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

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

message: What good will it do to block me for 3 days? I'd just edit articles and stumble around Wikipedia like usual if I wasn't blocked -- I won't start any more massive wikiwars. Promise.
And I don't know how my creation of Template:User paedophile "can't be [good faith]." Everyone who was trying to undo Template:User pedophile's inappropriate speedy deletion while it was on TFD seemed to have abandoned it. I created User paedophile so people could actually see what they're voting on -- usually helps, y'know? It would be like having an election where people can only see each candidate's name. // paroxysm (n) 03:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wanted people to see what htey were voting on, you should have put it in a comment on the TFD page (or a talk page somewhere). Recreating it (in effect, expanding the scope of the wheel war) was not an acceptable option. As to the length of the block, considering that multiple long-time users have said they are quitting over this, I think it shows that we are bending over backwards to be generous (in an attempt to let everyone "bury the hatchet") Raul654 03:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's the same reason I was wheel warring. Obviously, both things can be justified (or else we'd be nuts) but neither was the best thing to do. Arbcom imposes petty blocks like these to force people to put things in perspective. Just take a Wikibreak for a while; in fact, I would advocate turning off the computer altogether for a good number of days. If you live in Boston let's go clubbing. Ashibaka tock 03:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I draw your attention to this edit on WP:TFD which added "Userbox saying "This user identifies as a pedophile" with two related symbols" to describe the content of the template.  violet/riga (t) 14:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whining

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

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

text: Basically, when you have sysop back, do feel free to ask me or Raul654 or indeed any suitable admin for any guidance or sanity checks you might feel you'd like to. Get access to #wikipedia-en-admins, it's actually an on-topic channel which is good for sanity checks and so forth. (It's also a good place to rant about something pissing you off without actually acting on it ;-) - David Gerard 20:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand your confusion over what happened. My first suggestion if this happens again is to just stay out of it if you're not sure what to do. Or ask other administrators you respect—that's what I do. If you find yourself reversing the actions of numerous other administrators, that's probably not a good way to resolve a dispute. I'm almost a year into my adminship, and I'd hesitate to reverse another administrator's action without contacting him first. Look forward to you returning refreshed from your break. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a note

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

message: Many people apply extremely high standards in RFA precisely because it is so difficult for admins to lose their privileges. A common attitude is to avoid promoting borderline candidates, because if they turn out to be bad we're stuck with them.
A recent straw poll gives strong support for the suggestions that admins should be held more accountable for their (admin) actions than they are now, and that the ArbCom should be less hesitant about de-adminning admins who violate Wikipedia rules.
Thus, I predict that once the ArbCom uses deadminning as a sanction more often, the community will be less hesitant to promote candidates with past issues, because reoccurence of those issues can then be dealt with. >Radiant< 12:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, genuine remorse on Ashibaka's part. Fred Bauder 12:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicious circle 

