Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. 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. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, 12 Arbitrators are active (excluding 2 who are recused), so 7 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Motion to dismiss

1) As the continuance of this case is doing more harm than good, this case is dismissed.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To my regret, it has become apparent that no useful result is going to be obtained. I cast this vote in spite of, and not because of, uncivil remarks that have been directed against members of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. We have issues that need to be addressed by the Committee. FloNight (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The buck stops here. Mackensen (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Deskana (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No. Heaping abuse on the Committee must not be legitimized as a way for a party to get their case dismissed. Kirill 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I believe we have a responsibility to hear the case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC) No.[reply]
Abstain:
# I'd like to see us get some good out of this, but little progress is being made, and this shouldn't go on much longer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Injunction

1) Until the case is closed, editors who speak uncivilly, disparagingly or insultingly, to make a point in a manner proscribed by WP:POINT, or who breach WP:HARASS in connection with this case, in gross bad faith, or otherwise act disruptively (each interpreted broadly), may be banned from the pages or discussions in question for up to a week by any administrator or by motion. Such a ban may be enforced by a block of up to a week if breached, and may be reversed by application to the committee. Users are warned that in view of prior disruption, and allegations that some users have been considered unblockable in the past,[1][2][3][4] sanctions will be applied to breach of this measure. The restriction applies to any party in this case, and to any person with a significant involvement in discussion of this case or matters pertaining to it, and it applies to any conduct or edit that is related to this case (or matters in its purview). Before a ban is placed under this injunction, a warning shall be given with a link to this section.


Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC) The community is expected to consider criticism, well spoken and rationally discussed, including criticism of its structures, principles, leaders, administrators, arbitrators, processes, and decisions. Users are not obligated to see parties and involved persons (on whichever side) slug it out on a dozen different venues in the wiki, including flows of insults, bad faith, gaming, and verbal savagery better suited to the school yard and street gangs. For the remainder of the case, and apologies to all; we should have done this long ago.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I certainly have no objection to calling for civility and good behavior in the context of arbitration cases. See for example Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Conduct on arbitration pages, which I drafted. I particularly deprecate the practice of making personal attacks on the arbitrators. However, this case is already more than five weeks old and is desperately overdue to close. It is far too late in the day to be speaking of temporary injunctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I believe that closing the case is the better solution. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 19:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Better to dismiss or close now.[reply]
Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Wikipedians are expected to observe dispute resolution guidelines

1) Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, a policy, provides a series of steps for the resolution of disagreements or grievances Wikipedians may have with one another. Airing a dispute on project pages in violation of this policy is disruptive and is prohibited. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, a guideline, states that illustrating a point through parody or a breaching experiment is, generally, disruptive.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In general I agree with this. There are nuances of the formulation that are arguable, but they are not sufficient to affect the outcome of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Once a dispute becomes evident, the matter should switch to resolution methods such as discussion of the underlying concerns, with help if needed, not escalation into edit wars. Basic. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Paul August ☎ 19:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC) With caveats per Brad.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Reversion not a substitute for discussion

2) Wikipedia:Reversion states, "Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encouraged to explore alternate methods such as raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in dispute resolution." When disputes arise among experienced editors, consensus should be built and demonstrated using the talk page instead of through repeat reversion, even when the content in dispute is clearly problematic. (See WP:LIVING for exceptions)

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]
  2. In the vast majority of cases, and certainly once more than one revert has taken place. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Second choice. Reversion is a simple assertion "I think that's wrong". Wikipedia is based upon consensus decision making, which necessitates and mandates discussion why it's considered wrong and how to find a wording that the community as a whole can live with rather than squabbling.[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. I'm not sure it's necessary to mention the WP:BLP exceptions in the context of this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Paul August ☎ 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Reversion not a substitute for discussion

2.1) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than disruptive editing. Editors involved are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war and for helping the debate move to better approaches, if they wish to contribute. Edit warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is widely agreed to be harmful, and not to be undertaken. With only a few exceptions, this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC) First choice. This is the main principle and a better general guide for future direction.[reply]
  2. Either 2 or 2.1 is fine with me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 02:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Distant second choice. We have noticed and discussed in previous cases that often editors/admins are not aware of the actions of other admin/editors that are happening contemporaneous to their own actions. This seems to be a flaw in the wiki editing that is exacerbated by topics of high interest when emotions are running high. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 2nd choice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second preference. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Paul August ☎ 19:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. this one is fine too. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruption by administrators

3.2) Administrators act as role models for users in the community. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Even if no misuse of administrative tools took place, administrators whose actions are inappropriate and disruptive risk being desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Addressing Kirills point. First choice.[reply]
    (Fine with jpgordon's correction, also addressing Deskana's thought) FT2 (Talk | email) 07:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Kirill 02:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With same caveat as above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice, with emphasis on the may. Deskana (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'd consider "risk being desysopped" an improvement on "may be desysopped". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice but I would also make Jpgordon's suggested amendment. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC) First choice.[reply]
  11. Paul August ☎ 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Administrative tools

3.3) Administrators have access to additional tools to be used in a proper manner for the benefit of the project. Apart from a very few exceptions clearly agreed in each case by policy, the use of administrative tools in respect of a page (or a user) where an administrator's neutrality may be in reasonable question, is likely to be considered unacceptable.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) As discussed.[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Last choice if none of 3, 3.1, 3.2 pass. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 19:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Last choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I support the spirit of the principle but think it is not needed as other principles work better for this case. FloNight (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Pages are not owned

4) Wikipedia:Ownership of articles provides that Wikipedia pages are not owned by particular individuals or groups. Even on those pages where relatively narrow conventions exist regarding who may edit, the community at large is expected to enforce the convention, not the individual or group who, by convention, edits the page.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Proposed.[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Fred has a point so I can not support this wording. FloNight (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Fred's right. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 19:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Simply wrong. This page, itself, is owned, and we enforce that, and do with respect to other arbitration pages. It was not unreasonable for the person responsible for IRC to feel justified in maintaining the policy page about IRC in conformity with his understanding of IRC policy. Fred Bauder (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Fred. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Scope of communal editing

