Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision

message: :"having engaged in bad behavior in the past, it is difficult for an desyopped administrator to pass Wikipedia:Requests for adminship due to the requirement for consensus."
I would urge the arbiters to consider that while it may seem that way, this evidence points in a different direction: that most ex-admins coming to RFA again fail for reasons entirely unrelated to what got them demoted in the first place. I agree with the sentiment that RFA is far too critical of people to the point of being broken, but whatever problems RFA has are not resolved by bypassing it. >Radiant< 14:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Please look at the evidence rather than the rumor or impression.  Radiant has compiled a very, very telling analysis, and to have that work ignored and gainsaid without even consideration is very poor judgment, it seems to me.  At least engage the evidence, but don't assert the counter position as if in ignorance or disregard of evidence.  Geogre 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Principle 16

message: Is it possible to have links from these sections back to the relevant sections of the Workshop, so that Arbitrators coming to this page 'cold' can go there and read the comments left by those who were discussing these issues on the Workshop pages? Either that, or an indication of whether the rest of the Arbitration committee are reading the Workshop pages? Obviously Fred is active over on the Workshop pages, but he did say that he was generally the only ArbCom member to use those pages. I think I did see another ArbCom member on the talk page of the Workshop, but he said that the Workshop was so big that it, um, crashed his browser! Anyway, I recognise that at some point the Arbitrators have to form their own  conclave and pass judgement, but I just wanted to ensure the extensive (and almost entirely civil) discussion that took place on those Workshop pages is not overlooked. Carcharoth 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what they look at. I presume that look at all the evidence and carefully analyze all the material on the Workshop. But that may not be true. Fred Bauder 19:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links back to Workshop? 

message: There is consistently poor wording, and I believe that Fred's draft, at this point, is a prosecution rather than assessment of evidence from all sides.  Saying something like "do not troll" is inarguable, until you realize that it's stated only to get at "those who disagreed more than once were trolling," just as "do not bait" is inarguable, until you realize that "you are a boil" and "you are all idiots" is, in this characterization, merely an "undiplomatic response," while, "Did you all actually agree with this decision" is "baiting."  A difference of opinion is the stuff of Wikipedia, but these interpretations are so beyond the pale as to amount to advocacy that is better suited to the workshop than judgment made from a position of disinterest and dispassion.  Throughout this proposed decision, exceptionally ill-defined terms that carry enormous emotional freight are employed, and there is never an effort made to justify or explain why or how such terminology should be anything but fuel to the fire, rather than a calm assessment.  In regular jurisprudence, judges are supposed to be unemotional and without prior friendships with disputants.  Geogre 13:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can farm this out to Meatball. A dispute here will end up with us, warts and all. Fred Bauder 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Very true.  Picking one side of an argument and saying "this side was baiting the other" means little other than "I happen to agree with the other side."  I think it's obvious that there was lots of disagreement and criticism, sometimes harshly worded, all around.  Friday (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to repeat my statement before the arbitration was accepted (now deleted for some reason): As for "addressing the idea fought over in this discussion editors vs. admins", I don't see how ArbCom may issue a satisfactory ruling in favor of contributors, being composed primarily of non-writing admins. InkSplotch's request is all the more ill-advised, as some parties expressed doubts in the integrity of the ArbCom and its procedures. Bringing the case to be decided by the judge they don't trust seems the worst issue possible. Now we have a predictably poor finale to a manipulative arbitration rigged up by a sockpuppet account. What may be less surprizing? --Ghirla -????- 15:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement is included in the decision as a comment to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Proposed_decision#Jurisdiction_of_the_Arbitration_Committee, a dissenting opinion, if you will. Fred Bauder 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ghirla, for whatever comfort it may be, your statement is still to be found here on the case talk page.  The convention seems to be that when a case is opened, the parties' statements stay on the main case page and non-party statements/comments go on the associated talkpage. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see you say anything just 3 times, or even so little as a dozen times. Fred Bauder 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the section below for my comment on this amazing discourtesy. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Judging by such comments, RfAr degenerates from quasi-judicial procedures to quasi-personal vendettas. Not that it had not been evident before this case, though. Another illustration of corruption is that people resort to sockpuppetry in order to launch a RfAr with seemingly predetermined results. There is very little trust in ArbCom these days. --Ghirla -????- 07:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor wording 

message: Since "wikipedia is not a battleground" is cited as justification for demoting people, would Fred deign to explain to folks how that policy applies to discussing policy?  He cites it as a lynchpin and proof, and yet I cannot see how the policy supports any injunction of any user, much less administrator demotion. Geogre 02:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation needed

message: Among other things, the /Proposed Decision being drafted by Fred Bauder proposes that Geogre be desysopped ("suspended indefinitely" as an administrator "for sustained aggressive political campaigning" is the precise wording).  John Reid would be banned for one week for his postings to the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard.  In all the pounds of typing expended in the Workshop and elsewhere, not a single user suggested that either of these remedies was in order or should even be considered.  I did not agree with everything that Geogre or John Reid said during the past month, but I consider these proposals to be entirely unreasonable and unacceptable. Newyorkbrad 20:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion of Wikipedia's power structure, including attempts to change policy is welcome. Fred Bauder 11:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  So when does "discussion of Wikipedia's power structure, including attempts to change policy" (welcome, it seems) become "sustained aggressive political campaigning" and "continuing violations of Wikipedia is not a battleground (and so liable to lose admin status indefinitely)?  Presumably "sustained" is alright (unless we are now required to shut up as soon as someone tells us to?), and discussion of policy will inevitably be "political", so presumably the alleged problem is that User:Geogre has been "aggressive" in some sense? If it is not clear when otherwise-acceptable behavious becomes culpable, the effect may be that we will just have to keep quiet for fear of being punished.  Is that the intended effect? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. Just frame issues as policy, suggest policy changes if necessary and attempt to reach consensus. When does it become a "battlefield"? Hard to say, but I think it can be expressed as agitation against consensus. If what you want as policy is not adopted after extensive discussion, then further campaigning is inappropriate. Fred Bauder 14:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it seems that "sustained" is actually a problem (I note in passing that you have not pointed to any agression on Geogre's part, or disputed that the process is inherently political).  How are Wikipedians meant to achieve change (that is, crystallise consensus in a different place to where it was previously) without "agitation"?  Oysters and pearls.  And, as someone else said, it takes two to "battle". -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred is also begging the question; how does he know consensus isn't on Geogre's side? This is not obvious and I strongly suspect it isn't even true. This is a good example of what was said recently in a different context, that ArbCom, or at least certain members of it, seem to be out of touch with the current experience of the "Wikipedian on the street", as it were. PurplePlatypus 23:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This would also seem to be in flagrant violation of WP:NBD, which establishes that very little on Wikipedia should be accepted unquestioningly, and that debate and discussion on issues of policy and project direction are welcomed and accepted. FCYTravis 07:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not clear what the last sentence means but there's clearly no comparison between Geogre and Karmafist, who as I recall ended up engaging in a vandalism campaign and encouraging others to. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a perfect comparison but hitherto the closest we have had to political insurrectionism of this kind was Karmafist's campaigning.  --Tony Sidaway 06:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an unfair comparison. Very different agendas and different personalities. Geogre is trying to clear up specific instances of unfairness or irrationality and what he sees as the causes. Karmafist was trying to change so much it was hard to keep track, and as I recall he did it from day one; Geogre on the other hand is a regular editor using his considerable experience here to effect change. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that if taken as a moral equivalence it would be an unfair comparison.  Karmafist, by the way, was a regular editor and administrator until he became damaged during the course of the Pigsonthewing arbitration. However the point I'm making here is that Fred's proposal could have the opposite of the desired effect (sadly, not an uncommon occurrence in arbitration). --Tony Sidaway 08:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that arbitration can make issues worse, and I feel I've noticed this more since the advent of the workshop pages, which trigger very bitter, fruitless debate; repairing the editing relationships afterwards is almost impossible. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to disagree on workshop pages.  I have found them to be very valuable, and my decision to desysop was a direct result of insights gained from the comments in the workshop in the current case. --Tony Sidaway 08:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I admire you for requesting the desysopping, but I wish there was a less damaging way of airing differences. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see any reason why Karmafist's name should be brought by Tony in his every second comment. Not everyone is aware of who Karmafist was. --Ghirlandajo 06:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've mentioned him perhaps three times in the current case.  See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist for a partial history. --Tony Sidaway 07:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, one more time:  Tony's comment again talks about "revolution."  Wikipedia has no government.  Would Fred kindly put in a "resolved: Wikipedia is governed by the ArbCom?"  That way, Tony can be correct, and Fred won't have to put up with me correcting him.  I cannot advocate a revolution or insurrection, because there is no government at Wikipedia, and, if there were, it wouldn't include clerks or "emeritus" ArbCom members.  I don't even think it would include the ArbCom members.  Geogre 10:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for the exasperated tone.  It's just that we are not governed.  We have experts and commoners on the same level, administrators and new users with equal power.  Any leadership we have is a meritocracy, or should be.  Much of Kelly's support is due to her long, good work, and I cannot disagree with that (although I wish someone would actually say what it is instead of just waving a hand vaguely), but it is also a great deal her own telling people that she is important, and with that I disagree wholeheartedly.  We do not have a pyramid.  We have an informal structure that is derived solely from practice, not policy.  No one can revolt.  No one can perform a coup.  Unless a campaign of civil disobedience begins, there is no striking at the power of Wikipedia.  That would be a revolution, but only that.  Geogre 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Tony is correct that this matter is quite similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist. Kelly was quite aggressive, even bullheaded, but now, when she is hurting, is not the time to analyze her errors explicitly, best just to say thank you. The Arbitration Committee bases its decision on Wikipedia's practice and policies. While others may differ, I interpret Wikipedia is not a battleground to preclude political agitation leading to development of factions. Fred Bauder 11:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Highly questionable analogy. Karmafist's case was about his arguing Wikipedia policies and politics in welcome messages to newcomers. Geogre was arguing Wikipedia policies and politics on places like the Administrators' Noticeboard and the Requests for Administration page. Invalid comparison. Newyorkbrad 15:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I can easily accept the claim that Kelly is hurting and shouldn't be hurt more, but why does that apply only to her? Zocky | picture popups 00:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She was the only user driven off. Fred Bauder 03:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This claim is not accurate. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe "She was the only party to the case who left" is more accurate? Regrettable as it is that other users have left over this, the ArbCom can only reasonably be expected to deal with what happened to the parties to the case. Carcharoth 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that this comment of Geogre's is an attempt to raise wider issues of the sort that Carcharoth recommended we leave until after this arbitration is closed.  I find it curious that Geogre seems to imply, sarcastically, that people object to his asking questions, when in fact he refused to answer my questions.  If Geogre feels free to ask questions and make assertions regarding Kelly Martin's behaviour I will feel free to ask questions and make assertions regarding Geogre's behaviour.  --Ideogram 02:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly Unanticipated Provisions of Proposed Decision - Geogre and John Reid 

