's orders for this to require restating. The community needs to be reminded that while we are free to disagree with Jimbo, we are compelled to respect that his authority exceeds our own. Essjay Talk •  Contact 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Most wikipedia editors are anti-authorities. You think they will accept Jimbo Wales as the ultimate authority?  LOL!  Castroski 05:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * They have no choice; he is the ultimate authority, whether they like it or not. As the foundation issues page states: "People who strongly disagree with them sometimes end up leaving the project." It's sad that people leave, but we have rules for a reason, and violating them for the sake of demonstrating that you don't like rules simply can't be allowed. Given that the Arbitration Committee accepted the principle, I would say that there isn't much discussion of whether or not it is the standard by which we act; not that it would have changed any if they had elected not to. Jimbo is the ultimate authority, and there is simply no getting around it; it is a matter of well-established fact. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 07:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I find this statement, and this sentiment, utterly dumbfounding. Perhaps I have misunderstood the point of this project entirely, but I am appalled - frightened, even - that anyone could even think this, let alone propose it. Extraordinary. ElectricRay 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's his site. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In what way? Not, so far as I can see, in terms of funding, nor in terms of contribution. Now, I suppose you might say that that's beside the point: Wikipedia is the ultimate social contract - there are rules of engagement, such as those stated above, and one has the option to leave if one doesn't like the rules. Since membership is voluntary one can have no complaint about that. But I don't understand those to be the rules, and if they are they should be writ large on the front page of Wikipedia so no-one can miss them. And if they are, a lot more people will leave than just me. Does it not strike anyone but me that the above statement is highly reminiscent of a certain sort of political organanisation that is generally frowned upon these days? (sorry for being eliptical - I don't want to be acused of trolling or flaming). ElectricRay 15:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * His seed money paid for the first servers. He and the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation are the supreme authority on Wikipedia. The Board owns the servers, and Jimbo is Chairman of the Board (last time I checked). So, no, this is far from frightening or appalling. Wikipedia (and all its sister projects) have been run this way for years without any hitches. Is it a dictatorship? Hell, yes. Is this wrong? Hell, no. Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is hosted on the private property of the Wikimedia Foundation, and as long as it is, Jimbo and the Board have the final say on what goes down. Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's just about money, then i'll give him the damn money and donate it back to the foundation, provided they put them under GFDL like all the content that's inside of them. The rest of what you just said is just plain sickening. Just because Wikipedia isn't a Democracy doesn't mean it's a Tyranny. Karm  a  fist  18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Do kindly explain how you release money under a content licence. And Wikipedia is a tyranny, my dear friend; wake up and smell the coffee. It's a benevolent dictatorship, with Jimbo letting us do what we like, butting in every now and then when he thinks we're fucking up. And if you're going to deny him his property rights (to evict you from his servers by, say, blocking you from editing), well, you can always fork. Johnleemk | Talk 18:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright then: I suggest that this statement is posted on the front page of the Wikipedia site: "Wikipedia is not a democracy. Jimbo Wales has ultimate authority on any matter. This is a foundation issue of all Wikimedia projects, and is beyond debate. It is unacceptible to defy his orders." If you wouldn't agree to that, then why not?  17:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not? It should probably be somewhere prominent in the welcome messages, etc. Johnleemk | Talk 17:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think on the main page. There should be no doubt about this whatsoever. How do I go about formally proposing this? ElectricRay 17:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk:Main Page. Don't forget that Jimbo himself can veto the proposal, or his minions (e.g. pretty much any Wikipedian who accepts his and the Board's authority) can agree not to let it onto the page. :p Johnleemk | Talk 17:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, forgot one note: While Foundation issues mentions that the ArbCom as a potential exception to Jimbo's final authority, the Arbitration policy specifically states [r]emedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to veto by, Jimbo Wales as well as Jimbo's own disclaimer when he created the AC that he reserve[s] the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. Just a clarification before someone says "But Foundation issues says..." Essjay  Talk •  Contact 01:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is at all appropriate, I second this motion and urge the ArbCom to adopt it in part or in full. It can't hurt, it can only help. Hamster Sandwich 01:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Has the Board ever overruled Jimbo? And if so, how long did it take to do so? --Aaron 16:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I doubt they ever will.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo is in many contexts an ordinary editor and administrator who performs edits and administrator actions that are subject to being changed due to community consensus...