4.1) Whilst almost all pages (including policy pages) may have their content decided by communal editing and consensus-finding, some pages may contain or describe matters that are not within the community's discretion to change in this way.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) As discussed. Relevant to a number of pages on the wiki.[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. True and relevant to this case. FloNight (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Statement of the obvious, but true nontheless. Changing the IRC page in an attempt to change something in the channel is not particularly likely to change the way people behave. Deskana (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure I agree, and even if true, I don't think the finding is germane to this matter.[reply]
    See eg m:Foundation issues. Seems to be germane. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Trivially true (e.g. the text of the GFDL), but not really relevant here. Kirill 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Eh. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Does not apply here.[reply]
  5. Per Kirill; not really a principle. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Arguably a policy issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Support:
  1. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deskana (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Duplicates earlier points somewhat. But probably worth saying. Second choice.[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is fine but I believe we will have to address the duplication among these remedies prior to completely closing the case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Paul August ☎ 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC) With caveats.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum

5.1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Alternative (to go with 6.1 and 8) to minimize redundancy. Kirill 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC) First choice at present..[reply]
  4. First choice if 8 passes. FloNight (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. Deskana (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC) In favor of 5.[reply]
Abstain:

Decorum: fair criticism

6) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.

Support:
  1. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deskana (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I see this as the most important principle in this case. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Paul August ☎ 19:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Criticism

6.1) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the normal expectations of appropriate conduct.

Support:
  1. Alternative (to go with 5.1 and 8) to minimize redundancy. Kirill 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice if 5.1 (instead of 5) and 8 passes. FloNight (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Since many of the findings overlap, we may have to do some copy editing on the final decision.[reply]
  6. Second choice Deskana (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC) In favor of 6[reply]
Abstain:

Decorum and discussion

7) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Frank discussion of matters affecting the project is valued, and users are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders.

However, to make such dialogue useful, there is an expectation that users will approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive collaborative outlook, and will avoid behaviors that are forbidden by policy as being unconstructive or harmful. Editors who have genuine grievances or concerns are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism and arguing, and to accept a communal consensus when finally achieved. Users should not respond to hostile behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be calmly brought to the attention of the community.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC) First choice, merging 5+6 which overlap, cleaning up the flow of both, fixing omissions caused by the overlap. Length less than the two combined.[reply]
  2. Last choice Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think this blurs the major points too much; the basic expectation of decorum goes beyond the context of critical discussion. Kirill 03:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see benefit in keeping them separate as Kirill says. FloNight (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Better to keep the two principles separate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC) in favor of 5 and 6[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Generally agree with Kirill, but not opposed to the substance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

8) Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.

Support:
  1. Alternative (to go with 5.1 and 6.1) to minimize redundancy. Kirill 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Generally acceptable, although one user's "unbridled criticism" may be another's "expression of genuine grievances," and sanctions can be appropriate only when the line has been clearly and repeatedly breached. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with the spirit of this although the wording might need tweaking. We want to make sure that we do not stifle blunt harsh criticism made in all appropriate venues at the appropriate time. I'm think of RFCs, RFAs, Arbitration Committee talk page among others. FloNight (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is a bit of a duplication but I think justified in this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I believe this duplicates other findings.[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC) In favor of 6[reply]
Abstain:

Provocative actions

9) Needlessly provocative acts can lead to disruption, in which the provoker must share a degree of responsibility for the consequences. Conversely, reasonable and mature self-management is expected even if provoked. Attempts by others to provoke should be ignored or dispute resolution sought.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC) As discussed.[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. True as a principle, though we have no findings yet concerning which particular actions might fall into this category, and I don't know that it would be worthwhile to parse them at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is not civil to provoke other users. FloNight (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (NB corrected spelling mistake 'led' -> 'lead') Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I would prefer that we stick to policies and standards of conduct in our principles.[reply]
Abstain:

The community has a forward-looking approach to interpersonal disputes

10) Wikipedia community norms are intended to be forward-looking. Editors are strongly encouraged - and often expected - to set aside past interpersonal disputes or find ways to move beyond them, and to choose their present Wikipedia conduct in a way which exemplifies this. Users who fail to do so may themselves give rise to disruption.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) As discussed.[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Generally fair, although the last sentence is not as I would phrase it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Experienced users are expected to have insight into how their actions will be perceived by other users, especially those users that they've had conflicts with in the past. FloNight (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes. Don't bear grudges. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Other findings express the essence of this better.[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Wheel warring

12) Administrators must resolve disagreements by other means than by repeatedly doing and undoing each others administrative actions ("wheel warring" policy). This is strictly forbidden and taken most seriously. Whilst there has at times been confusion, the long standing convention of both policy and (usually of) this Committee is that wheel warring occurs when there is a repetition of their previous action that was undone by another administrator, or where there is a pattern that their similar previous actions were undone. Usually this will be a cycle such as block-unblock-reblock, but the spirit and wording of Wikipedia:Wheel war relates to the choice of administrative tools – rather than discussion – to force the matter, when one's own previous action using administrative tools was reversed.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) As discussed.[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Generally agree. There continues to be disagreement within the community concerning whether a single undoing of another administrator's action, without more, is unacceptable. In my view, the better practice is virtually always to consult with the first administrator, but I can agree with this formulation that sanctionable "wheel warring" will usually require more than a single instance of a failure to do so. Compare the comments from Doc glasgow to me on the talkpage for a contrary view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I oppose any attempt to utilize the term "Wheel warring" in any finding, and I oppose defining administrator misconduct involving reversion of administrative actions made by others in a mechanical fashion.[reply]
    The problem is that some administrators are skipping discussion and using their administrative tools to advance their position in a conflict. Other times undoing another admin actions can be fine and even expected. I do not think that the Committee should support any interpretation of administrator policy that includes the "bold revert" concept since admins should not be using their tools in a provocative manner. Administrators need to be role models for the Community and show that discussion in the way to reach consensus in a dispute. If an admin has gotten feedback from the Community or ArbCom that their reversions are provocative then they need to stop using their tools in that manner and other admins that are aware of the caution need to follow suit. That the same admins are continuing to use their tools to revert other admins instead of using discussion or dispute resolution is the issue. FloNight (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with UC here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Don't like the discursive way this is written. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per UC. I personally do not like the term "wheel warring" as it is vague and its definition varies and the alternative proposal below is definitely more explicit. --Deskana (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Warlike behavior using administrative tools

