Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 3 Arbitrators are recused and 4 are inactive, so 4 votes are a majority (of the 9 active, 2 have recused).

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Requests for adminship

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Bureaucrats

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Consensus

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Raul654 00:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Advantages of consensus

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Problems with consensus

5) Consensus requires patience and experience and in some cases may not work at all, see Consensus#Drawbacks and Consensus_decision-making#Criticisms.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] The effect of failure of consensus

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Administrator conduct

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Second chances

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Decisions are final

9) In the absence of a successful appeal or reconsideration, a decision by the Bureaucrats such as the closing of a Request for Adminship is final.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Appeal of a decision by Bureaucrats

10) A decision such as the closing of a Request for Adminship may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Such an appeal can consider whether the policies which govern the closing of Requests for Adminship have been followed.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I don't want to sign up for that job ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. I concur with Epopt. I think we need to trust the bureaucrats to make the hard choices, and abide by their decisions when they make them. Raul654 23:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Bureaucrat is not a sinecure, but a position of responsibility, as this case makes clear. The system may need review in some way, but I agree that appeal to the AC is not the best kind of solution. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Criticism welcome

11) Criticism of administrative, arbitration, and bureaucratic decisions is welcome.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Not in itself problematic. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Wouldn't this contradict the many Everyking cases? Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Molasses is sweet, the Boston molasses disaster was not. Fred Bauder 02:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    Touché. Raul654 17:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Being upset

12) Within limits, it is acceptable to be upset at a decision or a situation which provokes strong emotion, to blow off steam.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. I think it is wise to accept this principle, as a concession to human frailty; it is not a policy matter. It is subject to proportionality: stakeholders here will be upset by certain things, but that is not a reason to make it every little thing. We also expect an everyday robustness. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Wikipedia is not a battleground

13) Wikipedia is not a battleground brands campaigns of political struggle as inappropriate activity.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Raul654 01:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Disruption

14) Users who engage in sustained disruption of Wikipedia by engaging in inappropriate activity may be blocked temporarily by administrators or banned by the Arbitration Committee, or Jimbo. The community has made it abundantly clear, over the course of many discussions that they do not feel it is appropriate to "troll" on Wikipedia, or to engage in disruptive behaviour. While there is some dissent over method of enforcement, and over whether individual Wikipedians are or are not engaging in "trolling", there is little or no dissent over this underlying principle.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Disruption by administrators

15) Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 18:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Return to administrative status of desysopped administrators

16) Experience has shown that having engaged in bad behavior in the past, it may be difficult for a reformed administrator to pass Wikipedia:Requests for adminship due to the requirement for consensus. In some instances, it is better for requests for restoration of administrative status to be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee rather than submitted to RfA. In exceptional cases a reformed administrator may be resysopped despite a failed RfA.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Raul654 14:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Per Epopt (principle 11)
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy

17) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous and respectful to other users and avoid personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Assume good faith

18) Users are expected to adopt a convention of assuming good faith when dealing with other users. This precludes derogation of other users based on their status or the tasks they perform.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Raul654 17:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) - I think it's perfectly appropriate to judge people by what they do
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion of controversial decisions

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 23:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Productive policy discussion differentiated from trolling

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Policy not to be made by exhausting everyone else's patience. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I don't like the wording of this one - in principle I'm OK with the general idea, but IMO unproductive policy discussions are not trolling. They show poor negotiation/argument skills, unwillingness to compromise, etc etc. but they are not deliberately disruptive - rather they reflect deeply held positions, often, and deep divisions between people. We should encourage users trying to fix division, yes, but failure to do so isn't trolling. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. I concur with both Jayjg and Morven. Raul654 17:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Extremely subjective. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baiting

21) Baiting or harassing of other users is disruptive.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 01:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC) - It originally said "Baiting or harassing of other users as a tactic of political struggle..." I have removed the 'as a tactic of political struggle part. As for Jay's objection - per FOF 8, I think that John Reid's oath of fealty and subsequent comments could be fairly described as baiting.
  4. Per evidence and revised wording. Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

