Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | Durova

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jdforrester (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 30 November 2007 (→‎Vote: Oppose.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.


Motions and requests by the parties

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

Giano II

1) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is added as a party to this matter.

Passed on 00:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC). Giano II notified here.
Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 22:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. not that we need to vote on it --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. For clarity. James F. (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 22:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Assume good faith

1) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those with whom they have had conflicts in the past.

Support:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Paul August ☎ 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Private correspondence

2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.

Support:
  1. It's worth noting that Foundation counsel endorses this position. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It saddens me that we have to point this out. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Don't leak mail, don't read mails not intended for you. It's a poisonous way to behave. No unauthorised use of private correspondence. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I have reservations about this. Paul August ☎ 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm of two minds about this. First, I feel like claims of privacy and no logging of the IRC channel have been used to intentionally supress highly relavant evidence - evidence that had nothing to do with privacy, but was simply embarrasing to the person making the statements (I'm thinking of Giano's previous - accurate - complaints about him being badmouthed in the admins channel in IRC and deletion of logs demonstrating it). On the other hand, I agree with the general principle that people shouldn't feel like they are always on the record, but at the same time, it's very easy to abuse that. With all that said, however, I feel this is a cop-out -- an attempt to duck the very hard issue of dealing with secret evidence (and nonconsentual reposting thereof) by citing copyright. While it is true that such an action would be a copyright violation, it is one only in the most technical sense of the word - the same kind of copyright violation that happens to each person hundreds of times a day for which the actual damages are effectively zero. I don't have an answer for the larger issues (as I have said, that is an extraordinarily hard one to answer), but I feel that ducking the issue using this as a reason is certainly is not the correct one. Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do we need a reason? Would removing the "See copyrights" clause at the end suffice? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note I edit conflicted with you on when expanding my above statement in a way that materially effects your question) I agree that generally, we shouldn't republish private correspondence. However, I feel that that principle has been misused (if not abused) in previous cases, as well as arguably this case. I'd like to craft a principle that balances our desire to give as much privacy as possible to correspondents while minimizing the abuse that such privacy can engender. Raul654 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility

3) Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner. If a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee. This does not apply to users carrying out official tasks as authorized by the Foundation or the Committee (including, but not limited to, CheckUser, OverSight, and OTRS activity).

Support:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Paul August ☎ 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum

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

Support:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Paul August ☎ 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Transparency and chilling effect

5) Administrators are expected to act in a reasonable and transparent manner. Even when reversed, administrative actions that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. With exceptions, as listed above in the section "Responsibility". There are some occasions where there cannot be total transparency. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Paul August ☎ 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Discussion:
  • Can we change the title to "Transparency?" The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On the talk page, some people noted they liked having a section on chilling effects, so I've tired to compromise it with "Transparency and chilling effects". If someone doesn't like that, let's figure out something else. Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of private correspondence

6) Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee.

Support:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 17:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think this is basically what happens most of the time now so we are not making policy but instead confirming that we agree with it. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. (Very warily accepting this, given my response to principle 2) Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Discussion:
  • Can we change this to "Any uninvolved editor?" I believe the focus on administrators may have been unintentional, and I don't think there is any reason why we would would to limit the applicability to that group. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood that the concern was not to initiate edit-wars on such matters when neither party could end it, but then, of course, it would be inappropriate for a suchwise-involved sysop to block. I'm happy for it to be changed. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return of access levels

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

Support:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 01:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 20:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC) To be clear though, clearly these circumstances were controversial.[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Raul654 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I don't like "controversial circumstances." See below.[reply]
Abstain:

Return of access levels

7.1) Users who voluntarily relinquish access levels (such as administrator, bureaucrat, and the like) may ordinarily have their access restored upon request. Users who relinquish access levels in response to widespread criticism of their conduct do not receive this courtesy and must re-apply through the normal channels. Bureaucrats may determine whether re-application is necessary at their discretion.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't see this as being helpful; we ask priviledged users at all levels to exercise common sense, and I don't see that the instruction creep of spelling it out in case some Bureaucrat fails to use it adds to the project. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Comment/Abstain for now -- I do not feel comfortable voting for narrowing the previous rule unless someone can give me examples of situations that do not fall under this one ("response to widespread criticism of their conduct"), but do fall under the previous one ("controversial circumstances"). Raul654 (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As per Raul654; I don't see how this is better than 7) and would like to see an explanation of that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. My view is that "controversial circumstances" is too broad. If I were to resign my bit today, would it be under "controversial circumstances?" One of my general criticisms of Wikipedia culture is that involvement in conflict is seen as inherently negative. I think there is healthy conflict and legitimate controversy. We see this at RFA all the time where we end up promoting conflict-shy editors and turn down people who are involved in legitimate, healthy, respectful disagreements. I see this as one opportunity to encourage a different approach. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

8) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective; prior discussion or warnings should generally precede all blocks. Blocks should be used only to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and if there could be any reasonable doubt about whether a block is appropriate, other administrators and/or the community should be consulted. Following a block, the blocked editor should be notified of the block on their talk page, and additional notification on site may be appropriate to seek community input.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (As proposed by Mackensen on the workshop page.)[reply]
  2. Of course. Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is just re-statement of the blocking policy. James F. (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC) The real issues are the refusal to discuss the rationale for the block and the false claimimplication of receiving prior approval from this committee by directing discussion to us.[reply]
  2. Uncomfortable with this; we've traditionally allowed fairly wide discretion in handing out blocks. Kirill 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No. We don't need to waste our time on user talk pages of the vast number of sleeper accounts, vandalism-only accounts, and other offal that we block on a daily basis. The edit comment suffices for these. The rest of it is OK. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too much bending over backwards, but "Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective;" I can support Fred Bauder (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As per above. Suggesting Fred's alternate wording below. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Blocking

8.1) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective.

Support:
  1. As proposed by Fred above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concise. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fine. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 17:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Although as UC says, blocks are a judgement call. Raul654 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Second choice. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC) There is a balance. Blocks should be used in preference to repeat reversion. Blocks should be used in preference to page protection in many cases. Blocks may be used in dealing with 3RR violations even if other alternatives are likely to be effective. In these cases, it's a judgment call, not an absolute.[reply]
Abstain:

Responses to harassment and stalking; perspective

9) Efforts to respond forcefully to incidents of on- and off-wiki harassment and stalking of Wikipedia editors, and to extend support to editors victimized by these practices, are extremely important. It is also appropriate to be watchful for banned users who continue to attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. However, users engaged in efforts to combat these problems should remain mindful that the vast majority of editors would never engage in such practices. The conclusion that an editor is dangerous to Wikipedia and its contributors should only be reached on a substantial weight of credible evidence.

Support:
Paul August ☎ 00:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (As proposed by Newyorkbrad and modified on the workshop page.) prefer 9.1 Paul August ☎ 17:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This is a restatement of AGF and common sense for those that lack the latter and fail to apply the former. James F. (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kirill 01:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC) See below.[reply]
  2. I block large numbers of accounts on the basis of checkuser results. It is entirely possible, even likely, that one of these days it will result in a non-sockpuppet (who shares his IP with a sockpuppeteer) being accidentaly blocked. Under this finding, I could be criticized for not having "substantial evidence". Therefore, I believe 9.1 is better. Raul654 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Dangerous to Wikipedia" refers to the practice of stalking, not the weight of evidence required to block users; I thought this was clear from the context. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Raul. Kirill 20:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. in favor of 9.1) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Responses to harassment and stalking; perspective

9.1) A decisive response to on- and off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors should not come at the expense of actions which undermine the core values of the project or the goodwill of honest contributors.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I apologize if this seems like mere tinkering with the words, but 9) doesn't capture the essence of this for me.[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Better, actually. Kirill 02:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Raul654 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 17:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Better.[reply]
  9. Better than 9) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I support this, too. But it doesn't say the same thing. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Blocking users for off-wiki harassment or stalking

Stolen from (9), reworded to make context clearer; this is in addition to, and not a replacement of, 9.1

10) Those watchful for harassment or stalking behaviour should remain mindful that the vast majority of editors would never engage in such practices, and that blocking users for said behaviour should be based on a substantial weight of credible evidence.

Support:
  1. This I think brings out the intention of the above. Note that this refers to blocking for stalking/etc. only, and not the more normal causes such as persistant trolling or vandalism. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fair criticism

11) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by policies such as no personal attacks, no legal threats, and the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill 02:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Raul654 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

At wit's end

12) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control disruption have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly Draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the project.