12.1) Administrators are strictly and most seriously forbidden from engaging in warlike behavior using administrative tools, whether for desirable reasons or not. With very few exceptions, when an action performed using tools has been rejected to the point that a second administrator has reversed it (or similar related actions were reversed), then there is almost never a valid reason for any administrator to reinstate the same or similar action (or end result) again, without clear discussion leading to a consensus decison, and administrators who do so may risk desysopping for abuse of their access. As a corollary, reversal of an administrative action should also not be undertaken without good cause. The policy Wikipedia:Wheel war describes this kind of behavior.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Considering UC's point. I wonder if this is actually a better conceptual approach to the issue. Either of these will work for me; this one might be a useful approach as a precedent though.[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Provisional support. I think that the core ideas expressed here are sound. It may be possible to improve the drafting slightly.[reply]
  3. Kirill 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sounds a bit better Fred Bauder (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Better. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Deskana (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Prefer other wording but can live with this wording. FloNight (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Don't like "warlike". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Can't support as worded. What does "warlike" mean in this regard? This really should not pass as worded.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Sound in general principle. Where two administrators are in open disagreement about what administrator action to take, the matter should go to ANI or another appropriate forum for discussion and hopefully consensus. However, I don't care at all for the word "warlike," and we should specifically note the BLP-related exception implied by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does "antagonistic" capture the behaviors better? FT2 (Talk | email) 23:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Brad. FloNight (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Blocking and unblocking)

13) (Placeholder - wording under consideration)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

(Protected pages)

14) (Placeholder - wording under consideration)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Bad Blood

15) An administrator or other user who feels the need to comment on the actions of someone with whom they have bad blood or past fallings out, should seek impartial advice and allow others to handle the matter who have no such connection, in order for clear neutrality of handling. If no impartial uninvolved editor or administrator is evident, the matter can be passed to the administrators' incidents noticeboard for communal consideration which allows the originator to cede it to others.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC) A common theme in dispute escalation.[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The administrator is free to comment just like any other user, but administrator actions should then best be left for others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Deskana (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Vague, but usefully so. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Too vague[reply]
  2. Agree with UC. If two users have had a disagreement some time in the past, 'bad blood' may be held by one but not the other. As an aside I deprecate the practice of any user, and especially an administrator, ever banning any other user from communicating to them on their talk page. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 20:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Policy issues surrounding IRC

17) The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, we need to gather further feedback from interested parties in the Community as well as guidance from JamesF and the chanops. FloNight (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur, although this is more a declaration than a principle. Mackensen (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my comments on proposed remedy 6 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yeah. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC) How is this a principle?[reply]
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

WP:IRC/WEA

2) David Gerard's reverts to the WEA page were based on a mistaken belief that he had a mandate from this Committee to control the content of the page using any means necessary. While the Committee did encourage David to take an active role at WP:WEA, the Committee did not give special dispensation to revert the page beyond customary bounds.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Per my comments on the other proposed findings concerning this user (with which this paragraph should probably be consolidated, if it is adopted). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Inconsistent with principle 17. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locus of dispute

3) A group of experienced editors and administrators engaged in disruptive editing to the Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins article after several occurrences of extreme incivility in #wikipedia-en-admins. The editors and administrators in question were experienced enough to know that they should have not violated policy.

Support:
  1. FloNight (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second preference. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Does not adequately characterize the situation.[reply]
Abstain:
The proximate cause is a single incident between two users. "Several" in this instance is misleading; prefer 3.1 below. Mackensen (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locus of dispute

3.1) A group of experienced editors and administrators engaged in disruptive editing to the Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins article after an occurrence of extreme incivility in #wikipedia-en-admins. The editors and administrators in question were experienced enough to know that they should have not violated policy.

Support:
Mackensen (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. FloNight (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First preference. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Does not adequately characterize the situation.[reply]
Abstain:

Giano

4) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was formally reminded less than one month prior to the events of this matter that "Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors. The Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions." Despite this, Giano made a series of provocative and disruptive edits to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins regarding comments made in the channel in September 2006 and on December 22, 2007 (see timeline).

Support:
Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC) In the interest of a balanced remedy, I only support this item if FoFs 2, 5, 6, and 7.1 also pass.[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Giano (actually, Giano II), in addition to being a valued content creator, is an opinionated editor, dedicated to Wikipedia but known for expressing his views on matters affecting governance of the project in an unusually direct and forceful way. At times, this is to the benefit of the project. At other times, Giano has the weaknesses of his strengths and escalates his stridency to the point that it becomes less productive. Friendly urgings that he lower the tone of the rhetoric, in these situations, are often ineffective. In this instance, comments made by another user to Bishonen in the #admins channel on the evening of December 22, 2007 became known to Giano, a close wiki-friend and collaborator of Bishonen's, under circumstances described in Bishonen's evidence, which I credit. Giano, who already disdained #admins and the Wikipedia page describing it as a result of prior incidents in the channel, sought (with some success, as it happens) to compel change to #admins through a series of provocative edits to the page in question beginning the following day. Although Giano believed his edits were truthful and accurate (see his evidence, which I also credit), and although I am confident that his subjective motivation was to help rather than harm Wikipedia, the fact remains that Giano made a substantial number of these edits over a sustained period of time and persisted long after it had become clear that his point had been made. With regret, I cannot avoid the conclusion that the overall effect of this conduct was unnecessarily disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree with some of Giano's motives, but his actions and the way he handled himself are inexcusable. Deskana (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A close reading of Wikipedia:Assume good faith suggests that an editor's motivations are ultimately not material when dealing with the net effect of his actions. Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FloNight (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Strike for now. I think the first Fof for the case needs to be a more general statement of the events that happened. Having something more general that mentions the involved parties is better, I think. For example, Bishonen's role in the event needs to be mentioned but I'm not certain that a separate Fof is needed for her. This applies to other editors as well. (I realize others disagree about the need for a specific one addressing her so I'm not asking for it to be remove rather another approach to including her in a Fof for those that can not support a specific one.) I do not have time to write one now. Get to it later today. FloNight (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Adding back my vote for now. I may offer a different version later. FloNight (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes - 'consider the effect of his words on other editors' includes Giano's own friends and supporters. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I do not agree that Giano's edits were "disruptive" in any truly significant way, nor did any disruption rise to the level necessary to warrant an individual sanction. I also do not believe that the actions of Giano and others in this case can be properly judged without taking into account the context in which they occurred. A root cause underlying this case is the uncertain status of the "admin" IRC channel. Is it an entity which has no official relationship to our encyclopedia, like Wikipedia Review? Or is it an official tool and organ of our encyclopedia? And if so who shall control that channel, and what should its policies be? That the status of the "admin" IRC is unclear means that the status of its page on Wikipedia is also unclear. Is it an advertisement for a private club? Or is it an official en-Wikipedia policy page? This lack of clarity has a direct bearing on how the actions of the editors in this case ought to be viewed. An edit war at WP:BJAODN ought to be viewed differently than one at WP:NPOV.[reply]
Abstain:

