My last edit I got a brief flash of the edit conflict screen, and then it went to the page... please do review it, whomever is interested. - brenneman ^{L} 02:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest, as gently as possible, that if people are not willing to work on a single version of events, that we're all really wasting our time here. I'm dismayed that even getting one paragraph to reflect a plurality of views appears to be too much to ask. I'm also suprised that a member of the commitee should first support a nascent finding, barely minutes old and then withdraw that support when *gasp* someone edits it.

I cast my mind back to the last arbitration that Tony and I were both involved in and the riduclous lengths that were gone to there to ensure that a preferred version of events was reflected in each finding or principle.

Can I ask that the individuals involved (including myself, or course) make a little bit more effort to edit harmoniously? --Aaron Brenneman 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you involved? Oh, yes, I forgot, you're the special prosecutor, who involves himself after the event.--Doc 23:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was your intention to do so, but that hurt my feelings. I don't mean the normal Wiki-sensitivity version of "please remain civil," but genuine sharp-intake-of-breath hurt my feelings.

• Everyone who edits these pages, contributes to policy space, or has continuing interactions with the named parties is involved. We're all taking part in this because we care about the continuing good health of the encyclopdia.
• The "event" was poorly defined in the request for arbitration, but it certainly includes examination of the past behavior those named.

I have a great deal of respect for for many of the individuals who are gathered on the arbitration pages. I can without reservation say that in the case of Doc Glasgow this is paired with no small amount of personal affection. I know that we often disagree on the issue of Tony Sidaway, but that my behavior has raised from him a comment in the nature of the one above has taken me aback more than I can clearly express.

brenneman ^{L} 23:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This workshop page is provided for the benefit of the arbitrators. It's probably not a good idea to perform a radical edit on a proposal that at least one arbitrator has accepted. Create an alternative and see if anybody likes it better. This enables the arbitrators to decide between different versions. It's the way it's done on the proposed decision page, except for minor tweaks. --Tony Sidaway 04:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'd refer to the previous arbitration, where the "proposed versions" included such serious spin-doctoring as to begger belief. If we're trying to craft proposals that reflect the actual chain of events, a lá neutral point of view, then there is no need for forking like this. Statements like "It's the way it's done" serve no useful purpose, providing nothing in the way of material support for this deeply illogical method of working. --Aaron Brenneman 05:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your preferred version is of merit then it will be copied to the proposed decision and the arbitrators will vote on it. If you have a problem with this way of workshopping, take it up with the arbitrators. This way reduces edit warring and maximises exposure of different viewpoints. The arbitrators decide. --Tony Sidaway 05:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As gently as possible, my previous experiance indicated that Tony Sidaway is the main propenant of this "method" and that other ediotors are happy to work together on finding the nuggets of truth. It's adumbrative to suggest that arbitrators have expressed a preferance for this way or working, and I'd ask everyone as much as possible speak only for them self when editing.

I'd note that a large part of the controversy here surrounds appeals to authority, and editors speaking on behalf of bodies they do not in fact represent. The fact that it's been done twice already on this talk page is illustrative.

Aaron Brenneman 05:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's complete and utter rubbish. Check any proposed decision page and you'll find that the arbitrators compose and vote on parallel versions of the same motion. It's impossible to keep track of who supports what if people insist on making their large-scale revisions overwrite earlier versions of a motion that someone has already commented on. And what's more it's quite unnecessary to do so. --Tony Sidaway 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a qualitative difference between the usually superficial changes that occur during voting and the unabashed white-washing that has already occured on the workshop page. I shall however cease for now to debate you on this point. - Aaron Brenneman 05:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page. How can there have been any whitewashing if both versions are visible, side by side, on the same workshop page? --Tony Sidaway 06:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, do you really think that it's a good idea to edit a statement after editors have approved it? How are we supposed to know whether the list of approvals is accurate? IMHO, Tony's proposal of listing an alternative to proposal "n" as "n.1" preserves the existing discussion and places your alternative up for debate. Thanks, TheronJ 14:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, seeing an arbcom member "approve" a statement minutes after it's birthed looks, well, bad. Are we trying to find some version of the truth, or just the pre-judged approved version? As to the actual utility of the n.1 system, it splits debate. Half the points get addressed in one version, half in another. I'd urge anyone who actually thinks that this works to look over the sections in the older arbitration I've linked in "General discussion" on the main page. This is the voice of rude experiance talking: literally tens of thousands of words get wasted because one editor won't work well with others. - brenneman ^{L} 15:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred is only speaking for himself based on the current evidence. I agree that adding separate proposals is better than unilaterally writing. Another option is discussing in the comment section until consensus for new is reached. --FloNight 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought of this as similar to an RFC, where each contributor can add their own findings, proposals, etc., and others can come comment on them. Then, the arbitrators select the ones the find most accurate to their findings, and transplant them to the proposed decision page. I've never seen multiple people hacking away at individal line items, as Aaron suggests, but then I don't go digging away in the history all that much, unless a page has gotten itself confused. As has been said elsewhere, in better words than mine, if we could all get together and agree on things here we probably wouldn't need an arbitration case. --InkSplotch 18:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. I can small consensus, even when it's going the wrong way. I remain firm however that it's anti-wiki, and that the best results in the previous two arbitrations I've been in were achieved that way. Regardless, consider me well and truly back in my box on this issue. Thanks for the input, gentle people. - brenneman ^{L} 00:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I think you have a variant meta-notion of the meta-level positioning of this process :P Or, in Human: think of it more as a structured debate on an article talk page than as the article page itself. Zocky | picture popups 04:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just rambling here, ok? Please treat this section as a sandbox. - brenneman ^{L} 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

If this is about the RFA, what are the possible outcomes?

1. Re-run the RFA
2. Provide some direction to bureaucrats
3. Clarify limits to bureaucats' authority
4. Endorse the bureaucrats' decision
5. Nullify the RFA
6. Something else?

Note that 2 and three could mean simply saying "they did fine" so everyone knows for next time. - brenneman ^{L} 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's wider, what else is it about?

1. The blocks placed by Tony Sidaway and JoshuaZ?
2. The cultural problems perceived by Geogre et alia?
3. The longer-term civility issues with named parties?
4. Clarification of the role of clerks
5. Code of conduct for clerks (it's becoming clear that they have to be pretty conservative in their demeanor)
6. What else?

This case is already a mess. Perhaps if we can (amongst ourselves, if the commitee doesn't weigh in) decide where we're trying to go we can work together a little bit to get there. - brenneman ^{L} 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's arbitration. The Committee can consider any and all of those things. --Tony Sidaway 08:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly these pages exists so that others can form and present a case to the arbitration commitee. If it can be agreed upon what exactly it is that is being looked at here, the burden can be lightened when it comes time for them to make their decision. As a "clerk" I'd think that you'd be first in line when it came to normal editors working together to present a cogent case.
brenneman ^{L} 08:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have an arbitration committee is to consider cases where there is an otherwise insoluble dispute. If the editors involved could all get together and agree on the nature of the situation and its remedies, there would be no need for an arbitration case. Look through a few recent arbitration cases, paying particular attention to the way the proposed decisions are assembled and arrayed as alternatives. The arbitrators will make their own minds what is important and what is not, and we won't know until they do, at which point they'll tell us by voting on it.

I've added a few bits in. I know which issues I think are unlikely to be addressed, so I'll ignore those and pay attention to the ones I think will be. --Tony Sidaway 09:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count of Edits	
Tony Sidaway    30
Aaron Brenneman 28
Fred Bauder     18
Kirill Lokshin   3
Sjakkalle        2
Dmcdevit         1
Ral315           1
MacGyverMagic    1
Grand Total     84

Unseemly. I'd love to hear how we can avoid having 70% of this whole arbitration being yet another round of the Aaron-and-Tony show. I'd support an injunction saying we could not edit the page more than twice a day, or something similarly Draconian. We've both got lots to say, but the domination of the page by anyone (or two) is a bad thing, as it makes it both less likely that others will contribute and makes it harder for them to be heard when they do.

brenneman ^{L} 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is matter is beyond trivial. A workshop is supposed to be edited. --Tony Sidaway 09:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree. We should not put an embargo on the edits. That is not nice. One should be allowed the freedom to talk and clarify his/her position and points. Here, we should not apply the principle that edit countis is fatal! Bhadani on 27.09.06

Tony's input is welcome. But so would anyones. Fred Bauder 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle writes:

Is this a grudge, or is it legitimate distrust? Being unfairly blocked indefinitely is a punch in the face, no matter how quickly it is unblocked, and I think it is a bit ureasonable to expect or demand that Giano be happy about seeing the person who did this to him readminned.