message: *User:John Reid went slightly too far, IMHO, and I had already said as much on WP:BN, but the suggestion that User:Geogre should lose his admin bit "indefinitely" for engaging in vigorous policy debate, in an entirely civil if tenatious manner, defies description.  He was speaking for many of us who have profound doubts about the direction - and indeed creation -of the Wikipedia power structure. Is this another remedy "pour (dis)encourager les autres"? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion of Wikipedia's power structure, including attempts to change policy is welcome. Fred Bauder 11:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  So when does "discussion of Wikipedia's power structure, including attempts to change policy" (welcome, it seems) become "sustained aggressive political campaigning" and "continuing violations of Wikipedia is not a battleground (and so liable to lose admin status indefinitely)?  Presumably "sustained" is alright (unless we are now required to shut up as soon as someone tells us to?), and discussion of policy will inevitably be "political", so presumably the alleged problem is that User:Geogre has been "aggressive" in some sense? If it is not clear when otherwise-acceptable behavious becomes culpable, the effect may be that we will just have to keep quiet for fear of being punished.  Is that the intended effect? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. Just frame issues as policy, suggest policy changes if necessary and attempt to reach consensus. When does it become a "battlefield"? Hard to say, but I think it can be expressed as agitation against consensus. If what you want as policy is not adopted after extensive discussion, then further campaigning is inappropriate. Fred Bauder 14:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it seems that "sustained" is actually a problem (I note in passing that you have not pointed to any agression on Geogre's part, or disputed that the process is inherently political).  How are Wikipedians meant to achieve change (that is, crystallise consensus in a different place to where it was previously) without "agitation"?  Oysters and pearls.  And, as someone else said, it takes two to "battle". -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred is also begging the question; how does he know consensus isn't on Geogre's side? This is not obvious and I strongly suspect it isn't even true. This is a good example of what was said recently in a different context, that ArbCom, or at least certain members of it, seem to be out of touch with the current experience of the "Wikipedian on the street", as it were. PurplePlatypus 23:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This would also seem to be in flagrant violation of WP:NBD, which establishes that very little on Wikipedia should be accepted unquestioningly, and that debate and discussion on issues of policy and project direction are welcomed and accepted. FCYTravis 07:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: * ...if I may. This totally unexpected decision was never proposed and discussed at the Workshop, while, admitedly, this is not required. So, I suppose this is either Fred's own suggestion or it is transferred here from ArbCom-L. In any case, in line with Fred's own earlier proposal that stated that it is reasonable to expect the explanation in difficult decision, may I request such explanation of the rationale of such totally undiscussed (openly), unexpected, and as above edits show, rather uncalled for proposal, at least in opinions of many respected editors. --Irpen 23:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not clear what the last sentence means but there's clearly no comparison between Geogre and Karmafist, who as I recall ended up engaging in a vandalism campaign and encouraging others to. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a perfect comparison but hitherto the closest we have had to political insurrectionism of this kind was Karmafist's campaigning.  --Tony Sidaway 06:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an unfair comparison. Very different agendas and different personalities. Geogre is trying to clear up specific instances of unfairness or irrationality and what he sees as the causes. Karmafist was trying to change so much it was hard to keep track, and as I recall he did it from day one; Geogre on the other hand is a regular editor using his considerable experience here to effect change. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that if taken as a moral equivalence it would be an unfair comparison.  Karmafist, by the way, was a regular editor and administrator until he became damaged during the course of the Pigsonthewing arbitration. However the point I'm making here is that Fred's proposal could have the opposite of the desired effect (sadly, not an uncommon occurrence in arbitration). --Tony Sidaway 08:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that arbitration can make issues worse, and I feel I've noticed this more since the advent of the workshop pages, which trigger very bitter, fruitless debate; repairing the editing relationships afterwards is almost impossible. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to disagree on workshop pages.  I have found them to be very valuable, and my decision to desysop was a direct result of insights gained from the comments in the workshop in the current case. --Tony Sidaway 08:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I admire you for requesting the desysopping, but I wish there was a less damaging way of airing differences. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see any reason why Karmafist's name should be brought by Tony in his every second comment. Not everyone is aware of who Karmafist was. --Ghirlandajo 06:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've mentioned him perhaps three times in the current case.  See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist for a partial history. --Tony Sidaway 07:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, one more time:  Tony's comment again talks about "revolution."  Wikipedia has no government.  Would Fred kindly put in a "resolved: Wikipedia is governed by the ArbCom?"  That way, Tony can be correct, and Fred won't have to put up with me correcting him.  I cannot advocate a revolution or insurrection, because there is no government at Wikipedia, and, if there were, it wouldn't include clerks or "emeritus" ArbCom members.  I don't even think it would include the ArbCom members.  Geogre 10:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for the exasperated tone.  It's just that we are not governed.  We have experts and commoners on the same level, administrators and new users with equal power.  Any leadership we have is a meritocracy, or should be.  Much of Kelly's support is due to her long, good work, and I cannot disagree with that (although I wish someone would actually say what it is instead of just waving a hand vaguely), but it is also a great deal her own telling people that she is important, and with that I disagree wholeheartedly.  We do not have a pyramid.  We have an informal structure that is derived solely from practice, not policy.  No one can revolt.  No one can perform a coup.  Unless a campaign of civil disobedience begins, there is no striking at the power of Wikipedia.  That would be a revolution, but only that.  Geogre 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Tony is correct that this matter is quite similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist. Kelly was quite aggressive, even bullheaded, but now, when she is hurting, is not the time to analyze her errors explicitly, best just to say thank you. The Arbitration Committee bases its decision on Wikipedia's practice and policies. While others may differ, I interpret Wikipedia is not a battleground to preclude political agitation leading to development of factions. Fred Bauder 11:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Highly questionable analogy. Karmafist's case was about his arguing Wikipedia policies and politics in welcome messages to newcomers. Geogre was arguing Wikipedia policies and politics on places like the Administrators' Noticeboard and the Requests for Administration page. Invalid comparison. Newyorkbrad 15:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I can easily accept the claim that Kelly is hurting and shouldn't be hurt more, but why does that apply only to her? Zocky | picture popups 00:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She was the only user driven off. Fred Bauder 03:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This claim is not accurate. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe "She was the only party to the case who left" is more accurate? Regrettable as it is that other users have left over this, the ArbCom can only reasonably be expected to deal with what happened to the parties to the case. Carcharoth 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that this comment of Geogre's is an attempt to raise wider issues of the sort that Carcharoth recommended we leave until after this arbitration is closed.  I find it curious that Geogre seems to imply, sarcastically, that people object to his asking questions, when in fact he refused to answer my questions.  If Geogre feels free to ask questions and make assertions regarding Kelly Martin's behaviour I will feel free to ask questions and make assertions regarding Geogre's behaviour.  --Ideogram 02:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: One of the issues here is that Tony Sidaway exhibited vindictive blocking.  Another was that Kelly Martin (who now believes that her blog is applicable evidence on Wikipedia) drew up enemies lists and tried to get people to act in such a way as to allow her to block them.  Fred has here proposed that I should lose my administrative status for holding to my point of view, and he has cited "not a battleground" as justification.  Aside from the fact that nothing in the Evidence page suggested that I had failed "battleground," what really concerns me is that he is showing vindictiveness for my above exposing of the semantic weakness of his statements.   
The proposal is wholly irrational, however, and the irrationality suggests that it is coming out of anger rather than deliberation.  How is it irrational?  Well, if everything stated were true, if I were making Wikipedia a battle ground, if I were at "war," then that has absolutely nothing to do with whether I am an administrator or not.  Had he proposed that I be blocked indefinitely, that would be logical.  However, in the absence of even alleging that I have misused administrator's powers, the proposal is so irrational on its face as to beg the question of Fred's mental state when he made it.  I also ask how any member of the arbitration committee would make such an enormous error of fact as to cite a policy that explains how we are supposed to behave in article creation unless it were out of anger.
I hope I'm wrong and that there is some secret manner in which it is logic and not anger and vengeance that explains it, but Fred has offered us no help there. This is not sarcasm:  I really hope that there is a logic.  If there is, I trust that Fred will always vote and propose such sanctions on all administrators who argue all positions for an amount of time beyond his own preference and for a position he disagrees with.  Geogre 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrational, if not vindictive proposal

message: While I fully support expunging Giano's block log of the "hate speech" entry, I noticed Brion posted this comment.  I hope ArbCom works something out before voting occurs on that proposal, I'd hate for false hopes to be raised.  --InkSplotch 21:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your concern Inksplotch, however you are overlooking two things. 1: Nobody is taking the slightest notice of anything on the workshop page; and 2: I have changed my name and so  rid myself of the block log - so I am happy.  Counting edits and credits are of no importance to me what so ever, all the people who matter know who I am and that is good enough for me. Giano 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were my proposals, Giano, standing out clearly when they were first posted on a relatively clean page; intended as conciliatory gestures, and adopted as such by Fred Bauder in the /Proposed Decision; but unfortunately, matters seem to have moved a bit beyond that. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's proposing your original account be reactivated, which I'd assume would involve your current account & history being merged into the original, as well as the block log being modified.  I imagine merging the accounts is something most admins can do, although the password reset might require developer assistance.  But modifying the block log is a more serious thing, at least to Brion, the lead developer.  So, if you personally don't want any of that remedy enacted on your behalf, and I'd think carefully on it, you might want to state it clearly right here, where Fred is most likely to see it.  Otherwise, it might get voted on and carried out regardless.  --InkSplotch 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I don't have your experience of these things, but to be honest I couldn't care less - what's in a name? Giano 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Developers may be able to do such things, but if you mean admins as in those with the +sysop bit, we're not given access to those tools that would allow for merging accounts and histories, resetting passwords, or modifying the verbiage on the block log. More information is available at WP:ADMIN if you'd like. It's actually a very limited set of tools, though perhaps too easy to use at times. ~Kylu (u|t)  00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Giano seems to have indicated that these proposed remedies (as I stated above, my proposals on the Workshop, based on comments he made in the past) are no longer of much interest to him.  Perhaps one issue (brand new user account) has cancelled out the other issue (objectionable block summary from February). Since the putative beneficiary is not worried about these proposals any more, we needn't spend much more time on them. Newyorkbrad 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giano's block log 

message: I think that all the commentators above who express horror at Fred's proposals have missed their purpose. Now, I haven't talked to Fred, this is simply my interpretation. For about three days earlier this month, we were all confronted with what I would call an attempted "permanent revolution." That is to say, there was a definite lack of desire on the part of certain parties to see the situation resolved. If you go though the noticeboard archives you'll see me, among others, trying repeatedly to find a way to defuse the situation and get the parties talking to each other in a constructive fashion. Gnashing, wailing, calling each other idiots and demanding bans and whatnot doesn't count. All suggestions at dispute resolution and archiving were waved off because that either meant I was trying to stifle discussion or dispute resolution was "inadequate" or "inappropriate" (I'm paraphrasing).
Wikipedia is not a battleground, and anyone who tries to make it one is not welcome here. I think this is a principle to which we could all subscribe. It is my view that administrators are looked to by the community as leaders; certainly many think of themselves that way and try to act appropriately. It is for this reason, beyond most, that Tony Sidaway has earned condemnation. A three-hour block is small beer indeed, in the grand scheme of things. However, by his use of inflammatory language and rhetoric, Tony escalated the situation far, far beyond where it needed to go. In short, he ceased being a custodian of Wikipedia and became part of the problem.
Now, we turn to Geogre. His contributions to the article space are outstanding and I hope that this will continue. At the same time, his holding of administrative status confers upon him certain responsibilities–responsibilities which he abandoned when he repeatedly prolonged a dispute that cried out for closure and resolution. For several days Geogre was among those users who stood in the way of resolution. I watched with horror as the permanent revolution moved from place to place, from noticeboard to noticeboard, from wrong to wrong.
This doesn't mean that administrators are expected to be the Arbcom's jackboots; far from it. There is a place and time for responsible and constructive criticism. In moments of anger unfortunate things may be said, but it is expected that parties will attempt to come together in good faith to resolve their problems. If parties are unwilling to do so–that is to say, are not willing to resolve the dispute–then we have a very serious problem.
I may have misunderstood Fred; I'm sure that what I've said above will prove unpopular and be roundly criticized. This is how I see the matter. Put briefly, administrators are expected to defuse situations and not escalate them. Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to get it. Fred Bauder 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be a good time to take it private, with all due respect? Rx StrangeLove 03:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No he's wrong, "politics" refers to internal Wikipedia politics. Fred Bauder 16:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred, were you there?  Were you participating in the discussions when that was drafted?  On what basis can you announce the meaning?  What you suggest would make this section really out of place in the WP:NOT page, as the rest of WP:NOT is about articles.  If you were there and know what it's really about, why didn't you urge folks to put it on a separate page?  Seems to me that "disruption" and "point" already cover what you are trying to make this cover, but they have a long history of use in arbitration that wouldn't let them fit the circumstance.  Geogre 19:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) I also was about to humbly suggest that this thread may not be going anywhere we should want it to go, especially on this particular page. As for Mackensen's pending question, as much as I value transparency, this may not be the best place for that discussion either. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I understand the first sentence. Who is doing the inadvertant trolling here? Is it possible to inadvertantly troll someone? Carcharoth 12:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, Geogre and Mackensen were having a heated discussion over some of Fred's proposals, although none of them agrees with those proposals. So, they were "trolled", but since that wasn't Fred's intention, it was "inadvertent". Zocky | picture popups 16:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observation 