Bishonen

5) Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, made three edits to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins, shortly after Giano's edits. Bishonen's edits were similar in substance and tone, and were provocative and disruptive (see timeline).

Support:
  1. Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Bishonen made a total of three edits to the page in question, the day after the incident in the channel. The first two of the edits echoed Giano's early edits. One might opine that these were unhelpful changes (assuming that the circumstances made this a conduct issue rather than a content ruling). However, these edits came at an early stage of the dispute, and Bishonen did not persist in adding the language in question after being twice reverted. Instead, her third and final edit took an intermediate course by reverting a sentence to a prior version that had been stable for five months. That edit strikes me as wholly unobjectionable. When reverted again, Bishonen left the page completely and did not participate in editing it any further. I cannot consider that her two or three edits at issue are sufficient to warrant this finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Brad. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As Brad. Mackensen (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Goes too far; a toned down version may be appropriate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 22:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I don't agree with this characterization (per Brad) and I don't believe that any such finding is needed or helpful. See also my related remarks at Finding "Giano".[reply]
Abstain:
Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre

6) Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, made a provocative and disruptive edit to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins, shortly after Giano's edits. The following day, he reverted on separate occasions an attempt to protect the page and an attempt to delete it, thereby escalating the disruption (see timeline).

Support:
  1. Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Deskana (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Reviewing the proposed finding in order, first, it is not clear to me which of Geogre's edits is described as "provocative and disruptive." To be sure, some of Geogre's edits were in my opinion unhelpful, but that is at some remove from an arbitration finding of disruption. Next, a finding based on the single reversion of protection is questionable; it has never really been settled whether a single reversal of another administrator's action is sanctionable, and a mitigating factor here is that the initial full protection was itself dubious, having been applied by a user busily engaged in editing the page. Last, a finding based on the undeletion of the page would be without support: the page had been deleted, admittedly without any policy basis, on Christmas Eve with the suggestion of a "Christmas truce"— a well-meant effort to reduce what had become a divisive and dispiriting dispute, but hardly a disposition that could be made binding on users over their objections. (Is the contention really that someone should have initiated a five-day DRV debate seeking to reinstate the page?) I must therefore oppose the finding as presented. This is not, by any means, to suggest that I approve of all that Geogre had to say with respect to this matter. As with Giano, I admire the strength with which Geogre articulates his thoughts about Wikipedia as well as his loyalty to his friends, but I will suggest that Geogre might better dedicate his almost unparalleled mastery of rhetoric (in the word's positive sense) to worthier and weightier affairs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strikethrough to correct a factual error noted by Doc glasgow on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 22:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I don't agree with this characterization (per Brad) and I don't believe that any such finding is needed or helpful. See also my related remarks at Finding "Giano".[reply]
Abstain:

David Gerard

7.1) David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, repeatedly reverted Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins in violation of WP:3RR and WP:OWN, in a good-faith but mistaken belief that he had special dispensation to do so.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for the moment, unless someone suggests better wording. Mackensen (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Could be better, but OK. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 02:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not in my view necessary on my view of how the case should best be addressed, but preferable to 7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There's a bit of the 'opening windows into men's souls' about the finding and I think it should be left until the status of IRC is determined. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway

8) Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a former administrator, has engaged in repeated instances of incivility, personal attacks, and general lack of decorum befitting a Wikipedia editor. Previous warnings and arbitration case rulings have not resolved the problem.

Support:
  1. FloNight (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At root I think is an unwillingness/inability to back down from a situation until it explodes. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Though I would like to point out that Tony's recent participation reflects considerable improvement, even if the problem is not "resolved."[reply]
  3. While Tony Sidaway is clearly dedicated to the project (as is everyone involved in this case, and I am not at all comparing the "value" of any editor to any other), he all too often causes significant problems through incivil remarks and his use of excessively strident rhetoric, and he generally appears inattentive to the effect the tone of his remarks is likely to have upon other users. This situation is of long standing, including on arbitration pages (compare, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop#Inappropriate conduct by an editor during this arbitration case), and needs to stop. In this regard, I was glad to see Tony Sidaway's recent comments (on my talkpage and elsewhere) that he intends to avoid this sort of problem in the future. If he can adhere to this promise over the long term, rather than just for a short while as in some past incidents, then progress will have been made. I very much hope this will be the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 02:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Newyorkbrad. --Deskana (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 22:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Per Brad, although I take Sam's points below.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Goes too wide in dragging in other issues; yes, we have to consider the 'whole editor' but there comes a point when the inclusion of unrelated problems shifts from a holistic assessment to an ex post facto attempt to justify findings which would not otherwise stand up. I have a serious problem with noting Tony's status as a former administrator. That is neither here nor there. Administrators have a duty to be exemplary in their collaboration with other editors, and are held to a higher standard than non-administrators. It is wrong to hold former administrators to any other standard than one would apply to someone who had never been an administrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Phil Sandifer

9) Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, has engaged in repeated instances of incivility, personal attacks, and general lack of decorum befitting a Wikipedia editor. Previous warnings and arbitration case rulings have not resolved the problem.