 * This is hard to take seriously. It is usually completely unclear when Jimbo is making an action as an ultimate authority and when he's making an "ordinary" action as an editor or administrator. As long as he makes little or no effort to draw this distinction anyone reverting any action of his does so at her peril. - Haukur 16:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know about an "ordinary administrator", but it's pretty easy to see his actions as an "ordinary editor": anything he does that an ordinary editor can do can be construed as being the actions of an "ordinary editor", unless he explicitly says so in an edit summary or commentary. I saw an example mentioned earlier where a stub he created was speedied by another admin who did not receive any disciplinary action. Creating a stub is something that an ordinary editor can do. I think trying to define Jimbo as an "ordinary administrator" would be a difficult exercise, but defining him as an "ordinary editor" is certainly quite easy to do. --Deathphoenix 18:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I won't dispute that it is often hard to tell which is which; I was just trying to make the point that there is a distinction, even if it is difficult to determine when it has been invoked. I'm sure if we asked him nicely and explained that we're frequently confused, he'd be willing to make himself more clear in the future. Essjay Talk •  Contact 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to propose a codicil to this section. If Wikipedia users couldbe blocked, banned or otherwise sanctioned for disregarding one of Jimbo's edicts, there should be an easily referenced page somewhere that outlines said dictums. Could save a lot of distress in the long term. Hamster Sandwich 18:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oooh! I like that! Something like Binding Decisions from Jimbo, WP:BIND. Essjay Talk •  Contact 19:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, just getting JW to say 'this a binding decision' would be a start. As Haukur says, this is "usually completely unclear", and in construing them as binding after the fact, in the absence of any clarity, leaves anyone interacting with him rather in limbo.  (Raul says requiring mind-reading, though even that's only sufficient if said project leader is clear in his own mind at the time that he's acting in that capacity.)  Come to that, an updated and clarified definition of JW's "special role" would be useful;  the "ultimate authority" statement on meta has been flagged with "this is changing" for 16 months (meaning it's still changing?  never did?  changed back?), and JW has himself rather downplayed the nature of this, if memory serves.  Alai 03:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Jimbo could have two accounts, one for when he wants to edit normally and just make suggestions (e.g. the userboxes request he posted on his page), and one for when he wants to make binding proclamations and the like. Or he could type in ALL CAPS, or suffix his proclamations with "I AM THE LAW!" :-) Seriously though, anything to make it clearer. the wub  "?!"  20:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose he add "esto perpetua" (Let it be perpetual); my first thought was "ex Cathedra," but some wouldn't find that funny. (Ex lege (from the law) and ex officio (from the office) would work too.) ;-) Essjay  Talk •  Contact 22:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Jimbo generally does make it clear - I have seen edits like "I am editing as a normal editor here.." And in the use of a block, when has Jimbo ever blocked someone where he didn't really mean it - being blocked by Jimbo is not a "normal administrator action". In general, he has asked the proper channels to review his decisions - as here. But I think it is safe to assume that his actions in furtherence of the mission of the project and is not an ordinary editor unless he says so in the summary or the talk page after an edit. Trödel&#149; talk 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not generally clear to me, I must say. I don't much mind if he "opts in" to GK mode, or "opts out" to being a normal editor, just so long as we have some clarification of what the presumption should be.  I don't know when he has or hasn't, my mind reading powers are insufficient.  Your interpretation may well be correct, but I've never seen any statement that JW never acts an ordinary admin (though evidently he doesn't think any admin's actions should be reversed without prior discussion, as I understand the working definition of "wheel warring").  Proper channels:  but see below, where the arbcom state that they are not the proper channel for such review, due to the foundation issue and arbcom scope criteria.  (Though no-one has objected to borrowing their talk page for this purpose, at least so far.)  Alai 22:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He could make it a little clearer, but generally i figure he his acting authoritatively unless he says otherwise. :) Trödel&#149; talk 12:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That'd be the "safe" approach, at any rate. I'd presume, or at least like to presume, that he's not doing so when he makes "ordinary-looking" article-space edits (if you'll pardon me begging the question), though if they're accompanied by imperative-sounding edit summaries that further fuzzies the issue.  Alai 01:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course as I read these comments again - I am asking myself why you are asking for clarification. IMHO, you have always shown better sense than me in properly interpretting peoples actions/comments. Trödel&#149; talk 03:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not ask him? Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I probably will, in due course. Right now I'm trying to determine which of the about half-dozen questions I'd like to get pinned down there's at least some general feeling of consensus on, and which are the most pressing.  Alai 02:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification re my 2-day sysop revocation
Just so I'm crystal clear on this, what action(s) merited the 2-day sysop revocation dealie (which appears to have passed)? Is it my altercation with David Gerard, my single restore, or a mixture of the two? I'd just like to be clear on what merited the revocation—not protesting it in the slightest. God knows I deserve it. Should have just kept my nose out of the whole business. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A combination of the two. Raul654 03:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a fast response. Thanks, Mark. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And to be clear on the "altercation," for me the desysop-worthy part was the vandalism warnings/block threat. Dmcdevit·t 03:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In an unrelated case, an administrator similarly 'warned' another established administrator, not once, but twice; and did not apologize for it or retract it, as BorgHunter has done, but instead spent some time on the case's workshop defending it. The finding against BorgHunter, especially its strong language, seems overly harsh. Demi T/C 00:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Reprimand