Support:
  1. Needs to be said. Kirill 03:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. From Digwuren, yes? Mackensen (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Capitalising "Draconian", as it derives from the proper noun Draco. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Vested Contributors

13) Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 13:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is not a new idea but rather a statement of a longstanding ethos of the Wikipedia community and the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruption

14) Participation in the project by users who habitually engage in disruptive behavior may be limited to those areas where they play a constructive role. In extreme cases such users may be banned from the project.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. True, but not necessary here. Kirill 15:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As Kirill. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Durova

1) Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has edited Wikipedia since October 2005 and has been an administrator since October 17, 2006. In addition to contributing content, she has been active with respect to dispute resolution issues, including active participation at the former community sanctions noticeboard, proposing and overseeing the community enforceable mediation process, and providing useful input in arbitration cases.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (As proposed by Newyorkbrad on the workshop page.)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Raul654 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Durova's block of User:!!

2) On November 18, 2007, Durova announced on WP:ANI that she had indefinitely blocked !! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a disruptive sockpuppet, stating that the grounds for the block could not be discussed on-wiki and that any appeal must be routed to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (As proposed by Newyorkbrad on the workshop page.)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Raul654 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Prior approval

3) Neither the Arbitration Committee, any of its individual members, nor the Wikimedia Foundation nor its representatives, gave prior approval to Durova to block !!. Durova did not have the consent of the Committee to direct discussion of the block to the Committee.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I can stipulate that ArbCom as a group gave no prior approval for the block. I have no way of knowing what any others might have done. Paul August ☎ 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) See alternative 3.1 below. Paul August ☎ 22:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Paul. Kirill 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Likewise. No idea what anyone but myself did or didn't do. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The evidence is lacking in either direction. Mackensen (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As per above, we cannot speak definitively for others. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I can't say for sure one way or the other, seems unlikely though. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior approval

3.1) The Arbitration Committee gave no prior approval to Durova to block !!. Durova did not have the consent of the Committee to direct discussion of the block to the Committee.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 22:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The committee has no reason to think that the original formulation is inaccurate, but there's absolutely no doubt about this. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per Mackensen. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 2nd choice. We've asked around and received only negative replies, and Durova has not presented any evidence to the contrary, so I think the stronger version is justified.[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Evaluation of the block

4) The evidence compiled by Durova, viewed as individual items and as a whole, was insufficient to justify blocking !! (talk · contribs) or taking any other action against him. It was not reasonable for an administrator to block !! or take any other action based on this evidence, nor was the block justified by any other available evidence.

Support:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. After adoption of Newyorkbrad's suggestion Fred Bauder (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Likewise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 20:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Raul654 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
I don't like the language "No reasonable administrator", but certainly there was error. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fred. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Subsequent discussion

5) The discussion of the block and the evidence was extensive and marked by unseemly and provocative behavior on the part of numerous participants.

Support:
  1. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Raul654 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Durova's access levels

6) Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) voluntarily gave up her sysop access ([1]).

Support:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Raul654 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Giano

7) Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s conduct in response to this matter exceeded the bounds of fair criticism. Areas of particular concern include personal attacks, on-wiki publication of private correspondence, a refusal to assume good faith, a lack of respect for project norms, and an unwillingness to resolve disputes utilizing the dispute resolution mechanism.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If an arbitrator isn't prepared to support the existing dispute resolution system he might as well resign. Mackensen (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 02:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FrankenGiano in action. Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Giano could have been the messenger and not done anything wrong; he chose instead to be disruptive, work outside our dispute resolution mechanism, and generally go beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. He has been warned about this before multiple times. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. A simple "messenger" would have told us about the problem, not agitated the community about it. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 02:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Giano actions may not have been perfect here, but as I don't think we should shoot the messenger, and as I have opposed adding Giano as a party to this case, I must oppose here.[reply]
Abstain:

Giano's history of disruption

8) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his prior account Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have a long history of persistent incivility and chronic disruption which exacerbates conflict. See [2], [3], [4], [5], and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Giano with this remedy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not appropriate to this case. Mackensen (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

Durova admonished

1) Durova is admonished to exercise greater care when issuing blocks.

Support:
  1. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

General admonishment

2) The participants in the various discussions regarding this matter are admonished to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama.

Support:
  1. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Raul654 (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Durova to re-confirm

3) The Committee acknowledges Durova's stated intent to stand for re-confirmation of her adminship at the conclusion of this proceeding.