Support:
  1. FloNight (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 02:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
There's a transcription error on the Webcomics arbitration–FoF 8 failed at 4-3, 5 votes being a majority. Mackensen (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are looking at the same thing? Other parts of the case about him passed, right? FloNight (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There's a general absence of sufficient evidence here. Findings from an unrelated arbitration case that closed more than two years ago are not sufficient. Phil Sandifer has some rough edges he might want to work on smoothing down but that does not necessarily mean that he is so consistently uncivil as to warrant an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Outside the scope of the case. No comment either way on the merits.[reply]
  3. Per Newyorkbrad. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Not needed.[reply]
Abstain:

Comments by Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer

10) Several times while this case was open, Tony Sidaway and PhilSandifer made needlessly provocative comments. In one instance [5] [6], Phil realized that his comments were misinterpreted and changed his wording at Durova's request [7], but then attempted to remove the comments, leading to an edit war on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision.

Support:
  1. FloNight (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 02:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I do not believe it is wise for us to examine the conduct of users during the case. If necessary, a separate case may be brought.[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Not needed.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I agree that inappropriate comments were made by several parties to this case on the /Workshop and the /Proposed decision talkpage. (Compare, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Conduct on Arbitration pages for a discussion of appropriate standards of behavior.) However, I do not believe that the dispute over an attempt to withdraw objected-to comments rises to the level warranting a finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Newyorkbrad. I would give some margin of appreciation to parties to an arbitration case, who are suffering a stressful examination of their conduct. Only truly exceptional and hurtful misbehaviour would make for additional sanction. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status of #wikipedia-en-admins

11) The status and the significance of the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins as well as its associated page on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins, is unclear.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is true to at least some extent, although I sense that concerns regarding the channel are rightly less than they were a year ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I believe our statement that IRC will be handled by the committee as a separate matter is sufficient.[reply]
  2. Saying that a situation is unclear is profoundly unhelpful as a 'finding of fact'. If the situation is clear, then we should say what it is; if not, then no finding can be made. As an explanation for the disruptive editing, however, this will not do because each side was convinced that its interpretation of the status of IRC was absolutely clear and correct. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

The "admin" IRC has been a source of conflict

12) The "admin" IRC channel has been the source of many on-wiki disputes and conflicts. There are disputes regarding its status and governance, its misuse, and its relative benefits to the encyclopedia.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Generally true, though at times I would say "disagreements" rather than "disputes." Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed, though I still hold the belief that the channel is overall a good thing for the project. --Deskana (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. True. Many aspects of Wikipedia and Wikimedia are the source of conflict. Our primary job, the same as always, is helping the Community resolve the conflict by dealing with user conduct issues related to the conflict. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Well, yeah. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, it is, although this statement is a bit of a truism given that it describes the fact of an arbitration case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC) While true, I don't think this speaks to the essence of the case, especially given that we are undertaking to deal with IRC status separately. The shortcomings in governance of the channel do not excuse the behavior at issue.[reply]
Abstain:

Edit-warring occurred

13) Between December 23 and December 26, 2007, several editors, both supporters and detractors of the "admin" IRC channel were involved in an edit war at Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not sure how significant this is in the grand scheme of things at this point, but a true statement. Added the dates. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deskana (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Community, and later the Arbitration Committee, became aware of another flare up of a longstanding interpersonal dispute between several editor because of edit war at Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. Despite many attempts to calm the conflict between these users, there is a strong indication that conflict continues. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Would have been better to play with new toys. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

14) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.


Giano II

2) Giano's editing privileges are revoked for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC) I note that the committee lacks consensus on remedies for this case. However, since there is no further discussion of this matter within the committee, I believe it is important for reasons of transparency to have a formal vote on certain measures.[reply]
  2. A weak inadequate remedy. He's a bull in the china closet that will continue to cause major disruption for the project. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm disappointed that you have not restated your comment based on the feedback that you received. I'm not going to remove it because I do not think it is so extreme that it warrants removal. But I encourage you to re-think using this type of language in the future. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Giano's edits outside the project namespace are not an issue. Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Despite my exasperation with the tone of some of Giano's comments, this is grossly excessive on its face and would also be bitterly divisive for the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Overkill. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No way, excessive. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Mackensen. Kirill 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. excessive. FloNight (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Mackensen's struck opinion, which is still relevant on its merits. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Extremely excessive. Not only are Giano's edits in mainspace, per Mackensen, "not an issue" they are in fact extraordinarily productive. Giano is absolutely and without question one of our very best contributors of encyclopedic content. To ban Giano would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.[reply]
  9. Oppose. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Giano II

2.1) Giano's editing privileges in the project namespace are revoked for a period of one year, excepting those pages which directly concern the featured article process.

Support:
Alternative. Giano's presence in other namespaces is not an issue. Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 2nd choice. Better than nothing, but enforcement would be problematic.[reply]
  2. Appropriate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There are levels of unseemly conduct that even superlative contributions cannot excuse. Giano has unapologetically ignored our plea for calmer behavior after the Durova case, and has instead continued to utilize disruption and demagoguery as a method by which to advance his aims. I see no alternative left to us but to curb his activities by force, no matter how crude a tool that force may turn out to be. Kirill 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    support per Kirill. Other users involved with the case have looked inward and seen problems with their own conduct, Giano has not. That is the reason that it is necessary for us to take action to stop his inappropriate editor conduct. FloNight (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Necessary, regretfully. --Deskana (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. More rational than an outright ban, given this editor's strong record of positive contributions, but still excessive. Among other things, the proposal would bar Giano II from participating in arbitration cases, despite the useful role he played in presenting evidence in The Troubles case, would debar him from participating in RfA !voting or in ArbCom elections, and would in myriad other ways make him a second-class citizen of the project. Despite my growing exasperation with how Giano (like at least one other editor who is not the subject of a remedy proposal at this time) sometime chooses to express himself, I cannot support this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A quality contributor should have a say in how the project is run. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. On reflection, I feel that civility patrol AND restricting communication between parties is the best way to resolve the case. We are not trying to restrict Giano from participating in the project mainspace but rather to participate there in a constructive manner. We want him to follow standard dispute resolution processes, that occur in project namespace. I trust our admin to enforce the communication ban and the civility patrol per our enforcement instructions. FloNight (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 22:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Per Brad and Blng.[reply]
  5. As per Blnguyen, NYB, FloNight. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. At an earlier stage this looked like it was justified. On reflection I am opposing because the case is now too drawn out and this remedy would be excessive in identifying the problem as being Giano. The problem is to a far greater extent the community's response to Giano (both supporters and opponents). Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Civility: Giano