message: If no one minds I'm going to attempt to stifle and censor discussion by proposing that this matter best be handled as dispute resolution between Giano and Tony Sidaway. Tony reported his block, the block has been undone. Nothing's going to be accomplished here save much grumbling and drama. We all know where the dispute pages are; we all know where to discuss the blocking policy. Administrative action isn't needed here. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: Just for those who rely on their memories and don't believe in reading policy:
 Wikipedia is not a battleground 
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.
Every user is expected to interact with others  civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation.. Do not  insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly towards you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same in retaliation. Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavoring, or ignore the relevant message entirely. 
When a conflict continues to bother you or others, adhere to the procedures of  dispute resolution. There are always users willing to  mediate and  arbitrate disputes between others.
Also, do not create or modify articles  just to prove a point. Do not use Wikipedia to make  legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems.If you believe that your legal rights are being violated, you may discuss this with other users involved, take the matter to the appropriate  mailing list, contact the Wikimedia Foundation, or in cases of  copyright violations notify us at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation.
 Threats are not tolerated and may result in a  ban.
*So, first, we realize that this is part of "NOT" which is about article creation.
*Second: personal grudges and imported stuff.  Nope.  I don't care about the persons, have avoided making personal reflections, have generally tried to comment on the words or actions of people rather than the character or personality or person of the individuals.  This is not gaming, either: I generally don't care about people.  I don't like them, much, and Wikipedia people aren't even people: they're screen names in front of identities of which only words exist.
*Calmly, etc.  Well, take a look at the Kelly Martin "evidence" and see how calm that is.  Compare the worst thing I have said (whatever that might be) to find any hostility, insult, pejorative, etc., and I don't think we can see me as a problem if Kelly isn't, and yet Kelly's demotion is not being advocated, as she gave up the bit and can get it back without fuss.  (And those who have believed that she should be demoted have not said so because of incivility, but what that incivility has accompanied.)
*So, we should go to conflict resolution.  We're here now.  I have engaged in it, and yet it's principally this, I think, that is cited as evidence of my violation.  As for Mackensen's statements, I could not think of an appropriate way to lodge an RFAR, as I did not think we should have to file one to tell people not to interfere with admins conducting licit blocks.  Had I known that lodging a "let's catch everyone who we don't like for no particular reason" case would make, I'd have done it from the start.  Of course, Kelly intimated that she was in charge and that arbcom was going to act without a case, so, if I didn't know her, I might have been reluctant to file.  Fortunately, I've been here long enough to know better than to trust people to tell you that they're in charge.  Geogre 01:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No he's wrong, "politics" refers to internal Wikipedia politics. Fred Bauder 16:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred, were you there?  Were you participating in the discussions when that was drafted?  On what basis can you announce the meaning?  What you suggest would make this section really out of place in the WP:NOT page, as the rest of WP:NOT is about articles.  If you were there and know what it's really about, why didn't you urge folks to put it on a separate page?  Seems to me that "disruption" and "point" already cover what you are trying to make this cover, but they have a long history of use in arbitration that wouldn't let them fit the circumstance.  Geogre 19:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's talk about that "battleground," eh? 

message: I'd like to invite the two big fellas above to step into my office.  I reckon that here isn't the place to work it out.  While I'm not the most unbiased with regards to them both, when I put my "sorting it out" hat on I'm a straight shooter.  George: Think of it as satisfying the "you didn't try dispute resolution" complaint, Mack: Think of it as a way to communicate with George via someone whom he trusts.  I'll make a space on my talk, and suggest that the above thread be moved there if you both agree. - brenneman {L} 01:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I also was about to humbly suggest that this thread may not be going anywhere we should want it to go, especially on this particular page. As for Mackensen's pending question, as much as I value transparency, this may not be the best place for that discussion either. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I understand the first sentence. Who is doing the inadvertant trolling here? Is it possible to inadvertantly troll someone? Carcharoth 12:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, Geogre and Mackensen were having a heated discussion over some of Fred's proposals, although none of them agrees with those proposals. So, they were "trolled", but since that wasn't Fred's intention, it was "inadvertent". Zocky | picture popups 16:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal mediation 

message: (Apologies for the length, I'm trying to say this as clearly as possible and be done with it.)
I volontered as a mostly uninvolved party on this case because I made a few comments in the debate on WP:AN, although nobody seems to have found them problematic. I tried to contribute constructively to the workshop. I have remained calm and civil throughout, and I advocated no sanctions against anybody. The only issue I had previously with any of the participants was Tony's incivility, and particularly the inappropriate block of Aaron over a conflict between the two. And even then, I'm not unsympathetic to Tony, and have no problem whatsoever with him remaining admin if he stops being incivil and trigger happy. 
In the underlying issue on this debate, my position has remained unchanged for years - I believe that if we want to build a high-quality and neutral encyclopedia, the process of writing it must be neutral and transparent. If working on the project consists of reading snide comments and vulgarities, how do we expect anybody who isn't interested in that to stay around? If  project policy doesn't accommodate people who think that methodical process and transparency are important, who do we expect to write complete and truthful articles? 
That said, I'm not obsessed by rules and red tape. The purpose of doing things in pre-agreed ways is to avoid misunderstandings and remove personalities from the debate, both of which help save time and energy. But in an open community where anybody can participate, unexpected situations do occur, and sometimes doing the right thing does indeed involve ignoring all rules. I have been known both to write essays like Wikipedia:There's no common sense, and to hound off an established editor by threatening an indefinite block in a highly curt tone, and meaning it.
I've been around since before ArbCom, and I was sceptical when it was introduced. It actually turned out alright on average, IMO, and in the few cases where I was tangentially involved, it made the right decisions. I never ran for any elected position, had no interest in becoming an admin before the main page templates were protected, and have no desire to be powerful on Wikipedia or elsewhere. I hang out on IRC enough to be in top 25 users of #wikipedia without ever wishing to become an op.
So, having established my lack of grudges, non-extremism, non-existence of political ambition, and lack of fear of IRC, I must say that I'm deeply unsettled by the proposed decision. I have trust that other arbitrators will ammend it and vote down the inappropriate proposals, but I'm compelled to share my view on this: the proposed findings and decision are not only non-neutral, they are self-contradictory and tendentious. Here are some of the glaring issues:
*"Geogre has engaged in an extensive political struggle based the position that the administrative structure of Wikipedia is oppressing those who do the editing" - this is simply not true:
**the "political" bit is cited from "WP:NOT a battleground" and is meant there in the sense of party politics and ideology. The "struggle" that Geogre engaged in was about project issues, not ideological or political issues in the sense of WP:NOT, nor in the sense of politicking for power.
**"the administrative structure of Wikipedia" is administrators and bureaucrats, possibly Danny. Many administrators were involved in the whole issue on both sides, and in any case, Geogre spoke about individuals, not the collective. ArbCom, whom Geogre did mention, is not an administrative body. Unlike the administration, it is made up of a small number of individuals who often speak in the name of the whole committee, and neither them nor the committe are immune from criticism.
**"oppressing" is a serious misrepresentation of Geogre's position. His argument has been that certain admins, encouraged by some ArbCom's decisions and some arbiters' comments, are interfering with the process of writing the encyclopedia, which is what we are here for. "Politics" and "oppression" are meaningless terms in this context. This is not a state.
*Geogre, a user in good standing who has not abused his administrator privileges is permanently desysopped, while Tony Sidaway, who has inappropriately blocked several users and was already subject to ArbCom warnings is desysopped for one month.
*JDForrester, who made an unfortunate remark is chastised, while Kelly Martin who repeatedly used, shall we say, undiplomatic language and escalated the debate is thanked.
*John Reid, an established editor is blocked for a week, while Tony getting blocked for 1 day is described as extreme. Note that his request for reconfirmation of allegiance to consensus would have been easily met in good humour by the bureaucrats, had they not put themselves and the whole administration in an impossible position by overriding a long established custom in a controversial case.
These amount to false imputations, unfair dispensation of justice, and beating the child for calling the emperor naked. I respect Fred and the amount of work he puts into arbitration, but it is my belief that these proposals are a result of preconceptions about issues and persons on his side. In my opinion, it would have been best for the project and for everybody involved if he had recused himself at the outset of the case.
To conclude: power and authority must be excercised fairly and competently because of the encyclopedia, not because we want a shiny-happy community. If we're not writing the encyclopedia and deciding how to write it in a fair and transparent way, how can we ensure (and convince others) that it is neutral and any good? Zocky | picture popups 05:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely with the above well-presented and thoughtful summary. I would also urge those discussing some of the proposed decisions not to forget the other proposed decisions. If the wording and content of some of the proposed decisions is proving so controversial, then all of them should be carefully examined. Carcharoth 12:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not my intent to divert attention; yes, please discuss the other proposals. Fred Bauder 14:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I certainly think there's a point being missed.  There are generally two sides in a battle.  Hiding Talk 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiding, I agree with you here (and with Zocky, but I shan't go around endorsing people who endorse me, as I hope this isn't about me, but about policies).  As the kindergarten teacher reminds people: "It takes two people to have a fight."  Therefore, I would assume that it's not possible to sanction one person for "not a battleground."  Geogre 20:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly my thoughts on the issue.  I can see instances where one user would engage in a battle, but I would think that would be dealt with as disruption.  This whole discussion quickly settled into what I can only describe as a fight between two camps, and as such was a battle. That's why I think Wikipedia is not a battleground applies and why I think the people involved, yourself included, need reminding of the dispute resolution process.  This should not have escalated out of hand the way it did. Hiding Talk 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree in the main with what's been said. I would argue that the thanking of Kelly Martin is predicated on the belief that she's left this project (otherwise it's perverse). Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is based on two things, gratitude and not being mean. I expect this is quite painful for her. Time enough to examine her errors in detail if she comes back. Fred Bauder 14:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few more thoughts. 

message: I notice some disparity between WP:OOB (Out-of-band communication considered harmful: i.e. don't make consensus on IRC) versus WP:BP#Controversial_blocks ("If possible, contact other administrators informally to be sure there are others who agree with your reasoning. The administrators' noticeboard, IRC and email are effective tools for this.")
Would it have merit to suggest removal of the IRC and email options? ~Kylu (u|t)  07:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of band communication considered harmful is an essay written in one draft by User:Friday.  The Blocking policy is official Wikipedia policy and cannot be superseded by Friday's personal opinion.  You have been criticised for seeking advice on IRC.  The mere fact of the existence of criticism does not make the criticism valid. --Tony Sidaway 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the policy shouldn't be encouraging editors to look for support on IRC. Doing so has caused a lot of trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This could be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy.  However I think it very unlikely that current practice would change even if we changed the written policy.  Discussion prior to blocking is good. --Tony Sidaway 07:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Colluding with friends on IRC is not good and the policy shouldn't encourage it given the amount of trouble it has caused. That doesn't mean that any use of IRC is bad; as always, it's a question of using common sense, but sadly not everyone has it. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well the problem here really is in your use of inappropriate language.  Seeking advice becomes "looking for support" and then in the next comment it becomes "colluding with friends".  Discussing a block prior to applying it is a good thing.  It causes no trouble to do so. --Tony Sidaway 07:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given some of the behavior I've seen on IRC, "colluding with friends" is entirely appropriate language. If blocks need to be discussed, there's usually no reason not to do it on AN/I; and on the rare occasions a discussion needs to be private, e-mail is available. I can't think of a single reason IRC would be preferable to either of those. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can confirm this. *Especially* in the "elite", semi private #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Some have treated it as a haven for attacks on those not-in channel and as a forum for daring each other into making controversial blocks. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's more timely than email or wiki.  While on-wiki discussion is sometimes considered advisable prior to blocking, a quick sanity check on IRC doesn't do any harm. I think a lot of bilge is said on-wiki about IRC.  It's very useful indeed. --Tony Sidaway 08:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen personal attacks made against editors (including against you) on IRC that sometimes makes it hard to tell apart from WR. It encourages a herd mentality, where people engage in or support behavior that they probably wouldn't engage in as individuals. I don't see why it should be more timely than e-mail or wiki; if people are around, they tend to respond regardless of the medium. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IRC has its faults, but it enables an ongoing dialog that is different in quality from email.  It has been used for years for very much this kind of purpose, and it fits well.  Sensible discussion of any kind preceding a decision to block is a good idea. --Tony Sidaway 08:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've personally never witnessed a sensible discussion of a block on IRC. Although I don't doubt that they occur, there's no evidence that it's the norm, and the editors who discuss issues sensibly on IRC could do it just as easily elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jimbo and Danny frequently use the admin channel for urgent requests (and sometimes blocks are involved).  Glancing at my admin channel log I see records of requests for blocks on open proxies, and on editors making legal threats, a proposed block on an article spammer (the response was "not yet"), discussion on operational aspects of the username block policy, and some autoblock clearances.  This all comes from a few hours worth of log about three weeks ago.  This is normal. --Tony Sidaway 08:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo and Danny sometimes use it, not frequently, and I'm not saying it's never used correctly; I'm saying that it's regularly misused (and there's no question of that; I've witnessed it), and therefore our policy shouldn't suggest it to people. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sense there's an elephant in the room but I'll let him be. What witness most often in the admin IRC channel is the discussion of Dr. Who episodes. The problem isn't the discussion, the problem is anyone who uses IRC as a justification to block. Encouraging sysops to block without consultation is not the right direction. Mackensen (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding out-of-band communication and blocks 