message: I think the Arbcom is missing the point in regard's to El_C's actions. Shortly after being unblocked, he immediately blocked the person who had just blocked him with the reason "WP:POINT". The number one rule of being an admin is "don't use your sysop privileges in something with which you are personally involved". I am not saying he should not have his adminship reinstated, but I think the Arbitration Committee should at the very least caution him about using sysop privileges in a dispute he is involved with. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agree. His threat/intimidation should not go overlooked either. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John, can you say whether you're involved in this case as a party, an observer, or a clerk, please? If as a clerk, I'm wondering whether it's appropriate for you to be passing judgment. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a clerk, although I'll recuse if you (or anyone else) thinks this has clouded my actions on the case. I don't see how having a personal POV would affect this -- we all have our biases, and I prefer being honest about them instead of pretending I don't have any. It's more fair to all involved that my personal biases be known so that if they appear to be seriously affecting my behaviour, I can be notified. Johnleemk | Talk 03:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that holding an opinion is a problem, John, it's that you appear to be actively trying to incur a remedy against one of the parties, and I'd say that's something the clerks shouldn't be doing. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were actively trying to do this, I'd be doing a lot more than posting a couple of times to the talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 10:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But how is it consistent with your role as a clerk?  You are supposed to address the matters of the case fairly - especially in a case like this, where El_C is absent it's the role of the clerk to see to it that his opinion is fairly presented.  I cannot see how that is compatible with you calling for harsher penalties against him.  Guettarda 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall the Clerks' office being created for this purpose. It's supposed to aid the arbcom with formatting proposed decisions, the workshop, summarising evidence, etc. If my evidence summary, etc. misrepresents El C, then tell me. If it's perfectly fine, then don't take offense when I am forthright about my personal opinions. Or maybe I should just STFU and forget about letting my biases show through. After all, it appears people would prefer not to know them, even if they exist. Johnleemk | Talk 11:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: He did something that needed doing - Carnildo's actions blatently violated policy.  It would have been better to let someone else handle it, but it was more important to send Carnildo a wake-up call.  In addition, the number one rule of being an admin is not don't use your sysop privileges in something with which you are personally involved - the number one rule of being an admin is "act in the best interest of the project".  While Jimbo's actions are understandable, the fact that El_C got caught up in it is both unfortunate and more than punishment enough.  As valuable a contributor as he is, the project should be begging him to come back, not adding insult to injury.  Guettarda 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocking is for prevention, not punishment. Admins can do everything but edit while blocked. So what did this accomplish? And since Carnildo was so blatantly abusing the power, what was keeping him from just unblocking? --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having gotten caught by the autoblocker a few days ago, let me tell it, it's a huge shock.  Unless you are angry beyond reason, it will give you pause.  As for the punishment issue - what I am talking about is calls for the arbcomm to censure El_C more severely - that is punishment.  As for blocks - they may be designed to prevent, not punish, but they end up as punishment anyway.  Guettarda 15:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would beg to differ. Reminding El C that intimidation (look at what he said on Carnildo's talk) and punitive blocks are a bad thing is a preventive measure -- not just for him, but for others. People will know the arbcom takes this seriously. Johnleemk | Talk 15:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  That is now fortunately incorrect, Phroziac! While blocked, all admin privileges are restricted (they would be as if a non-admin tried to access them), apart from blocking/unblocking. See bug 3801. And to Guettarda, cautioning El_C that he should not use his sysop privileges in a dispute is not a punishment, it is a warning. It's a very important one to send out. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful.  Now when responsible people get stuck behind the autoblocker, there's no remedy?  And here I was thinking that all the truly stupid ideas related to this mess had been worked out.  Guettarda 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I said, apart from blocking/unblocking. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  El_C's actions 