What you say is right as far as it goes, Giano is entitled to not forget that Carnildo treated him abominably, and his judgement at RFA may be strongly influenced by that--that's a perfectly legitimate reason to distrust a potential admin.

However Giano's feelings have, you can tell from the way he expresses himself, in themselves become problematic. He accused Lar of "insulting" him simply because, not really understanding the full background, Lar described Carnildo's actions in coming back to the community as "brave". [1].

What Wikipedia is not also tells us not to treat Wikipedia like this. It isn't a battlefield, or a place to nurse grudges. We can make allowance for hurt feelings that may influence perceptions, but is that really something we have to do forever? This RFA was over six months after the block. This is the reason why I emphasize that what we have here is a grudge. There is certainly legitimate reason for Giano to doubt Carnildo's reliability, but this doesn't excuse Giano's behavior. Giano's failure to follow dispute resolution over what was clearly a very large and ongoing issue for him probably contributed to the problem. --Tony Sidaway 09:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Giano felt that he got a second punch in the face when the bureaucrats apparently disregarded the people in the "oppose" column and promoted anyway. Tony, when you blocked Giano, I know you intended it as a cool-off, that Giano needs to take a break from editing because he is angry and posting comments without fully thinking them through. But to Giano it probably felt like a third punch, and the result was another round of angry rebukes. Giano's behavior has not been the most diplomatic we have seen, and may well have contributed to the problem, but he is almost certainly not the only guilty party. I am more inclined to think the whole thing is a chain of events which has been allowed to escalate. It goes something like this:

1. A perceives he is treated unfairly and speaks out, in an annoyed tone.
2. B thinks the complaint was uncivil and says "Hey be civil".
3. Hurt at being told that the comment was incivil, while the main message of the complaint was ignored (it doesn't matter if the message was ignored or not, as long as it was perceived to be ignored), A says back "You didn't bother reading the complaint did you? All you care about is making things look civil."
4. B thinks the last comment was horrendously incivil and says "You need to cool down and stop making personal attacks, or I'll get someone to block you."
5. A feels that B is threatening him and responds with...

There are many points here where this chain could be broken, but the root cause is both sides are on the defensive. Both feel that their dignity has been compromised and that the best way to defend it is by fighting those who have attacked him first (and of course, "started it"). A feels wounded by the original perceived injustice, and then by being told that he is an incivil personal attacker. B feels wounded by being told that he is an ignorant busybody.

Perhaps warning someone by citing WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA is a bad idea... it is better perhaps to appeal to their good sense ("I understand that you're upset about this, and I see your point. I disagree with you because...") Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! I rarely quote Wikpedia policies at people, and when I do, I take the trouble to explain it myself. Just hurling alphabet soup at someone says: "You've been bad. I don't have time to explain. Go and read this page.". It comes across as very rude. More discussion is needed, not curt quoting of Wikipedia policies at each other. Carcharoth 17:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone, in all seriousness, not in a joking way, falsely accused me of hate speech (a serious criminal act in many jurisdictions) less than a year ago in a public forum, then I would not be in any hurry to forgive or forget. Particularly when the libel was perpetuated on the public record throughout that period, and no unreserved apology was forthcoming. I don't think it would be fair to describe an understandable disinclination towards a person who had done such a thing as a "grudge". -- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron and Tony, perhaps if you wait for evidence to be put on the evidence page this case would be more focused. ;-) FloNight 10:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, call me idealistic, but I thought that first we defined the problem together and then we scrounged up diffs to support what everyone already knew. This whole "side by side competing statements" thing combines the efficiency of the post office with the warmth of the tax department. It's just a terrible way to work. But, per suggestion, I've dumped a bunch of diffs onto the evidence page. Please do edit them. - brenneman ^{L} 14:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - superb turn of phrase.!--Mcginnly | Natter 15:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to not be cuddly Fred Bauder 15:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume from comments on his talk page that User:Carnildo is aware of this RfAr. I am also aware that he is not a named party in this RfAr, but that his recent RfA is a subject of discussion here. I can see the advantages and disadvantages of Carnildo choosing to stay away from this discussion. But can someone briefly explicate/confirm whether, as he has not technically been named and informed, any conclusions here can concern him. Thanks. Carcharoth 17:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but unless the RfA is overturned, it doesn't affect him. Fred Bauder 17:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to be constructive and help in the workshop, but I'm struggling to make sense out of it (it's a rather late hour in my parts), so I'll post some thoughts here.

This case is confusing and I don't see how it can be made to make sense as something to arbitrate on. It tries to deal with too many issues, actions and grievences, and many of them aren't arbitration material. Confusingly, it's named after Giano, but seems to be mostly about Tony. We have Giano's grievences against Carnildo which have not been assuaded, we have the eyebrow-raising bureaucrat decision, then Giano's explosion, then Tony's long-standing incivility and trigger-happiness, Kelly using the T-word on Geogre and then leaving, James's bad judgement in calling everyone idiots, and on top of all that, there are general issues of transparency, trust, fairness and functioning of the project that Geogre raises.

It's a total mess, and here are the ways out of it that I have thought of:

• If we want to go on as usual and deal with these issues at some later date, we can shrug it off and pretend nothing happened. Find that everybody has learned their lesson and issue no remedies.
• If we want cosmic justice:
  • Carnildo should be re-de-adminned
  • Giano should be told off
  • bureaucrats should be severely told off
  • Tony should be told to find another place to shout at people
  • Kelly has already done what she promised to do
  • James should step down from the ArbCom
  • Geogre should be urged to keep his comments short and to the point to avoid sidetracking of debates.
  • And the community should have an open, honest debate and clarify the intra-project relationships to mutual satisfaction.
• If we want something realistic and benefitial for the project:
  • Carnildo should apologize to Giano for the block
  • Giano should gracefully accept the apology and apologize for the unnecessary vitriol from his side
  • Carnildo should decide whether he wants adminship this way and bureaucrats should think about what they did and do what, if anything, they think is appropriate. Everybody should make their own conclusions about these decisions, but debating them to bits is not going to help anything.
  • Tony should indicate that he understands that incivility is unacceptable and that the project is better off without him if he is incapable of remaining civil. If he can't communicate politely with other editors, he could try to find tasks on the project that don't require communication with other people.
  • James should apologize for calling a bunch of people idiots, because they aren't.
  • Former ArbCom members should be removed from the ArbCom mailing list, because the appearance of impropriety outweighs the benefits. Whom the ArbCom lets into their Freenode IRC channel is probably ArbCom's business. IRC is just talk.
  • We should make a list of all kinds of tasks that we do on Wikipedia, so that people can know and appreciate how much stuff needs to be done and how much of it other people are doing.
  • We should think hard about what the appearance of credible competition means for the project and its relationship with its best writers, many of whom we don't know because they don't even have a userpage.

The problem is, I don't think ArbCom can adjudicate any of the things in the realistic list. Zocky | picture popups 03:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkably well said, Zocky, and about 95% overlap with my own thoughts at the moment. Newyorkbrad 03:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliantly said. I concur that this arbitration is staggering around like a drunken monkey. Too much is going on, too many threads, mea culpa for my part in that.

• I asked above what it is that we're meant to be examining here, but the response was unsatisfactory. There are already twenty plus findings of fact and principles out there, not counting variations on the theme.
• While I'm well and truly back in my box with regards to collaborative editing on the workshop page, I realy do think that if we take some time to together work out here what are the issues we want raised, we'd benefit.