message: I don't recall seeing evidence to support this. - brenneman {L} 14:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:Tony "When baited he consistently fell into the trap" finding 

message: Just for anyone who wants to know how I think I've been consistent and organized around policy, please see user:Geogre/Ideology.  Geogre 17:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone cares about manifestos and ideology 

message: So please, everybody, stop arguing before thinking. There is truth in what every one of you has said, and I'll try to make a summary that everybody should eventually be able to agree on, even if it takes them reading it more than once.
*No job can be done by anybody - writing articles, fighting vandals, determining copyright status of images, etc., are all (sometimes) hard and (sometimes) tedious jobs, and being good at them depends in large part on personal talents.
*Writing articles is not just another of many tasks on Wikipedia. It is the central task. Indeed, it is the goal of the project. Within the context of Wikipedia, fighting vandals is important because it allows us to write articles without them getting destroyed, but writing articles is important in itself.
*Fighting vandalism requires admin tools, and that's the reason that one of the widest roads to adminship is through vandal-fighting. It's an easily observable fact that the psychological profile of people who enjoy fighting vandals is not always good for being an admin, but most vandal-fighters don't abuse their admin tools and don't cause damage to the project. Still, this creates an imbalance in the prevailing opinions of administrators, who are on average more concerned with maintaining order than other constructive editors.
*Because of the natural (and at least at first approximation, correct) assumption that people who have been confirmed by the community are worthier of trust, this has affected project debates, policy and procedures, which have over time become more concerned with maintaing order and less with writing the encyclopedia.
*Writers are not stupid. They know that fighting individual fights takes a lot of time and energy, and many of them prefer transparent and consistent policy and process because they're not the kind of people who are likely to win a flamewar or use any power they have to gain an advantage.
*Non-writing admins are not stupid. The vast majority realises that the goal of the project is writing the encyclopedia, and that they have absolutely no power above other editors. Unlike writers, who are often unaware that their words carry weight, non-writing admins know that their contributions to the project are technical and peripheral. This leads some to introspection and excellence in their work, and others to over-reaction to criticism.
*Experience with maintenance is crucial for establishing and running efficient maintenance processes. Regardless of their contributions to articles, experienced maintainers should be respected and trusted on maintenance issues.
*Writing articles is the purpose of Wikipedia. Fihgting vandalism isn't. In project policy discussions, experience with writing articles is crucial. Without knowledge of how the main, indeed, the only goal of the project is getting achieved, one cannot offer suggestions and opinions which are likely to be good for the project in the long run.
*All of us are volunteers, regardless of our talents and specialties. The right and privilege to have a say in the project cannot be derived from the kind of work someone does. It is right and just that they are a function of their individual contribution to the project as a whole and of their personal wisdom. Zocky | picture popups 21:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with this summary right out of the box. It's very good. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting to think the wrong people are on the arb-com.  There are people here who are making a better fist of it. I broadly agree, but from my point of view I'm not arguing but discussing points with people that seem germane to the issue.  My summation would be that all contributors should be judged on their contribution records.  Period.  That includes block logs, deletions, article edits, talk page edits, reactions, civility and so on.  And you weigh the good contributions against the bad contributions.  But you balance that weighting to the situation.  Where people go off the rails, you look at the circumstances, you look at the number of occurrences, you look at the impact. Hiding Talk 21:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  In the context of the current case, a large part of this makes no sense at all.  I'm not conscious of ever having engaged in "vandal fighting", and I'm not sure Kelly has either.  Zocky is of course right to emphasize the value of all to the encyclopedia.  Sadly I think the Committee is going to miss this point.  The "Mixed System" proposal, which in my opinion would be a very good way of emphasizing the essential unity of Wikipedia which the insurrectionists have apparently been successful in breeching, does not seem likely to pass.  This is a temporary setback; in short, Wikipedia is now too large and complex for factions to gain ascendancy for long.  We either work together or the enterprise fails. --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, I have to ask you again to stop calling people you disagree with "insurrectionists." As for your last point, I agree completely, and what has happened over the last few days is that one "faction" has at last seen the truth of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't aware of being asked a first time.  I don't call people I disagree with "insurrectionists", but to avoid confusion I'll avoid using that word again.  I'll not argue with your second point because I think it's somewhat premature.  The Great Moment of Clarity, when it comes, is likely to be nothing of the sort. It will be somewhat drawn-out and come in tiny increments.  There will be a time, I suggest, when most editors involved in this silly spat will look back on it, and wonder how Wikipedians could be gripped by such paranoia as to accuse the arbitration committee, the bureaucrats, and even the clerks of being involved in some kind of conspiracy against the interests of Wikipedia and the wishes of the community. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, my above summary was about the argument in this top-level section. That's why it's in a subsection. Not necessarily relevant to this case at all, just to the writer/non-writer discussion. Zocky | picture popups 00:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: None of you is an idiot

message: The issue of which participants in the project, or types of participants, should feel the most valued and garner the most respect, should not be a divisive one.
Article contributors must be respected and appreciated.  They provide the content to the encyclopedia we are writing; without them, there's no reason to be here.  Creating even a solid stub as a foundation for a future article is a valuable contribution: every article starts somewhere.  Creating featured article content is of course a major contribution to the main reason we are here.
Administrators must be respected and appreciated.  Dealing with user conflicts, malicious vandals, verbal and legal threats, sensitive situations, the most complex deletion fights, and all the rest is taxing and tiring and essential.
Developers and programmers must be respected and appreciated.  The software didn't just grow here; hard-working people created it and nurture it and improve it.  It wasn't always the case that any of us could sit down at our computers and contribute to the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Someone wrote the code that put it here.
RC patrollers and newpage patrollers and Wikignomes must be respected and appreciated.  Someone needs to deal with the petty vandalisms and various types of silliness and even the typographical errors and the inartfully worded phrases, hour after hour, day in and day out.
Bot operators and bot programmers must be respected and appreciated.  They do the mundane things, saving us human types for our best and highest uses.
People involved in the governance structure of the project, to the limited extent we have one, must be respected and appreciated.  Being an arbitrator or a bureaucrat or the coordinator of a special function (feature articles or bot approvals or whatever) is a complex and sometimes tiring role.  These people garner scorn when they are perceived as having messed up; rarely are they praised for having done a good job.
This is a collaboration.  We all come to the project as newbies, look around the place, and figure out what role we can play best.  Hopefully, most of the time, each user assigns himself or herself a role or set of roles that best fits his or her competencies and interests.  I contribute to articles in my fields of interest, and occasionally I contribute a thought to an administration or an arbitration page.  Those are the things I feel comfortable doing; they are not better or worse or more or less valuable than things anyone else feels comfortable doing.
As was said above, we are all volunteers.  (I was thinking of being other than a volunteer, but User:Brad Patrick already invented my dream job.)  Jimbo said recently that one of the goals here has to be for the contributors (all contributors, in the broadest sense, I'm sure he meant) to be having fun.
Samuel Johnson said that "no one but a blockhead ever wrote except for money," so I guess we are all blockheads here.  If we can't write here for money, the least we can do is do what we respectively enjoy, and do it well, and appreciate the efforts of all the others who are doing what they enjoy, and doing it well.
The project doesn't belong to the bureaucrats, the administrators, the best editors, the developers, the technophiles, the gnomes, the patrollers, or to any one group of us.  To those of us who want to write about virtually anything, whether it's Poland or polar bears or poetry or Pokeman or Poe or polar coordinates.  It belongs to all of us who are working together in an unprecedented collaboration to build an encyclopedia, and to get to know some of one another, and to have a good time while we're here. 
Unlike some, I thought this arbitration case was a mistake from its inception: guaranteed to be needlessly divisive and to continue, rather than to resolve, some of the feuds that were needlessly dividing the community.  Time will tell whether my instinct was right or wrong.  It will certainly prove right if we continue sniping about whether the arbitrators are evincing scorn for the worth of a group of contributors just because they aren't comfortable with one single-sentence summary abstraction or another.
I won't suggest a "group hug" as User:ALoan - the initiator of and chief contributor to yesterday's featured article - proposed above.  But as one who has contributed too, too, too many words here, can I say to everyone, can we stop the bickering now, finally, at long last?  I say it to those whom I have agreed with in the past few weeks, and those I have disagreed with (and there is no one at all whom I've agreed with in all respects, as a lot of people I respect have gotten carried away in a lot of different directions, nor I suspect does anyone agree with everything I have had to say).  Everyone with something to say has said it by now.  Can we please, please stop brawling and get back to why we all are here. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. What he said. I'd give him a barnstar, but I did already. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respect for roles of different types of participants; Or, Newyorkbrad's Peroration 