message: I was simply wondering whether since Dschor and Paroxysm's offences relate to userboxes, and Dshor certainly has a history of disruption through useboxes [], that Arbcom might consider placing a restriction on them creating or editing further userboxes (perhaps during probation, or even longer). This will not prevent them playing a full role in the encyclopedia, since userboxes are at best peripheral to the project. I hope the suggestion is not intruding. --Doc ask? 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will second any motion or petition which will see Dschor banned from userboxes, placed on probation, or banned outright for repeated and premeditated trolling and disruption. I'm not sure Paroxysm is guilty of anything other than poor judgement when he created that first box, and a comparatively minor WP:POINT violation (relative to where Dschor put the bar) when he created the second one. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Oh Grace Note... and just when I thought there was some hope for you yet. . In point of fact, no, admins are explicitely forbidden from doing what you suggest. Had you actually read the proposed decision, you would have seen this: "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policy . Although I am not a lawyer, I do not believe pedophilia is a legally protected characteristic in any jurisdiction in the world. Raul654 04:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say, this is rather disturbing.  I crafted a template of an inoffensive nature, for my own use, and have been placed under an injunction on the assumption that I was trying to make a point.  It seems more likely that the ArbComm is trying to make a point at my expense.  I have requested undeletion of the template, as it was speedied out of process, and meets no criteria for deletion.  As of now, I am self-imposing a two week hiatus from userbox creation in an effort to demonstrate my good faith.  I do not feel that any further action is needed at this time, and will object strenuously to any other injunction or probation.  I maintain that I have acted in good faith, and hope that the Arbitration Committee will be generous enough to do the same.  --Dschor 00:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dog glasgow's evidence concerning Dschor is interesting when matched against the above comment - David Gerard 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those interested in Dschor's good faith may be interested to know that five minutes after leaving the above comment, he restored hiss user page to include  as well as text versions of it, of his WikiProject Pedophilia userbox, and a box opposing Kelly Martin for the Arbitration Committee (!) [I had previously removed them.] — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And don't forget about . --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I've stayed out of this issue, and intend to continue to do so, but I'd like to propose a finding of fact/principle that could be useful as a precedent outside this specific issue. I believe the AC should, even though it is obvoius and potentially redundant to say so, include a statement to the effect of: 
===Jimbo as the ultimate authority===
</br>
12. Jimbo Wales has ultimate authority on any matter. This is a foundation issue of all Wikimedia projects, and is beyond debate. Jimbo is in many contexts an ordinary editor and administrator who performs edits and administrator actions that are subject to being changed due to community consensus, and indeed encourages others to challenge his editor/admin actions when necessary. However, there are also instances where Jimbo acts in accordance with his ultimate authority, and it is expected and obligatory that every member of the Wikipedia community abide by his orders irrespective of the individual's personal view on the action. (Definition of "abide": Subject to criticism, outrage, comment, appeal to the Board, but not to be reversed, not to be warred over, not to be defied, in essence: not tampered with and accepted as final.) The Board of Trustees is empowered to review such decisions by Jimbo, but in the absence of a decision by the Board to overrule, Jimbo's orders are final, and must be treated as such. The community is free and welcome to comment on and criticize such actions, but they are not free, welcome, or permitted to reverse or otherwise act in defiance of such actions. Editors and/or administrators who act in deliberate defiance of an authoritative action by Jimbo are subject to sanctions, including blocking and desysopping, particularly temporary/emergency desysopping.