:#No evidence of baiting in this case. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

See [1] Fred Bauder 21:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taking the bait

22) It is disruptive if a user, especially an administrator, habitually responds in an emotional manner to provocative material.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Not relevant. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Concur with Jay - I don't see anyone in this case to whom this would apply. Raul654 17:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A mixed system

23) Wikipedia is owned and controlled by the non-profit WikiMedia Foundation. It utilizes a vast number of volunteers who perform nearly all editing and administrative duties. The administrative duties include limited bureaucratic processes, and a quasi-judicial dispute resolution structure. Status within the volunteer component is achieved in a variety of ways, excellent editing being one, sensible and effective discharge of administrative duties being another. In general, decision making looks to consensus, although exceptions are frequently made in appropriate circumstances if they serve the interest of the project, building a reliable and extensive reference work.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Raul654 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC) - Given how some of our most productive users have been treated during this case (and in the light of Ambi's observations on the arbitration mailing list), I think this principle is not just a bad idea but downright dangerous to the creation of an encyclopedia. It legitimizes the idea that users are replaceable and therefore expendable.
  2. Per Raul. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Contributors are valued

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 03:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Respect

24) The volunteers which do the work on Wikipedia include a diverse group of editors, copyeditors, fact checkers, administrators, and many other specialized pursuits. All are entitled to respect, including those who hold formal positions of "power". Struggle for political power directed at other users is grossly inappropriate and disruptive.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Raul654 18:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC) - Per my objection to #23, and as written I find this principle to be incompatible with principle #11 ("Criticism of administrative, arbitration, and bureaucratic decisions is welcome") - who is to say what is criticism versus what is "struggle for political power"?
  2. Per Raul. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Seems to come in at the wrong angle. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Blocking of administrators and other wheels for disruption

25) Administrators and other high status users, including productive editors, who seriously disrupt Wikipedia may be briefly blocked. In extreme cases they may be desysopped or banned.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Per my objection to #23. Raul654 17:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Per Raul. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

26) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over behavior disputes. This includes whether users have conformed to policies and guidelines. Issues which involve the behavior of the Arbitrators themselves and those closely associated with them present difficulties but remain our responsibility, see this comment by Ghirlandajo for a contrary view.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. with the note that those who are unhappy with the arbcom can turn to Jimbo for appeal. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Raul654 02:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Return of access levels

27) Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. User who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion.

Support:
  1. Raul654 14:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC) - Note, I have changed under 'a cloud' to under 'controversial circumstances' per the talk page Raul654 23:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Carnildo

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Implies that the Arbitration Committee supported his re-adminship. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Perhaps we should say with the permission of the Arbitration Committee. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps, I remember an exchange which was at least favorable to the idea. Fred Bauder 18:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resysopping

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 17:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Failure to achieve consensus

4) Due to strong opposition to Carnildo's RfA there was a failure to reach consensus, see analysis by Richardshusr, analysis by Tim Smith, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay#Questions_for_the_candidate and discussion above regarding supermajority.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Raul654 21:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Closing of Carnildo's request for adminship

5) Carnildo was nominated for adminship on 18 August 2006 and on 5 September 2006 he was promoted. Six minutes later the bureaucrat who closed the request, User:Taxman, gave a full description of the decision and said that bureaucrats User:Danny, User:Rdsmith4 and he himself had decided, on the belief that Carnildo's desysopping in February "was meant as a temporary measure, a cooling off period" to "reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom." [2].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Opposition to closing of RfA

6) Following the closing of Carnildo's request for admin considerable criticism was expressed concerning both the novel two-month probationary period granted and the closeness of the poll, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/archive3#Making_it_up_as_you_go_along, User_talk:Carnildo#Resign_your_adminship, and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_68#Carnildo.27s_re-promotion.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Raul654 14:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Giano's role in opposing the decision

7) Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) had legitimate reasons to oppose Carnildo's RfA, having been one of the victims of Carnildo's hasty and ill-considered blocks. He continued after the decision to vigorously oppose it stating, "Before you even begin to tell me to think of forgiveness and people being deserving of a second chance, just remember this: Carnildo has never once expressed regret or remorse let alone apologised." [3]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] John Reid's role in opposing the decision