It's all very well and good for some to say that we just plonk everything one the page and that the committee will sort the wheat from the chaff, but *cough* if it were that easy we wouldn't have bloody "clerks" to begin with. We're meant ot be collaborative editors first, let's start acting like it, eh? Going with the "cosmic justice" theme, these fall (to me) into three sections:

• RFA: Carnildo's adminning examined, bureaucrats examined
• Civlity: Giano, Tony, Kelly, James, Geogre( ?)
• Meta ArbCom:Mailing list, Kelly (?), James (?)

Is there some constructive way we can attempt to push this back into meaningful piles, perhaps by sorting the sectios in this manner.

brenneman ^{L} 03:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What this case lacks, for good or bad, is someone playing the role of prosecutor, or perhaps grand jury. There no indictment setting out the scope of the complaint, no prosecutor to make an opening statement, "In this case we are going to prove that X did Y and should be punished by Z." I recoiled in horror from the AN thread and I have a sense, probably shared by nearly everyone here, that it was "bad" and something needs to be "done". But I have no idea where this case is going at the moment or what the general outcome is supposed to be. Thatcher131 15:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same reaction, but am not going to propose anything. If the trolling keeps on and on month after month... Fred Bauder 18:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What in particular on the workshop page at this time constitutes "trolling?" - brenneman ^{L} 03:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with an excellent summation. Hiding Talk 19:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well done, User:Zocky: an excellent summary. Would you like to stand for ArbCom? :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, The proposal is we acknowledge she's left and thank her for her contributions. So far this process has been silent on her involvement - I assume due to her absence - It seems to me that whether she is present and contributing or not, the issues relating to her involvement should be discussed here and so should the hypothetical issues relating to a future return. For instance, if she returns, would she need to pass an RfA to resume her admin status - would privileges such as 'Arbitrator emeritus' (extemely pompous IMHO) and position as clerk be restored by decree of ArbCom or would there be community involvement? I'm sure these questions could be seen as 'putting the boot in' and I really think there are bigger issues to consider here, but the conduct and future of, as Tony Sidaway puts it "Two of wikipedias most controversial administrators" should be resolved and perhaps, statements of intent made by ArbCom and Bureaucrats to give the community some clarity as to what the situation will be. It may be seen as undesirable for Kelly to be tried in her absence, but she's been invited to participate and it's probably a stretch to think she is not aware of the proceedings. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether and when an administrator who voluntarily gave up his or her sysop bit ("locked her mop-and-broom closet" is how I put it in one recent re-RfA) is entitled to be automatically re-sysopped on request without going through another RfA is unclear right now. I deliberately refrained from expressing a view on this question, because I don't think it's before the ArbCom at the moment and I'm not sure it's a question for the ArbCom at any time. Kelly Martin's other formal statuses on the English Wikipedia were as a holder of Checkuser and Oversight access; my understanding is that these statuses are conferred with the approval of ArbCom, but with the ArbCom members sitting in their "administrative rather than judicial capacity," so to speak, i.e., not in the context of an arbitration proceeding itself. (Pardon quasi-Wikilawyering please; I hope my point is clear.) I don't think anyone's raised any questions about her use of those rights; even the users who urged her to give up her access to the ArbCom mailing list specifically said they did not want her to give up these other functions. As for the rest, she hasn't functioned as a Clerk in some time, I don't think (at least not since I became active here at the end of June), so that's moot; and whether she would want to return to "arbitrator emeritus [emerita?]" status, whatever that means or meant, seems, given all the water under the bridge, of peripheral importance at best.