message: Having followed this case silently for its duration, I'm a bit surprised to see such a stiff penalty suggested against Geogre.  Where did this come from?  Apparently, several arbitrators share my confusion. (I know it came from Fred, but I am wondering what evidence he thinks justifies this draconian remedy.) Xoloz 01:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An apparently successful attempt to rule Wikipedia by Geogre-law. --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, please stop the sniping. It only makes it look like you have a grudge. Zocky | picture popups 01:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hold no grudge.  I do think we should recognise that this was a very effective and, for the moment, successful campaign to subject Wikipedia to a kind of coup. --Tony Sidaway 01:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To call it a "coup" is to suggest that people who were in charge were overthrown. Who was in charge, in your view? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bureaucrats are in charge of determination of consensus after an RFA.  The initial target of the coup was to overturn their decision. While this initial objective failed, the campaign  was escalated to encompass wild accusations at the arbitration committee (in charge of dispute resolution), which apparently was divided against itself and has folded neatly.  Not a pretty sight. --Tony Sidaway 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see... Conspiracy and cabal talk... you blocked Giano for airing the same opinions. --Ghirla -????- 07:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What you call "folding," I call "being reasonable." Xoloz 01:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't reasonable to exile a highly valued former arbitrator. checkuser, oversight operator and administrator without very good reason  The Committee may be allowed some latitude because there may exist some evidence to which the rest of us do not have access.  In any case, this is "folding", an admission of extreme weakness before a really quite laughable and ridiculous campaign. --Tony Sidaway 01:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  It is perfectly reasonable to remove authority from any editor with Ms. Martin's history of gross incivility. Xoloz 01:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has been "exiled." The ArbCom has proposed to uphold the bureaucrats' practise of not automatically re-sysopping admins who leave voluntarily but under a cloud of controversy. You've argued that the bureaucrats should be in control of RfA, and this reinforces that control. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So, bureaucrats should be afforded discretion and not second-guessed, while it's appropriate for you to second-guess the ArbCom? Zocky | picture popups 01:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The bureaucrats and ArbCom haven't lost any of their authority, and I've no idea what you mean about the ArbCom "folding," so the coup analogy is not a good one. All that happened is that a number of good editors stood up against an atmosphere that they felt was poisonous. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You must stop trying to smear Geogre. It won't work, because too many people respect him. It is simply untrue that he has "engaged in aggressive campaigning against the apparatus of Wikipedia for a long, long time." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't untrue. He himself is quite open about it. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How can Wikipedia have a fixed apparatus against which to campaign.  We aren't a bureaucracy, are we? Xoloz 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Doc Glasgow's words are wise. Raul654 01:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And with that (and thanks to Raul and Doc) I'll take this page off my watchlist. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Certainly there was unpleasantness all around (and, as a whole, Doc, I agree with what you've said here).  I think it's fair to add, though, that there were some actual, important issues at the heart of it all, and they're issues that do need to be dealt with.  If addressing these issues happened in an overly-distasteful manner, well, perhaps it's partly because there were some distasteful issues involved.  Whether those issues have been dealt with in any way in this case, probably only time will tell.  Friday (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I may be the original originator of the "Committe for public safety" comparison. In fact, I wrote m:Young Jacobins two years ago, and people on whom the description is based said that their point of view is accurately presented. Nobody ever called me incivil or inflamatory for writing it. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the way the expression was used, I'm just pointing out that the usage has a history and that it isn't meant to imply that any of these people would send anybody to the guillotine in real life. Zocky | picture popups 01:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to pull out diffs and point fingers, there's been enough of that. But read through AN and ANI over those days. Take a look at Geogre's contributions . Brilliant rhetoric, by the way (in all seriousness - he's got a prose style I could read all day - no wonder he's a feature writer). Consider what happened on the crat's noticeboard. Let's take as read that Tony, Kelly, JamesF et al were out of line (me too). Let's not ask 'who was worse?' But let's just admit that the fault was not all one-sided. Geogre's biting irony, as brilliant as it was, was not the best way to conduct the substantive debate. I really believe, and I'm not point scoring here, that the only way we make sure we never go through this type of thing again is that all sides, no matter how wronged they may feel, humbly self-reflect. Humility is always better than sanctions. --Doc 02:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doc, I agree with what you are saying, and I'm sure that almost everyone involved, including Geogre, would have with hindsight and in a calmer situation said things differently. Nobody should be humiliated by the arbitration, and everybody should in the end shake hands and agree to continue working together in peace. As long as we don't fall into the trap of trying to achieve that peace by ascribing equal fault to all sides, regardless of facts. Zocky | picture popups 03:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't agree on the interpretation of the facts. But frankly I'm now quite uninterested in comparing scars or trying to work out what percentage of the blame lies where. But two people have now fallen on their swords, pretty well the ultimate propiciatoty sacrifice a wiki-adict can make, is it too much to ask that some others (even if they feel their sins were much less) to say 'mea (a little) culpa'? Or at least, if they can't find it in them to do that, the wider community to aknowledge that it take two sides (even if unequally) to escalate this type of flame war.--Doc 03:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for heated words are always welcome and helpful, but they can be made only by people who owe them. (I don't think that I owe anyone an apology over anything I said, but if anybody feels they were wronged by me, I have no problem reconsidering.) That said, a major problem in this whole issue has been a misunderstanding. One side thought that it was about how the project should work, the other thought that it's about Tony and Kelly. I don't think that main proponents of "side one" think that Kelly leaving the project and Tony losing adminship is victory. Zocky | picture popups 03:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel you have done nothing wrong (and I'm not saying you have - franky I don't remember you at all) then why are you the one responding to my challange? I call other others out, if they have the courage.--Doc 07:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I don't remember you performing vandalism reversions, although I have a huge watchlist and 40K mainspace edits. On the other hand, I remember you  engaging in incivility. That you or me don't "remember" someone is not a reason to dismiss his arguments. There's no need to repeat Tony's mistakes. Please tone it down a little. --Ghirla -????- 08:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I'm genuinely trying to help here. I'll apologise for the remark on Tony's page, if either Tony or Aaron asks me to. But actualy, I regard them both as friends (my friend's enemy is my friend too), and they both know that the remark was given in that tone. I'm not dismissing Zocky, I was simply saying tht I wasn't asking HIM to apologise for anything - as I don't remember him doing anything wrong in this case. My challange was to others. As for the rest, yeah, I'm sure your's is bigger than mine,;) so what?. Perhaps we'll constructively cross paths some day.--Doc 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I did not realize it was a challenge. I thought it was an excercise in trying to see the other sides POV. Zocky | picture popups 14:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict, response to Doc) Agree with much of what you say, and I think that your last point applies equally to User:John Reid, who is the subject of a proposed one-week ban that currently has the support of two arbitrators, as well. Newyorkbrad 03:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Newyorkbrad's point here. Let's not focus on defending Geogre so much that other sanctions slip through without discussion. Georgre has said that the proposed desysopping is inconsistent as he did not abuse admin tools. Others have also pointed out that an editing ban (even if temporary) is in some ways a more fundamental punishment than removing a sysop bit - as it forces a complete cessation of activity. With this in mind, there are various other combinations of sanctions that might be more equitable. I won't suggest them, as I agree with the sentiment expressed elsewhere on these pages that minimal or zero actual sanctions, accompanied by a clear declaration of the principles, is best here. Carcharoth 10:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not calling for any sanction of Geogre whatsoever. An edit ban of such a productive editor would be crazy anyway. I'm just calling for a little more recognition that his tone during the debate was unhelpful. I'll settle either for him aknowledging his  errors (I've aknowledge mine) or a 10 min symbolic block by arbcom. But we have to say that intemporate rhetoric is not the way to go.--Doc 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Doc, for the record, I did not compare ArbCom to the Comittee for Public Safety.  I compared the characterization of an ArbCom that could not be questioned to it.  It was provocative, no doubt, and quite seriously meant to lay open what was infuriating about the people who kept telling everyone to be quiet.  They were arguing not for peace, in my view, but quietism, and so, yes, I compared their vision of a "mother" ArbCom to the Committee for Public Safety.  I made no personal reflections, no accusations of improper actions of any member.  Instead, I was lashing out at the people who I thought were advising everyone to ignore the flames and trust that the house was just a little warm.  I do apologize if it seemed that I was insulting people.  I did intend to stir action because it was my judgment and remains my opinion that we needed action.  Geogre 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am getting a headache trying to understand what Geogre is saying here.  --Ideogram 19:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what he's saying is very clear. I'm not sure of the point of this, Ideogram. As Doc Glasgow has said elsewhere, it's time to start the healing process, or at least to stop the arguments. The case has been made and the ArbCom is voting on the issues it regards as important. Further comments are not obviously helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you, the ArbCom is voting now and further discussion on this page is pointless.  That goes for all of us, Geogre included.  --Ideogram 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is always slightly ironic when people make a comment saying that no-one should make any more comments. ::::::::Actually, I have found this thread more depressing that the flamming we had earlier. Starting with myself, I called for a little humility and self-reflection. But apparently there is no need. One side were 100% wrong, and the other were purely victims - absolutely justified in all the enhansed rhetoric and diatribe they have used, with noting to regret. Their method of dispute reolution was a model that all good Wikipedians should follow in the future. If anything seemed to anyone like an attack or deliberate provocation, or even melodramatic, that individual is simply wrong. We should assume the absolute good faith of this side throughout (praising their 'productivity') - whilst accepting their analysis that the purpose of the other side was deliberately manipulative, insulting and downright evil. It should not be enough that two protagonists fall on their swords; we need to pick up thier swords and run them through again, just to make sure they stay dead (you never can tell with this type). Fred's criticism, naturaly, has no basis in reality whatsoever, and shows nothing other than that Fred is delusional, and should be sanctioned, if not sectioned. Is it just me, or is this self-righteous attitude a little hard to square with the reality of what has just transpired????--Doc 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  (how many colons is that?)  For the record, then, Doc, I apologize for saying anything which lead anyone to think that I was trying to characterize the current ArbCom as a kangaroo court or star chamber.  I have explained my intention in writing, explained that, in the context of the comment, it was coherently not aimed that way.  I am not being condescending when I say that people are entitled to their umbrage.  They are.  I can declare my intent innocent and, in fact, salutory.  I cannot control anyone else's perceptions.  If, on the other hand, the words themselves were dramatic (intended) to the point where they were incendiary (not intended) and went from rousing-to-action (intended) to inspiring-vilification (not intended), I apologize for seeking such an expression.  Geogre 22:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (one less colon than this) That's a start. Thanks.--Doc 23:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doc, you asked for people to stop but now you're the one continuing it. The voting has begun, so please allow the ArbCom to do its job. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't call for a stop. I called for a change of tone, a little more humility and less patronising. You up for that? --Doc 21:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but you're not practising what you preach. You seem to be saying it's time to attack the other "side." The best thing would be to let it drop for now and allow the case to close, then residual issues can be resolved when things have calmed down. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I 'seem to be saying it's time to attack the other side'? Well, if that's not an assumption of bad faith, I don't know what is? Where did i do that? Please supply a diff. 'Not practiced what I preach'? Again, a diff please? I began this 'sermon' by admitting my mistakes, and called on others to do likewise. How is that an attack? Is implying that there is some measure of wrong on all sides now an attack? Humility has to start somewhere. If my questions are unanswerable, then I'll accept your apology for that last remark. --Doc 21:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doc, enough. Comments like "Is it just me, or is this self-righteous attitude a little hard to square with the reality of what has just transpired????" are hardly conciliatory. I'm going to practise what you preach now and not comment in this thread again. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, not good enough. You seem to think if you repeat a claim enough, it becomes its own evidence. You made a very specific accusation that I was calling for attacks on the other 'side', please have the decency to retract it. Further, you have again implied I'm being hypocritical by posting here, but I didn't call for an end to this dialogue, I called for all of us (me as well) to have the humility to admit at least some mistakes.--Doc 21:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last word from me until anything changes or anybody says anything new (not that I've said anything new in last 24 hours): Doc, according to the side you speak for, the original sin of the other side in this affair was forcefully demanding an apology, which they called an attack. Let's not go down that road again. Zocky | picture popups 22:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Doc, sorry for misusing the language. I meant "speak for" in the sense of "asking for understanding for them", not in the sense "speaking in their name". Zocky | picture popups 23:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geogre de-what???

message: There is some opposition to the first "Proposed findings of fact".  We need something there.  Would this be better:
:"1A) User:Carnildo was desysopped as the result of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Carnildo.
:1B) After continuing in good faith to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, User:Carnildo was re-nominated for administrator with the support of the Arbitration Committee by User:UninvitedCompany after [several/the] members of the Arbitration Committee confirmed that they had no objections to the renomination."
"Proposed findings of fact" 3) goes on to record "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 had strong support, including support votes from some of the arbitrators who had desysopped him".  Would it be helpful to provide names (I see 5. User:Mindspillage and 36. User:Mackensen and 58. User:Sam Korn)? -- ALoan (Talk) 08:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hup - Morven seems to be suggesting something like the above. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for a "Finding of fact"

message: What happens if this remedy does not pass? Does it mean that Carnildo is desysopped for failing his third RFA and not being restored by the ArbCom, or does it mean we just leave it as status quo (i.e. stays an admin as promoted by bureaucrats/RFA/whatever, but without explicit endorsement from ArbCom?) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zocky, you raise points that need to be addressed, but I hope we do not need to start a discussion of those issues now.  I firmly believe in Carcharoth's suggestion that we need to close this case and take a breather before addressing the wider issues.  I know I have been speaking too, but I only address Geogre, and that only to register my objections to his assumptions, and since he is not speaking to me, I do not expect a discussion to break out.  Let's all try to get this case closed as quickly as possible.  --Ideogram 16:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I was hasty and my intent wasn't clear. I think that the whole thing should be deescalated and I wanted to point out that using the word "agitation" wasn't helpfult for that. I'll shut up on this now before I make another unhelpful comment. Zocky | picture popups 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In an ideal world, everyone would stay.  You say some people will leave if you don't get your way.  Have you considered the possibility that other people will leave if you do get your way?  Are we now reduced to choosing who leaves and who stays?  --Ideogram 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on "Carnildo restored to Administrative status" remedy 

message: Let's see, I believe there are a total of 14 arbitrators.  The /Proposed Decision indicates that 3 are inactive and 3 (JamesF, Mindspillage, and now Dmcdevit) have recused themselves, leaving 8 arbs to decide this case.  So the required majority is still 5, right? Newyorkbrad 12:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think there is some confusion and overlap here. Possibly there is overlap between the recused arbs and the inactive/away ones (eg. Mindspillage both recused and now away). Also, I remember seeing Raul (Mark) marked as "away for now", but he is now active again. I think we need the clerks to clarify what is happening here. Carcharoth 12:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are ten arbs on the active list, two are recused, so the majority is still 5. (Kat, who is recused, is not on the active list.) I expect nearly everyone will chime in though, as they seem to do on big cases. Thatcher131 13:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Required majority 

message: Is 4 a majority?  If so, does that mean many of the proposed resolutions are carried?  How long do we wait for the others to be passed or failed? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When we have done what we can to resolve any disagreements between ourselves and whoever is going to vote has, we will move to close the case. Expect about 2 weeks. Fred Bauder 12:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Majority? Close?