My intent in proposing this is to remind the community that when Jimbo acts as "the Founder," it is unacceptible to defy his orders. Certainly, it is acceptable to disagree, comment on, and criticize actions that one opposes, and doing so should be encouraged. However, the recent trend (I'm thinking back to the Category:Living People deal) to defy Jimbo's orders is disturbing and unacceptable. A common response to "Jimbo has the final say" is "No, the Board can overrule him" and this is often seized upon by those who do defy his orders. In the absence of an actual Board vote to overrule his decision, there is no justification for reversing or otherwise defying his orders. None, period. I'm speaking of active defiance, such as undoing a block or deleting a category, rather than something passive like refusing to block a user (as another admin can and will do it) or refusing to add articles to the disputed category. We are not automatons; we can refrain in protest from taking actions, but taking opposing actions (or reversing actions) crosses the line into the inappropriate. The community needs to be reminded that while the Board is an avenue of appeal from Jimbo's orders, it is not within the authority of the community to act in definace of his orders unless the Board has actually overruled him. 
I realize that this is something that should be common sense to most users, but quite unfortunately, there has been enough support expressed for active defiance of Jimbo's orders for this to require restating. The community needs to be reminded that while we are free to disagree with Jimbo, we are compelled to respect that his authority exceeds our own. Essjay Talk • Contact 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most wikipedia editors are anti-authorities.  You think they will accept Jimbo Wales as the ultimate authority?  LOL!  Castroski 05:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have no choice; he is the ultimate authority, whether they like it or not. As the foundation issues page states: "People who strongly disagree with them sometimes end up leaving the project." It's sad that people leave, but we have rules for a reason, and violating them for the sake of demonstrating that you don't like rules simply can't be allowed. Given that the Arbitration Committee accepted the principle, I would say that there isn't much discussion of whether or not it is the standard by which we act; not that it would have changed any if they had elected not to. Jimbo is the ultimate authority, and there is simply no getting around it; it is a matter of well-established fact. Essjay Talk • Contact 07:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, I find this statement, and this sentiment, utterly dumbfounding. Perhaps I have misunderstood the point of this project entirely, but I am appalled - frightened, even - that anyone could even think this, let alone propose it. Extraordinary. ElectricRay 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's his site. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way? Not, so far as I can see, in terms of funding, nor in terms of contribution. Now, I suppose you might say that that's beside the point: Wikipedia is the ultimate social contract - there are rules of engagement, such as those stated above, and one has the option to leave if one doesn't like the rules. Since membership is voluntary one can have no complaint about that. But I don't understand those to be the rules, and if they are they should be writ large on the front page of Wikipedia so no-one can miss them. And if they are, a lot more people will leave than just me. Does it not strike anyone but me that the above statement is highly reminiscent of a certain sort of political organanisation that is generally frowned upon these days? (sorry for being eliptical - I don't want to be acused of trolling or flaming).  ElectricRay 15:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His seed money paid for the first servers. He and the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation are the supreme authority on Wikipedia. The Board owns the servers, and Jimbo is Chairman of the Board (last time I checked). So, no, this is far from frightening or appalling. Wikipedia (and all its sister projects) have been run this way for years without any hitches. Is it a dictatorship? Hell, yes. Is this wrong? Hell, no. Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is hosted on the private property of the Wikimedia Foundation, and as long as it is, Jimbo and the Board have the final say on what goes down. Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's just about money, then i'll give him the damn money and donate it back to the foundation, provided they put them under GFDL like all the content that's inside of them. The rest of what you just said is just plain sickening. Just because Wikipedia isn't a Democracy doesn't mean it's a Tyranny. Karmafist 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do kindly explain how you release money under a content licence. And Wikipedia is a tyranny, my dear friend; wake up and smell the coffee. It's a benevolent dictatorship, with Jimbo letting us do what we like, butting in every now and then when he thinks we're fucking up. And if you're going to deny him his property rights (to evict you from his servers by, say, blocking you from editing), well, you can always fork. Johnleemk | Talk 18:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright then: I suggest that this statement is posted on the front page of the Wikipedia site: "Wikipedia is not a democracy. Jimbo Wales has ultimate authority on any matter. This is a foundation issue of all Wikimedia projects, and is beyond debate. It is unacceptible to defy his orders." If you wouldn't agree to that, then why not?   17:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not? It should probably be somewhere prominent in the welcome messages, etc. Johnleemk | Talk 17:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think on the main page. There should be no doubt about this whatsoever. How do I go about formally proposing this? ElectricRay 17:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Main Page. Don't forget that Jimbo himself can veto the proposal, or his minions (e.g. pretty much any Wikipedian who accepts his and the Board's authority) can agree not to let it onto the page. :p Johnleemk | Talk 17:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oops, forgot one note: While m:Foundation issues mentions that the ArbCom as a potential exception to Jimbo's final authority, the Arbitration policy specifically states [r]emedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to veto by, Jimbo Wales as well as Jimbo's own disclaimer when he created the AC that he reserve[s] the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. Just a clarification before someone says "But m:Foundation issues says..." Essjay Talk • Contact 01:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is at all appropriate, I second this motion and urge the ArbCom to adopt it in part or in full. It can't hurt, it can only help. Hamster Sandwich 01:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Has the Board ever overruled Jimbo? And if so, how long did it take to do so? --Aaron 16:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I doubt they ever will.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: Well, just getting JW to say 'this a binding decision' would be a start.  As Haukur says, this is "usually completely unclear", and in construing them as binding after the fact, in the absence of any clarity, leaves anyone interacting with him rather in limbo.  (Raul says requiring mind-reading, though even that's only sufficient if said project leader is clear in his own mind at the time that he's acting in that capacity.)  Come to that, an updated and clarified definition of JW's "special role" would be useful;  the "ultimate authority" statement on meta has been flagged with "this is changing" for 16 months (meaning it's still changing?  never did?  changed back?), and JW has himself rather downplayed the nature of this, if memory serves.  Alai 03:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Jimbo could have two accounts, one for when he wants to edit normally and just make suggestions (e.g. the userboxes request he posted on his page), and one for when he wants to make binding proclamations and the like. Or he could type in ALL CAPS,  or suffix his proclamations with "I AM THE LAW!" :-) Seriously though, anything to make it clearer. the wub "?!" 20:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose he add "esto perpetua" (Let it be perpetual); my first thought was "ex Cathedra," but some wouldn't find that funny. (Ex lege (from the law) and ex officio (from the office) would work too.)  Essjay Talk • Contact 22:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Why not ask him? Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably will, in due course.  Right now I'm trying to determine which of the about half-dozen questions I'd like to get pinned down there's at least some general feeling of consensus on, and which are the most pressing.  Alai 02:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note re: Jimbo 