On the merits of the underlying case, many would agree that in recent weeks, Kelly Martin said a few things that she shouldn't have said. I remonstrated about some of her comments at the time; and I didn't object to others because other users had beaten me to it. There was one comment, in particular, that had the predictable effect of turning the temperature on the furnace of mutual invective up to full boil again just when it had started to cool; I remember writing on AN or BN that I was cringing, having just read the words and knowing what was going to result. So if Kelly Martin were to return, I would urge her not to do that sort of thing any more, and not to do some other things as well, but to continue making her positive contributions, which were substantial. But beyond that, as you say, it's pointless as well as unfair to discuss her if she's not here. Newyorkbrad 00:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following the discussions very well over the last week. So I may be behind here: please correct me if I am. Last time I checked, though, Kelly Martin had left and given up all her rights, but it was still unclear if she still participated in the private ArbCom mailing list. That is the one thing she was asked to give up, and it may be the only thing she didn't. Given the laundry-list of other issues apparently on the table in this case, I fail to see why that one shouldn't be. It is my personally-held opinion, shared with others I know, that, for obvious reasons, no former ArbCom members should have permissions to read or write the private mailing list. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters whether Kelly has or has not unsubscribed from arbcom-l. I don't think it's any of our business. The Arbitration Committee orders its own affairs. It was ridiculous to demand that she unsubscribe and I think it was quite incomprehensible that she offered to do so. --Tony Sidaway 05:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her subscription to the mailing list is as Tony says, a matter for the arb-com. The question of what to do if she comes back is a minefield. It's been pretty well established that any admin who resigns the bit seeks it again through an RfA, Sarge Baldy and Sean Black are two that spring to mind. That said, Sean's got messy and I don't see why Kelly's would run smooth. However, this all pre-supposes Kelly wants them back. I say cross the bridge when we need to. It's going to be fractious whatever we do, and there's no point starting that debate now. Maybe what we need to evaluate before that point is what we want from our admins, because that's where the divide will be. Hiding Talk 11:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Her subscription to the mailing list is as Tony says, a matter for the arb-com." Yes, and so are all the other decisions to be made in this case, right? This issue would be one that would be perfectly reasonable -- and in my opinion a very good thing -- for them to go ahead and address here. I imagine the opinions among the committee members aren't unanimous on this issue, and some semi-public airing on stances on this issue would not be a bad thing either. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not well established that voluntary desysopped admins must go through RfA. This year alone there have been 5 who were resysopped without RfAs: PMA, KnowledgeOfSelf, Doc glasgow, Jaranda, and Lucky 6.9. And based on Taxman's comments here, W.marsh could be considered a sixth instance (RfA closed 4 days early and used only as bureaucrat feedback). More information on resysoppings can be found here. NoSeptember 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was unaware of those. Wonder why Sean went through an RfA then? I must say I'm glad there's precedent there for a simple giving back of the tools. Hiding Talk 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean's RfA may have been a motivating factor in this trend. All of these (except PMA) happened after Sean's RfA. See this and this for more context. It may be that bureaucrats have adjusted their thinking about resysoppings, given the circumstances of both Sean's and Carnildo's. NoSeptember 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Of course, it's still likely to kick off if and when Kelly does come back. I can now see the value in making the principle that a bureaucrat's decision is final in this case. Hiding Talk 12:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 admins were voluntarily desysopped in September so far. Perhaps we need a Resysopping policy, resysopping requests are just going to get more frequent in the future. NoSeptember 12:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just noting that nobody has made ArbCom godkings. ArbCom's legitimacy stems from Jimbo and the community, and both Jimbo and the community can set rules within which ArbCom works. Zocky | picture popups 12:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As regards "resysopping policy", I don't think we need one, i.e. I don't think that a "former admin" is its own kind of user. If the ArbCom thinks that desysopping someone is called for, they should become an ordinary user and ordinary rules for getting admin status should apply to them. Zocky | picture popups 13:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about people who lost admin status through arb-com but rather through their own choice. Hiding Talk 13:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in some cases (ie. Carnildo) it is about ArbCom desysoppings too. NoSeptember 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Zocky, that's a perfectly valid opinion, but actual practice shows that there is different treatment of former admins. Other than by mistake (such as Luigi30 or maybe FSF), who other than a former admin has been promoted with less than 75%? If they are treated differently in practice, then we have a need to discuss it, unless we want a big knock down debate after each sub-75% promotion decision. NoSeptember 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe there should be a separate procedure for resysopping, at least for those admins who voluntarily resigned their duties. Former sysops, especially those who used/abused their tools actively, have too many opponents to make it to adminship via the ordinary procedure. User:Robchurch's efforts to regain his adminship are a fine example. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you don't even have to abuse your tools at all to pick up enemies as an admin. If Rob Church was still active, he would be the top candidate to try again in the now-post-Sean Black era. He had 70% last time (May). NoSeptember 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry chaps, but I think were straying a little from my intended point - I do not believe that resigning adminship, or any other privileges for that matter, is simply "locking the mop in the locker", I think it's resignation. I think people might be a lot less inclined to throw their adminship away in this manner, if they really had to think about what would be required to have those privileges restored, eg. RfA. As for Kelly, my point was - she's resigned and gone, an extreme cynic might see this silence and non-participation as an attempt to avoid full scrutiny by the community - don't worry about kelly (or whoever) she's gone, we don't need to debate it. So if she turns up again, what happens - is she handed the mop back, oversight - all the rest without some kind of motion regarding her part in this? I think some examination of her conduct should take place and Arbcom should clarify what would happen vis a vis her adminship and other powers and responsibilities, should this occur. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We still haven't had clarification that she's given up her access to the ArbCom mailing list as far as I know. This isn't a problem I don't think if she's not participating in En wikipedia - but will only surface again if she returns. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clarification (as it could just be wrong), but the Signpost article here includes access to the ArbCom mailing list as one of the things Kelly Martin "resigned". I guess the best thing to do is to stick this question under the finding of fact regarding Kelly Martin, and see whether the ArbCom decide to answer the question one way or another. Carcharoth 22:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't fathom the line of discussion here. If an admin gives up their mop-and-bucket/leaves the project after having blocked/spoken/edited in such a way as to cause a problem that brings them under consideration of an accepted RFAr, why would we consider them to have "given up their tools voluntarily"? It didn't work for 172, it nearly didn't work for Sean_Black, why should it work here? Either she's a party to the arbitration, in which case her behavior should be discussed, or she's not, in which case she should be removed entirely from consideration. Giving someone a bye because they walked out of the meeting isn't appropriate, IMO. -- nae'blis 19:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of thumb I've noticed seems to be that if an admin gives up his or her tools in the face of an RfAr, they're required to go through the RfAr if they ask for the tools back, or are at least required to stand for re-election rather than being re-sysopped upon request. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I rather thought nobody would ever find my recently proposed remedy re Kelly Martin, with the present bloat and fragmentation of the workshop. It's here, if anybody's interested. Slim, I'm reluctant to put my faith in having KM's jumping ship before a Requests for arbitration against Giano count as giving up the tools "in the face of an RfAr". Bishonen | talk 19:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, Bish, I didn't see your proposal; this page is close to useless because of the over-posting, which I hope was not the intention. I'll take a look now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand where you got the idea that this is an RFAr "against Giano"; Kelly Martin is listed under involved parties and has been since the first edit; despite the naming (which InkSplotch has already commented on as unfortunate), this isn't about, and certainly not exclusively against, Giano. -- nae'blis 18:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Bishonen got the idea because this case is named "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano". Does that make it a case against Giano? No. But does it give an awful lot of users, some with years of experience, the impression that it is? I would have to say yes. The naming is highly unfortunate and was strike one against Giano from the get-go. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the request for arbitration and seeing that it was focused on the behavior of Tony and Giano, I was a bit surprised to see the workshop has inked considerable time in reviewing the Carnildo promotion. The request was purely about the behavior that came up afterwards. It's fine if the arbcom wants to review the decision of course, it's just surprising to see my name and the decision I took part in brought up many times when I had no expectation it would be or notice that it was. I tend to avoid arbcom proceedings as much as possible because I think they should be participated in only minimally to get the job done and get back to editing, so I'm not sure of everything about how they work. Maybe examining everything related is normal. So I guess the question is was that intentional to focus on the promotion decision, and whether or not it was, is that a desired/helpful part of this case? - Taxman ^Talk 03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The row was about feelings about the closing of Carnildo's RfA. Fred Bauder 04:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but thus far your name appears four times on the Workshop page (a small number for the War-and-Piece [sic] number it has become) and the promotion itself is still largely presented as background material. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration workshops can often be quite different from the proposed and final decisions. Anybody, and I mean anybody, can make a proposal on a workshop page. Doesn't mean it will be considered by the arbitration committee. Although the arbitrators may make comments during the workshop, and perhaps influence its direction in this way, in practice nobody knows during the workshop phase which points the arbitration committee will consider to be relevant to the case. --Tony Sidaway 05:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is true on some level and utterly false on others. It's base to shift all responsability for the outcome of this case onto the arbitration committee. As I've said before, if the committee were able to adequately filter and process all the data without the input of others, we wouldn't need these pages. The onus is on the "normal" contributors to present a clear concise case supported by evidence. - brenneman ^{L} 06:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's the arbitrators' job and theirs alone to decide if there is a problem that needs to be fixed, define it, and order remedies. Anything they get from other editors is a freebie, although obviously it's in the interests of some participants to draw attention to matters they think may be relevant to the case. --Tony Sidaway 06:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to reconcile this stated casualness and the zeal with which you edit these pages. What function do you then serve in doing so, might I ask? - brenneman ^{L} 07:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fun, it's on a subject I enjoy discussing, and discussing these things helps me (and others) to understand what took place. --Tony Sidaway 07:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You find it "fun" to participate in ArbCom cases? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't? Hiding Talk 13:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALoan, remember that you're talking to a guy who has participated in and observed arbitration cases since his earliest months at Wikipedia, who aided editors who were in need of advocacy or just someone to tidy up their evidence, ran for the Committee last December, recently brought three simultaneous arbitration cases, and has engaged as a clerk in more arbitration cases than any other clerk to date. Why would I have done all this, which is very hard work, if I didn't enjoy arbitration cases? --Tony Sidaway 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all - and, far as I am aware, I am not yet, although I may do later - I would rather be writing articles. Unfortunately, my article output has fallen in recent weeks due to a variety of non-wiki issues, and, since bricks may be falling from a great height onto heads that I care about as a result of this discussion, I feel the need to see how it evolves. I think this is another instance of the divide between people prefer to write articles, and people who prefer spending time behind the scenes -- ALoan (Talk) 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I contribute on occasion to arbitration cases because I think that I can contribute effectively to the process. I find it intellectually satisfying to contribute to the discussion and the potential resolution of a dispute, in much the same way that a user who acts as a mediator can enjoy and learn from that experience, albeit it's not quite the same kind of enjoyment as writing an article. And of course, it's also good to advocate for the positions I believe in as a Wikipedian. However, if I were participating in an arbitration proceeding as a party whose behavior was being questioned, I'm sure I wouldn't enjoy that at all. Newyorkbrad 14:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I've never viewed them as anything more formal than brainstorming. Hiding Talk 11:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, could I ask you to consider reducing the number of posts you're making to the workshop? You've posted so often — 154 posts in two days, almost double the number of the next most frequent poster — that the page is almost useless, because no one could be expected to plough through it. I'd like to suggest you take a back seat for a couple of days. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the proposals concern me, so it's not surprising that you'll see a lot of edits from me. Don't worry about it. --Tony Sidaway 16:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're commenting on practically every issue that arises, whether it involves you or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a problem? --Tony Sidaway 16:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the page becomes unusuable, in part because of length, and in part because most of the posts are from one person. The page is for everyone to post on, and it shouldn't be dominated by one editor. Also, the more you post, the less likely people are to read what you say, so less is more in a situation like this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the above. While I'm sure your intentions are good, your somewhat excessive responding has the effect of drowning out discussion, which is pretty much the point of the workshop. >Radiant< 17:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His input is welcome. Fred Bauder 20:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And nobody said that it wasn't. Slim and I were simply suggesting that he choose quality over quantity. Radiant! 20:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the suggestion that my engagement in discussion is "drowning out discussion" somewhat difficult to credit. Did I really read that? --Tony Sidaway 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you read that, but I'm sure I wrote that. >Radiant< 21:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the volume and tenor of Tony's input on the page to be very helpful in demonstrating the issues at hand. Nandesuka 21:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unthinkable that one person could "drown out discussion" by contributing with a very high volume. What makes a discussion is something kind of reasonable ratio of contributions from various parties. A monologue isn't a discussion. I'm not saying that's precisely what's happening here, just that it's not oxymoronic to suggest that engagement in discussion could drown it out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry but for those of us who are forced for financial and mundane reasons to leave wikipedia for some hours a day and inhabit the real world this page has now become impossible to follow. I have just posted my first edit here [2] and my second and final edit [3] to the whole debacle and been told I am persistent. I shan't post on the subject again, it has just become "The Tony Show"- I see no point in having an unseemly slanging match with Tony, which is what he seems to be encouraging when he does not agree with a post. Giano 21:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry this was the first [4] anyway that is my lot here Giano 21:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see quite how it matters how may edits I make, since I'm one of the few parties editing the workshop and nearly all of my edits are in the "Parties" section, quite separate from the other edits. If it bothers anybody, I suggest that they completely ignore the sections labelled "parties" and stick to reading the proposals (most of which are from other editors) and the comments by others and arbitrators. Then it will be almost as if I hadn't edited the page at all, and we'll all get along happily. --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll grant that this isn't particularly important, and if it is I'm sure someone will write a bot script to wrap Tony's remarks in DIVs so that people can set their skin to not display them, or something. However, this does point straight to the (well, a) heart of the issue: Tony doesn't see quite how his actions matter to other people. Something he considers to be just a goofy remark can be seen by somebody else as a nasty insult. And of course on the internet it's difficult enough already to tell whether someone's serious or sarcastic. So I think what we need is a babelfish to translete Tonyese into Wikian. >Radiant< 22:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony's now at 222 posts to the workshop, over twice the number of the next most frequent poster, and over four times the number of the third most frequent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size[edit]