 * "Carbonite, El C, BorgHunter, MarkSweep, and Violetriga are reprimanded for inappropriate use of their administrator tools, and are instructed to exercise more caution in using them in the future."

Just thought I'd question this as I'm not really sure how my actions were that different from those of Jimbo. Yes, he has higher authority, but deleting something that is offensive, as this was, is hardly worthy of a reprimand especially when the majority are already showing that it should be removed. Further, the TfD was updated to show the content of the template and the only real use of the template was within one persons user page (and that was as a joke). It's a userbox, not a massively important part of the encyclopedia. violet/riga (t) 10:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am arguably at least as much at fault as violet/riga. If you're going to make this decision, I should be joindered to the case. In any case, I don't think it is particularly just to throw everyone in together when each acted differently and at different times: at the very least it should be
 * "The following users are reprimanded for inappropriate use of their administrator tools:
 * Carbonite: block contrary to WP:BP (User:Joeyramoney)
 * etc.
 * I would be particularly interested to know what is held against MarkSweep, who seems to me to have acted with admirable restraint. Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "cautioned to exercise more care" (or restraint) might be a better wording than "instructed to execise more caution", depending on exactly the arbitrators wish to express. Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So...
... I undeleted one of Doc glasgow's deletes. Does this mean I have engaged in Wheel Warring? I was going to unblock Netoholic because of Radiant's block: I didn't get there because another admin beat me to it, but I would have done it. Does this mean that I have engaged in Wheel warring? Does this mean that I should be desysopped. If so, get it over and done with. I won't leave, but I also won't be a useful to the project. A bit rough on poor old Netoholic also, might I add. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions in the proposed decision
Hi, I think there are a few contradictions between the proposed principles, the findings of fact and the proposed remedies. Firstly, the proposed principle 10.2 about Wikipedia being open to all is at odds with finding of fact 6, where Carnildo is declared to have "misused" admin powers for blocking three people who declared their intention to breach the Foundation's non-discrimination policy. While only one of the people Carnildo blocked had actually blocked someone for including the template, blocking is preventative and El_C's statement "Block on sight. No quarter. El_C 14:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)" is very clear on the actions El_C would take faced with a similar situation. Carnildo's indefinite block (a distinction between infinite needs to be drawn here) against Carbonite and El_C is clearly a preventative block intended to stop them from breaching the Foundation's policy. The Foundation's policies trump all community-created policies, such as our blocking policy.