Support:
Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This understanding precludes a positive remedy in this case. Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I recommend that Durova stop using her admin tools now as a large part of the community does not trust her judgment. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support something that requires this to be so; as an observation, however it is fine. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Overtaken by events. James F. (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC) While mistakes were made, I believe that Durova should be given the opportunity to learn from them. I find that this dispute has taken on a life of its own and fear that any sort of vote or "reconfirmation" of Durova's standing would be, in essence, a referendum on the dispute rather than a careful consideration of Durova's judgment and contributions to the project. Should Durova wish to move forward with a voluntary re-confirmation, she is of course free to do so, but I do not believe that such a proceeding deserves the imprimatur of this committee.[reply]
    It does not have it. This is an observation, not a blessing, requirement, or authorisation. James F. (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is our only intent, we should rephrase this as a finding of fact and move it to that section. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Overtaken by events. Mackensen (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Charles. James F. (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A moot point now. Kirill 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not needed now. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No longer relevant Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova's sysop access

4) Durova gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels.

Support:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

!! encouraged

5) User-multi error: "User:!!" is not a valid project or language code (help). is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice.

Support:
  1. Ought to go without saying. Mackensen (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 23:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Certainly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill 17:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Raul654 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I agree with the sentiment but don't like this as a remedy.[reply]
Abstain:

Giano banned for 90 days

6) Giano's editing privileges are revoked for a period of 90 days.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A weak effective remedy, disruption at the level Giano has engaged in is utterly unacceptable. Fred Bauder (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wimpy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Given the history of recurrence of this behavior, warnings are not enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Reviewed the evidence and feel that a ban is best. :-( I don't think that editing restrictions will work and community needs to see that rules against incivility and disruption are enforced. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
No way is this needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC) strike vote. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Counter-productive and unnecessary. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 02:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Excessive. Kirill 02:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I will support remedies that redirect his energy into writing articles and away from raging against administrators who do things he doesn't care for. Even when he's right (which I personally believe is most or all of the time), his bull-in-the-china-shop mentality is destructive. A ban from editing all of Wikipedia - of any duration - does not advance these goals and is therefore unacceptable to me. Raul654 (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to reiterate, I'm strongly opposed to this. I think it serves no purpose, and it's going to seriously escalate the drama. Raul654 (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Absolutely not. "Excessive" is rather mild. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Giano restricted

7) For a period of one year, Giano may not participate in any of the pages of the "Wikipedia:" or "Wikipedia talk" namespaces, except for civil discussion related to featured articles. Administrators may enforce this with blocks of escalating duration.

Support:
  1. Inadequate but better than nothing. Fred Bauder (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support this; I will leave an explanatory comment in the general discussion section below. Mackensen (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 02:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Open enforcement is a recipe for drama here. Kirill 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill is right. Mackensen (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose this time. If Giano goes into FrankenGiano mode again and ends up involved in another nasty arbitration case, I will probably support something very similiar to this. Raul654 (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
# The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Undecided for now; posting for others to consider[reply]

Giano restricted

7.1) For a period of one year, Giano may not participate in any of the pages of the "Wikipedia:" or "Wikipedia talk" namespaces, except for civil discussion related to featured articles. Arbitrators may enforce this with blocks of escalating duration.

Support:
Same as 6.1, with enforcement restricted to arbitrators. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 02:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Better, but will invite others to attack him. Kirill 02:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC) We should not be the ones to carry out our remedies.[reply]
  5. Ultimately, if we're stuck with a remedy we don't trust admins to enforce, then it's probably unenforceable. Mackensen (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per my reasoning in 7.0 Raul654 (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Giano restricted

7.2) For a period of one year, Giano may not participate in any of the pages of the "Wikipedia:" or "Wikipedia talk" namespaces, except for civil discussion related to the featured article process, or the dispute resolution process regarding a matter in which he is directly involved. Arbitrators may enforce this with blocks of escalating duration.

Support:
Allow him to participate in DR if necessary. Kirill 02:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With reservations, but yes. Mackensen (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 03:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Per 7.1[reply]
  3. Also per 7.1. The community may wish to consider modifying the relevant policies concerned. Mackensen (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Should be enforced by administrators. Fred Bauder (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my reasoning in 7.0. Raul654 (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill 03:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Discussion:
  • This is closer to what will be helpful but still needs more tweaking, I think. We want to encourage Giano and other editors to follow the regular dispute resolution processes. I think civil discussion in any namespace should be permitted. Disruptive conduct in any namespace needs to be eliminated. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we could just ask him to be polite, but we've already been told in so many words what we can do with that idea. Such a remedy would be dead on arrival. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano reminded

8) Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors. The Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions.