On a related point, the page is getting a bit large. I've been reduced to scanning through the history of the latest edits, and trying to pick the ones that look most relevant. I pity those who have to review the entire lot. Is there no way to organise this some more? Carcharoth 22:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Split into subpages by (1) adminship issues, (2) civility of Giano/Tony/et al, and (3) arbcom-related. Radiant! 22:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer a savage refactoring to subpaging. Everything should stay together, but remain concise. - brenneman ^{L} 23:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refactoring, we've learned, only leads to a worse mess as disagreements emerge on what is relevant. I suggest that the best thing to do is a simple functional division: Principles, Findings of Fact, Remedies. If Findings of Fact is still too big then we can talk about subdivision by subject. --Tony Sidaway 04:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Who is "we" in the above statement? I've created a copy of the arbitration at User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Sandbox2 and would love help in refactoring it down to a useful size where people can contribute more meaningfully. It doesn't matter if it's intentional or not, the sheer bulk of the proceeding (and it being split into subpages) is a barrier to contribution. Unless someone feels like there should not be more contributions/contributors here, and then they should simply say so.
      brenneman ^{L} 00:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      I've removed the following sections as being either strongly divergent or highly unlikely to be accepted in the final version. This is at the subpage above, and if there are no objections soon I'm going to move this onto the existing subpage. Then, if there is no objections, I'm going to refactor that subpage with an eye towards moving everything back into one page. - brenneman ^{L} 01:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to "refactor" a /Workshop page. Only an arbitration clerk may do so. In addition I see no need to do so. Frankly, an investigation into a big mess will be a big mess. Fred Bauder 11:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been involved in maybe three other arbitrations. You were not involved in any of those to any great degree that I recall. In those, lots of refactoring was done, and it worked just fine. Seeing as how most of use are editors after all. I'll leave off any further attempts to help sort any of this out. - brenneman ^{L} 12:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred is a member of the Arbitration Committee and (as I've remarked before) the person who devised the Workshop format. It is just possible that he knows a bit more about these matters than others involved in this discussion. --Tony Sidaway 18:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloat[edit]

I join the voices above in asking Tony to post with a bit less enthusiasm. Here he creates a new section and uses 83 words to suggest that the word "consensus" be changed to "supermajority." This is not helpful. - brenneman ^{L} 01:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since what 'consensus' is and who determines it is precisely the point, Tony's distinction between consensus and an arithmetical supermajority seems particularly pertinent. There are important issues here that have nothing to do with the long-standing personality clashes.--Doc 08:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully Doc, I can find little or nothing in your response that relates to mine. If Tony had wanted to make the change suggested, proposing it in the section above would have been a more containted approach. Instead he created a new section with a one word change in the text. I'm simply asking that he adjust the volume of output and consider that while this method is "fun" for him, it does not work well for many of the other editors involved. As we seek to work in a collaborative and collegial environment, when a certain critical mass of individuals make a polite request, serious consideration should be taken prior to disregarging the request. - brenneman ^{L} 08:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to discourage or limit participation by another user in the arbitration are not welcome. Fred Bauder 11:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your suggestiong that I am trying to Silence anyone repugnant. I'd ask that you consider more carefully my previous posts, as your response seems out of touch with my statements. - brenneman ^{L} 12:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been some comment by Aaron about the production of proposed finding of fact 1.2 by altering a word from the proposed finding 1.1, authored by Fred Bauder, I'll explain this a little bit more. The single word change has the effect of completely changing the meaning, and as I'd already seen how unwelcome a single-word change could be, I chose to duplicated the proposal and alter it. Fred has already made it abundantly plain that he prefers this way of working, and as the person who created the concept of workshop pages, and one of the persons, namely arbitrators, for whose purpose they exist, I will treat his his opinion on this as final.

Aaron is correct that a brief comment to the effect "I'd prefer the word supermajority" could have expressed my opinion in a more compact manner. However duplicating and altering a word will enable editors to make their comments on the two proposals in an independent and unambiguous manner. I think the question of whether the arbitration committee rules as a matter of fact that consensus was not found is a rather sensitive one. I'd probably want to chat with the bureaucrats and see what their opinion on this is, rather than conjecture that the bureaucrats, in the absence of a supermajority, simply saw no consensus. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two days ago, User:Zocky posted a very useful summary of where this case was at that point (see "A Few Thoughts" above). Since then, there has been a bit of useful progress made, such as some reflections and apologies. I have tried to make my own contributions to the workshop page, including a set of proposed remedies, some of which have won support, while others have been roundly shouted down. There has certainly been ample opportunity for venting by many of those involved, although Giano seems to have had the common sense to spend the week creating future featured article content instead.

I was never optimistic that this arbitration case would serve a useful purpose, and at this point, I have tentatively concluded that the case, filed for the avowed purpose of helping to heal rifts in the community, now is itself causing more damage than the continuing discussion and eventual decision might ever repair.

Reviewing the bidding, Tony Sidaway acknowledges that he is often incivil, with commendable candor that should not be turned against him, yet he contends that this is not "even close to being an issue" and seems to be unsure whether there is anything he could do to reduce his level of incivility. InkSplotch, who filed the request for arbitration, opines that Giano committed at most "a very minor transgression," yet fills the evidence page with diffs of quotations from Giano, for what purpose I do not know if he doesn't believe that Giano did anything seriously wrong. Everyone agrees that personal attacks are to be avoided, yet a finding of fact is proposed that Geogre, one of our most thoughtful and hard-working editors, made numerous statements "clearly intended to damage Wikipedia," which -- well, which speaks for itself. Kelly Martin, named as a participant in the case, was gone when the case was opened and is not here now. JamesF's remark, which I believe was well-intentioned if ill-advised, is dwelled upon so as to scold him for having made it, though it would best be simply forgotten.

Meanwhile, meta-issues such as the future of RfA and maybe the relationships between different types of editors remain unresolved, but no one has credibly suggested that it is the ArbCom's province to resolve them.