There is also the case that the proposed principle mentioned above, 10.2, is at odds with various proposed remedies, where the people who threatened to block self-identified paedophiles (in breach of the Foundation's policy) are getting off in some cases without even a warning, while the person who took measures to prevent them from doing so will be desyopped. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that pedophilia is covered by the Foundation's non-discrimination policy, nor is pedophilia considered "protected" by any jurisdiction that I'm aware of. The Foundation's policy does specify "sexual orientation", which refers only to "...the sex, sexes, gender or genders, to which a person is attracted and which form the focus of a person's amorous or erotic desires, fantasies, and spontaneous feelings." (emphasis is mine) In any case, a blocked admin is still able to use their blocking powers. Carbonite 18:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, Carnildo's block for "hate speech" was made an hour after I posted a message  that I was no longer interested in editing (this remains true though I will clear up any misconceptions in this case about my actions). I had also already requested to be voluntarily desysoped . In fact, the request had been granted  before Carnildo's block was even made. Carbonite 18:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not, but I think the intention of the policy is clear. Block for what people do, or intend to do, rather than for what they are. I don't think Carnildo was necessary right to block you or the other two people he blocked - it was overreacting - but I don't think it was an abusive action as his actions were grounded in Foundation policy. It's like blocking a vandal for 48 hours instead of 24 hours, it's not misusing your administrative privileges, but it is being overly harsh. You are correct in pointing out that a blocked admin is able to use their blocking powers, I believe this is a bad idea (admins should only be able to unblock themselves while blocked - in case of an autoblock), and I have in the past attempted to get this stopped (see bug 3801). Talrias (t | e | c) 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact I did state that I intended to block users for what they did (the action of adding the "pedophilia" template). You're free to view this as inappropriate, but the argument that it contradicts the Foundation non-discrimination policy is simply false. Honestly, I have no plans to return to editing here, but I would greatly appreciate not being falsely accused of violating a non-discrimination policy. Carbonite 19:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Wikipedia is open to all means it is also equally open to those who think pedophiles should be banned. We're talking about conduct here, not beliefs. I can personally believe in the sanctity of edit warring and personal attacks, but unless I'm acting that out, it's of no concern to the encyclopedia. It follows that we still find Carnildo's actions a misuse of administrator status because the actions he took were wrong, even if the principle he justified it with is sound. Imagine I block you indefinitely for being a troll; sound principle, block trolls, but misuse of administrator status, because you're not a troll, Talrias :). And I find it likely that Carnildo's block was not preventative. Remember, he blocked for "hate speech," not for being rogues. And the fact that he blocked a non-admin at the same time as two admins strongly suggests it was not preventative. Also, there is currently a warning-like remedy, proposed by me last night. Dmcdevit·t 18:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically Carnildo blocked two non-admins (myself and Giano) and one admin (El C). I do realize that Carnildo almost certainly believed that I was still an admin at the time the block was made, but he should have realized from my talk page that I wasn't active at the time. Carbonite 19:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The mention of the Foundation policy there isn't intended to imply that blocking self-professed pedophiles is a violation. It's just to make what the circumstances that justify banning more clear. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Carbonite, actually you said that you would block anyone adding that template or otherwise identifying themselves as a pedophile - if you want to call that 'for actions' then it is for the 'action' of saying/being something you didn't like. You now say that you know of no 'jurisdiction' where such 'action' is protected. Try the United States... Canada... United Kingdom... a good portion of the planet. NAMBLA membership is legal. They are allowed to say they are pedophiles. They are even allowed to claim that sexual relations between adults and children is healthy. They aren't allowed to actually have sex with children (for the record that's an 'action'). What you did is discriminatory under US law. If Wikipedia were government funded or hired/paid us for the work we do here that could be a problem. However, since Wikipedia is a private foundation it is allowed to discriminate... just as churches are allowed to exclude people from their congregations if they aren't members of the religion or contravene it's tenets (though not allowed to so discriminate on who they hire for non-religious work). There seem to be quite alot of crossed-signals on whether Wikipedia does or does not discriminate. My understanding to date has been that we do not, but the overall impression I'm getting (pretty much directly stated by Jimbo) is that going forward we will on specific cases deemed harmful to Wikipedia's image, as decided by the ArbCom. The number of us who are ACLU members or otherwise consider this, in itself, harmful to Wikipedia's image is probably less than the number who oppose free-speech for pedophiles. Nazis it's probably a toss-up. Banning self-avowed homosexuals (as some in this case argued for) would probably be a net loss to our reputation even without the free speech/civil liberties issues. I'd rather not draw a line at all (or remove user pages entirely to make an 'even playing field' in eliminating all self-expression), but I understand the practical concerns. Essentially, my position is based in ethics, yours in morals, and Jimbo's in reality. :] --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 12:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't exactly true — there's a difference between "protected" and "legal", at least in the United States. There are certain specific protections in federal law regarding employment discrimination, housing discrimination, etc., like race, age, and gender, but "wanting to have sex with kids" isn't one of them.  You could legally reject someone for that as sure as you could reject them for being a convicted criminal, or having a bad credit history.  Some states (not the federal government) have made "sexual orientation" a protected attribute, but so far as I know, none of them have gone so far as to say that includes pedophilia.  Just because the federal government won't arrest you for something doesn't mean that other people can't completely ostracize you for it (without breaking any laws).  —Cleared as filed. 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Note re. SPUI
The decision says he created Template:User paedo, but it may be of interest that he created it twice at User:SPUI/pedo as well, as well as his reaction to the block. Ral315 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