message: Without implying that Inksplotch is anybody's sockpuppet (and I'm not sure why Kelly's name is brought up in connection with this),  Checkuser can't show that somebody is not a sockpuppet. Maybe the finding should read "Checkuser did not indicate that Inksplotch is a sockpuppet", or something along those lines, if such finding is useful at all. Zocky | picture popups 14:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, people with a checkuser access are not expected to have trouble in keeping their secrets from those performing checkuser. User:Bonaparte used to run a sockpuppet farm, editing each account from a different IP, and was not exposed until he made a single slip.  --Ghirla -трёп- 14:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No one can prove a negative, of course.  Each person is entitled to his or her own beliefs about the others, so long as no one attempts to harm, block, ban, etc.  I can think that Fred is a sockpuppet of Giano, if I want, so long as it's just my thoughts.  Geogre 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This has been brought up because of public accusations that InkSplotch was KM's sockpuppet. It's important to clear the air. Mackensen (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a distinct difference between an expression of opinion (all are allowed) and an accusation.  It has been my stated opinion that InkSplotch is Kelly Martin, then that it wasn't, then that it was Phil Sandifer, etc., but every time I have stated that opinion, I have said, "It really doesn't matter."  My opinions can be expressed.  An accusation would be a checkuser request, and we never sanction people for making checkuser requests that turn up negative.  An accusation would be a move to get the words of the user removed.  None of that has taken place, and I don't personally mind if I'm thought of as being a sockpuppet of whomever.  (I've been thought a sockpuppet of Bishonen and Orthogonal before.  Did it require an ArbCom ruling to establish that I am not?)  It's an extraordinary remedy to something that isn't a problem.  Geogre 15:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Geogre's accusation was here, "The resolution, the only gesture of resolution, was coincidentally taken by Kelly Martin when she lodged this Rfar". Fred Bauder 15:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That was an allegation?  It looks a lot more like a mistake, to me.  I make mistakes pretty often.  I famously thought Giano had become an administrator, and he and I have been editing together for about two years.  Why didn't you correct me?  It's not like I said, "Was started by user InkSplotch who is a sockpuppet of Kelly Martin."  I just made an erroneous statement.  Whatever.  Geogre 17:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, that was what the fuss was about. Fred Bauder 17:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If such accusations were made on wiki, this is probably relevant. But saying that checkuser proves something it doesn't surely isn't the way to clear the air. Zocky | picture popups 15:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, Zocky.  If you read user talk pages across the entire wiki, you will find virtually everyone accused of being a sockpuppet of someone.  If the accusation were made in this case, it would be logical in this case to clear the air.  I'm sure you remember all the wondering about whether I was a sockpuppet of "Earhurts."  On the other hand, one can spend all day on IRC accusing everyone of being Lir, and that would not require checkuser?  The standard is illogical: was it a charge in this case?  If so, let's clear the air.  If not, it's irrelevant.  Geogre 15:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with clearing the air. My only problem is with the current wording, which will not achieve that, because it's not a true statement. Zocky | picture popups 16:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, I thought I was Orth's sock? ;) Zocky | picture popups 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Findings of fact should be worded in a factual way.  Friday (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... is not a sockpuppet" 

message: This page has gotten very long, and much of the debate is not concerned with the proposed decisions, but is rather about the "incident" and general policy issues. It is important to let this case conclude properly, and as Fred says, it's not expected to be closed for another two weeks (a welcome time to catch a breath, if you ask me). 
Since the general debate seems to be slowly dying out, it might be opportune to archive the general discussion, and continue that elsewhere, so this page can be used for its intended purpose.
What I suggest is copying the whole page to an archive, and replacing the general discussion with one-sentence summaries and links to the sections in the archives, and leaving the discussion that is directly about the proposed decision. If nobody objects, and the discussion doesn't pick up, I'll try to do that later tonight. Zocky | picture popups 14:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind if conversation, if needed, go to another venue, but I'm again not thrilled with archiving.  I would prefer that this remain with the decision.  The fact is, this case has been the hottest ever, I think, and there is nothing wrong with the ugly sister being chained to the bride, if the bride only got there by carrying the sister with her.  If we're dying out (and I hope we are, too), then there's no actual harm in having the extant record, even if we need to pick up elsewhere.  Geogre 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Objection noted. Zocky | picture popups 15:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think archiving this is only productive if people are having technical difficulties with the page length (and if they are, heaven help them with the workshop(s)). —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? Move discussion? 

message: I was of the opinion that further discussion on this page was not productive, and that we should hold off on discussing other issues until the case is closed.
There seem to be many people who do not share this opinion, including but not limited to Geogre and Giano.  --Ideogram 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just what we need when the discussion calms down.... Zocky | picture popups 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how your comment helps calm the discussion.  If you wish to continue posting, I may as well respond to you.  --Ideogram 17:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, the most recent posts to this page were from less than ninety minutes before my post.  You have an interesting definition of "calms down".  --Ideogram 17:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We are in the voting phase.  The place for discussion was the Workshop phase, and we indeed have had a lot of it.  --Ideogram 18:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. This talk page serves a useful purpose for discussing those items being voted upon. For example, sometimes proposals are worded in such a way as to be ambiguous or confusing, and this page is the place to ask for clarification, or rewording. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware that this page was the place to ask for clarification or rewording of findings placed on a page that we are not allowed to edit.  Is that policy, or your opinion?  --Ideogram 18:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still reading it. Fred Bauder 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It happens to be my opinion that a discussion page that gets too long will be read by nobody, least by arbitrators who have many tasks to perform.  --Ideogram 18:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's as strong as "policy", but stronger than opinion. The boilerplate text at the top of the Proposed decision page says "Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page." I think that says it all. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right Fred Bauder 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly anyone may comment here.  Whether it will be read is a different matter.  If the discussion is not concise and to the point, no one will read it.  Don't waste the reader's time.  --Ideogram 19:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I'll leave you to your self-satire. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't understand this.  I'm totally serious.  --Ideogram 20:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ideogram, the discussion has indeed calmed down and  we are talking about the proposed items in an entirely civil and friendly way. There's no need for police action, and especially no need for name calling. I have no reason to suspect you mean to troll, but please stop anyway. Zocky | picture popups 18:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, and police action is not an instance of name calling.  Noting that Geogre and Giano do not share my opinion, is in fact name calling.  You feel free to post here and ask me to stop posting.  --Ideogram 18:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't ask you to stop posting. I asked you to stop what amounts to trolling, regardless of whether that's your intention. Zocky | picture popups 18:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, I am trolling whether it is my intention or not.  A neat way of accusing me of violating Wikipolicy while avoiding violating it yourself.  And let's not forget the name calling.  --Ideogram 18:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at what's actually been going on, Giano has barely commented and his only comment in last 24 hours was almost 12 hours ago. Geogre has made a few deascalating comments and contributed to a perfectly civil discussion about one of the proposed findings. Nobody is continuing the heated debates we had yesterday. And then you come in, name them, and imply that they're somehow prolonging some bitter brawl. And then we have a rather long slightly heated debate about your post. Whatever your intention was, it's fair to describe the effect as successful trolling. I'm done. Zocky | picture popups 18:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you are done.  I never was clear on who was name-calling.  --Ideogram 18:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unproductive discussion 

message: It seems very rude to revert my comments off the page.  Why are you denying me the right to speak?  --Ideogram 04:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert-warring 

message: Other people have commented on the need for archiving.  We can of course discuss what should be moved to the archive, but to simply revert my attempt seems unproductive.  --Ideogram 04:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that this RfA has a finite life, I'm not sure I see the need for archiving anything, and certainly not for mass archiving the whole lot.  What do you suggest archiving, and why?  Regards, Ben Aveling 04:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion seems to be ongoing.  There is a lot of old debate that I doubt anyone will read through if they haven't already.  I was hoping all threads which are no longer active can be archived.  Anyone can copy an old thread from the archive back to the active page if they wish to respond to it.  --Ideogram 04:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the page is undesirably long.  Rather than bulk archive, perhaps we could use Werdnabot to do the archiving in a neutral fashion?  Regards, Ben Aveling 05:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine with me.  --Ideogram 05:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Give it a day or so in case anyone else wants to comment, and I'll try to add the necessary.  How does automatically archiving anything over 7 days sound?  Regards, Ben Aveling 05:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole page is less than 7 days old.  --Ideogram 05:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know.  I was originally going to propose 14 days.  Maybe archiving isn't the solution here - a lot of people have a lot to say.  More headings and more sub-headings might be of more use than archiving conversations that are probably still alive.  Maybe even sub-pages if there are some things that only some people are interested in.  This is a bit of a tar-baby of an issue, it is draging in a lot of sort-of-but-not-really related issues.  Regards, Ben Aveling 05:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you are proposing a solution that doesn't solve the problem.  How about two days?  --Ideogram 05:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a quick archive could cause more problems than it resolves.  The underlying problem is that people have a lot to say.  Archiving can help, but it isn't a magic wand.  Maybe inserting extra subsections might help.  Regards, Ben Aveling 06:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: People generally cope with having sections added, so long as it doesn't change the meaning of anything. If we archive at 7 days, then threads will start being archived in the next few days. Until a thread has been quiet for that long, who knows if there's more to say or not? What does it hurt if this page is a bit big anyway? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you are not interested in archiving anything at all.  I can live with that.  --Ideogram 06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Note also that SlimVirgin chose to revert not just the archiving (which would have been easy) but in fact to revert off my last two comments to the page, a completely unnecessary act.  --Ideogram 04:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's something which is best discussed on SlimVirgin's talk page, not here.  I realise there's already a lot of discussion on this page about contributors to the discussion, rather than advancing the discussion itself, but I won't add to it further.  Regards, Ben Aveling 05:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood.  --Ideogram 05:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Adding subheadings expresses editorial opinion.  So does archiving.  Perhaps we just need to accept that anyone who wants to deal with this page has a lot of reading to do.  This conversation seems to be adding more to the problem than to the solution.  Ben Aveling 06:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I also hope no one will try to revert anyone else's comments off the page.  --Ideogram 06:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Hi, This is just a technicality, but can I suggest that "must get them back" be changed to "may only get them back" in proposed remedies 4A and 8?  Regards, Ben Aveling 04:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording suggestion. 

message: I invite people to review User:Ideogram's recent contributions to this page, if they have not done so already. They are universally nonproductive and show an unhealthy controlling impetus in my opinion. I urge him to stop this behavior, but others have done so to no effect, so I also urge everyone else to please ignore any further similar posts by him: stop responding to him here. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, you are tag-team reverting me now.  How ingenious.  --Ideogram 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Seeing as how the discussion on this page has degenerated, I invite you all to stop editing here, as, at this point, I do not feel it will have any meaningful effect on the final outcome of this case except in that it will reflect badly on all those who disregard this message. Raul654 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note - the above comment was not directed at any person in particular, but to everyone who has been using this page to bicker.) Raul654 17:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have one exception to note only: When a new proposal is made to the decision, if there is a need for explanation or, and I really hope this is never the case, comment, we be expected to lodge such queries or comments here (as opposed to splattered over a dozen talk pages).  (E.g. if there is a new proposed decision point: "User Bob banned for eternity to the outer darkness for reverting on foo," it would be profitable to ask who Bob is and why Foo is involved here rather than elsewhere.)  I assume you imply this, but it's worth stating it overtly, given the way people have been misreading each other.  Geogre 18:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideogram on this page 

message: ::::The elections were partial, and the vote totals and ending vote ranks were kept secret.
::::I can't find the results now, but they were posted. Fred Bauder 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred, I'm not being jaundiced: they really were not revealed.  At least it was a thing that came down, that they would be kept private.  If that got changed later, then I applaud that, but as I recall the decision to keep the totals secret came from Jimbo himself.  I can understand why we might want them secret (as I said above) and why we might not (again).  We don't want to arm the disputants.  At the same time, because they were partial it comes into play for even the non-disputatious (which is normally me).  Geogre 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The votes were always public, and still are.  You'll find them here:  Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Final results were posted Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-01-23/ArbCom_election.  Jimbo's email announcing the outcome is here.  The final decision was Jimbo's.  It was approximately what the community voted for, but not exactly.  Regards, Ben Aveling 02:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how you measure it. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't everything?  :-)  I take it you think the community did get exactly what it voted for?  Certainly, what happened was not contrary to the vote, I'm just observing that some executive discretion was exercised at the margins.  But how would you measure it?  Regards, Ben Aveling 03:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was never clear how it would be calculated; a number of methods were suggested, including overall percentage, and Support - Oppose votes. They gave significantly different results, and one can make a good argument for either method. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The votes were public while underway.  The final results were, at least initially, obscured.  I'm glad that Signpost had them.  My argument was/is that the mix and mix up were indicative of the hokey pokey (one foot in, one foot out) of our process from the beginning.  This is not to argue for one answer or the other, but for clarity so that all know what they're dealing with and have clear expectations.  The specific application is that a bad number of people have concentrated on claiming to be friends of Jimbo's or being genuinely known to Jimbo, on the one hand, and the disquieted have been able to claim that there is some rotten fish.  The more we rationalize and explain, the less power the disgruntled have and the more likely we are to get disgruntled people.  The philosophy that suggests there is a top-down every day is inimical to volunteer work.  Geogre 09:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the polls with the votes are still available here although it takes a bit of searching to find them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: H. L. Mencken said, "Democracy is the theory that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it, good and hard," but the problem is that when it's abrogated, there needs to be some more reliable procedure in place.  As for the trolling and insults recently removed -- shrug.  The user who wrote them is obviously disturbed by something, but it's not me.  Geogre 09:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking about Geogre's position on democracy.  People like to think that democracy and egalitarianism is an absolute good, but the American Founding Fathers were suspicious of unfettered democracy and rightly so.  Anyone heard of the "tyranny of the majority"?  The Founding Fathers chose to restrain the power of the populace because they were suspicious of irrational mobs.  It would be denying human nature to say mobs cannot be irrational.  --Ideogram 16:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. I love how Geogre doesn't want to speak to me but feels perfectly fine insulting me in the third person.  --Ideogram 16:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Selection of the arbcom