I'd like to ask the parties and all interested others to opine whether they believe there is any point in continuing this case, and if so, what useful purpose they believe pursuing it through the decision process will serve. Newyorkbrad 23:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is nothing useful here. Everyone involved should slap themselves on the wrists for heated and foolish rhetoric, and we should either leave it at that, or go an have an open discussion about what needs fixing. We can play a game of 'who can dredge up the worse diffs of incivility?', but will it make things better? No. But we may lose a few more useful Wikipedians. No cookies for anyone tonight, now let's go and play elsewhere. I suggest one of the parties, or the filer, formally move for dismissal, and hopefully the arbs will concur. --Doc 23:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to file such a motion myself tonight (I'd have to intervene as a party), but thought I would get input here first. Let's wait for some more comments here and see whether a consensus emerges. Newyorkbrad 23:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three points:

• (1) See my reply to Doc Glasgow.
• (2) I suggest that the RfAr should focus not on the behaviour (other than issuing a blanket statement that avoids scapegoating, similar to the one made by Doc Glasgow), but on what caused the behaviour. ie. Try to identify the underlying issues in a dispassionate manner, and then pass the issues back to an appropriate community forum for wider discussion. Unfortunately, in some cases the underlying issues is the behaviour!
• (3) There may be a technical point that now the case is open, the arbitrators have to give some sort of ruling. Is there any precedent for withdrawing a case as advanced as this one?

This RfAr has helped to focus debate on the issues to a certain extent, and in a place where heated debate is less likely to occur, so some progress is being made. Maybe give it a few more days? Carcharoth 00:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with Doc. You cannot resolve a heated issue by sweeping it under the rug. That said, the discussion on this workshop has definitely made a turn for the less-than-helpful. >Radiant< 00:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but issues are generally best resolved when the 'heat' is taken out of them. There are real issues here: RfA, crats discression etc. But the problem is thay've got connected with hopeless rhetoric, bad faith assumptions, and insinuations of 'corruption' and 'conspiracy' - let's neutralise all the petty personal stuff and deal with the issues. Otherwise this RfAr becomes just the latest battlefield for the same old point-scoring crusades - that will resolve no issues. My problem with continuing this is that AC will not actually address the underlying issues anyway, they don't seem to see policy developement as their role. --Doc 00:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think there's a lot here that ArbCom needs to deal with. Any sort of attempt to close this thing out reeks of trying to protect certain people, to me, and that's exactly what we don't need considering the rifts the entire situation widened. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself as the one who opened this thread, I have no idea whom I might be suspected of trying to protect, but I'm carefully noting all the comments. Newyorkbrad 00:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you weren't who I had in mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, who did you have in mind? From whom is this 'reek' you speak of coming? --Doc 00:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Jeff, don't answer that question, I withdraw it. --Doc 00:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... let's not turn this thread into exactly the type of discussion I was suggesting we'd be better off not having. Newyorkbrad 00:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some good proposals and some particularly insightful comments both here and in the preceeding sections, along with some suggestions for rather punitive measures in remedy of the "behaviour" of the involved parties. I have read through the relevent pages pertaining to the dispute. In my opinion, there are a few points offered in the preceeding sections that must be addressed by the sitting ArbCom in order to offer clearer direction to the disputants. Clearly, an administrator who engages in incivility with his fellow wikipedians is a problem. Number of edits and social connections notwithstanding. I actually think M. Sidaway needs a mentor. Someone with patience and a good grasp of social nicieties and international ettiqutte (I am speaking directly to the Yorkshire apologists). A buffering force to filter out some of the weird ass stuff that M. Sidaway offers in some of his edits from the past week such as [5] which I noticed last week. I had to shake my head over the edit summary. Heres one which creeps me out in the finality of the tone[6] regardless of the quality of the candidate. It leaves me cold. My earliest corespondence with M. Sidaway took place here [7] and I found his intractibility at that time to be a bit galling. I even read through his talk page to find a third party that seemed reasonably intelligent to mediate the dispute, finding some correspondence with David Gerard I asked M. Gerrard to take a look here [8] and my general feeling was I was getting "the ol' brush off". Now that a year has passed I am more aware of the "friendly" relationship that M. Sidaway et Gerard have established. Indeed I searched around for some point on which they have differed, but I have not found such an instance. We all make friends here at Wikipedia, to be sure. We all have those individual editors and contributors whom we have taken some inspiration from, those who we hold as an example of exemplary "Wikipedianship". So my suggestion is that M. Sidaway find such persons as will help him through his more problematic tendencies and to augment his strengths. It can't hurt and could do much to help. And take a cue from Jimbo and mete out extremely short blocks for contentious editting within our community of "trusted" editors/admins. A 17 second block speaks volumes. Not that I'd think M. Sidaway would ever be amienable to advice from a newbie like me... Hamster Sandwich 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... which is a pity, because it's excellent advice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamster has nursed some odd grudge against me since I courteously explained an AfD to him well over a year ago, when he was still a newbie. David Gerard is someone I've known for well over a decade, and we disagree on many matters related to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What M. Sidaway characterizes as a grudge has in fact been an editor and administrator of good standing who has an abiding commitment to the general principals of the project(read: me), judging the level of his behaviour. Why shucks I even reverted some obvious vandalism to his talk page once [9] There has actually been only two occaisions that I have attempted to engage him directly, but from reading countless postings to his talk page and elsewhere, I have learned to expect trite responses such as this "No. This is a completely unacceptable suggestion. Frankly it's so silly I hope you both feel thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. How dare you. --Tony Sidaway 20:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)".

Now as I have said, I expected that, M. Sidaway is nothing if not predictable. Going through the diffs is exhausting, but I would bet a paycheque that such repoire is far from exceptional to myself alone. I am overwhelmed by the sheer volume of rhetoric that M. Sidaway engages in within the sphere of Wikipedia. Something like 1000 edits in the past twenty days from my count. Absolutely astonishing to me. Tony, they can't all be gems (And too much time in front of a computer terminal is not healthy). Try to limit yourself to well considered and non-inflamitory editing. That's the standard that every other editor is held to and you are not an exception. Hamster Sandwich 04:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I do mostly agree with Zocky. Though the fact that unresolved issues from 8 months ago are still causing grief, and that we don't want any more of the involved people to leave, I think that the arbcom should do its best to find the fairest solution that will give the most finality to this. I don't know that it's likely to succeed, with Giano not participating much, and with anti-arbcom comments made. But the only other options are to try to sweep the hostile feelings under the rug, or to have Jimbo-mandated finality, which aren't good either. --Interiot 02:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as if I blundered into a ready-made mess, did my best to resolve it, and then got hit with a sock full of sand. All in a day's work for an admin, of course, and I was glad to help out. I just hope that Giano will now just get back to editing and stop trying to make mountains out of really very small molehills. But then again, that's the effect I hoped my brief block would have. --Tony Sidaway 04:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you're showing a worrying lack of insight. I'm truly trying to say this in a positive way, not just to have a go at you. As I see it, and I believe as quite a few others see it, your posts in the Giano incident, your block, and your frequent refactoring of the subsequent discussion helped to exacerbate things, and this is not an unusual effect of your involvement in issues. Is there any sense in which you can agree with that; any degree to which you feel there might be some truth in it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano was spoiling for a fight, as were Geogre, Bishonen and so on, well before I even knew there was any kind of fuss going on. I just happened to be the whipping boy. Of course I got rid of some of the more ridiculous noise, and this was a net benefit to the discussion. --Tony Sidaway 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page is quite useless. As could have been expected, the people who do no mainspace editing and have lots of spare time, have monopolized the page and turned it into a circus. After the arrival of User:Werdna and User:John Reid, who seem to have a very superifical understanding of the case (Werdna is not aware who the parties are) and whose tendentious arguments are known in advance, I feel that the page completely lost its usefulness and credibility. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, to be fair, it works well for Duncharris. —freak(talk) 08:06, Sep. 28, 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Remedy[edit]

1) Tony Sidaway is required to add smiley faces, sarcastiwinks or other emoticons to at least half the posts he makes on talk pages or discussion pages, to indicate to other editors whether or not he's serious.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I looked at a fairly old discussion in which I was involved [10]. I was unfailingly courteous, and I explained every single step of an AfD close I had performed. I also consulted two other experienced editors in an attempt to get a "second opinion". Both of the other editors agreed with me. I also calculated what the result would have been had I allowed various changes the other people proposed. Nevertheless one person with whom I was involved in discussion has nursed a grievance against me to this day; curiously the result of the AfD has held all this time. I don't think this is really about this or that person getting upset because they don't understand the tone in which someone is saying something. It's about Wikipedia becoming a less tolerant, more factional community. It's obviously been going on a long time (the discussion was last August, the guy in question still has a massive chip on his shoulder, and is demonstrating this on the talk page right now). I think that's a shame. How did we permit Wikipedia to turn into this mudbath? --Tony Sidaway 06:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give examples of this so called "chip" that you claim I possess. The incident you are alluding too was my first contact with you. It has stayed with me and served to teach me a valuable lesson on how not to deal with contributors to the project. As I have mentioned in this section [11] at some length. The mention of that discussion, and your expansion of the theme of having been somehow persecuted by me particularily in this section is perplexing to me. Perhaps just a red herring meant to deflect my concerns in the here and now. I am now fully engaged in the present, let me assure you. History does however repeat and that is inevitable. And some problems just never go away...