SPUI
I don't think we should be banning SPUI for long periods of time for this. The creation of user paedo was blatantly inappropriate, but rather funny. He's constantly doing stupid stuff and causing trouble (see his block log...), but this wasn't much of an offense. --Phroziac. o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but we should be blocking him now and again to remind him not to act like a borderline dick. It might be humorous to some, but it didn't help the issue. I doubt he's stupid; he must have known it would be like waving a pink cloth at a bull, in absence of a red. Rob Church (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Me again
I performed one restore, and that to allow people to look at the page while it was listed on TfD. How is this a misuse of admin tools? I acknowledge and regret my comments to David Gerard, and understand them to be inappropriate, but I refuse to call my single restore inappropriate or wheel warring. I merely misunderstood the magnitude of what was occuring, and didn't realize that there was a massive wheel war in progress. I wouldn't have restored had I understood it properly, considering that I try to stay out of those situations. In addition, Carnildo and Ashibaka are not reprimanded? Out of this whole case, the reprimands section absolutely boggles my mind right now. I'm not quite sure what to make of it. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When you undeleted it, had already been deleted three times and restored twice. Do you not look at this before undeleting? The deletion log appears directly underneath the "restore" button. And if you were aware of this, why don't you feel you were contributing to a wheel war? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'd go with Hanlon's Razor here. As I recall, I glanced at the deletion log and saw "delete per consensus at TfD" or something to that effect. I then went back to TfD, checked the date on it, tabulated a rough percentage, realized that someone had made an apparent mistake, and performed the restore. I made an attempt afterward to perform a null edit (adding a period or something) to the template to explain my restore, so as not to unduly piss anyone off, but it doesn't look like it went through. Stupidity on my part...yeah, probably, and I should have given the deletion log more than a cursory glance when I rushed off to restore. I'll go along with "be more careful" for sure, but I don't think I should be "reprimanded." —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you managed to do all that in the single minute between me deleting the template and you restoring it. You probably missed the 20:10 consensus at the time to delete (it took me several minutes to count up the votes before I plucked up the courage to delete), and by your own admission you missed the chaos that the template was causing elsewhere. I don't hold any grudges over it&mdash;that was clearly a crazy evening (European time)&mdash;but your hasty action could easily have been avoided and had to be reverted by Jimbo in person. I would slap you on the knuckles with a wet herring, but apparently this is not an enforcement measure which is recognized by ArbCom so they're formally telling you to take more care in the future. Physchim62 (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * They're also formally telling me that I'm a dick and should go sit on the naughty step for a bit (though not in so few words). That's what I take issue with. I don't hold any grudges either, not even against David Gerard (to whom I have not given enough credit), but I don't like being told that I have been abusing my admin powers when it was a simple mistake. If I was abusing my admin powers, then you were by deleting it...and you obviously were not. Moreover, Ashibaka and Carnildo did far more to escalate the situation than I did, though I think it was largely unintentional on their end as well. I agree; it was a crazy evening, and when I saw that Jimbo undid my restore, I was more than a bit shocked (though I saw his point...and it's his site, so who am I to argue?). But hey, live and learn. I'd just like to get this behind us. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I have to agree with Physchim. While I don't think you intended any harm (did something about my statement imply malice?), I would certainly urge more caution in the future. Glancing at the most recent line in the edit log without seeing the other four entries is hasty indeed, as is undeleting a page one minute after its deletion. While administrator actions are not sacrosanct, a modicum of caution should be taken before undoing them. In my time on Wikipedia, I've seen several mini–wheel wars occur because one adminstrator didn't understand why another had blocked, or deleted, or some such action, and without bothering to fully investigate or ask the original administrator, unblocked or undeleted. Taking two minutes instead of one to review the circumstances might have avoided prolonging the conflict. I think a reprimand is appropriate for undoing the work of other administrators without taking the time to briefly investigate the circumstances or seek clarification from the other party. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * No, nobody's saying you're a WP:DICK, just that you made a bad call rather too hastily. Ashibaka and Carnildo aren't reprimanded because they have much harsher penalties against them. As for why admins who acted to delete the template aren't reprimanded, there are probably as many different replies as there are arbitrators at the moment, although Raul seems basically to be saying that the decision to delete was right and that we shouldn't be reprimanded for enforcing a correct decision. Nobody is particularly proud of the way it degenerated into a wheel war, and each of us has a four-page essay to write on "Alternative Dispute Resolution". Oh, and an encyclopedia to write as well... Physchim62 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (another edit conflict) And you're correct that Ashibaka and Carnildo behaved even more poorly, and that's why their penalties are more severe than yours. Assuming the current trends continue, while your administrative powers will be restored after two days, Ashibaka must wait 2 weeks. Carnildo's powers won't even be restored at the end of the two weeks: he must reapply for them at WP:RfA. And if you follow RfA at all, you know that the chances of a desysopped user regaining administrative powers is slim, especially soon after the event. I'd guess it would take several months at least. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, putting a vandal warning template on an established user's talk page, when they are clearly not engaging in vandalism, is kind of a dick thing to do. However, I think BorgHunter is being unequally singled out, perhaps due to the rapid nature and high emotions of this case, per my comment above. Demi T/C 00:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed decision problems
There are a number of statements in the proposed decision that are misleading or false.