2.2) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. I think his past and current contributions support this remedy. We need to spell out clearly in the enforcement ruling what we have in mind regarding length of blocks and appeals. FloNight (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice, would prefer 2.1 --Deskana (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Third choice due to the potential problems with enforcement. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Better than nothing. Kirill 13:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice, though Fred's probably right. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Perfectly reasonable if not for the enforcement nightmare. I expect that 2.1, if passed, will largely make this moot anyways; the bulk of Giano's incivility occurs in project space. Kirill 22:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Won't work with a disruptive personality. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 23:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Not needed nor helpful.[reply]
  3. Change to oppose to avoid reducing the required majority, and per my various comments elsewhere on this page. This is not an endorsement of certain recent uphelpful comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
I've been reluctant to impose sanctions against this contributor, who in spite of everything really does care about this project, but much more of what we saw yesterday and there really aren't going to be many options. I do find this substantially preferable to 2.1 or certainly to 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Geogre

3) Geogre's adminship privileges are revoked. He may reapply via the usual means or by appeal to this committee. The committee will approve the restoration of these privileges immediately upon receiving satisfactory assurances from Geogre that he will not misuse them.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Having found no significant administrator misconduct by this user, I find no need for a remedy. Even if I did agree with the majority as to the finding of fact proposed above, I would find this remedy substantially excessive and could not support it, there being no assertion that the alleged misuse of administrator tools here was anything other than an isolated incident. However, I urge Geogre to reread and carefully consider my comments on the finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not justified by the finding of fact. Even if it was, I couldn't support as worded. A successful application to the committee presupposes that the committee as a whole believes no misuse will take place. Mackensen (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No FoF. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too harsh at this point. Kirill 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Do not see anything close to the type of misuse of tools or lack of decorum that warrants a forced desysop. FloNight (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too much. Deskana (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Completely without merit. Geogre is an excellent administrator who uses his tools judiciously and sparingly.[reply]
  8. Excessive Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Bishonen

4) Bishonen is asked to support Wikipedia's dispute resolution process by redirecting disputes towards constructive resolution rather than inflaming them.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Having found no misconduct by this user, I cannot support a remedy directed against her by name. I would support the remedy if it were offered as a general admonition to all parties to the dispute, including some who are not presently the subject of specific remedy proposals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my opposition to the finding of fact; this should not be construed as opposition to the principle at hand. We would expect such behavior of everyone. Mackensen (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not necessary. Kirill 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 23:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Bishonen is one of our very best editors and administrators. This remedy is not warranted, needed or helpful.[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

David Gerard

5) David Gerard is asked to continue his work at WP:WEA, and is at the same time asked to observe WP:OWN.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A fair request, with no cost. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. There being no evidence that the administrator conduct at issue here was anything other than an isolated incident, and given that there has been no recurrence in almost one month since the events at issue took place, I do not find a remedy directed at this user by name to be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Newyorkbrad. FloNight (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think this is necessary. The FoF states that David believed he had special rights to violate WP:OWN on this particular article. Regardless of whether that was mistaken or not, asking him to observe it isn't necessary as he already knows he should. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As per NYB, Deskana. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Kirill 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
Events seem to have overtaken this part of the ruling. Should we strike? FloNight♥♥♥ 11:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

6) Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although I was not yet a member of the Arbitration Committee when Jimbo Wales requested that the arbitrators take on additional responsibilities concerning #admins and possibly other IRC channels, I gather that this request came as a surprise to at least some arbitrators. To this point, the committee has not reached any consensus as to whether and how to implement these new responsibilities, and I believe that we should call for community input (which I would strongly emphasize should be civil and avoid personalities and personal attacks) before doing so. Although it can be argued that directions concerning future governance of #admins should be included in this decision, it has become clear that the matter will not be settled in the near future. Keeping this case open any longer would be unfair to the parties and would also keep the associated project pages open despite plainly diminishing returns. I therefore concur. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A mere statement of fact. Deskana (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Paul August ☎ 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Begs the question.[reply]

Communication restricted

7) Involved groups in this dispute ({Phil Sandifer and Tony Sidaway}; {Bishonen, Geogre and Giano II}) shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia. Should any party do so, he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year.

Support:
Adapted from Everyking 3. Oddly enough, that decision (though not the remedy itself) was enforced twice: once by Tony, once by Bishonen. To clarify, this would enjoin a person in one group from interacting with a person in the other. This might render remedy 2.1 unnecessary. Mackensen (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. FloNight (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. We have to be careful that proposed preventative remedies aren't harmful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gag orders should, if used at all, be a last resort. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Remedies of this form can be messy and hard to enforce, and are sometimes impractical. --Deskana (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Better to just get rid of the bad apples. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think any party in this case is a bad apple and I think that language is not helpful in trying to calm down a tense situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wholeheartedly agree with Flo. Paul August ☎ 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This focuses too much on the current incident, ignoring the rich histories here. Kirill 13:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Jpgordon: if this was in place it might prevent dispute resolution. I'm not convinced the problem here is the sort of fundamental clash of personalities. These editors can work with each other on other issues. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Harmful and unworkable.[reply]
  8. Not this time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comment:
I could certainly support an idea along these lines. I will watch for comment from the potentially affected editors, on the talkpage, before weighing in more formally. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen Phil Sandifer's objection that there is insufficient evidence that he has a history with Giano, Geogre, and/or Bishonen to warrant this remedy. There is little evidence concerning Phil Sandifer on the evidence page. Either we will need some evidence posted, or perhaps if the parties named in this remedy were all voluntarily to agree to abide by it, without the need for formal findings of who was incivil to whom how many times, progress would be made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think we're much better off keeping said parties at an arm's length. Phil's interactions on the pages of this decision with said parties was not encouraging. Could we please avoid a scrap of paper as a remedy? This is preventative, not punitive. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me note also that I envision arbcom, in the future, extending this remedy by motion if it proves shallow. Mackensen (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility: Tony Sidaway

9) Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should Tony Sidaway make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tony Sidaway may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. Kirill 22:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I do not see the downside to making this official as opposed to relying on his good intentions. FloNight (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hopefully the block will never need to be implemented, and the sanction itself will be enough of a deterrent. Deskana (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not justified as an official remedy; see my oppose vote on the finding of fact. Editors can be blocked for disruption without a specific arbitration finding. Also per Newyorkbrad. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Per opposition to the related FoF.[reply]
  3. Agree with Sam Blacketer on this one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I would have said this was urgently necessary just a day or two ago. Per my comments on the finding of fact above, Tony Sidaway has an egregious record in this area. But Tony Sidaway has announced very publicly and prominently that he has had an epiphany and plans to turn over a new leaf in the civility department. I'm not unaware that he has said this sort of thing before, but never with this degree of seriousness; perhaps the fact that his comments and tone of voice create real problems, which has been said to him many times over many months, has finally struck home. I would prefer to see if Tony Sidaway can keep to his words, and move quickly to accept a new arbitration case against him or to reopen this one if he can't or doesn't do it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I am generally opposed to such remedies as unhelpful.[reply]

Civility: Geogre

11) Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should Geogre make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Geogre may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. A minimal remedy. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not needed yet. Kirill 22:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Insufficient evidence, although my comments on the finding of fact are relevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deskana (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Same reason as opposing for Tony Sidaway, really. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Not needed or helpful.[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

All parties cautioned

13) All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. The arbitration committee will take an unsympathetic view of any future failures in this regard.

Support:
  1. -FloNight♥♥♥ 13:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Once more into the breach. Kirill 13:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, although I would prefer that the parties avoid future disputes with one another altogether, with pursuing them civilly rather than incivilly as the second choice. The second sentence of the remedy, I would add, is an understatement. The community and the arbitrators, who are here to represent the community, are sick, sick, sick to death of every aspect of this entire situation. From the beginning of the case, I have opposed severe sanctions against any of the parties, and I still think that closing without any bans or the like is the best course—but I have been in the minority within the committee on that issue, and even my patience is not infinite. Let us be clear. There is to be no more vulgar and rude and crude name-calling, on wiki or on IRC or preferably on anywhere. There is to be no more petty argumentation about who said what and when and why. There is be no more carping at one another about ancient grievances, or even recent ones—and there are to be no new grievances created to be the subject of future carping. The party who has, for the umpteenth time, promised to improve his civility and to avoid discussing matters that have consistently proved divisive is to keep his promise, now and forever, if only to avoid making me (who have been one of his critics) look like a fool for even thinking of believing him. The editors who have been directing personal attacks at my colleagues on the committee (as opposed to reasoned comments on decision-making) should cut it out. The parties who are highly valued for their content contributions and/or for their service as administrators should not allow their Wikipedia experiences to be defined by those they disdain and should resume or continue, as the case may be, those activities for which they are rightly praised. Any continued and serious problems with the IRC channel should be brought to this committee's attention, and in light of Jimbo's dictate of December 26, 2007, the committee should announce sooner rather than later how such issues will be dealt with. I hope never to see any aspect of this matter, or any other dispute between these editors, come before the committee again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. What Brad said. Feh. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 23:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC) It would have been better not to have accepted this case or to now dismiss it, and I do not believe that any sanctions are called for in this case, but if me must have a sanction in this sorry affair then better something like this than others.[reply]
  8. Agree with everything Brad said. The parties to this case should avoid there ever being a repeat to this sorry affair. If this means avoiding each other, avoid each other. Don't think that anyone is vindicated in this impasse; failure to pass remedies with teeth indicates fundamental disagreement among the Committee about how to handle this, but there is I believe no disagreement that we are all heartily sick of productive members of the community, who should damn-well know better, returning to yet another round of this yet AGAIN. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Final warning: Giano

14) Given the committee's previous request to Giano II to "work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation", and Finding of fact 4, the committee now strongly cautions Giano II that any further failures to conduct disputes in a civil and constructive manner are likely to result in sanctions. He should consider this a final warning and that stronger sanctions may occur with a motion by the Committee to amend this case.

Support:
  1. I prefer at minimum a civility patrol sanction because I think that Giano has been adequately warned but will support one final warning. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. And if he ignores this one, we might go so far as issuing a strongly-worded condemnation, I suppose. But, still, better than nothing. Kirill 13:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Can we change "are likely to" to "will definitely"? Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard call. I have always taken the position that administrators are not the politeness police, and have discouraged administrators from going out and searching for instances of incivility between users. People get upset and get short with each other. As long as they calm down, I don't think we (admins and arbs) need to get involved. The problem with Giano's conduct is that he seems to be acting more and more provocative to raise attention to issues that concern him as we have ignored his past lapses in conduct. I'm only interest in addressing this provocative conduct, not the ordinary brush ups that he might get involved in. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Unenforcable ultimatums make bad remedies.[reply]
  2. Is this the final, or the final final, or the final final final? What's the point of any of our warnings and advice if not to imply exactly this anyway? He knew the cost, and didn't change his behavior. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Josh is absolutely right. --Deskana (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with Josh. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 00:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Not needed or helpful.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Unbalanced hanging out here by itself, but see my comments on 13, to which I really have little to add. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are requested