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

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

message: Hi, I think there are a few contradictions between the proposed principles, the findings of fact and the proposed remedies. Firstly, the proposed principle 10.2 about Wikipedia being open to all is at odds with finding of fact 6, where Carnildo is declared to have "misused" admin powers for blocking three people who declared their intention to breach the Foundation's non-discrimination policy. While only one of the people Carnildo blocked had actually blocked someone for including the template, blocking is preventative and El_C's statement "Block on sight. No quarter. El_C 14:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that pedophilia is covered by the Foundation's non-discrimination policy, nor is pedophilia considered "protected" by any jurisdiction that I'm aware of. The Foundation's policy does specify "sexual orientation", which refers only to "...the sex, sexes, gender or genders, to which a person is attracted and which form the focus of a person's amorous or erotic desires, fantasies, and spontaneous feelings." (emphasis is mine) In any case, a blocked admin is still able to use their blocking powers. Carbonite 18:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, Carnildo's block  for "hate speech" was made an hour after I posted a message  that I was no longer interested in editing (this remains true though I will clear up any misconceptions in this case about my actions). I had also already requested to be voluntarily desysoped . In fact, the request had been granted  before Carnildo's block was even made. Carbonite 18:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps not, but I think the intention of the policy is clear. Block for what people do, or intend to do, rather than for what they are. I don't think Carnildo was necessary right to block you or the other two people he blocked - it was overreacting - but I don't think it was an abusive action as his actions were grounded in Foundation policy. It's like blocking a vandal for 48 hours instead of 24 hours, it's not misusing your administrative privileges, but it is being overly harsh. You are correct in pointing out that a blocked admin is able to use their blocking powers, I believe this is a bad idea (admins should only be able to unblock themselves while blocked - in case of an autoblock), and I have in the past attempted to get this stopped (see bug 3801). Talrias (t | e | c) 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact I did state that I intended to block users for what they did (the action of adding the "pedophilia" template). You're free to view this as inappropriate, but the argument that it contradicts the Foundation non-discrimination policy is simply false. Honestly, I have no plans to return to editing here, but I would greatly appreciate not being falsely accused of violating a non-discrimination policy. Carbonite 19:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Wikipedia is open to all means it is also equally open to those who think pedophiles should be banned. We're talking about conduct here, not beliefs. I can personally believe in the sanctity of edit warring and personal attacks, but unless I'm acting that out, it's of no concern to the encyclopedia. It follows that we still find Carnildo's actions a misuse of administrator status because the actions he took were wrong, even if the principle he justified it with is sound. Imagine I block you indefinitely for being a troll; sound principle, block trolls, but misuse of administrator status, because you're not a troll, Talrias :). And I find it likely that Carnildo's block was not preventative. Remember, he blocked for "hate speech," not for being rogues. And the fact that he blocked a non-admin at the same time as two admins strongly suggests it was not preventative. Also, there is currently a warning-like remedy, proposed by me last night. Dmcdevit·t 18:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically Carnildo blocked two non-admins (myself and Giano) and one admin (El C). I do realize that Carnildo almost certainly believed that I was still an admin at the time the block was made, but he should have realized from my talk page that I wasn't active at the time. Carbonite 19:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The mention of the Foundation policy there isn't intended to imply that blocking self-professed pedophiles is a violation. It's just to make what the circumstances that justify banning more clear. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carbonite, actually you said that you would block anyone adding that template or otherwise identifying themselves as a pedophile - if you want to call that 'for actions' then it is for the 'action' of saying/being something you didn't like. You now say that you know of no 'jurisdiction' where such 'action' is protected. Try the United States... Canada... United Kingdom... a good portion of the planet. NAMBLA membership is legal. They are allowed to say they are pedophiles. They are even allowed to claim that sexual relations between adults and children is healthy. They aren't allowed to actually have sex with children (for the record that's an 'action'). What you did is discriminatory under US law. If Wikipedia were government funded or hired/paid us for the work we do here that could be a problem. However, since Wikipedia is a private foundation it is allowed to discriminate... just as churches are allowed to exclude people from their congregations if they aren't members of the religion or contravene it's tenets (though not allowed to so discriminate on who they hire for non-religious work). There seem to be quite alot of crossed-signals on whether Wikipedia does or does not discriminate. My understanding to date has been that we do not, but the overall impression I'm getting (pretty much directly stated by Jimbo) is that going forward we will on specific cases deemed harmful to Wikipedia's image, as decided by the ArbCom. The number of us who are ACLU members or otherwise consider this, in itself, harmful to Wikipedia's image is probably less than the number who oppose free-speech for pedophiles. Nazis it's probably a toss-up. Banning self-avowed homosexuals (as some in this case argued for) would probably be a net loss to our reputation even without the free speech/civil liberties issues. I'd rather not draw a line at all (or remove user pages entirely to make an 'even playing field' in eliminating all self-expression), but I understand the practical concerns. Essentially, my position is based in ethics, yours in morals, and Jimbo's in reality. :] --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't exactly true — there's a difference between "protected" and "legal", at least in the United States.  There are certain specific protections in federal law regarding employment discrimination, housing discrimination, etc., like race, age, and gender, but "wanting to have sex with kids" isn't one of them.  You could legally reject someone for that as sure as you could reject them for being a convicted criminal, or having a bad credit history.  Some states (not the federal government) have made "sexual orientation" a protected attribute, but so far as I know, none of them have gone so far as to say that includes pedophilia.  Just because the federal government won't arrest you for something doesn't mean that other people can't completely ostracize you for it (without breaking any laws).  —Cleared as filed. 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions in the proposed decision 