 * Dschor's recreation of the Pedophilia template
 * 10) The day following the incident, Dschor created Template:User pedo, an almost identical copy of the original pedophile userbox (The original having said "This user identifies as a pedophile." whereas Dschor's version said "This user is interested in pedophilia.")
 * This is a contradiction - the templates cannot be almost identical, given the difference in content noted. To claim that Template:User pedo is an almost identical copy of the previous templates is to ignore the content of the templates.  This item should be changed to be factually accurate, or removed entirely.  The heading is simply a lie - there was no recreation.  The template I created was new, different, and intentionally not offensive.


 * Dschor
 * 6.1) Dschor's recreation of an almost-verbatim copy of the pedophile userbox was extremely foolish and purposefully inflammatory. For attempting to aggravate the dispute in order to make a point, Dschor is banned from Wikipedia for 2 months. Additionally, he is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes.
 * This statement (and 6, immediately preceeding it) is false. "Almost verbatim" implies a lack of difference that is inconsistent with the evidence above.  Recreation implies that the template had been deleted and then created again - this is not the case.  It may be true that my creation of a new template on the subject was "foolish", but to claim that it was "purposefully inflammatory" is to eviscerate any intention of assuming good faith.  I made no attempt to aggravate the dispute - my attempt was to find a "middle ground", where all parties could be satisfied.  The ban proposed is highly irregular, and particularly troubling given the lack of any attempt to resolve the issue through dialogue.  I object in the strongest terms to all mischaracterizations made here, and request that I be removed from the RfAr, as the central issue (wheel war) does not apply to my case.  I move that an RfC be opened instead, where concerned parties can make their case, and a more productive outcome can be acheived.  --Dschor 13:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Assume good faith until strong evidence appears to the contrary." Doc glasgow's evidence is sufficient for me.  I shall tone down the wording, as you have a semantic point, if a minor one.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please take a close look at Doc's edit history, and you may see why his evidence is less than sufficient. Please assume good faith, and take a look at the compromise that I have proposed.  Doc has been doing subtantially more trolling than I, and his edits have been intentionally provocative, unlike those that I made in this case.  I think it is what is known as "calling the kettle black".  --Dschor 09:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is, on its face, ludicrous, and your going around calling Doc glasgow a troll (it's not just here, by the way) is rather close to a personal attack. It doesn't really matter who presents the evidence anyway. Dmcdevit·t 09:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And Doc calling me a troll is somehow not similarly close to a personal attack? My compromise suggestion is not ludicrous - it is a fair way to deal with a situation that obviously has provoked an excessive reaction.  Doc's so called evidence hinges on what he terms a contradiction - that I could have created a less offensive user box without seeing the original.  Of course I can't see the original, because I am not an administrator, but I did draft a neutral user box appropriate for flagging an interest in pedophilia, which I felt was a legitimate use of a userbox, and presumably a middle ground between advocacy and condemnation.  My good faith has been assailed by an editor who shows an obvious distaste for userboxes, and who has consistently trolled TfDs by editing boxes in a provocative and disruptive manner.  I don't think his take on the evidence is the only possible interpretation - in fact, I think it reflects his bias quite clearly.  --Dschor 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Waggers
Please be nice to Waggers. He is new to Wikipedia and naturally assumed that really important pages would be restricted from edits by ordinary users. I think it's great that he could just wander in and vote; it makes me appreciate Wikipedia all the more. --Tony Sidaway 23:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I shouldn't have been so snappy. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad smoddy! Go to your room! *rolls up newspaper* ;-) I stopped by and left him a nice welcome message to stem the fallout from your newbie biting. :-D Essjay  Talk •  Contact 00:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