Support:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. But I expect this will fall on deaf ears. Kirill 17:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. But blah blah blah blah Ginger. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. His actions are deliberate and calculated, polite requests are inappropriate. Fred Bauder (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed with Fred. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Paul August ☎ 18:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Abstaining (for now). Giano's actions may not have been perfect. But however much I might agree with the above, I have opposed adding Giano as a party to this case, and I do not believe any remedies naming Giano are required or desirable.[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Those edit-warring against an administrator following this ruling so as to restore private content without consent of its creator may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.

Support:
  1. Variation on standard wording. Mackensen (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 17:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Pretty generous, but whatever. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doesn't seem necessary now, but ok. Raul654 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Remedy suspended

2) If it passes, all variations of remedy 6 which restrict Giano from the Wikipedia namespace are suspended until the conclusion of the Arbcom elections.

Support:
  1. There's a first time for everything, but the committee should not, even by accident, influence an election. I encourage all parties in the future to schedule cases with that in mind. Mackensen (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems very, very unlikely to pass, but if it did, this would be the right thing to do. Raul654 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Need to account for all eventualities here. Kirill 02:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In favour of 2.1. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Remedy suspended

2.1) Any remedy which restricts Giano from the Wikipedia namespace shall be suspended until the conclusion of the ArbCom elections, and will be lifted should Giano be appointed to the Committee.

Support:
  1. Kirill 02:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. That's the gist of my thinking. Mackensen (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Though I do not share the implicit optimism of my peers that this decision will close prior to the conclusion of the elections.[reply]
  5. As above, namespace editing restrictions seems very, very unlikely to pass, but if they did, this would be the right thing to do. Raul654 (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Standing as a candidate does not give one an out for disruption, especially disruption that repeats a long-running pattern and which in my opinion was at least partially grandstanding for the election. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nope. Should be just the opposite. Run for ArbCom and also act as provocateur? Odd strategy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

I'm thinking out loud here, if that's all right. The fact of the matter is that this would have gone to arbitration regardless of Giano's actions--that's the only route to a de-sysoping or other administrative sanction. The Committee is the final step in dispute resolution. There is a long standing tradition on this project, going back years, that the posting of private correspondence is unacceptable. Years ago, I breached this convention while in a dispute with another editor (I won't name him, he knows who he is). He was rightly angry and I always regretted it, even though it could be argued that I was in the right. I never forgot that. Giano has been around as long as I have. He chose to publicly post the email and not send it to the Committee. This lead to an understandable kerfuffle over his own actions. In effect, he made himself part of the story, and not for the first time. Perhaps he's a hero for doing this; I think this depends on how deeply you mistrust our institutions.

Regardless, this action delayed and complicated any action the committee might have taken by taking a straight-forward case of administrator misconduct and transforming it into some of a power-struggle; the comments made by many over the last few days leave no doubt that many editors see the matter in those terms. This did not have to happen; this is not the first time this has happened. This committee is empowered to resolve disputes according to the policies by which this project is governed. We are not a political institution. We are not capable of dispensing truth or justice. We exist to protect the encyclopedia and maintain the conditions necessary for collaborative editing. If it is necessary to flout our core policies to keep this committee "honest" then all is lost and I cannot endorse such a position. Editors may seek revenge, or grant their approval, at the polls next month. Until then we must do all that we can. In the meantime, this is what we have done. We have put into writing that an adminstrator, through careless, negligent, and secretive behavior, wrongfully blocked a long-time content editor. We have also restricted another content editor to the content namespace, because in our view his contributions outside of it have been detrimental to the encyclopedia. This is not any easy choice, and I doubt that the reactions to our decision will make it any easier. Mackensen (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An ArbCom seat compares unfavourably to The Little Book of Calm. This should be on the AC notepaper, when we get round to printing some. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

  • The following proposals would pass:
    • P1-7, 8.1, 9.1, 11-13
    • FoF1-2, 3.1, 4-7
    • R1-2, 4-5
    • E10. David Mestel(Talk) 18:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

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

  1. Move to close. Let's please end this now. Paul August ☎ 14:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Further drama won't help, at this stage. Kirill 15:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Raul654 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close and remand to Jimbo Wales for tiebreaking votes. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose, but am open to forking the issues which relate to Giano. Fred Bauder 14:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose until we decide to address Giano concerns here or on another case. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. We still haven't considered Jehochman, and the Giano measures should either be spun out or fully formed. James F. (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova/Proposed_decision&oldid=174883546"