Oh, I think the smiley proposal is kinda hinkey, BTW. Joke or no joke? Hamster Sandwich 06:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a post script I must correct M. Sidaway on the status of that article he claims survived intact. The article he has alluded too Religion and schizotypy redirects to Psychology of religion. The original text of the article Religion and schizotypy did not survive the merge. There are no mentions of the mental states of Joan of Arc or Mohammed etal which were named in the article. My arguement against the Religion and schizotypy article, an article which has not survived, can be found here [12]. My argument was valid then, and remains so today. No person can offer an accurate psychiatric diagnosis for characters who have been dead for so long. Such commentary is by its nature strictly an opinion. Speculation. Un-encyclopedic. Or prove it, and then it suddenly is encyclopedic. Go ahead M. Sidaway, go find some proofs of Jeanne d'Arc's schizotypic state of mind. I will regard you in an entirely new light. Hamster Sandwich 06:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two points need to be mentioned here:

# I don't care about schizotypy. I was only an afd closer. I gave you a model answer and bent over backwards to try to accommodate the concerns that you and others raised. And yet you still believe that I did you a wrong.

# I haven't claimed, and don't believe, that you have persecuted me. I simply observe that you have a massive (and obvious) chip on your shoulder. --Tony Sidaway 07:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M. Sidaway says above "curiously the result of the AfD has held all this time. " It has not, his level of interest in the subject nothwithstanding. I have asked M. Sidaway to show me previous examples of my "grudge" which I tend to read as "rancor directed towards him". He only repeats what he feels is "obvious". Evasive. Obfuscatory. Transparent. Hamster Sandwich 19:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm only half kidding; the crux of the Tony issue appears to be that other people don't understand he doesn't intend to be insulting, and he doesn't understand that other people do feel insulted. Radiant! 22:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is certainly a joke! ;) To do this would make it artificial and possibly, a mere lip service. - Mailer Diablo 07:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding. Besides, it's trademarked :-) 80.126.238.189 20:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a little lost in the Carnildo RfA closure. There appear to be two readings. One is that the crat's recognise no consensus exists but promote anyway, based upon the reasons given, and the other is that they closed the RfA as having a consensus to promote. Are there any statements which back up either interpretation on this? Hiding Talk 13:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No bureaucrat has to my knowledge claimed that they recognised a consensus to promote, and the probationary nature of the promotion might be seen as indicating that they did not feel the consensus existed (otherwise, why add the special part?). Rather we were told they were doing the "right thing". A while after the initial announcement, when complaints started to be raised, we were also told that there was sockpuppetry among the opposers that would make the numbers closer than they would seem to be. I have seen Tony Sidaway, and only Tony Sidaway, argue that consensus existed, or that consensus existed for the probationary promotion; his arguments were largely based on how few (by his measure) people were sticking around to argue, a phenomenon that could be explained in many other ways. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, it's pretty obvious that consensus existed for the closure. The objections, while quite vehement, were rather limited. However the question of whether the bureaucrats believed that there was consensus for their actions at the time has been raised. They are bound to act only when they believe that such consensus exists, so the question of whether they did is a valid one. I've no reason to believe that three bureaucrats in caucus could err so grossly as to misread consensus, so either they acted in the correct belief that consensus existed, or they acted outside the scope of their roles, in the erroneous belief that they were making an action against consensus. The latter seems unlikely to me, but really I haven't spoken with the bureaucrats about this so I don't know for sure.

In the meantime, the suggestion that bureaucrats acted outside their role is a very serious one, and one that is worthy of pursuit. I urge those who believe this to be the case to pursue the dispute resolution path. The arbitrators may also (or instead) want to investigate that question in this case, if they think that this case really is largely a matter of bureaucrats overstepping their roles. --Tony Sidaway 19:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I (as you know) disagree entirely with your contention that it's obvious that consensus existed for the closure. Many others do too. Including an arbitration comittee member, as you well know; see [13]. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced that on reflection all will agree that the correct word is supermajority. Supermajority is not consensus and consensus is not supermajority. Supermajority is merely a common and useful metric often employed to measure the degree of consensus. Like all metrics, it can be wrong. In this case, a "supermajority" interpretation would have been skewed in the direction of opposers. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the closing bureaucrat found that consensus existed, Carnildo should have been promoted normally. What is your explanation for the fact that he was not? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your syllogism. The bureaucrats explained their decision fully just six minutes after closing the RfA, and I have nothing useful to add to that explanation because I'm not a bureaucrat. --Tony Sidaway 19:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of my syllogism do you take issue with? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposition that the determination of consensus is always simple and straightforward. I think Fred and others have drafted some proposed principles which address this. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A non-sequitor, thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said "If the closing bureaucrat found that consensus existed, Carnildo should have been promoted normally." This implies that consensus is always a simple and straightforward matter. I don't think there is any non-sequitur involved here. --Tony Sidaway 20:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Determining consensus is often far from straightforward. I said nothing to contradict that. But the role of the bureaucrat is to make that determination: consensus or not. Are you suggesting that the closers found there to be something in-between, some sort of proto-consensus or fuzzy-consensus, and acted on that? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In going for a probationary adminship, the bureaucrats seem to have gone some way to allay reasonable fears, expressed in the discussion, that Carnildo might still prove to be unsuited to adminship. I think that was a well-judged move, because it enables us to decide how much weight, in the long run, to apply to those strongly expressed objections. Wikipedia consensus is of course an inherently fuzzy concept; we all acknowledge this. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The closest to an explanation I can find right now is Taxman's comment here:

...We didn't just look at it and say yeah, it's 60%, but we want to promote anyway. There were a huge number of supports and a lot of sockpuppetting on the oppose side. So we read what the community really had to say, not just what came up on paper. When we say extenuating circumstances we meant it. Give us some credit that we didn't throw consensus out the window, we just didn't read it based on a narrow reading of the percentage.

So I think he is saying the latter (although TMBSSNMOTW"consensus"OWIWNPA). -- ALoan (Talk) 19:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this answers the question. Clearly that bureaucrat believed that he and the other bureaucrats had read what the community had to say. And that's their job, so I guess they did it well.

I don't know what those capital letters surrounding the word consensus mean. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From [14]: TMBSSNMOTW foo OWIWNPA = This must be some strange new meaning of the word "foo" of which I was not previously aware. (Liberatore, 2006). 20:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I kinda think this was just a tricky case and they closed it to the best of their ability. Maybe that should be a principle. I was just getting bogged down in a lot of the bureaucrat related principles. It was definitely within their purview to close it, and they did so. I think it was a good close, myself. Hiding Talk 10:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a principle. Deciding consensus is the bureaucrats' job. I wish we could stop using obscure jargon on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant "This was a tricky case and they closed it to the best of their ability" should be a principle, which to me is different, but I think that's coming out at the proposed decisions anyway. I didn't think purview was that outdated, sorry. Hiding Talk 16:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your principle is a specific example of the general case. My reference to jargon was in relation to ALoan's string of gobbledygook surrounding the word "consensus" above. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• On comments by Fred Bauder around 1900 UTC 1 Oct

I took a bit of time out after I got very upset about the Kelly thing. I said bad things about Bishonen and Geogre and other people. That was wrong. Prior to this, I've made careless and thoughtless statements that provoked others, and I was provoked by the statements of others into further incivility. Whether I was "played" or not isn't the issue. Others read the same words I did and did not overeact, and their judgement was not affected.