An unsolicited analysis of Template:User pedo and Template:User pedophile
On one hand: The ruling says that Template:User pedo is a recreation of Template:User pedophile. The templates have completely different graphics and completely different text. There is an ocean of difference between being interested in pædophilia and being a pædophile.

The latter template may well have been created with the intent to troll&mdash;I don't know, I'm bad at guessing people's motives&mdash;but it's patently not a recreation of the original template. Nor are the templates "extremely similar".

On the other hand: It seems the graphic of Template:User pedo has now been removed but if memory serves it was some sort of pædophile logo with something like intertwined hearts. In the context of a logo like that a reader might reasonably guess that someone using that template was sympathetic to the idea of adults having sexual relations with children. That's not a very helpful userbox in my opinion and can reasonably be seen as trolling in the context.

A userbox saying "this user is interested in national socialism" would not be worse than the average userbox, in my opinion, but if it had a swastika on it then it could be interpreted to mean that the user was sympathetic to the ideology (though I would not interpret it that way myself). The swastika, though, is a neutral symbol in itself. It's just a geometric shape with no obvious meaning to it. But the pædophile logo I'm trying to remember could be interpreted in itself to express support for the idea that sexual relationships between adults and children are frequently happy. Thus it could be seen as more inflammatory than a swastika.

In summary: I think the ruling's references to Template:User pedo being a recreation of Template:User pedophile are wrong. But I still think that Template:User pedo can reasonably be seen as an inflammatory template. I have no idea if it was purposeful trolling or an attempt to come up with a userbox on the subject which people could live with. Haukur 10:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a failed attempt at the latter, apparently. --Dschor 23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What about Jimbo?
Given this: would a finding along the lines of and a remedy of be out of line? Yes, Jimbo is the ultimate authority. Yes, the arbcomm serves at Jimbo's pleasure. Yes, Wikipedia is a project not a democracy. But it strikes me that it is a project that is run fairly and therefore no one is completely above criticism. Not even Jimbo. I WISH I had thought to raise this earlier as I am about to go on a plane for a few hours and won't be able to respond. My apologies for the tardiness of this suggestion. and my hopes that it is considered in the spirit it is offered, constructively and with the greatest of respect for all parties. (not really necessary to state that, it goes without saying, but I guess I did anyway) Forgive for having the temerity to even suggest this! But on the other hand, the fact that I feel (at least somewhat) comfortable in doing so is proof that I perceive this project as being run fairly. (go check my user page, it still has "user trusts Jimbo" on it and that does NOT change in the slightest because of this suggestion... trust != "believes never can make a mistake"... trust == "believes will do the right thing eventually")++Lar: t/c 11:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Jimbo may have acted hastily in at least the case of his remarks to User:Radiant!"
 * "Jimbo (and all other parties) is/are cautioned that, even in fast moving wheel wars, it is important not to lose sight of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL"


 * Jimbo, go to your room. No, I'm firm on this, Jimb. You've been a bad boy and the community says you must be punished. Straight to bed with no supper, m'lad. Oh for god's sake... Rob Church (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's anything wrong with a finding of fact that places Jimbo in the wrong -- even GodKings make mistakes. Any remedies against him would likely be unenforceable, however. Still, there's nothing preventing the arbcom from including Jimbo in the findings of fact, whether in a positive or negative light. Johnleemk | Talk 11:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that Jimbo's actions stopped the wheel war where all else had failed, I think any attempt to criticize him on this one would fall under WP:SNOW. Physchim62 (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jimbo's actions are not above criticism. Here's mine, for example: The wheel war was a tempest in a teapot which did no harm to any outward-facing part of the encyclopedia. It would have died out on its own without any action from above and outstanding issues could have been worked out through our normal channels.