8) John_Reid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) posted to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, posting a demand that each Bureaucrat declare their adherence to consensus "call for statement of fealty"; a few courteous responses were made by Bureaucrats. The course of the discussion on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard with diffs is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings_of_fact#Bureaucrats.27_noticeboard. A portion of the interchange is archived at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/John Reid. Of note is repeated baiting of the other participants in the discussion [4] [5] [6].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 01:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Kelly Martin

9) Kelly_Martin (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), a former Arbitrator with a long record of devoted service to Wikipedia, vigorously defended the decision [7], citing the support of the Arbitration Committee during discussions on the Arbcom-l mailing list. Her defense included the unfortunate language, "I applaud these three bureaucrats for having the moxie to break from the stifling expectations of the pseudoconsensus that typically erupts from any given Request for Adminship and instead evaluate the broader picture and make a decision that reflects more than merely the shifting moods of a fickle and ill-informed populace." Following hectoring of Kelly Martin by those who opposed the decision Kelly Martin left the Arbcom-l mailing list and resigned her administrative, checkuser, and oversight roles, see User_talk:Kelly_Martin/Archives/2006_September#Quite_enough.2C_thank_you.21.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Raul654 17:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Tony Sidaway

10) Tony Sidaway took upon himself the burden of fielding criticism of the decision, in two instances briefly blocking vociferous objectors. He participated aggressively in the various forums which discussed the issue, often responding undiplomatically and aggressively [8]. His role as clerk of the Arbitration Committee aggravated his offenses. He was blocked by the community for 24 hours and requested by the Arbitration Committee to resign as clerk, see discussion of block which also contains his consistent defense of undiplomatic response to provocation User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2006_09_24#Loaded_words.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 17:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC) - I altered the above slightly to remove the "When baited" part
    The portion removed read, "When baited [9] he consistently fell into the trap, responding aggressively [10]." Fred Bauder 21:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Giano

11) In addition to opposing Carnildo's RfA [11], Giano vigorously protested its favorable closing, posting a series of over the top comments which condemned Wikipedia's power structure as corrupt [12] [13] [14]. Placed in the context of the comments of other objectors to the decision Giano's comments, while inflammatory, do not stand out. Giano then, aided by a few others, entered on a campaign of political struggle based on a theme of institutional oppression [15] [16] [17].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Giano II

12) Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), in frustration, destroyed his access to his account, after what he viewed as an inadequate response by the Arbitration Committee to Tony Sidaway's actions [18]; he now edits as Giano_II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). It has been suggested that his access to his original account be restored and that the comment regarding "hate speech" be expunged from the block log of Giano.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] JoshuaZ

13) JoshuaZ (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) blocked Tony Sidaway for 24 hours giving this justification, the diff mentioned is this comment by Tony Sidaway. Wikipedia:Blocking policy does not specifically provide for a block of this nature, but it was accepted by Tony Sidaway, see User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2006_09_24#Community_block_of_Tony_Sidaways_is_hereby_proposed_discussion_of_block for an extended discussion of the block.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Raul654 22:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Geogre

14) Geogre (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has engaged in an extensive political struggle based on the position that the administrative structure of Wikipedia is oppressing those who do the editing. This is expressed in a wide variety of forums, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive#Admins_who_don.27t_edit_articles for extensive expressions of his viewpoint and this for a particular expression.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. This doesn't look like a "political struggle". Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 17:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Drawing the line between legitimate campaigning, and 'politics', ought to be easy, based on 'assume good faith' in those whose judgement is questioned being respected, or not. While AGF is a most important component of being here in good standing, I'm not exactly comfortable about pushing on down this line of reasoning, in this case. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. I feel that Geogre has failed to assume good faith in some cases, as have those who have opposed him. However, I don't think it's very relevant to this case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irpen

15) Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) called for a 1-3 day block of Tony Sidaway [19]. This was discussed at length and ultimately done. Although an extreme action, it had sufficient basis and was made in an appropriate forum.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 14:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Jdforrester