I want to apologise for my increasing trend of incivility over the past few months. I'd apologise to each person individually but that would be lame, unnecessary and patronising. I decided a few days ago that I felt that I'd gotten into a spiral of drama that really didn't help anybody. Fred has acted, above all, as a mediator in this case, allowing me to see that my perceptions were warped. The Committee will always provide appropriate remedies. Someone who repeats patterns of behavior that cause disruption, and doesn't recognise it when it happens, is a liability to Wikipedia if he is seen to have any privilege. Busting me down to private might be a good thing to do. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refering to the previous episodes of brinksmanship by Tony (including promises to stop deleting userboxes and refactoring signatures) it would be easy for the above statement be taken with, as someone notable in her absence said, "a cowlick of salt." While we must of course presume that this a genuine statement, I'm cautious. I'd find it easier to believe this if it were accompanied by something more solid. For example, asking the arbitration committee directly to apply some of the remedies on offer would be a good start. - brenneman ^{L} 00:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, lay off a tad, please. Tar and feathers are not exactly necessary, and expecting people to beg to be disciplined is generally not realistic. Zocky | picture popups 01:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to pitch the above as something less than tar and feathers, and more as a "here's how I feel" statement. I say this honestly and without rancour: Tony has demonstrated on many occasions momentary contrition, or defused criticism with statements that later meant something more or less than they seemed at the time. This is not an attack, or a "tarring" but a simple statement of fact. Have a look at this statement by Tony Sidaway. It appears as genuine as the above, but the facts will show it was at best lip-service, and that however much Tony meant what he said he was unable to follow thourgh. It would be remiss to ignore this pattern of behavior when examining the above statement. - brenneman ^{L} 01:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, let's assume good faith and that he means it. I read "busting me down to private" as acknowledgment that desysopping might be called for, which is not an easy thing to say - it's never easy to say that you should lose something you have, even if it's not a big thing. Zocky | picture popups 02:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have always acknowledged that if my judgement is poor I should not be a sysop. I have said so repeatedly in this case, from the first days. I happen to think that my judgement is very, very good, but if lots of other people tell me that it isn't and I cannot see that then it follows that it is indeed very poor.

When examining any comment by Aaron, I think it's best to take into account that his view of what I have said often seems to diverge somewhat from what I have actually said. --Tony Sidaway 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried reading the workshop(s!) but after a while (and after my browser crashing several times because it's so big) I've realized that's it's mostly unsalvageable. What's there tends to be either irrelevant, personal opinion and editorializing, or obvious, and there's simply too much to make my thoughts known on how the case should actually end up looking with hundreds of proposals. Basically, having looked at all the evidence, but not quite having formulated opinions on everything, my basic outline is like this:

• (Background of the Pedophilia case and first block and its consequences.)
• RFA/Carnildo 2: Carnildo is promoted unexpectedly and against common practice (though not nominated or promoted with ArbCom's support, unless I am out of the loop). I admit I initially thought it was a good compromise, but having seen the result, I am still undecided about how I feel about the way it was done.
  • However, I don't see any problems with Carnildo's admin actions so far, so we should confirm he has a review in the future, but is not re-deadminned.
• Repercussions:
  • Giano was uncivil
  • Tony has a prior history of poor admin judgment (RFAr/Tony Sidaway)
    • Tony is involved in the dispute.
    • Tony also made a controversial block without discussion (not always bad, but it was clearly controversial here, and not according to any clear policy, so it should have been discussed and supported first)
      • His block was inappropriate for those reason.
    • Tony Sidaway previously cautioned to remain civil (RFAr/Webcomics)
      • Tony was uncivil
    • JoshuaZ was involved in the dispute with Tony.
      • JoshuaZ's block was inappropriate (should have been done by someone else at least, though I woudn't call it as controversial).
  • Geogre was uncivil
  • James' comment was "===You're all idiots=== OK, I don't really mean that. :-)" with the second part frequently left out. It was ennecessarily provocative, but I find it hard to see that as a personal attack. Moreover, there is one comment in total. I lean towards non-inclusion.
  • The Kelly Martin stuff confuses me a bit. Sjakkelle's old evidence seems like over-reaching to me. The pertinent part is the diff in Geogre's evidence, but, while a bad idea, it's one diff. It may warrant inclusion but, unless there's more that no one offered in the evidence, I'm still undecided on that.
  • Bishonen, Irpen, Ghirla don't seem sufficiently involved or problematic (the block of Ghirla has been mentioned, it might be relevent to a finding about Tony, but I'm afraid I'd probably have to recuse on anything related to him anyway); the concept of clerking seems unrelated: Tony wasn't acting for the AC in any of this, in fact he would have been fired if he hadn't resigned. Given that, I don't understand the interest in the matter.
• I'm sure I've managed to rub everyone the wrong way, but this is how it looks to me. I'm not sure I can stomach figuring out how to make this clear through the workshop, so this is in lieu of participating there. (Which means, of course, people can comment here, but I hope that doesn't get out of control, too.) Dmcdevit·t 23:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems about right to me. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what does that mean in terms of sanctions, recommendations, etc.? After all of this, I don't think that any blocks, bans, desysoppings, etc. are warranted, for reasons I explained in detail in the now-considered-unsalvageable workshop (into which I and a number of others put a lot of effort, so it's unfortunate that turns out not to have been useful to you, but that's life, I suppose). Other commenters have disagreed with me, in various different directions. Then again, unlike some, I was never convinced the case was a good idea to begin with, and there's been strong disagreement with that. In terms of your specific tentative findings, each of them has support from at least some commenters with the exception of your comment about JoshuaZ's block of Tony Sidaway, which as far as I recall no one has criticized at all. I disagree with some of them, of course. Also, I'm sure you will have noted that Fred Bauder is partway through writing up a /Proposed Decision already. Newyorkbrad 00:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That's news. Thanks for noting that here. I'm off to look. Anything has to be better than wading through the Workshop again to check I've read everything! Carcharoth 00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the page history is for! Newyorkbrad 00:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I do use that as well. But I still seem to miss stuff! :-) Carcharoth 00:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who has contributed to the mess that the workshop became, I apologise and I pretty much agree with your summation. However, there do seem to be three extra issues arising. The question of bureaucratic autonomy, the question of the paedophilia arb-com outcome and John Reid's addition as a party. I don't really see JoshuaZ's block as too much of an issue since Tony didn't overly dispute it, so they followed the dispute resolution process to an amicable end. Hiding Talk 09:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (Note: Cross-posted to the talk page of /Proposed Decision. Let's keep discussion in one place; there is probably better as the page is much shorter, at least so far.)[reply]

These remedies are based on my personal organizational experience. Political agitation sucks productive energy big time. Fred Bauder 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Geogre hasn't used his admin powers in this matter, and arbitration is not about punishment (nor is adminship a reward), I find this highly inappropriate. Zocky | picture popups 02:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And desysopping worthy admins does so even more unfortunately :( -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think to recommend any individual remedies in this case and I don't expect that those currently proposed regarding John and Geogre are likely to prevail; however they're not that unexpected, given the tenor of Fred's investigation. I would add (and Fred has said this himself) that it's quite possible that all his proposals will be rejected. The remedies directed at individuals aren't particularly important in any case. This arbitration is much more important than that. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, do you think desysopping Geogre is going to achieve your objectives with that? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the above is taking place here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this injunction based on my first hand observations of her incivility and personal attacks on the channel over the past month and specifically since she joined the channel in the last 48 hours. [15] FloNight 10:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Does arbcom have jurisdiction over IRC, or is this not a matter for the channel ops? I've no comment on the specifics. --Doc 10:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that ArbCom would have jurisdiction over all official Wikipedia-en entities. Since members of Arb Com are channel ops, it should not be a problem to implement. FloNight 10:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just asking. I take it they'll be able to examine the logs for evidence, unless they were in the channel at the time. --Doc 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There are a number of sections on the project page that assume Tony is an admin, which he no longer is. I suggest we strike them out. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]