message: The Inksplotch clause in the finding of fact that obtained the Majority support of arbitrators now says:
:Checkuser on Inksplotch does not find sockpuppeting
::17.1) CheckUser does not indicate that  is Kelly Martin's or anyone else's sockpuppet.
However, missing is the corresponding clause in the "Proposed principles" section. If there is no formulated principle on the sockpuppetry here, it is unclear why it matters whether InkSplotch is a sockpuppet or not. 
A suggestion for a related Proposed Principle (Use of Sockpuppet accounts in Arbcom procedings) was given at the Workshop (See here). The alternative proposals were:
*Use of Sockpuppet accounts in Arbcom procedings is strongly discouraged, all participants are expected to edit from their main accounts or disclose their main accounts.
Or a more strict:
*Use of Sockpuppet accounts in Arbcom procedings is considered extremely malicious and is subject to severe consequences, all participants are expected to edit from their main accounts or disclose their main accounts.
Would not it be logical to have an appropriate principle in the final ruling? Otherwise the "finding of fact" seems disconnected from the rest of the case. --Irpen 21:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: InkSplotch finding of fact clause lacks a corresponding clause in "proposed principles" section

message: :Arbitration Committee is aware of this difficulty, but is caught in a quandary: something needs to be done in the case of administrators who violate basic policies, but it is unwise to permanently lose the services of valuable volunteers if they are willing to reform.
Surely it is up to the community to decide who is valuable, and to decide who is seen as having reformed?  Regards, Ben Aveling 23:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Provided a less poisonous procedure can be found. As it is now a past transgression makes it very difficult. Fred Bauder 00:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a better procedure can be found, let's use it for all RfA, not just re-RfA.  But why is it a problem if re-RfA is difficult?  Regards, Ben Aveling 05:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To put not too fine a point on it, it is not immediately obvious what is "acting in a manner which may cause desysopping". And some admins who have been in constant trouble remain, while some have merely had an off day and been desysopped. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those are problems indicative of issues elsewhere, namely with the de-admin procedure.  De-adminship used to be exceptional.  I think the paedophile wheel war caused ripples which are starting to crash now as small waves. That said, I don't like this under a cloud principle.  I'm unclear why arb-com aren't simply de-adminning the users in question and requesting they seek re-admin through normal channels.  Still, it's all fixes on fixes, and as long as we don't lose sight of that, I'm not sure it all ultimately matters.  I'm not sure this arb-com will settle much, to be honest.  As John Reid said elsewhere, not much discussed in the workshop has appeared here, and some of the principles being rejected seem odd.  I think arb-com should really limit itself to issues of behaviour, rather than issues of what policies mean.  I don't see that we need arb-com to tell us that political campaigning is ruled out by the battlefield clause of WP:NOT.  That's a community decision.  Arb-com should just say, look, this behaviour was disruptive, or incivil, or a personal attack.  If people discuss issues civilly, I don't see where there is an issue. Still, never mind. Hiding Talk 12:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resysopping 

message: Hey, I have a great idea.  Let's get a bunch of people together, and when someone posts something we don't agree with, let's make a big noise, regardless of how civil they are.  Then, when they refuse to shut up when we tell them to, we can blame them for making the big noise, which is trolling, regardless of what their intention was.  Too bad I wasn't the first to think of this great idea ... --Ideogram 16:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling 

message: As discussed above, the /Proposed Decision bans User:John Reid for one week based upon his comments on WP:BN in the wake of the Carnildo re-sysopping.  This proposal currently has the unanimous support of six arbitrators, and given that one of the arbitrators has now moved to close the case, will presumably take effect within the near future.
For what it's worth, I personally found the tenor of John Reid's comments on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard in September to be unpleasant and excessively strident.  However, I did not and do not believe that his behavior should result in a formal ArbCom sanction, much less a ban.  In fact, John Reid was not even a subject of this arbitration case as originally filed by User:InkSplotch, but joined the case voluntarily after his name was mentioned in another user's evidence. Most important, the troublesome conduct on the noticeboard occurred (and ceased) weeks ago, and none of the concerned users (including the bureaucrats whose noticeboard was affected) sought any form of sanction against him then or thereafter.  There has been no showing of any prior form of dispute resolution, which is generally considered a prerequisite to ArbCom sanctions based upon objectionable user conduct.
In the extensive /Workshop discussion here, no one proposed any sanction, must less a ban, against John Reid.  When I noted Fred Bauder's initial proposal of the one-week ban in the discussion on this talk page, although this issue was to an extent swallowed up in the discussion of the proposal to desysop Geogre (which has been rejected by the other arbitrators), several commenters indicated that they strongly opposed the proposed ban of John Reid and none indicated that they supported the proposed ban.
I respect the views of the Arbitration Committee and I note in particular the fact that all six participating arbitrators have unanimously voted in favor of this proposal.  I also note that in discussion above on this page, John Reid has been highly philosophical in reacting to his proposed ban and accepting an enforced wikibreak.  So I would understand a quick consensus here to let the decision take effect without further ado and drop the matter.  At the same time, the process issues involved here are sufficiently troubling to me that I thought it appropriate to consider one further round of dialog on this issue before the /Proposed Decision becomes final.
I will add that I am considering the possibility of bringing this issue to the attention of Jimbo pursuant to the "executive clemency" prong of the arbitration policy (which I believe might have been the first to use if only I had done it two days ago, but I've now missed my chance to be a pioneer in this area), and would welcome any thoughts (including, of course, those of John Reid who may urge that this idea be quickly dropped) on whether this is a sensible suggestion.
When InkSplotch filed this arbitration case, I was unsure that any useful purpose would be achieved.  Only time will tell whether this case solved more issues and healed more wounds in the community than it has created new ones.  I know that the arbitrators - even those whose proposals I have disagreed with, sometimes strongly - have given things a lot of thought and done their best. But I do not think that banning John Reid - or anyone else - as a result of the events of several weeks ago will serve the purpose of moving forward. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I also disagree with the proposed ban of John Reid. I didn't agree with his comments at the time, or the way he made them, but the matter was quickly dealt with and was over. At most, an admin could have stepped in to issue a brief block if necessary, but it wasn't necessary. I therefore don't see the point of this ban, and the length of it seems disproportionate. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems 6 of them felt they needed to punish someone in order to make an example. Since they won't punish any of their own culprets and can't punish anyone more involved in the case without risking a greater firestorm, they select a lesser known dissenter only marginally involved. Their message is Don't intercourse with the Arbcomm, you proles! Suffice it to say I pretty much agree with the outrage so far expressed and have further thoughts on the matter here.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are comparing this case with Scapegoats of the Empire? That's just silly. You seem to have lost a bit of persepctive. Carcharoth 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No more silly than praying for Jimbo to come down from Olympus and set everything right. I have perspective and from here it looks like a Drumhead court-martial.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That argument could be used for a lot of ArbCom cases. By their nature they take a long time to reach their conclusions. Some of the decisions could be seen as delayed implementation of blocks that should have happened after the original incidents. Carcharoth 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, RDH and Giano - you do realize that Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin resigned a whole slew of powers -- clerk, admin, checkuser, possibly even participation in the Wikipedia -- during this case? AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those were voluntary. And clerk is not a position of power. It is a (vital) secretarial job, acting on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Any power there comes from ArbCom, not from the person holding the position. Carcharoth 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Oooh, let's please not chase sticks.  I say so as I go after one.)  The voluntary resignations would have been ultimately meaningless without the "under a cloud" rulings, as what is set down may be picked up again.  They are still somewhat irrelevant to whether wrong actions and words were taken.  Anyway, ArbCom takes a long time, and that's why it's best to use rfar's on cases dealing with serial problems and standards of behavior that are continually questioned.  Thus, it would be useful if the issue were "blocks based on private understanding and without conferral" (which is what I focus on) but not "blocked me and called me Nancy," or if it were "vows to merge all articles on AfD and redirect to shortcicruit deletion" but not "deleted my favorite user page."  It's on that basis that people are questioning the block for a week of John Reid here, as you know, and as you agree, Carcharoth.  We really ought to leave the little round bombs of verbiage at the door and concentrate on whether this particular remedy is remedial.  I fully endorse any appeal for clemency here.  Perhaps there is a preventative rationale for the block and Jimbo will deny clemency on that basis, but I cannot conceive of one now.  Geogre 15:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well some good did at least come out of this. Unfortunately, not nearly enough to resolve the underlying issues nor salve the ill-feelings and distrust--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Sadly there are quite a few buzzing little admins/IRC fairies (barely able to string two word together in an article)  hoping to curry favour and eventually be arbcommers themselves who will be only too delighted to execute the orders from above Giano 20:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi all!  I removed the comment with the rollback button, which has apparently caused a bit of confusion.  I should have used a personalised edit summary.  Sorry for the troubles.  My revert was due to the inappropriate and obvious snarky comment made about admins who are barely able to string two word together in an article and are hoping to curry favour and eventually be arbcommers themselves who will be only too delighted to execute the orders from above.  The entire comment is unwarranted and seems to have been made for no other reason but to instigate and antagonise, as it certainly doesn't have anything to due with the case itself.  Simply because one is involved in an ArbCom or any other dispute resolution case does not give him/her license to rant nonsensically.  I thought it best to simply remove the silliness, with the hopes of heading any conflict off at the pass, so to speak.  Again, apologies for not making my intentions clear in the edit summary by using the rollback button.  Giano, apologies to you as well, as I didn't intend to cause you any stress; I simply hoped to remove your  comment with the hopes of allieviating any potential conflict (seems a bit ironic, though, no?) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, sorry to Newyorkbrad.  Feel free to format or remove my comments at your leisure so we stay on-topic (which was my original intention by removing Giano II's comment) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's obviously some external issues affecting your response to my appropriate reversion of your silliness.  As such, I've responded on your talk page so as not to continue to stray off topic hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Then please ask Hoopydink to keep his fingers and opinions away from my edits, or better still have him de-sysoped, as was suggested of Geogre for less on this very page.  Giano 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just politely asking both of you, and all of us, to not keep inflaming things. This thread is off-topic: can we just let it drop? Jonathunder 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's do drop this, and we can drop it by keeping our hands off of everyone's edits.  It's not Hoopydink's place to decide what others get to read, nor mine.  It's profoundly disrespectful to remove someone's comments, and far more disrespectful in general than anything anyone can say about anonymous "admins" who can barely write.  It's baiting.  It's arrogant, and it is, at this point, either tremendously ignorant or overtly designed to disrupt Wikipedia by being provocative when you decide for everyone else that a contributor's words should be erased.  It's also to the point of this thread generally.  John Reid said ill-tempered, ill-advised, and improper things.  So it was.  They could be examined by all.  They can be weighed and weighted.  It then takes a full ArbCom consideration to determine what is an appropriate response.  No overly zealous defender of dignity could jump up, revert them, and then claim to have been serving the community by telling ArbCom that his own judgment was superior to its consideration.  When words stay, when they're examined, we move on.  When they're rolled back, we roil on, continuing the ugliness, leaving the wounds raw (if not salted).  Geogre 01:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impending ban of John Reid  