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

message: I don't think we should be banning SPUI for long periods of time for this. The creation of  was blatantly inappropriate, but rather funny. He's constantly doing stupid stuff and causing trouble (see his block log...), but this wasn't much of an offense. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but we should be blocking him now and again to remind him not to act like a borderline dick. It might be humorous to some, but it didn't help the issue. I doubt he's stupid; he must have known it would be like waving a pink cloth at a bull, in absence of a red. Rob Church (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPUI 

message: I performed one restore, and that to allow people to look at the page while it was listed on TfD. How is this a misuse of admin tools? I acknowledge and regret my comments to David Gerard, and understand them to be inappropriate, but I refuse to call my single restore inappropriate or wheel warring. I merely misunderstood the magnitude of what was occuring, and didn't realize that there was a massive wheel war in progress. I wouldn't have restored had I understood it properly, considering that I try to stay out of those situations. In addition, Carnildo and Ashibaka are not reprimanded? Out of this whole case, the reprimands section absolutely boggles my mind right now. I'm not quite sure what to make of it. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you undeleted it, had already been deleted three times and restored twice. Do you not look at this before undeleting? The deletion log appears directly underneath the "restore" button. And if you were aware of this, why don't you feel you were contributing to a wheel war? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd go with Hanlon's Razor here. As I recall, I glanced at the deletion log and saw "delete per consensus at TfD" or something to that effect. I then went back to TfD, checked the date on it, tabulated a rough percentage, realized that someone had made an apparent mistake, and performed the restore. I made an attempt afterward to perform a null edit (adding a period or something) to the template to explain my restore, so as not to unduly piss anyone off, but it doesn't look like it went through. Stupidity on my part...yeah, probably, and I should have given the deletion log more than a cursory glance when I rushed off to restore. I'll go along with "be more careful" for sure, but I don't think I should be "reprimanded." —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you managed to do all that in the single minute between me deleting the template and you restoring it. You probably missed the 20:10 consensus at the time to delete (it took me several minutes to count up the votes before I plucked up the courage to delete), and by your own admission you missed the chaos that the template was causing elsewhere. I don't hold any grudges over it—that was clearly a crazy evening (European time)—but your hasty action could easily have been avoided and had to be reverted by Jimbo in person. I would slap you on the knuckles with a wet herring, but apparently this is not an enforcement measure which is recognized by ArbCom so they're formally telling you to take more care in the future. Physchim62 (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're also formally telling me that I'm a m:dick and should go sit on the naughty step for a bit (though not in so few words). That's what I take issue with. I don't hold any grudges either, not even against David Gerard (to whom I have not given enough credit), but I don't like being told that I have been abusing my admin powers when it was a simple mistake. If I was abusing my admin powers, then you were by deleting it...and you obviously were not. Moreover, Ashibaka and Carnildo did far more to escalate the situation than I did, though I think it was largely unintentional on their end as well. I agree; it was a crazy evening, and when I saw that Jimbo undid my restore, I was more than a bit shocked (though I saw his point...and it's his site, so who am I to argue?). But hey, live and learn. I'd just like to get this behind us. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I have to agree with Physchim. While I don't think you intended any harm (did something about my statement imply malice?), I would certainly urge more caution in the future. Glancing at the most recent line in the edit log without seeing the other four entries is hasty indeed, as is undeleting a page one minute after its deletion. While administrator actions are not sacrosanct, a modicum of caution should be taken before undoing them. In my time on Wikipedia, I've seen several mini–wheel wars occur because one adminstrator didn't understand why another had blocked, or deleted, or some such action, and without bothering to fully investigate or ask the original administrator, unblocked or undeleted. Taking two minutes instead of one to review the circumstances might have avoided prolonging the conflict. I think a reprimand is appropriate for undoing the work of other administrators without taking the time to briefly investigate the circumstances or seek clarification from the other party. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, nobody's saying you're a WP:DICK, just that you made a bad call rather too hastily. Ashibaka and Carnildo aren't reprimanded because they have much harsher penalties against them. As for why admins who acted to delete the template aren't reprimanded, there are probably as many different replies as there are arbitrators at the moment, although Raul seems basically to be saying that the decision to delete was right and that we shouldn't be reprimanded for enforcing a correct decision. Nobody is particularly proud of the way it degenerated into a wheel war, and each of us has a four-page essay to write on "Alternative Dispute Resolution". Oh, and an encyclopedia to write as well... Physchim62 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (another edit conflict) And you're correct that Ashibaka and Carnildo behaved even more poorly, and that's why their penalties are more severe than yours. Assuming the current trends continue, while your administrative powers will be restored after two days, Ashibaka must wait 2 weeks. Carnildo's powers won't even be restored at the end of the two weeks: he must reapply for them at WP:RfA. And if you follow RfA at all, you know that the chances of a desysopped user regaining administrative powers is slim, especially soon after the event. I'd guess it would take several months at least. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, putting a vandal warning template on an established user's talk page, when they are clearly not engaging in vandalism, is kind of a dick thing to do. However, I think BorgHunter is being unequally singled out, perhaps due to the rapid nature and high emotions of this case, per my comment above. Demi T/C 00:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Me again 