 * Jimbo intervened by blocking User:Joeyramoney. This was unnecessary and far too harsh as Jimbo later realized and unblocked him. He also scolded User:Radiant! for doing the original unblocking. This was also unnecessary and unhelpful as Jimbo later realized and apologized for. Summary removal of sysop tools from selected participants in the dispute has driven away good contributors. I don't think it was necessary or fair and I doubt it will have beneficial long-term consequences.


 * Jimbo does a good job of being the outward face of the Foundation and participating in major policy decisions. It is unnecessary for him to intervene in trifles such as whether a particular template should be deleted or whether a particular newbie should be blocked. If he wants to see his role as similar to that of Queen Elizabeth he shouldn't act like Commodus. It is unseemly and unnecessary for him to play gladiator in silly wheel-wars and it has eroded my confidence in him. Haukur 12:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Criticising Jimbo is not our job as a committee. That doesn't mean you can't.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, I'm not entirely sure how this process works/if I'm allowed to comment here, but as it's a talk page I'm gonna go ahead and comment. If it's out of line and this is only for ArbCom members, I apoligize.  But I personally think that a short comment acknowledging that it he may have acted hastily would not be out of line - he said it himself, and it would be a fairer finding.  I do echo both of the sentiments expressed by Lar that " no one is completely above criticism." and that though he is the ultimate authority, Jimbo is not infallible.  And a short sentence in the finding would not fall under WP:SNOW, as there is no process involved by which it "would not stand a snowballs chance in hell of being accepted." --jfg284 you were saying? 13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Jimbo is not completely above criticism. No-one is.  But the ArbCom is not who should do it.  It is not our place as a committee, even if we agree as individuals.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the place to comment. I don't know what to think about this other than if there is a collapse of civility and resort to wheelwarring it can be expected to come to the attention of Jimbo and he will get excited also and will probably take a hand in matters. He may not do precisely the correct thing but those who are throwing their weight around will be not be able to when the dust clears. Fred Bauder 13:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom lacks jurisdiction over Jimbo: As a body reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation Board, which has the ability to direct the Committee to reach a verdict or otherwise act in a particular way, the Committee has no jurisdiction over the members of the Board (Arbitration Policy, Scope 7). As such, they can't find any facts, propose any remedies, or take any actions related to the appropriate or inappropriate nature of Jimbo's actions: they simply lack the jurisdiction to consider his actions in any form. Pretty much all that needs to be said. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is flawed, of course, as it assumes that the Board never act as ordinary editors, contradicting statements elsewhere that they do. (Though see earlier section on "how to tell the difference".)  The arbcom should be able to point out, such and such a board member acted questionably in their ordinary editor capacity, even if actual sanctions are pretty much a moot point.  (Or that they should have made clear they were acting as a board member, come to that.)  Should the need arise, which I'm not asserting is the case here.  But that's been pointed out before, so I don't imagine it'll be rendered any more consistent any time soon.  Alai 22:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dschor's probation
"...Dschor is banned from Wikipedia for 2 months. Additionally, he is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes." Is this probation indefinate? I don't follow all arbitration cases but my memory is that probation is normally explicitly time limited. Thryduulf 12:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll add that he can appeal it after two months, per other rulings. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds okay. Hey, maybe you should make some templates for common remedies.  --Tony Sidaway 16:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Closing this case

 * This is a copy of a note on the clerks' administration page.

Because this is a very controversial case and it's moved unusually quickly, the Committee is considering having an arbitrator perform the close--someone who has been party to the discussions on the mailing list and has a sense of the feel of the committee on this. I agree, and suggest that we hold off unless explicitly requested to perform the close ourselves. --Tony Sidaway 22:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)