message: Oh, heavens!  Why on earth would someone revert Giano's statement?  Sheesh!  What is this, the World's Most Dangerous Man or Enemy of the People?  I actually think that Splash may be right, and the amount of grief attendant on this rfar might make anyone cautious, but then someone goes and seemingly proves Giano's point by removing his comment?  (Names not used in case it was just an accident.)  That is not the path to tranquility.  Geogre 20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi all!  I removed the comment with the rollback button, which has apparently caused a bit of confusion.  I should have used a personalised edit summary.  Sorry for the troubles.  My revert was due to the inappropriate and obvious snarky comment made about admins who are barely able to string two word together in an article and are hoping to curry favour and eventually be arbcommers themselves who will be only too delighted to execute the orders from above.  The entire comment is unwarranted and seems to have been made for no other reason but to instigate and antagonise, as it certainly doesn't have anything to due with the case itself.  Simply because one is involved in an ArbCom or any other dispute resolution case does not give him/her license to rant nonsensically.  I thought it best to simply remove the silliness, with the hopes of heading any conflict off at the pass, so to speak.  Again, apologies for not making my intentions clear in the edit summary by using the rollback button.  Giano, apologies to you as well, as I didn't intend to cause you any stress; I simply hoped to remove your  comment with the hopes of allieviating any potential conflict (seems a bit ironic, though, no?) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, sorry to Newyorkbrad.  Feel free to format or remove my comments at your leisure so we stay on-topic (which was my original intention by removing Giano II's comment) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's obviously some external issues affecting your response to my appropriate reversion of your silliness.  As such, I've responded on your talk page so as not to continue to stray off topic hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Then please ask Hoopydink to keep his fingers and opinions away from my edits, or better still have him de-sysoped, as was suggested of Geogre for less on this very page.  Giano 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just politely asking both of you, and all of us, to not keep inflaming things. This thread is off-topic: can we just let it drop? Jonathunder 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's do drop this, and we can drop it by keeping our hands off of everyone's edits.  It's not Hoopydink's place to decide what others get to read, nor mine.  It's profoundly disrespectful to remove someone's comments, and far more disrespectful in general than anything anyone can say about anonymous "admins" who can barely write.  It's baiting.  It's arrogant, and it is, at this point, either tremendously ignorant or overtly designed to disrupt Wikipedia by being provocative when you decide for everyone else that a contributor's words should be erased.  It's also to the point of this thread generally.  John Reid said ill-tempered, ill-advised, and improper things.  So it was.  They could be examined by all.  They can be weighed and weighted.  It then takes a full ArbCom consideration to determine what is an appropriate response.  No overly zealous defender of dignity could jump up, revert them, and then claim to have been serving the community by telling ArbCom that his own judgment was superior to its consideration.  When words stay, when they're examined, we move on.  When they're rolled back, we roil on, continuing the ugliness, leaving the wounds raw (if not salted).  Geogre 01:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Off-topic

message: Thank you all for your support. Time off is good. I can't imagine why anyone would think of a week off from Wikipedia as a punishment. The atmosphere is consistently hostile and the fuck-you/attaboy ratio is way, way too high. If I do right, I may find a solitary "thanks" on talk a day or a week later; if I offend, I expect a shitstorm on my talk inside the hour -- a shitstorm that often drags on for a week. The disproportion is absurd; nobody could possibly stick around here if he paid much attention to criticism. Editing is stressful and largely unrewarding; I edit from a sense of commitment to the project, not for personal amusement. I'm looking forward to time off; I have plenty to do in my Real Life. 
I did speak harshly on BN. However, the situation is and was harsh. I daresay I will speak harshly again someday when similarly provoked. If I were a better person I would discuss everything in level terms; instead I'm merely human. You'll note that I managed to avoid calling the bureaucrats cunts, fuckheads, traitors, or insurrectionists. 
Yes, I am about to be unjustly banned by ArbCom. You shall judge a man by his foes as well as by his friends. (Joseph Conrad). I shall wear my ban as a badge of honor. I intend to respect the ban -- a social measure -- in both spirit and letter. However unjust the sanction, we must uphold whatever system we have. Better not to cast away our only garment, however tattered, until we have chosen a new robe. I shall be insulted when some meddler blocks me -- a technical measure -- I shall not provoke this. Such a block will be unwarranted, a deliberately confrontational personal attack. 
Please do not unblock me; I urge all admins not to wheel war. If you feel I am unnecessarily blocked, please discuss this with the blocking admin and ask him to unblock. 
I was disappointed that Tony failed to add me to this RfArb, so I added myself. Now, as it shakes out, I am the only one sanctioned -- rib-splitting, ROTFL and choke-on-your-bagel amusement for political geeks everywhere. All other involved parties get off; they voluntarily stormed out of the building, threw down their fez, and got off with a warning or none. On the gripping hand, we have all been abused by these pointless proceedings in which our comments are ignored and nothing is done about the substantive issue. 
If any Arbitrators are listening to me anymore, I urge you not to do this -- not because I can't use the vacation but because it makes you look ridiculous and petty. I'm not being banned for harsh words on BN; I'm not even being banned for confronting a rogue b'crat -- I'm being banned because I participated at length on /Workshop. 
This entire case has played itself out as a massive misdirection from the substantive issue: Carnildo was promoted against community consensus. Bureaucrat Taxman has rebelled against the authority of our community. He has yet to admit fault in this, indeed he seems to have stated that he does not answer to us. At least this one holder of the community's trust has decided that he is an independent authority. It seems apparent that he did not act alone; that he did so with the support of both bureaucrats and arbitrators. All are tainted with the suspicion that they no longer work for us. 
Perhaps some will find my comments once again abrasive; well, this is an unpleasant issue. Is there any way to state this issue in a kinder tone without coating it in ambiguity, indirection, and sugar? Any editor is free to educate me, to refactor my comments so as to improve their tone and preserve their intent. 
This isn't about me but it's come out that way. I suggest that we will all do well to concentrate on substantive issues and refrain from metastasis. Those who comment here out of concern for me personally will favor me by stalking my contribs: If I edit wrongly, fix it; if I direct your attention to an area, consider it; comment freely from a rational viewpoint on the substantive issue; and edit this page. John Reid 10:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Reid on ban of John Reid 

message: :Several arbitrators voted to close this case either before a revised remedy against John Reid was proposed yesterday or (understandably) without noticing that a new proposal was pending. This morning, I left messages on their respective talk-pages and so far one of the arbs has voted (restating his support of the ban, but at least it's a decision). Although the case is technically eligible to be closed right now, I am hopeful that the three other arbs can weigh in on the new proposal before a clerk officially closes the case.
:In general, Cyde is correct that arbitration cases are beyond the purview of straw-polling. On the other hand, most of the people who have commented on this and the other pages for this case have put serious time into their analysis, and if there is a strong consensus against a given remedy, then I submit that the remedy may very well not be a good idea. In this instance, I think the strong weight of opinion on this proposed ban is already fairly clear.
:Regarding an appeal to Jimbo, I asked John Reid, who is after all the subject of the proposal, on his talk whether he would discourage me from pursuing that step. His response didn't discourage me but didn't encourage me, either. An arbitrator wrote this morning that an appeal to Jimbo should come from the editor in question directly, and I know that John Reid is not going to do that. Thoughts on this are welcome.
:And for the record, I still don't agree with everything John Reid said or did on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard last month, nor are our views in synch even on all the issues in this case (he called one of my proposed remedies "Orwellian"). That's not the issue. Newyorkbrad 00:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, I suppose, the ArbCom themselves can pass the matter to Jimbo. And even if you can't appeal directly, you can still bring it to Jimbo's attention. But I'm inclined to let the matter drop, which is why I didn't even abstain (except by default). My final observation is that I am slightly surprised that the ArbCom let this situation develop, where one person gets a week's ban, and that person is the person you would expect to wear the ban as a badge of honour or martyrdom or whatever, that would gain him a lot of sympathy. This was entirely predictable. I for one saw John's speech down below up above coming a mile off. Even though it was a good speech, the ArbCom practically gave John a soapbox to stand on. Carcharoth 00:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and this is one of the reasons that I disagree with the idea that John Reid needs to appeal.  That sounds altogether too much like the situation for an apology, and when a preponderance of users think that an apology should not be tied to the block, then it's likely that the user, too, will not apologize.  It should never be about demeaning anyone, and suggesting otherwise seems to me still to be punitive rather than preventative.  Even comments by those who reject the "strongly censured" indicate something like a punitive desire.  "Too weak?"  If we're talking about prevention, strength or weakness is not an attribute we look for; "effective" and "ineffective" are the attributes of prevention.  "Weak" and "strong" are attributes of punishments.  Cyde's comment was both unnecessary (since those against the block had already voiced their dissent with a poll) and inflammatory (the insult levelled at everyone other than those whose apples he polished).  I would say that you should make the appeal, Newyorkbrad.  If it is not going to be heard because it comes from you, then so be it, but this is an interesting situation and not at all average.  Geogre 02:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status (as of October 26, superseded now)

message: Well the case is about to close, everyone's just sick of it all because of all the ad hominem stuff that's been thrown around, and in all the confusion, John's quite right - the substance of this case has been obscured. 
#Carnildo was promoted against community consensus (finding of fact)
#Arbcom don't want to sign up for Appeals of a decision by Bureaucrats
#The role Arbcom played in this promotion is as obscure as ever "Perhaps we should say with the permission of the Arbitration Committee. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ambiguities remain. Let us go on and try to solve the problems presented. Fred Bauder 14:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you suggest this is done? In which fora (forums?)? By whom? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mailing lists, policy talk pages, arbcom elections, arbcom decisions. For example, just how is policy made using consensus? Fred Bauder 17:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This case, as it now stands, will resolve NONE of the underlying issues which led to it, and will only create new ones by the punitive exile of a dedicated and highly articulate Wikipedian. It was a case full of sound and fury, resolving nothing. But since we are trying to return to substance and no one is paying any attention anymore to the Workshop, just for the hell of it here are some more "findings" and "remedies" to consider:
===RFA IS a vote===
Admins are elected by the consensus of the community, as measured by a vote, to serve the community.
===Definition of Consensus in RFA's===
Through time and practice, Concensus in an Rfa is generally defined as 75% of the vote supporting promition. Bureaucrats have some discretion in deciding which candidates are worthy within plus or minus 5% of this. So a candidate may pass with barely 70% or fail with just under 80%.
===Contested RfAs===
An RFA which passes or fails under such circumstances, may be considered contested, and challenged through a direct appeal to the Arbitration and/or Mediation Committees, A Stewart, Jimbo Wales, or on the Beuraucrat's Noticeboard. They may then decide, based upon the merits of the case, to uphold or overturn the results, call for a new Rfa or grant the candidate a probationary adminship.
===Transparency and Openness===
Transparency and Openness are essential to the making of policy and the formation of consensus. Therefore, the use of unofficial, off-Wiki channels, such as IRC and mailing lists, to try and influence policies and work around consensus is strongly denounced and discouraged. Any "decisions" made in such a manner, are illegitimate, unofficial and must not be allowed to have any bearing or impact upon the formal, governing mechanism of the project and community.
===Acting Outside Consensus=== 
With only 61.2% support, candidate Carnildo fell far short of even the acceptable minium consensus of 70%. Promoting him, despite this fact, was a clear violation of long established policies and practices. Moreover, given the highly controversial circumstances of the candidate's desysopping, the decision to promote was even more unwarrented. The candidate did not resign voluntarily, nor express sincere contrition for the acts leading to revocation of his privillages.
===Violation of Transparency and Trust===
This decision also violated the principles of Transparency and Openness, and hence undermined the community's trust in its processes and decision makers.
===Bureaucrats Admonished and Cautioned===
The three Bureaucrats responsible are hereby strongly admonished and cautioned not to again subvert the policies and practices of Wikipedia. Further such actions will result in the loss of the privillages and/or bans.
===Carnildo's Probation Extended===
Carnildo's probationary adminship is allowed to stand, but is hereby extended a year to the 5th of September 2007. 
===Dust In the Wind===
Is all we are.
#Accept. These proposals won't satisfy everyone, but no one is punished, made a scapegoat or made to write I will not promote without consensus a thousand times on. It is all about the compromises, my friends. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A return to substance

message: Is all we are.
#Accept. These proposals won't satisfy everyone, but no one is punished, made a scapegoat or made to write I will not promote without consensus a thousand times on. It is all about the compromises, my friends. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dust In the Wind