15) Edit-warring is bad even when conducted on non-mainspace pages whose significance and status is unclear and in dispute. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid such actions and instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC) It would have been better not to have accepted this case or to now dismiss it, and I do not believe that any sanctions are called for in this case, but if me must have a sanction in this sorry affair then better something like this than others. (Note: per comments below I've replaced "admonished" with "asked" Paul August ☎ 23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)) (Note: per Brad's suggestion below I've changed the title to "Editors requested". Paul August ☎ 23:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Can support with 'asked' instead of 'admonished'. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I interpret "all the involved editors" as meaning all the edit-warriors. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Sam. Besides, it's not a particularly big deal if we ask someone to avoid edit warring even if they didn't edit war... after all, we're just asking. --Deskana (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Change to support per rewording. See my comments elsewhere on this page for my overall views on the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support with rewording. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I don't believe an admonishment of all involved editors is appropriate. If such a broad remedy were indeed justified, a list of affected users would still have to be included.[reply]
Abstain:
I'm not sure that "all" editors in the edit-war deserve to be "admonished," as the participation of some was relatively slight. I agree with the balance of the proposal. See also my comments on 13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

12) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

13) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. May actually be needed. Kirill 03:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Just in case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maximum ban seems too short, but I imagine anyone drawing five blocks would likely be community banned anyway. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
The wording is standard, but since I haven't supported any editing restrictions (formerly referred to as "paroles" or "probations") in this case, I can't support blocking for violating them. But see my comments on remedy 13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Giano (the only subject of a remedy covered by this enforcement provision) is planning to leave Wikipedia as a result of the civility remedy and this enforcement proposal passing, and I fear that one or more very respected editors/admins may go with him. This would be a terrible ending to a situation that was completely unnecessary from the outset. Leaving our project for this reason would be an overreaction on Giano's part, just as were a great many of his comments during this case that have led to the remedy being imposed in the first place. I fear that I will never understand some of what Giano says and does, or said and did, around here whenever he was in one of his cross moods, nor his frequent lashings out at those of us who tried to calm the waters. I share with many others a heartfelt exasperation at Giano's recent behavior, coupled with a wonderment at why after all this time Giano pushed so very hard, as it now appears, to do his best to provoke the very result as he now deplores, to the great sadness of many who appreciated his work and his dedication and did their best to save him. We saw from Giano's evidence presentation in The Troubles, and especially his answers to the candidate questions during the recent Arbitration Committee elections, that he is perfectly capable of civil, reasonable discourse when he chooses to engage in it. Why he so often deliberately spurned that path when he was most engaged with issues he considered important will remain an unanswered question.
None of our policies comes with an "except Giano" clause, and I fully understand the argument that at the end of the day he must be treated as anyone else. Neither incivility by other editors to Giano and his friends nor poor treatment in prior arbitration proposals (I think now not of Durova nor of Giano but of the outlandish remedy proposal in Eternal Equinox, which is where I first met Giano et al. and the arbitration process, and which I think played an overlooked role in radicalizing him). Nonetheless, whoever's fault it is, this is a regretable outcome for a great many reasons.
I've stricken my abstain vote on the enforcement to avoid reducing the required majority. See also my comments on remedy 13. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

A dissenting opinion

This case was initiated as the result of an edit war at a relatively insignificant project page, the status of which was unclear and which, in fact, now no longer exists. The behaviors in that edit war do not rise to the level requiring sanctions by the Arbitration Committee. Behaviors which occurred outside the scope of the case as brought, should not be reflected in the decisions of this case. To our encyclopedia's detriment, this case may well result in the loss of two of our finest editors.

The conflict at the root of this case is about the merits of the "admin" IRC channel, a dispute that is fundamentally about wiki-politics, about how this encyclopedia is to be governed and by whom. These are issues which should be decided by the community not the Arbitration Committee.

Paul August ☎ 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

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.

Passing are:

  • Principle 1, 2, 3.2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12.1, 16 15 (see below), and 17
  • FoF 4, 6, 7.1, 13
  • Remedy 2.2 (Giano civility restriction), 6 (IRC), 13 (Parties cautioned)
  • Enforcement of the civility restriction now passes.

I've double-checked the above compilation and agree with it. Additionally, proposed findings 8 and 12 and proposed remedy 15 would each pass with one more support vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to close at 7-3, but both to wait for a final round from the arbitrators, and for reasons of my own scheduling, I will close this in about 21 hours from now barring any changes. Thatcher 02:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

  1. Noting that voting is deadlocked and discussion is stalled, I move to close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support closure effective on the passage of remedy 13, and with the request that the parties read (and better still, govern their future behavior by) my comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We should close this case as soon as possible. Paul August ☎ 23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It is clear that nothing more is going to come to light, and no more appropriate remedies will emerge. With the fond and optimistic hope that none of the dramatis personæ will be presented before us in the months to come, close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Done. Ptui. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I indicated to FT2 that I'd give him some more time to make some additions, but I don't think this needs to be dragged on any longer. --Deskana (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nothing to be gained by dragging this on further. Kirill 01:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I think we've achieved all we can here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Now that enforcement proposal passes. Hopefully, there will be no need for any enforcement to happen after this case because the parties will approach each other in a collaborative manner and use standard dispute resolution processes to work through their conflicts. I welcome blunt and critical feedback from all Community members as long as it is stated in civil manner. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Oppose close per FT2 comments on the Proposed decision talk page that he is working on new Fof and Remedies. FloNight (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Change to close.[reply]
He has been working on them for a while now. I'm not sure we can wait. --Deskana (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made the comment on Feb. 1, shortly after the Committee voted not to dismiss the case. On the same day I commented on the ArbCom mailing list that I hoped to do a final vote on Monday (today) and close by Tuesday. I'll willing to allow a slightly longer period of time for FT2 to add his proposals. But we need to get this case finalized because we have many other equally important issues that we need to address. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Free now of major arb burdens and per FloNight.[reply]

:# Oppose close until I vote on everything. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Now voted.[reply]

Note -- I'll be done by tonight for my part (see above). FT2 (Talk | email) 17:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision&oldid=1082835985"