message: There are a number of statements in the proposed decision that are misleading or false.  
*Dschor's recreation of the Pedophilia template
:10) The day following the incident, Dschor created Template:User pedo, an almost identical copy of the original pedophile userbox (The original having said "This user identifies as a pedophile." whereas Dschor's version said "This user is interested in pedophilia.")
::This is a contradiction - the templates cannot be almost identical, given the difference in content noted.  To claim that Template:User pedo is an almost identical copy of the previous templates is to ignore the content of the templates.  This item should be changed to be factually accurate, or removed entirely.  The heading is simply a lie - there was no recreation.  The template I created was new, different, and intentionally not offensive.  
*Dschor
:6.1) Dschor's recreation of an almost-verbatim copy of the pedophile userbox was extremely foolish and purposefully inflammatory. For attempting to aggravate the dispute in order to make a point, Dschor is banned from Wikipedia for 2 months. Additionally, he is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes.
::This statement (and 6, immediately preceeding it) is false.  "Almost verbatim" implies a lack of difference that is inconsistent with the evidence above.  Recreation implies that the template had been deleted and then created again - this is not the case.  It may be true that my creation of a new template on the subject was "foolish", but to claim that it was "purposefully inflammatory" is to eviscerate any intention of assuming good faith.  I made no attempt to aggravate the dispute - my attempt was to find a "middle ground", where all parties could be satisfied.  The ban proposed is highly irregular, and particularly troubling given the lack of any attempt to resolve the issue through dialogue.  I object in the strongest terms to all mischaracterizations made here, and request that I be removed from the RfAr, as the central issue (wheel war) does not apply to my case.  I move that an RfC be opened instead, where concerned parties can make their case, and a more productive outcome can be acheived.  --Dschor 13:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Assume good faith until strong evidence appears to the contrary."  Doc glasgow's evidence is sufficient for me.  I shall tone down the wording, as you have a semantic point, if a minor one.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a close look at Doc's edit history, and you may see why his evidence is less than sufficient.  Please assume good faith, and take a look at the compromise that I have proposed.  Doc has been doing subtantially more trolling than I, and his edits have been intentionally provocative, unlike those that I made in this case.  I think it is what is known as "calling the kettle black".  --Dschor 09:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, on its face, ludicrous, and your going around calling Doc glasgow a troll (it's not just here, by the way) is rather close to a personal attack. It doesn't really matter who presents the evidence anyway. Dmcdevit·t 09:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Doc calling me a troll is somehow not similarly close to a personal attack?  My compromise suggestion is not ludicrous - it is a fair way to deal with a situation that obviously has provoked an excessive reaction.  Doc's so called evidence hinges on what he terms a contradiction - that I could have created a less offensive user box without seeing the original.  Of course I can't see the original, because I am not an administrator, but I did draft a neutral user box appropriate for flagging an interest in pedophilia, which I felt was a legitimate use of a userbox, and presumably a middle ground between advocacy and condemnation.  My good faith has been assailed by an editor who shows an obvious distaste for userboxes, and who has consistently trolled TfDs by editing boxes in a provocative and disruptive manner.  I don't think his take on the evidence is the only possible interpretation - in fact, I think it reflects his bias quite clearly.  --Dschor 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed decision problems 

message: Please be nice to Waggers.  He is new to Wikipedia and naturally assumed that really important pages would be restricted from edits by ordinary users. I think it's great that he could just wander in and vote; it makes me appreciate Wikipedia all the more. --Tony Sidaway 23:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I shouldn't have been so snappy.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Waggers

message: On one hand: The ruling says that Template:User pedo is a recreation of Template:User pedophile. The templates have completely different graphics and completely different text. There is an ocean of difference between being interested in pædophilia and being a pædophile.
The latter template may well have been created with the intent to troll—I don't know, I'm bad at guessing people's motives—but it's patently not a recreation of the original template. Nor are the templates "extremely similar". 
On the other hand: It seems the graphic of Template:User pedo has now been removed but if memory serves it was some sort of pædophile logo with something like intertwined hearts. In the context of a logo like that a reader might reasonably guess that someone using that template was sympathetic to the idea of adults having sexual relations with children. That's not a very helpful userbox in my opinion and can reasonably be seen as trolling in the context.
A userbox saying "this user is interested in national socialism" would not be worse than the average userbox, in my opinion, but if it had a swastika on it then it could be interpreted to mean that the user was sympathetic to the ideology (though I would not interpret it that way myself). The swastika, though, is a neutral symbol in itself. It's just a geometric shape with no obvious meaning to it. But the pædophile logo I'm trying to remember could be interpreted in itself to express support for the idea that sexual relationships between adults and children are frequently happy. Thus it could be seen as more inflammatory than a swastika. 
In summary: I think the ruling's references to Template:User pedo being a recreation of Template:User pedophile are wrong. But I still think that Template:User pedo can reasonably be seen as an inflammatory template. I have no idea if it was purposeful trolling or an attempt to come up with a userbox on the subject which people could live with. Haukur 10:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a failed attempt at the latter, apparently.  --Dschor 23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unsolicited analysis of [[Template:User pedo]] and [[Template:User pedophile]] 

message: "...Dschor is banned from Wikipedia for 2 months. Additionally, he is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes."
Is this probation indefinate? I don't follow all arbitration cases but my memory is that probation is normally explicitly time limited. Thryduulf 12:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add that he can appeal it after two months, per other rulings.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dschor's probation

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