16) Jdforrester (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), an Arbitrator, erred by intruding into the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard with an edit with the section heading "You're all idiots". Although the content of the comment was intended to be helpful, it had the effect of throwing gasoline on a fire.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Inksplotch is not a sockpuppet

17) InkSplotch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is not Kelly Martin's sockpuppet, as established by Checkuser, and remains an editor in good standing.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 17.1 Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Likewise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Checkuser on Inksplotch does not find sockpuppeting

17.1) CheckUser does not indicate that InkSplotch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is Kelly Martin's or anyone else's sockpuppet.

Support:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 15:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Raul654 14:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Carnildo restored to Administrative status

1) Exercising our continuing jurisdiction in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Carnildo effective September 5, 2006 Carnildo (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) is restored to Administrative status, subject to review by the Arbitration Committee in November, 2006.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Per FOF 5, I suggest we defer this decision until early November (2 months since the promotion) to review his administratorial actions and decide on what to do about his probationary admin status. Raul654 18:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes, confirm later. Charles Matthews 19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. agreed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Reid is banned for one week

2) John Reid is banned for one week for violations of Wikipedia is not a battleground, baiting the Bureaucrats with his oath of fealty.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. After re-reading his comments, I have changed my mind and support this remedy. Raul654 14:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
# Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
# Jayjg (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Too strong, it was over quickly, time has passed.
  2. On further reconsideration, per George's observation on the talk page [20], I think it might be best to drop this finding. Raul654 13:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. I've been having renewed doubt about this one as well. While I don't condone John Reid's behaviour in the least, I don't feel that his being the only person to earn a ban for this whole episode is necessarily just. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. It was wrong, he shouldn't have done it... does it merit a week ban? I am not convinced it does. Raul654 01:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Reid is strongly censured

2.1) John Reid is strongly censured for violations of Wikipedia is not a battleground, baiting the Bureaucrats with his oath of fealty.

Support:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Just because I've reconsidered a ban on John Reid does not mean I consider his behaviour in this case to have been at all appropriate. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Too weak Fred Bauder 19:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 12:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Kelly Martin thanked

3) Kelly Martin is thanked for her long and honorable service.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 18:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Tony Sidaway suspended

4) Tony Sidaway's administrative privileges are suspended for one month due to failure to respond appropriately to legitimate distress by other users.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Raul654 14:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC) - See alternate proposal 4A
  2. Per Raul. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. prefer 4a Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Tony Sidaway's sysop access

4A) Per principle #27 ("Return of access levels") the Arbitration Committee finds that Tony Sidaway gave up his sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get them back through the normal RfA channels.

Support:
  1. Raul654 14:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Giano II

5) Giano II may, if developers cooperate [21], be restored to access to the account Giano, and the block log of that account may be modified to remove any reference to "hate speech". He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Geogre desysopped

6) Geogre's administrative privileges are suspended indefinitely. They may only be restored by action of the Arbitration Committee. This is based on disruption resulting from sustained aggressive political campaigning. Continuing violations of Wikipedia is not a battleground are incompatible with administrative status.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Absolutely not. None of the evidence justifies this at all. Why is this even proposed? Raul654 14:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    Because the evidence supports it. Fred Bauder 19:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Ridiculous proposal. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. I don't see that Geogre's behaviour warrants this. He has not misused his admin status nor said he is going to do so, nor does his behaviour meet the level of disruption required to remove admin status due to lack of trust. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Commented under FoF. Charles Matthews 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Jdforrester reminded

7) Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 14:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Kelly Martin's sysop/checkuser/oversight access

8) Per principle #27 ("Return of access levels") the Arbitration Committee finds that Kelly Martin gave up her sysop, checkuser, and oversight access under controversial circumstances and must get them back through normal channels.

Support:
  1. Raul654 17:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 19:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

[edit] Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. It looks like everything has passed. I move to close. Raul654 00:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close Fred Bauder 01:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Not perfect, but the case needs to be closed. Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. Charles Matthews 19:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)